tuscl

US wasting billions on new aircraft carrier and strike force

Dave_Anderson
Yeah this really benefits the average American. Let's keep fighting foreign "enemies" while the "homeland" keeps turning to shit.

https://www.kusi.com/the-uss-abraham-lin…

46 comments

  • shailynn
    •
    3 years ago
  • Dave_Anderson
    •
    3 years ago
    Time to "defund" the military? Asking for a friend.
  • RamPaige
    •
    3 years ago
    I think our service men and women should get bigger paychecks, other than that, our defense budget is way too big. So much unnecessary spending. Remember when the government spend millions on trying to audit the Pentagon and couldn't do it just a few years back?
  • DoctorPhil.
    •
    3 years ago
    I’ll tell you how them aircraft carriers and shit are going to help the average American.

    We’ll send those fuckers to Australia and threaten to bomb the shit out of their kangaroos until they give us their entire blooming onion crop.

    Do you savvy that Mr. Anderson?
  • DoctorPhil.
    •
    3 years ago
    TL;DR: gimme my blooming onions!
  • rickdugan
    •
    3 years ago
    WW2 and 9/11 taught us what happens when we ignore aggression and power accumulation in other parts of the world - it eventually lands on our doorstep in ways we can't control or even foresee. As the world's largest democracy and pre-eminent superpower with interests spanning the globe, we will always be the ultimate target. Protecting our strategic interests abroad ultimately serves to protect the 330 million Americans here at home, even if we can't connect the dots as easily as the strategy wonks can.
  • Call.Me.Ishmael
    •
    3 years ago
    There likely won't be any aircraft carriers in the water in 20, maybe 30, years.
  • RamPaige
    •
    3 years ago
    That's not true. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was a result of our oil embargo against them. 9/11 is due to A) our international policy in the Middle East, especially the support for Israel. Don't forget majority of the 9/11 terrorists are Saudis, yet we still bending over backwards for them. B) Our negligence in Afghanistan, after we funded and trained the Mujahedeen to drive out the Soviets, and then just let them run rough shot in that country afterwards without considering the consequences.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    Dave, I think it would do you a world of good to feel a woman's lips, tongue, and throat on your penis.
  • DoctorPhil.
    •
    3 years ago
    Well, I will say that I’m shocked - shocked I tell you - to see Mr. Dugan admit that he doesn’t know as much as the geopolitical wonks. Now if we could get him to admit that he’s not an epidemiologist, economist, philosopher, or knowledgeable about much beyond his beloved Cousinlover county life maybe we could get somewhere.

    That said, I thought I made a cogent case for America attacking Australia to prevent the great blooming onion shortage of ‘22. You people are going to be all “that space geneious Phil had all the phacts and we didn’t list because we’re dumbasses.”

    You’re welcome.
  • DoctorPhil.
    •
    3 years ago
    Also, Mr. Rampaige, the expression is “roughshod”, no “rough shot”. Other than that you make cogent points.

    You’re welcome!
  • minnow
    •
    3 years ago
    I always thought DA was ignorant, this thread only serves to reinforce my belief. Are you not aware that oceans comprise ~ 75% of earth's surface ? That the capability to project naval and airpower is one of USA's strongest suits, coupled with that only makes sense to have "floating mobile airfields". We can't always count on other nations, even our supposed allies, to allow airbases or overflight rights in/over their country.

    Also, new carrier isn't expanding carrier fleet, but replacing current aging fleet. Given the ~7 year lead time required to build a new carrier coupled with the fact that nearly 40% of our carrier fleet is over 30 years old behooves us not to dally around too long.
  • rickdugan
    •
    3 years ago
    ===> "Now if we could get him to admit that he’s not an epidemiologist, economist, philosopher, or knowledgeable about much beyond his beloved Cousinlover county life maybe we could get somewhere."

    You forgot Verified and Certifiable Super-Reviewer dammit! Can't forget that!

    But nah...I've conceded enough already and I may have been too humble even doing that much. 😉

    Hey, maybe someday, when you're all grown up, you can join the ranks of us club reviewers. Just a thought.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    The other problem is China's hypersonic carrier-killer missiles. Before the Gerald Ford is operational, it's a sitting duck for one of those.

    Our military establishment is a bunch of self-dealing bureaucrats, not warfighters thinking 3 steps ahead.

    (But Dave still needs a good blowie)
  • skibum609
    •
    3 years ago
    Could any New Yorker who isn't a left-wing scumbag traitor make themselves known? So, we wouldn't sell Japan OUR oil and that makes it our fault the filthy rats pulled a sneak attack on a Sunday morning when people were in church? progressive vermin.
  • rickdugan
    •
    3 years ago
    ===> "Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was a result of our oil embargo against them. 9/11 is due to A) our international policy in the Middle East, especially the support for Israel"

    Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and 9/11 happened because we were too withdrawn from international affairs to see either coming and too concerned about confrontation to keep footholds in strategically important places. Only two things protect us from aggressive religious zealots and totalitarian regimes that see us as a threat: fear of reprisals and foreknowledge of events to come. With Japan we had neither (they thought that they could wipe out our Pacific fleet) and with 9/11 we were woefully under-resourced after 8 years of a Clinton Presidency that dramatically cut our overseas resources.

    At least so far Biden has shown little interest in screwing with our military and preparedness assets, but his painful foreign policy failure in Afghanistan and milksop comments elsewhere are once again emboldening our enemies. China and Russia are becoming much more aggressive and you'd better believe that Iran is getting ready to enrich more uranium. Again when our adversaries lack the fear of reprisals, they behave more aggressively.
  • CJKent_band
    •
    3 years ago
    @rickdugan

    I fixed your comment, you are welcome.

    “WW2 and 9/11 taught us what happens when we perpetrate imperialist aggression and use our power accumulation in other parts of the world to do brutal regime changes in the subject nations for the perceived benefit of US- it eventually lands on our doorstep in ways we can't control or even foresee.

    As the world's largest Predatory Aggressor Empire and pre-eminent superpower with interests spanning the globe, we will always be the ultimate perpetrators of imperialism’s criminal actions in order to overthrow governments that rebel from our rule.

    Clamming that we are protecting our strategic interests abroad ultimately serves to protect the interests of wealthy American Criminals, the 1% here at home and all over the world, even if we can't connect the dots as easily as the strategy wonks can.”

    “It is the sufferings of the many which pay for the luxuries of the few.”

    ~ Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg

    “Remember there is always an economic motive underlying USA made-up conflicts, even if the stated aim of the war is presented to the public as something more noble.”
  • gobstopper007
    •
    3 years ago
    ^^” At least so far Biden has shown little interest in screwing with our military and preparedness assets, but his painful foreign policy failure in Afghanistan and milksop comments elsewhere are once again emboldening our enemies. China and Russia are becoming much more aggressive and you'd better believe that Iran is getting ready to enrich more uranium. Again when our adversaries lack the fear of reprisals, they behave more aggressively.”

    I think Biden selection of and continued support of the people he has put in charge of our military has done more damage than any policy he could have pursued. He is allowing people more concerned with social justice than national security to call the shots. Russia, China and the others have got to be laughing at our military now.

    The only thing preventing them from taking military action against us is they see Biden is destroying us economically on his own.
  • 48-Cowboy
    •
    3 years ago
    Wow Dave! You are such a little snowflake bitch! You don't seem to appreciate the freedoms you have and where they came from. Go back to posting on the BLM sites and leave the adults on tuscl alone.
  • RamPaige
    •
    3 years ago
    rickdugan, currently we spend 7x in military spending on infrastructure. Have you seen how bad of shape our bridges and roads are? That money needs to be spend here in America for Americans and not fattening up the bank accounts of the military industrial complex.
  • RamPaige
    •
    3 years ago
    I meant military spending vs. our infrastructure spending annually.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ We better make sure that's the relevant score. These carrier killers could change the game.

    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/202…
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ We have robust defense capabilities against those so called carrier killers, plus I believe our staunch alliesFrance, Britain, and Japan operate about half of the remaining carriers more than the Russians and Chinese combined right now and for the foreseeable future we are still the preeminent world power, with the largest capability to actually project that power.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ I hope you're right. But China and Russia have the advantage that they care more about Taiwan and Ukraine, respectively, than we do.
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ my point exactly
    On the battlefield we would pulverize them if we really needed to.
  • CJKent_band
    •
    3 years ago
    ^
    @twentyfive

    Why don’t we just “kill them all and let God sort them out”? so we don’t have to worry our about any “threat” from outside the USA...
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    Sure CJ Kunt, as usual you’re an idiot, not a single person here takes anything you have to say seriously.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    War with Russia will let the gov ignore the pandemic
  • CJKent_band
    •
    3 years ago
    @twentyfive

    The correct answer is because of economics, we need excuses, “enemies”, “evils”, “terrorists” to manufacture conflicts, wars of aggression/preemptive strike to make money for the American war industry complex.

    “war is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures”

    The undeniable nature of American created wars is that huge corporations and the 1% of the world benefit and the people suffer in the rest of America and the world...
  • CJKent_band
    •
    3 years ago
    @twentyfive

    The undeniable fact is:

    “The America of wealth and privilege is hooked on war, without regular and ever-stronger doses of war it can no longer function properly, that is, yield the desired profits.”
  • docsavage
    •
    3 years ago
    I've worked for the army for forty years so I'm not anti-military. With a 29 trillion dollar and climbing national debt, though, our current level of federal spending is not sustainable. That includes military spending. Military spending should be focused on defense of our country rather than defending faraway places like the Ukraine or Taiwan. We can't continue to engage in foreign military adventures because we just can't afford it anymore.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    3 years ago
    This is a most interesting topic Dave.

    With the advent of the aircraft carrier it came to be seen that battleships are obsolete.

    And then in more recent times, Aircraft Carrier Strike Groups have been questioned, seen just as floating liabilities. And you know that we have this new Ford Class, Ford, Enterprise, and Kennedy.

    We spend a lot of money on such things.

    I had asked here about the standoff air weapons:
    https://tuscl.net/discussion.php?id=7806…

    IMHO, Republicans often want the arms build up simply to defund social programs and to reward those constituents who are promilitary and who are likely to enlist, or likely to work for these military contractors. And then the Defense Contractors are loaded with ex-military.

    Thanks Dave for opening this topic as you have.

    SJG

    https://www.marineinsight.com/types-of-s…
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    3 years ago
    Dave you have opened a real big issue, and especially since I know that you tend to side with the Right.

    You know that Japan started WWII with 9 aircraft carriers. They used their best 6 to attack Pearl Harbor.

    Then following at the Battle of Coral Sea, one was sunk and one was badly damaged. And this was the first naval battle where the combatants never saw each other. Ship to ship sight lines only run about 10 miles.

    So then at the Battle of Midway Japan only had 4 of these recent model carriers, and they lost them all. There were serious US losses too, but since that time the US has prided itself first on foremost on its carrier strike groups.

    The next time that Japan brought out its carriers, the 3 remaining older ones, it was at Letty Gulf in the Philippines. Then they were just using them as decoys in order aid their battleships. And that was where the bulk of Japan's surface fleet was destroyed.

    Though there are some decenters, most people pride themselves on our carrier strike groups.

    And then there was this before the 911 attack:
    https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pr…

    And it chastised us for not continuing to make new carrier strike groups.

    SJG

    Ann Wilson - Beware Of Darkness @ George Fest 2014
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pphBiAY…

    GEORGE FEST - Norah Jones - SOMETHING @ Fonda 09-28-14
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC42CJoB…
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    3 years ago
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    3 years ago
    A Ford class costs about $13 billion, and then another $7 billion for the airplanes. And then there are the escort vessels. And then you have to have a cruiser, in case the Admiral has to transfer his flag.

    SJG
  • Muddy
    •
    3 years ago
    There are plenty of ways to cut some military spending without letting our country become more venerable. Any Vets out there would know how much fat there is to trim. There are so many pieces of shit they let in and let live off the doll, it's astonishing. Kick 'em all the fuck out. And that goes for anyone that works in any government job. I'm all for cutting some military spending, but don't go spending that saved money on some bullshit government program that doesn't work, even makes things worse. Less taxation, less regulation, let the private sector do it's thing and in the end we'll have much more money to be able to spend.
  • Studme53
    •
    3 years ago
    The billions we spend on military pays off - no country would dare challenge our freedom or economic supremacy with force. That’s worth trillions.
  • Muddy
    •
    3 years ago
    Desertscrub I'm only speaking because I was in and still in myself and in charge of some and had to work with some of those shit birds. You can't get them out in timely fashion and while that's happening they are being paid with and some quality benefits. They are not helping us be more safe, I'm just saying.
  • ATACdawg
    •
    3 years ago
    "meanwhile the USA operates a fleet of 20 carriers and adding 4 more in coming years"

    Actually, we only have 10 actual carriers. The other flattops are LHD/LHA types which basically support helicopters and V-22 Ospreys and a large contingent of Marines and amphibious assault vehicles. With the advent of the F-35B, flown by Marines, they can also function as sea control ships, but with a vastly smaller air wing and no integral radar aircraft.
  • ATACdawg
    •
    3 years ago
    Also, let's not forget some of the economic benefits. Building a carrier is about a seven year process, which supports approximately 12,000 workers in the shipyard alone, not to mention the legions of steelworkers, pipe and electric cable manufacturers, steam turbine and nuclear reactor builders and all the rest. Plus, you have all of the workers who build the air wing, make all of the munitions. All of these, by law, have to be made in USA if the capability exists. The only thing I'm aware of that is procured foreign is the 4-3/4" anchor chain (US factories can't make chain larger than 3-1/2").

    These workers also spend money. The classic Kenseyan multiplier ratio is 5:1!

    Also, there are significant technological innovations that eventually find their way into our economy.
  • Call.Me.Ishmael
    •
    3 years ago
    ATACdawg said "Also, let's not forget some of the economic benefits. Building a carrier is about a seven year process, which supports approximately 12,000 workers in the shipyard alone, not to mention the legions of steelworkers, pipe and electric cable manufacturers, steam turbine and nuclear reactor builders and all the rest."

    And the result of that economic benefit is an incredibly expensive naval platform that has increasingly easy denial of entry to waters controlled by or contested by adversaries, and is increasingly easy to blow out of the water via stealthy unmanned technology. So, for 7 years of building and jobs, you're getting what will eventually become a bathtub toy with a 50-year lifespan and a roughly $1 billion per year annual operating expense.

    Aircraft carriers made sense decades ago when you could move them around the oceans unseen. Today, I can find a carrier group using open-source satellites. One of the reasons why adversary states aren't really trying to build aircraft carriers is because it's faster, cheaper, and more effective to invest in ways to restrict ours from potential battle theaters.

    This is not dissimilar to the recent thread about fast food companies and automation. The military is also moving and investing in the direction of removing all or most humans from their platforms, particularly naval and air, and there is no stopping that. This isn't talked about a lot because it ultimately means fewer defense / military jobs in the long term.
  • Player11
    •
    3 years ago
    I saw u tube video simulated naval battle w China the Chinese sunk US carrier task force w barrage missles in simulation.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    3 years ago
    The usual argument is that we get more economic benefit from civilian infrastructure spending.

    And yes, the arguments have been there that Carrier Groups are just floating liabilities, and China does have enhanced accuracy conventionally armed theater ballistic missiles. Almost impossible to stop because they move so fast on the way down.

    Says we have 9 carrier strike groups:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_st…

    As I see, only #12, the USS Ford, is a Ford Class.

    And if we are to make another, is that on top of what we have or will a Nimitz class be getting retired?

    Other countries really don't maintain this level of sea power at this time.

    SJG

    Frampton, 26min
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axs7w6lF…
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    3 years ago
    Dave, do you have a link to something which talks about a debate going on about a new Carrier Strike Force?

    USS Ford
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._…

    John F. Kennedy has been launched, but not commissioned. So I assume it will be commissioned soon.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._…

    SJG

    Weather Report - Live at Montreux (1976) [Remastered]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfvfXA2S…
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    3 years ago
    USS John F. Kennedy, second of the Ford Class, launched but not yet commissioned.

    https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Re…

    https://www.thefordclass.com/cvn-79/

    2 U.S. Aircraft Carriers Now in South China Sea as Chinese Air Force Flies 39 Aircraft Near Taiwan
    https://news.usni.org/2022/01/24/2-u-s-a…

    So is there now public debate on a new carrier strike group?

    SJG
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    3 years ago
    Not sure why started this thread. Is there a link to some consideration about another carrier strike force being made which is on the table.

    Is the concern about the two carriers being sent to Taiwan?

    And then others have said that our carriers are floating liabilities. It is actually all our surface ships.

    But I say we still need to have them.

    So I guess the John F. Kennedy (Ford Class) will be the next commissioned.

    So slated to be commissioned in 2024. Is this on top of existing carriers, or is one being retired then?
    https://www.thefordclass.com/cvn-79/

    Enterprise, the 3rd Ford Class, laying of keel in 2017. As of Jan 2022, it is about 12% complete.

    SJG
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion