If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   US Navy says there is no money to refuel the USS Abraham Lincoln. Navy and Air Force soon to be limited to two guys in a canoe and a flying squirrel   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 133
    More: Fail, navies, aircraft carriers, USS George Washington, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Central and South America  
•       •       •

5483 clicks; posted to Business » on 11 Feb 2013 at 9:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-11 02:05:20 AM  
It's a nuclear reactor, subby.

During an overhaul, complex maintenance and refueling are done to the carrier and its reactor plants to extend its life. Complex overhauls occur only once in the 50-year-life of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. They take about three years to plan for and four years to complete once the work begins.
 
2013-02-11 02:06:55 AM  
What's this? The 8th or 9th time this story has been flogged?
 
2013-02-11 02:16:41 AM  
Publicity stunt.

The Navy wants more shiny toys, doesn't want to admit they already have plenty of money.
 
2013-02-11 02:36:36 AM  
You know, someone's going to regret starting the whole "name carriers after Presidents" thing right around the time they start planning the USS Barack H Obama.
 
2013-02-11 02:50:08 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: You know, someone's going to regret starting the whole "name carriers after Presidents" thing right around the time they start planning the USS Barack H Obama.


Carries don't get named after non-assassinated Democrats.

I'm pretty sure it's in the Bible.
 
2013-02-11 02:50:54 AM  

propasaurus: What's this? The 8th or 9th time this story has been flogged?


At least.
 
2013-02-11 02:59:01 AM  

kmmontandon: Publicity stunt.

The Navy wants more shiny toys, doesn't want to admit they already have plenty of money.


Pretty much every company that builds stuff for the military is shiatting their pants about losing a lot of work.  Pretty much every major player in the aerospace/military sector is avoiding spending a cent they don't need to right now.  Lots of companies are going to be seriously hurting for cash if the sequestration happens.

The problem right now is that the military cuts that will happen aren't planned for, it's just going to be a slash and burn style result if it all ends up taking the easiest pass this time.
 
2013-02-11 03:03:45 AM  

kmmontandon: cameroncrazy1984: You know, someone's going to regret starting the whole "name carriers after Presidents" thing right around the time they start planning the USS Barack H Obama.

Carriers don't get named after non-assassinated Democrats.

I'm pretty sure it's in the Bible.


No Barack will get his. It will be a stealth carrier. Blacked out, incognegro, if you will.

I'm going to hell for that.

And Cameron, I hope they don't go with the H as an initial, for entertainment's sake. I want to see the Freepers go nuts when the USS B. Hussein enters the Persian Gulf "to appease the enemy".
 
2013-02-11 03:10:44 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: You know, someone's going to regret starting the whole "name carriers after Presidents" thing right around the time they start planning the USS Barack H Obama.


In an perfect world, all of the USS Barack Obama's aircraft will be drones.
 
2013-02-11 03:42:40 AM  
Maybe they can auction off that big Mission Accomplished banner.
 
2013-02-11 04:57:20 AM  

kmmontandon: cameroncrazy1984: You know, someone's going to regret starting the whole "name carriers after Presidents" thing right around the time they start planning the USS Barack H Obama.

Carries don't get named after non-assassinated Democrats.

I'm pretty sure it's in the Bible.


But submarines do. It's only natural that a sub be named for our first black president, anyway. They're big, black, long, and shoot off quite the load when they enter a gulf the back way.
 
2013-02-11 05:21:12 AM  
Good. Mothball it and save some money. On second thought, just tow it out to sea and scuttle it to save the costs of mothballing it.
 
2013-02-11 05:39:12 AM  

DrPainMD: Good. Mothball it and save some money. On second thought, just tow it out to sea and scuttle it to save the costs of mothballing it.


It would make an amazing coral reef.
 
2013-02-11 06:09:50 AM  

davidphogan: Lots of companies are going to be seriously hurting for cash if the sequestration happens.



Bars lose business when people in a town sober up. Does that mean we shouldn't have AA?
 
2013-02-11 06:32:32 AM  

davidphogan: Pretty much every company that builds stuff for the military is shiatting their pants about losing a lot of work.  Pretty much every major player in the aerospace/military sector is avoiding spending a cent they don't need to right now.  Lots of companies are going to be seriously hurting for cash if the sequestration happens.


Let 'em go bankrupt. The economic parasites that make up the bulk of our military contractors are a big part of why the economy's in the toilet.
 
2013-02-11 07:24:59 AM  
Now that they have to beg for money we can see the black hole that we have been throwing our money into.
It costs too much to police the planet.
 
2013-02-11 07:55:22 AM  

doglover: davidphogan: Lots of companies are going to be seriously hurting for cash if the sequestration happens.


Bars lose business when people in a town sober up. Does that mean we shouldn't have AA?


You don't understand.

Jobs rehabilitating criminals = waste.
Jobs building highways = responsibility of the states
Jobs building up our military might, as we're sooo vulnerable to a conventional enemy = good, middle class jobs it is important to protect
 
2013-02-11 08:17:10 AM  

miss diminutive: DrPainMD: Good. Mothball it and save some money. On second thought, just tow it out to sea and scuttle it to save the costs of mothballing it.

It would make an amazing coral reef.


Self lighting and self heating
 
2013-02-11 08:26:38 AM  

davidphogan: kmmontandon: Publicity stunt.

The Navy wants more shiny toys, doesn't want to admit they already have plenty of money.

Pretty much every company that builds stuff for the military is shiatting their pants about losing a lot of work.  Pretty much every major player in the aerospace/military sector is avoiding spending a cent they don't need to right now.  Lots of companies are going to be seriously hurting for cash if the sequestration happens.

The problem right now is that the military cuts that will happen aren't planned for, it's just going to be a slash and burn style result if it all ends up taking the easiest pass this time.


You mean after 12 years of unheard of budgets and military contractor windfall, there's going to be some cutting back? Holy crap. Imagine the USA spending on its own infrastructure (roads, schools, bridges, dams, etc) than just throwing it down a black budget military hole like we've been doing for so long now some of you think its the only thing possible.
 
2013-02-11 08:28:53 AM  

Herr Docktor Heinrich Wisenheimer: Maybe they can auction off that big Mission Accomplished banner.


Where IS that thing anyway
 
2013-02-11 08:37:22 AM  

Generation_D: davidphogan: kmmontandon: Publicity stunt.

The Navy wants more shiny toys, doesn't want to admit they already have plenty of money.

Pretty much every company that builds stuff for the military is shiatting their pants about losing a lot of work.  Pretty much every major player in the aerospace/military sector is avoiding spending a cent they don't need to right now.  Lots of companies are going to be seriously hurting for cash if the sequestration happens.

The problem right now is that the military cuts that will happen aren't planned for, it's just going to be a slash and burn style result if it all ends up taking the easiest pass this time.

You mean after 12 years of unheard of budgets and military contractor windfall, there's going to be some cutting back? Holy crap. Imagine the USA spending on its own infrastructure (roads, schools, bridges, dams, etc) than just throwing it down a black budget military hole like we've been doing for so long now some of you think its the only thing possible.


Black programs aren't that expensive.
 
2013-02-11 08:39:37 AM  

Generation_D: davidphogan: kmmontandon: Publicity stunt.

The Navy wants more shiny toys, doesn't want to admit they already have plenty of money.

Pretty much every company that builds stuff for the military is shiatting their pants about losing a lot of work.  Pretty much every major player in the aerospace/military sector is avoiding spending a cent they don't need to right now.  Lots of companies are going to be seriously hurting for cash if the sequestration happens.

The problem right now is that the military cuts that will happen aren't planned for, it's just going to be a slash and burn style result if it all ends up taking the easiest pass this time.

You mean after 12 years of unheard of budgets and military contractor windfall, there's going to be some cutting back? Holy crap. Imagine the USA spending on its own infrastructure (roads, schools, bridges, dams, etc) than just throwing it down a black budget military hole like we've been doing for so long now some of you think its the only thing possible.


They arent spending on that stuff either. Infrastructure is rotting. The i75 bridge carries like 10 percent of the nations gdp, is in the speakers home district, and the president used it as an example of a shovel ready project for a background of a carmpaign speech. The feds wont do a damn thing to fund its replacement, just as one of many examples.

The country is at the corporate equivalent of when they stop buying office supplies, tell the employees to bring tp from home, and then the execs biatch that they need larger bonuses.
 
2013-02-11 08:51:35 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: You know, someone's going to regret starting the whole "name carriers after Presidents" thing right around the time they start planning the USS Barack H Obama.


I don't think Obama's legacy will be quite as bright as that of Lincoln, or the esteemed President Enterprise.
 
2013-02-11 09:02:34 AM  

serial_crusher: cameroncrazy1984: You know, someone's going to regret starting the whole "name carriers after Presidents" thing right around the time they start planning the USS Barack H Obama.

I don't think Obama's legacy will be quite as bright as that of Lincoln, or the esteemed President Enterprise.


I miss President Stennis
 
2013-02-11 09:04:26 AM  
Flying Squirrels are only in the RCAF
 
2013-02-11 09:39:00 AM  
That's okay. We'll be fine with one less carrier battle group. Or 6 less. Whatever
 
2013-02-11 09:40:34 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: You know, someone's going to regret starting the whole "name carriers after Presidents" thing right around the time they start planning the USS Barack H Obama.



That was the best level in Black Ops 2.
 
2013-02-11 09:40:43 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: You know, someone's going to regret starting the whole "name carriers after Presidents" thing right around the time they start planning the USS Barack H Obama.


It would sink to the bottom just like everything else he touches.
 
2013-02-11 10:04:26 AM  
Let's see 1 contractor to do every overhaul?  I'm sure they are offering cut rate prices on the job and haven't been inflating the prices many fold year over year.

The problem with most of this isn't that the jobs can't be done.  It's that the contractors can't actually cut rates to those that they still make a profit on because then the government will realize how much padding have been in these contracts for years.

The contractors are cutting their own throats after years of circle jerk parties.
 
2013-02-11 10:04:32 AM  

b2theory: serial_crusher: cameroncrazy1984: You know, someone's going to regret starting the whole "name carriers after Presidents" thing right around the time they start planning the USS Barack H Obama.

I don't think Obama's legacy will be quite as bright as that of Lincoln, or the esteemed President Enterprise.

I miss President Stennis


President Nimitz reporting for duty
 
2013-02-11 10:11:19 AM  

kmmontandon: cameroncrazy1984: You know, someone's going to regret starting the whole "name carriers after Presidents" thing right around the time they start planning the USS Barack H Obama.

Carries don't get named after non-assassinated Democrats.

I'm pretty sure it's in the Bible.


Truman and Stennis

Though Stennis was a segregationist, he'd have been a Republican if he were about 10 years younger,
 
2013-02-11 10:14:53 AM  

davidphogan: kmmontandon: Publicity stunt.

The Navy wants more shiny toys, doesn't want to admit they already have plenty of money.

Pretty much every company that builds stuff for the military is shiatting their pants about losing a lot of work.  Pretty much every major player in the aerospace/military sector is avoiding spending a cent they don't need to right now.  Lots of companies are going to be seriously hurting for cash if the sequestration happens.

The problem right now is that the military cuts that will happen aren't planned for, it's just going to be a slash and burn style result if it all ends up taking the easiest pass this time.


Bbbbbut GOVERNMENT DOESN'T CREATE JERBS!!!!
 
2013-02-11 10:16:54 AM  

kmmontandon: cameroncrazy1984: You know, someone's going to regret starting the whole "name carriers after Presidents" thing right around the time they start planning the USS Barack H Obama.

Carries don't get named after non-assassinated Democrats.

I'm pretty sure it's in the Bible.


or  Nobel peace prize winners....
 
2013-02-11 10:16:55 AM  

bhcompy: b2theory: serial_crusher: cameroncrazy1984: You know, someone's going to regret starting the whole "name carriers after Presidents" thing right around the time they start planning the USS Barack H Obama.

I don't think Obama's legacy will be quite as bright as that of Lincoln, or the esteemed President Enterprise.

I miss President Stennis

President Nimitz reporting for duty


I miss President Kitty Hawk.
 
2013-02-11 10:21:02 AM  

DrPainMD: davidphogan: Pretty much every company that builds stuff for the military is shiatting their pants about losing a lot of work.  Pretty much every major player in the aerospace/military sector is avoiding spending a cent they don't need to right now.  Lots of companies are going to be seriously hurting for cash if the sequestration happens.

Let 'em go bankrupt. The economic parasites that make up the bulk of our military contractors are a big part of why the economy's in the toilet.


Agreed.  Especially cause they farm out our DoD jobs to those poor slave labor workers in India and China for the cheap labor.  Why do they hate American jobs?
 
2013-02-11 10:22:25 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: cameroncrazy1984: You know, someone's going to regret starting the whole "name carriers after Presidents" thing right around the time they start planning the USS Barack H Obama.

It would sink to the bottom just like everything else he touches.


Yeah,

but the one thing Osama bin Laden and the GOP had in common was that they both needed a good sinking.
 
2013-02-11 10:27:52 AM  
Carrier naming conventions have little to do with the person having been president and much to do with the person having had a significant positive impact or connection to the US Navy. Reagan pushed a large increase in the fleet, hence that one. JFK, Ford, and Bush I were in the Navy themselves. Lincoln, well, he was Abraham Farking Lincoln. Carter was a submariner, so they named that tweaked Seawolf class sub after him. We also tend to name them Enterprise because it's just a tradition.

I rather highly doubt we'll be seeing a carrier named after Clinton, Bush II, or Obama. If it happens it will likely be as part of some kind of political deal to secure funding to build the thing.
 
2013-02-11 10:27:58 AM  
Now how are we going to wage war on the International Vampire Terrorist Network?
 
2013-02-11 10:31:03 AM  

akula: I rather highly doubt we'll be seeing a carrier named after Clinton, Bush II, or Obama. If it happens it will likely be as part of some kind of political deal to secure funding to build the thing.


Considering the military drawbacks under Clinton, I highly highly doubt he would ever receive that type of honor from any military branch.
 
2013-02-11 10:31:16 AM  
Okay Okay,  We can pay for it by cancelling two F-35Cs  That's like 2 billion dollars over the life of the plane.
 
2013-02-11 10:39:28 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: cameroncrazy1984: You know, someone's going to regret starting the whole "name carriers after Presidents" thing right around the time they start planning the USS Barack H Obama.

It would sink to the bottom just like everything else he touches.


Wow, so you pretty much snapped after the election, huh?
 
2013-02-11 10:41:07 AM  

bhcompy: akula: I rather highly doubt we'll be seeing a carrier named after Clinton, Bush II, or Obama. If it happens it will likely be as part of some kind of political deal to secure funding to build the thing.

Considering the military drawbacks under Clinton, I highly highly doubt he would ever receive that type of honor from any military branch.


Exactly. I don't think it matters much to him, either. But then, anybody who tried to be President just to eventually get a carrier with his/her name on it sure as hell doesn't belong in the office.
 
2013-02-11 10:43:04 AM  
"Navy and Air Force soon to be limited to two guys in a canoe and a flying squirrel"

Hey now, we aren't Canada yet!
 
2013-02-11 10:45:10 AM  
I'm all for a strong military, but seriously; how many aircraft carriers does the US need?
 
2013-02-11 10:46:31 AM  
The Navy said it is delaying the work because it is short about $1.5 billion and Congress hasn't passed an appropriations bill to fund it.

That damn hippie-lib Congress with their tye-died shirts and bell bottoms and what-have-you. They dole out plenty of money for teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs while shorting the shiat out of our near-destitute military-industrial complex. Won't somebody please think about killing brown children?

/One, I don't believe them. Two, we should scrap one carrier group - we have more than we need anyway.
//Bloated military is bloated.
 
2013-02-11 10:46:39 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: cameroncrazy1984: You know, someone's going to regret starting the whole "name carriers after Presidents" thing right around the time they start planning the USS Barack H Obama.

It would sink to the bottom just like everything else he touches.


vartian: In an perfect world, all of the USS Barack Obama's aircraft will be drones.


OK, the USS Obama is going to be a submersible drone carrier?!?! Jesus Christ, that sounds like an asskicking machine.
 
2013-02-11 10:51:42 AM  
Hypocrisy alert: you can't be pro-jobs and also slash defense in any way that kills jobs. There are a lot of defense-related jobs. Same goes for being pro-jobs, then cutting public sector jobs and union-busting.

See? Now  everyone can hate me.
 
2013-02-11 10:52:21 AM  

bhcompy: akula: I rather highly doubt we'll be seeing a carrier named after Clinton, Bush II, or Obama. If it happens it will likely be as part of some kind of political deal to secure funding to build the thing.

Considering the military drawbacks under Clinton, I highly highly doubt he would ever receive that type of honor from any military branch.


The "drawbacks" started by GHW Bush (supported by SecDef Dick Cheney) because the Cold War was over? Yeah, totally Clinton's fault.
 
2013-02-11 10:55:11 AM  

chiett: "Navy and Air Force soon to be limited to two guys in a canoe and a flying squirrel"

Hey now, we aren't Canada yet!


That trick never works.
 
2013-02-11 11:02:21 AM  
The carrier fleet has already been cut back; USS Enterprise retired just last year, and IIRC all the conventional powered carriers have been gone for some time now, and not all of them were replaced with nuclear powered ones.

While I agree with the attitude that "the USN has the money to refuel the CVN, they just don't want to cut back elsewhere", this nation needs to seriously discuss why we have a military the size we currently do. If we aren't going to be invading random countries every other year, and pulling out of the ones we already did invade, and reducing our responsibilities around the world, do we need all those divisions, and air fleets, and submarines, and CVNBG's?

Or does our military's size exist as a government welfare program, designed to keep young men and women employed and perhaps training them for future civilian jobs, while at the same time keeping hundreds of companies working to build guns, tanks, planes and ships that we really don't need right now? The problem is, if we do get in a war now, it will be strictly "come as you are"; none of this "Arsenal of Democracy" stuff where we retool factories and shipyards to churn out tanks and ships and planes to replace the ones lost in combat.

Carrier deployments typically require 3 CVN's to keep one on station regularly. That's one on station, one refitting, and one working up or heading out or back to port. They can at times shift deployments so there's two on station at crisis time but only by extending the deployment time for one, but eventually the ship has to go home for extensive maintenance work. Now, do we really need a carrier in the North Atlantic? Probably not. How about the South Pacific? But, with conditions in the Middle East/Mediterreanean as they are, it makes sense to have at least one there at both locations at all times. How about the Western Pacific? That's nine right there just to keep three deployed.
 
Displayed 50 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report