hasty ambush: Yet no mention is made of that by "progressives" I wonder why?
hasty ambush: jayphat: I like how you lump the EMLS in the R&D of the Ford when it's already been installed in the GHWB. So, lets pull that number out, mmmkay? Lets just say that I don't agree with the 65K ton carrier idea. As does the rest of the Navy. Sorry.Not the rest of the Navy just the Carrie /aviation types. The Submariners would just as well see carrier go away all together. And I am sure the surface warfare types would be too upset. Time to look at what we can afford and will give us most bang for our buck not what we would like to have. Given an $16 trillion national debt an a shrinking defense budget the Ford is an extravagance. More so than the F-35. the F-35 replaces aging/wore out aircraft, some no longer in production and a UAV replacement won't be along soon enough. No similar such justification can be found for the Ford.
Meatsim1: People who criticize military spending often make the mistake in thinking that money spent on the military is for the military, often its just a back door stimulus to keep select industry and voters employed. You think the F-35 has to be built in 47 states and Puerto Rico?Solution:/Place this spending under social welfare//Push airplane into ocean///Keep people employed, make the anti defense spending crowd happy
mutterfark: EViLTeW: Great, now all those Asian countries that all get along so well are going to turn their continent of sunshine and rainbows and point all their weapons at the same target.//Or they'll take all their hard-earned military spending and kill each other with it, leaving the US to cut military spending now that half of Asia is missing.[borkadventures.files.wordpress.com image 649x500]China's 20201 high speed rail?
hasty ambush: jayphat: hasty ambush: FullMetalPanda: You know what the US needs? Flying Carriers. Replace the entire fleet with flying carriers. Why limit yourself to the oceans of the world?Realistically we don't need the Gerald Ford class. Too expensive and no other country is going to be building anything better than the Nimitz Class. We could continue to build new Nimitz carriers at a rate to replace old ones as they are retired or even go with a cheaper 65,000 ton which would still outclass everything out there and we could have more of them. Carrier Air Wings have gotten smaller with the advent of precision munitions (fewer sorties needed) Drones and the F-35 will make the even smaller as strike packages need even fewer aircraft.You do understand the Ford class is not that far off from the GHWB? It has moderate improvements in some places, yes. But the biggest thing to take away from it is the 30% reduction in personnel onboard. That is a HUGE cost savings in the long run.Those are not moderate changes. It electromagnetic launch/recovery system and smart crew (smaller crew) are costly innovations . The first is not really need and the second is of dubious pay off. The smaller crew is cheaper but the experience on the LCSs has shown those crews are being overworked as you have a smaller crew doing a lot of the same workload-maintenance, refueling, etc. Plus there is large degree of concern over how a smaller crew can handle damage control task and still keep a ship fighting.The Ford class is going to cost about $9 billion per ship excluding R&D costs. The Nimitz class costs about half that.
Aarontology: Having a defense budget many times that of he nearest nation is idiotic, especially given the network of alliances and economic ties we have with so many nations.
If you like these links, you'll love
More funny for your money.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Oct 19 2017 03:39:13
Runtime: 0.172 sec (171 ms)