How To Pay For A 11-Carrier Navy

[xhw1986]

Plans to permanently retire the USS George Washington and bring the Navy’s carrier-fleet total down to 10 are still being debated in ongoing budget deliberations despite reports the White House has scrapped any plans to reduce the carrier total.

Some of the uncertainty centers around potential funding for the mid-life refueling for the USS George Washington in the upcoming 2015 budget submission, dollars which may still be uncertain or under review, Capitol Hill and Pentagon sources said.

Congress Questions Plan to Pay for 11-Carrier Navy | DoD Buzz

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

If the US economy is not able to sustain the requirements of having the largest military force then she should reorganize rather then cut a few from here and there as this would not amount to the required savings needed for overturning the economy. On the other hand certain laws also need to be addressed especially those that save guard the industries by making the Government purchase locally manufactured goods even if they cost higher than the ones that can be imported.

 

[Penguin]

With the deactivation of the USS Enterprise in December 2012 (decommissioning scheduled for 2013), the U.S. fleet comprises 10 supercarriers.The House Armed Services Seapower subcommittee on 24 July 2007, recommended seven or maybe eight new carriers (one every four years). However, the debate has deepened over budgeting for the $12–14.5 billion (plus $12 billion for development and research) for the 100,000 ton Gerald R. Ford-class carrier (estimated service 2015) compared to the smaller $2 billion 45,000 ton America-class amphibious assault ships able to deploy squadrons of F-35B of which two are already under construction and twelve are planned

 

[Indischer]

With the deactivation of the USS Enterprise in December 2012 (decommissioning scheduled for 2013), the U.S. fleet comprises 10 supercarriers.The House Armed Services Seapower subcommittee on 24 July 2007, recommended seven or maybe eight new carriers (one every four years). However, the debate has deepened over budgeting for the $12–14.5 billion (plus $12 billion for development and research) for the 100,000 ton Gerald R. Ford-class carrier (estimated service 2015) compared to the smaller $2 billion 45,000 ton America-class amphibious assault ships able to deploy squadrons of F-35B of which two are already under construction and twelve are planned

The America class with F-35 onboard can be just as effective in force projection. I feel that the Ford class ships are a bit of an overkill, really. But that's how America has rolled for a long time, 2-3 steps clearly ahead of the rest.

 

[Penguin]

The America class with F-35 onboard can be just as effective in force projection. I feel that the Ford class ships are a bit of an overkill, really. But that's how America has rolled for a long time, 2-3 steps clearly ahead of the rest.

8 or 10 or 12 super carriers .... it is still WAY ahead of the competition, esp. when these are backed by the LHA/Ds with 'jump jets'.

 

[Indischer]

8 or 10 or 12 super carriers .... it is still WAY ahead of the competition, esp. when these are backed by the LHA/Ds with 'jump jets'.

Yeah...which will be a huge waste if they don't wage wars then. There might be truth in those articles which say the US wants to pick a fight simply because they cannot allow their defence investment to rot away.

 

[Penguin]

Yeah...which will be a huge waste if they don't wage wars then. There might be truth in those articles which say the US wants to pick a fight simply because they cannot allow their defence investment to rot away.

You think that doesn't apply to China, considering current naval modernization/expansion of major naval units? Or any major navy (e.g. ...)

 

[Sliver]

You think that doesn't apply to China, considering current naval modernization/expansion of major naval units? Or any major navy (e.g. ...)

Have you ever played the game "age of empires"? The guy attacking everyone around is usually the guy with the largest army (also economy). The army and the wars sort of feed one another - more army, more war, more army - but the first "more army" starts either 1) better economy or 2) necessity (bitter neighbors)

 

[Penguin]

Have you ever played the game "age of empires"? The guy attacking everyone around is usually the guy with the largest army (also economy). The army and the wars sort of feed one another - more army, more war, more army - but the first "more army" starts either 1) better economy or 2) necessity (bitter neighbors)

<sigh>

 

[Sliver]

<sigh>

yeah - i miss it too.. too bad MS has stopped publishing versions of it (am not sad maybe - MS would have made it worse)

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

You think that doesn't apply to China, considering current naval modernization/expansion of major naval units? Or any major navy (e.g. ...)

We spend a very low percentage of GDP on our defense budget. Especially considering the huge area and population we need to protect.

America has it even worse, as the sole superpower, their area of coverage is pretty much the entire world.

That means a huge amount of money being spent every year. It's not cheap to be the Global policeman, and it's a thankless job too, since everyone else is essentially a free rider, letting America do all the work regardless of region.

I'm not complaining though. I don't want my tax money being spent on Middle Eastern wars to secure the stability of oil routes. If America wants to do the job themselves, using their own money, then have at it.

 

[Khan_patriot]

The US is going under deeper, frankly I dont see any reason for so much military spendings because the US doesnot face any threats to it existence, it is on stable grounds with its neighbors and one would think it would not need such a massive military, if the US hadnt fucked with every country imaginable then maybe it would not have need any military at all......

 

[Indischer]

You think that doesn't apply to China, considering current naval modernization/expansion of major naval units? Or any major navy (e.g. ...)

The Naval Forces at least have a credible reason for expansion; that of achieving some sort of deterrence through conventional parity against the likes of US. But what incentive does US have in raising the bar several notches above the next nearest competitor?

IMO, the US and to a big extent, Russia, do not need to have their force levels anywhere close to their current(and projected) capabilities, especially considering that they do not have any territorial disputes or former colonies that might seek their help in times of crisis.[It's idealistic, I know. ]

btw, where are you from actually? You're one of the better members here, and I've not seen you take sides so far.

 

[shuntmaster]

USN doesn't need so many super carriers. 5-6 should be enough to cover all the oceans.
With F-35, USN could go landing carrier way in a much cheaper path.

US has more than enough offensive capability for next 30-50 years. It needs to focus more on defensive capabilities, especially ABM systems..

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

yeah - i miss it too.. too bad MS has stopped publishing versions of it (am not sad maybe - MS would have made it worse)

The problem is Microsoft didn't develop the game. It was a small company called Ensemble. Ensemble is gone along with guys who wrote the code. They tried to regroup with Empire Earth but got nowhere.