Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Kinja)   Look at the farking size of this thing: US Navy's newest super carrier floats for the first time   (front.kinja.com) divider line 183
    More: Cool, floats, Newport News Shipbuilding, navies  
•       •       •

11333 clicks; posted to Geek » on 18 Oct 2013 at 2:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-17 08:25:40 PM  
Sadly it was immediately devoured by wolves.
 
2013-10-17 08:28:46 PM  
Whew....we were getting dangerously close to losing global naval superiority.
 
2013-10-17 08:29:47 PM  
This is more valuable than feeding and educating children, helping the homeless, and research into cancer and other diseases.  What's more likely to improve the lives of Americans?  Billions spent on helping the needy, or billions spent on one more aircraft carrier.  The answer seems clear.
 
2013-10-17 08:33:58 PM  

TheOnion: This is more valuable than feeding and educating children, helping the homeless, and research into cancer and other diseases.  What's more likely to improve the lives of Americans?  Billions spent on helping the needy, or billions spent on one more aircraft carrier.  The answer seems clear.


At $13 billion we almost could have built two for the cost of the government shutdown.
 
2013-10-17 08:39:13 PM  
Q: How many schools could be built for the cost of a Nimitz carrier group?

A: Fark you.
 
2013-10-17 08:47:45 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Q: How many schools could be built for the cost of a Nimitz carrier group?

A: Fark you.


Do those schools wield the combined firepower of all the combatants in WWII? I didn't think so.
 
2013-10-17 08:52:55 PM  
One thing I've read is that these new carriers are designed to run with a crew of about 1,000 fewer men per ship, be easier to update with new features and systems, and have lower maintenance requirements.

Given all of that, they could conceivably save money in the long run over the course of their operational lives.  It would be neat to see the numbers anyway.

We could probably recoup some cost selling our old carriers to allies as these new ones are rolled out.  A Nimitz class carrier is still better than what anyone else has, so maybe the UK, France, Israel, Japan, etc, might be interested in buying one.
 
2013-10-17 08:57:32 PM  

revrendjim: Marcus Aurelius: Q: How many schools could be built for the cost of a Nimitz carrier group?

A: Fark you.

Do those schools wield the combined firepower of all the combatants in WWII? I didn't think so.


The ones in Chicago might.
 
2013-10-17 08:59:31 PM  
Isn't your average cruise ship bigger? I don't think the Navy has room for a skating rink, heated pool, and a coconut shrimp buffet.
 
2013-10-17 09:01:40 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Isn't your average cruise ship bigger? I don't think the Navy has room for a skating rink, heated pool, and a coconut shrimp buffet.


Who needs that crap when you have jets, bombs, and even energy weapons?
 
2013-10-17 09:08:41 PM  
Jesus, I think it's bigger than Lichtenstein
 
2013-10-17 09:12:26 PM  

Sliding Carp: revrendjim: Marcus Aurelius: Q: How many schools could be built for the cost of a Nimitz carrier group?

A: Fark you.

Do those schools wield the combined firepower of all the combatants in WWII? I didn't think so.

The ones in Chicago might.


Well played
 
2013-10-17 09:36:50 PM  
And who exactly are we at war with that we need all this shiat?
 
2013-10-17 09:38:10 PM  
The bow is very different than the Nimitz Class. I didn't think the Hull was that new.
 
2013-10-17 09:38:47 PM  
Did it trip going into the water?

/ named for a president who had to do what he had to do.. good for him
 
2013-10-17 09:38:49 PM  

Mugato: And who exactly are we at war with that we need all this shiat?


The Department of Defense needs to be able to project power. Study. It. Out.
 
2013-10-17 09:39:44 PM  

Mugato: And who exactly are we at war with that we need all this shiat?


You might think differently after the Chinese army lands at Santa Monica Beach.
 
2013-10-17 09:41:45 PM  

TheOnion: This is more valuable than feeding and educating children, helping the homeless, and research into cancer and other diseases.  What's more likely to improve the lives of Americans?  Billions spent on helping the needy, or billions spent on one more aircraft carrier.  The answer seems clear.


At least we manufacture something in this country.
 
2013-10-17 09:42:44 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Mugato: And who exactly are we at war with that we need all this shiat?

You might think differently after the Chinese army lands at Santa Monica Beach.


How could you tell?
 
2013-10-17 09:49:35 PM  
What for? Zee Germans?
 
2013-10-17 09:49:45 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Mugato: And who exactly are we at war with that we need all this shiat?

You might think differently after the Chinese army lands at Santa Monica Beach.


You're probably joking but there is no possible reason for China to go to war with us. For one thing we owe them too much money and they're our biggest trading partner. I don't like Santa Monica anyway.
 
2013-10-17 09:51:11 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Given all of that, they could conceivably save money in the long run over the course of their operational lives. It would be neat to see the numbers anyway.


I'm going to guess that we could save more money by not having it at all. Especially considering that the US already has more carriers than the entire rest of the world's navies combined.

Oh, and none of those other navies has a supercarrier. Their carriers are more akin to what the US calls Amphibious Assault Ships and LPHs. And the US has more of those than the rest of the world has carriers, too.

We could probably recoup some cost selling our old carriers to allies as these new ones are rolled out. A Nimitz class carrier is still better than what anyone else has, so maybe the UK, France, Israel, Japan, etc, might be interested in buying one.


Unlikely. The UK doesn't have planes for its existing/planned carriers. France is happy with the one carrier it has and would never buy one not built in France anyway. Israel has no need for one, anybody it might realistically fight is nearby (and if it ever did, the US fleets would come to its aid). Japan would have a hard time reconciling one with its constitution, as well as (like Israel) having no conceivable strategic needs.

At this point in history carriers are a vanity maintained by old Imperial powers with delusions that they still have overseas influence (Britain, France, and Russia, which can't even afford to operate the Soviet Union carriers left over from the Cold War); and self-styled emerging powers that are doing the military equivalent of children shuffling around the house in their father's shoes (China, India).

But all of that aside, no other country besides the US is willing to bear the astonishing cost of mounting a carrier attack group necessary to support a supercarrier.
 
2013-10-17 09:52:56 PM  

Mugato: ecmoRandomNumbers: Mugato: And who exactly are we at war with that we need all this shiat?

You might think differently after the Chinese army lands at Santa Monica Beach.

You're probably joking but there is no possible reason for China to go to war with us. For one thing we owe them too much money and they're our biggest trading partner. I don't like Santa Monica anyway.


I think a sub would be a better tool to repel a transport ship anyhow.
 
2013-10-17 09:56:07 PM  

czetie: But all of that aside, no other country besides the US is willing to bear the astonishing cost of mounting a carrier attack group necessary to support a supercarrier.


What about  when the aliens come? Really though it's the whole military industrial complex thing. There's a lobby too big for anyone to say no to anything they ask for.
 
2013-10-17 09:59:25 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Mugato: And who exactly are we at war with that we need all this shiat?

You might think differently after the Chinese army lands at Santa Monica Beach.


How are they going to get there ? Build a living bridge like ants ?
 
2013-10-17 10:00:46 PM  

One Bad Apple: ecmoRandomNumbers: Mugato: And who exactly are we at war with that we need all this shiat?

You might think differently after the Chinese army lands at Santa Monica Beach.

How are they going to get there ? Build a living bridge like ants ?


They have enough people.
 
2013-10-17 10:04:35 PM  

Mugato: And who exactly are we at war with that we need all this shiat?


Hey, as long as we have all this shiat we won't be at war with anybody of any consequence... that is if they know what's good for him and still want to have a country when the dust settles.

/America... fark yeah!
 
2013-10-17 10:08:23 PM  
America's war on debt continues.
 
2013-10-17 10:14:44 PM  

queezyweezel: America's war on debt continues.


Financed by the War on Drugs.

Never give in, never surrender.

The same people who doubt Keynesian Economics for the overall country really love it for war and sh*t. "If you spend enough money, we can defeat anyone/thing."

General Giap died at 102. Winner.
 
2013-10-17 10:19:29 PM  
Kinja has it's own icon?
 
2013-10-17 10:27:26 PM  

czetie: TuteTibiImperes: Given all of that, they could conceivably save money in the long run over the course of their operational lives. It would be neat to see the numbers anyway.

I'm going to guess that we could save more money by not having it at all. Especially considering that the US already has more carriers than the entire rest of the world's navies combined.

Oh, and none of those other navies has a supercarrier. Their carriers are more akin to what the US calls Amphibious Assault Ships and LPHs. And the US has more of those than the rest of the world has carriers, too.


OK, that's a fair point, but the carriers we have aren't going to last forever.  We'll need new ships to replace old ones, maybe we can just replace them at a 1:2 or 2:3 ratio instead of a 1:1. That way we can reduce costs over time while still fielding the most advanced technology available.

I agree that we need to rein in military spending, but I don't think cutting R&D or next-gen systems is the way.  Maintaining a generation or two of advancement ahead of our competitors is an important strategic advantage.  We should keep making sure we have better stuff than everyone else, and maybe just take a look at how much of it we need.

We could also likely cut down a lot on our infantry.  Long large occupations haven't given us great results in the past, so why keep trying it?   Move our military to one that's more air and missile based (with the ships necessary to launch the air and missile strikes) and forget about trying to keep tens of thousands of troops on the ground.  Win the war by destroying the enemy's infrastructure and military capability via air and missile strikes, and then just go home.  Keep around enough ground troops and special forced for the missions that require eyes and boots on the ground, but make those short goal-oriented strikes, not prolonged occupations.
 
2013-10-17 10:32:17 PM  

queezyweezel: Whew....we were getting dangerously close to losing global naval superiority.


Well yes because the Chinese have a new Russian carrier that doubles as a Skee-ball arcade game.
 
2013-10-17 10:35:15 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: We could also likely cut down a lot on our infantry.  Long large occupations haven't given us great results in the past, so why keep trying it?


There's no reason to have bases in Germany and Japan. World War 2 was a couple years ago. I realize a reason given is that they're staging areas but to where? The Mid East? If it wasn't for Israel we wouldn't even have problems in the Mid East. There isn't any country that can challenge us directly or any country that wants to. I don't mean we should completely de-militarize but we don't need all this new shiat.

I don't know how we can "cut down" on our infantry though. Basically no one with a brain stem is turned down into the military.
 
2013-10-17 10:37:53 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Mugato: And who exactly are we at war with that we need all this shiat?

You might think differently after the Chinese army lands at Santa Monica Beach.


Don't joke. It will be the Best Koreans invading Spokane. I saw the documentary.
 
2013-10-17 10:46:09 PM  

TheOnion: This is more valuable than feeding and educating children, helping the homeless, and research into cancer and other diseases.  What's more likely to improve the lives of Americans?  Billions spent on helping the needy, or billions spent on one more aircraft carrier.  The answer seems clear.


The billions went to paying the salaries of the tens of thousands of people directly, or indirectly employed by the construction of that thing.  Who then turned around and spent that money on various goods and services, helping keep thousands more working.

It doesn't just vanish into a black hole.
 
2013-10-17 10:47:32 PM  

Mugato: There's no reason to have bases in Germany and Japan.


Do you know how many soldiers lives were saved at Landstuhl? If we want to conduct war on a global scale, we need a footprint everywhere. Why do you think we created AFRICOM?

If want us unable to do so, you advocate what you are. I support it. But, there is a reason for it. When they do War Games they realize we need forward bases to conduct operations.

They cost a f*cking fortune, but they really like planning for war.
 
2013-10-17 10:51:19 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Why do you think we created AFRICOM?


The irony being that AFRICOM is based in Stuttgart.
 
2013-10-17 10:51:52 PM  

Sgt Otter: TheOnion: This is more valuable than feeding and educating children, helping the homeless, and research into cancer and other diseases.  What's more likely to improve the lives of Americans?  Billions spent on helping the needy, or billions spent on one more aircraft carrier.  The answer seems clear.

The billions went to paying the salaries of the tens of thousands of people directly, or indirectly employed by the construction of that thing.  Who then turned around and spent that money on various goods and services, helping keep thousands more working.

It doesn't just vanish into a black hole.


Well you can say that about anything. If the government throws money at people for doing whatever project, they're going to put it back into the economy. That doesn't mean that the original product or endeavor was necessary.
 
2013-10-17 10:53:45 PM  

T-Servo: NewportBarGuy: Why do you think we created AFRICOM?

The irony being that AFRICOM is based in Stuttgart.


Pretty much.
 
2013-10-17 10:57:54 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Mugato: There's no reason to have bases in Germany and Japan.

Do you know how many soldiers lives were saved at Landstuhl? If we want to conduct war on a global scale, we need a footprint everywhere. Why do you think we created AFRICOM?

If want us unable to do so, you advocate what you are. I support it. But, there is a reason for it. When they do War Games they realize we need forward bases to conduct operations.

They cost a f*cking fortune, but they really like planning for war.


Ramstein Air Base is a great hub, for aircrews flying from the Continental United States, to Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia.  Also, very few of our NATO allies have a heavy airlift capability.  They were using U.S. Air Force C-17s to fly French troops into Mali.

C-17s have about a 3-hours and change, time on the ground to get them turned, and that usually maxes out a Crew Duty Day for aircrews coming from the States.  The C-5 is over four hours.  They fly in, get refueled and load/off load cargo, spent the night at Ramstein's billeting, then continue on with their mission the next day.
 
2013-10-17 10:58:36 PM  
Cut the chatter, Red Two! Accelerate to attack speed! I'll cut across their axis and try to draw their fire!

i175.photobucket.com
 
2013-10-17 11:05:11 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Maintaining a generation or two of advancement ahead of our competitors is an important strategic advantage.


Name one.

Seriously, describe to me a credible scenario where we would actually need to use more than a small fraction of the military power currently at our disposal. One US carrier group exceeds in air power the entire air force of almost any other country in the world. The US Navy is sized to fight a full scale war in the Pacific and the Atlantic simultaneously -- presumably in case we ever have to go to war with, say, Sweden and Malaysia at the same time.

I suppose there's also the argument that merely having the superior armed forces is an important advantage, even if we never use them, and that's a reasonable position... for 100 years ago, when gunboat diplomacy was still a credible way to conduct international relations. But today? The deserts and ports of the US are littered with planes, tanks and ships that were designed, built, commissioned, deployed, and finally mothballed without ever contributing one jot to the well-being of the taxpayers who paid for them.

Look, I seriously don't want to come off like I'm ragging on you personally, especially because I think you're presenting your position reasonably and in good faith -- which, gods know, is rare enough on Fark. And furthermore, what you're saying is something that probably 8 out of 10 Americans would unhesitatingly agree with. You even go further than most and acknowledge that maybe we don't need every one of those supercarriers, especially if we replace quantity with quality.

But in reality, this belief about the need for a huge US military capability is the product of mountains of assumptions about the role and value of military power, many of which have not been valid since -- at best -- the end of the Cold War, if they were ever valid at all, and of decades of propaganda and fetishization of the "heroic" American armed forces, fighting for our freedom across the globe, which have barely been credible since 1945. We're practically still on a war footing, 70 years after the war ended. We spend more than twice as much as a %age of GDP as any other nation (even China), and in dollars more than the next 20 countries put together, of which 18 are explicitly our allies. US military spending doesn't need just a little trimming: it needs to be cut by a factor of 2 or even 3.
 
2013-10-17 11:10:02 PM  

Sgt Otter: TheOnion: This is more valuable than feeding and educating children, helping the homeless, and research into cancer and other diseases.  What's more likely to improve the lives of Americans?  Billions spent on helping the needy, or billions spent on one more aircraft carrier.  The answer seems clear.

The billions went to paying the salaries of the tens of thousands of people directly, or indirectly employed by the construction of that thing.  Who then turned around and spent that money on various goods and services, helping keep thousands more working.

It doesn't just vanish into a black hole.


That's a good point, but we should look at the way military contracts are awarded.  We shouldn't be building tanks the Army doesn't want or alternate F-35 engines that the Air Force doesn't want just to appease Congressmen who's districts house those projects.

When contractors miss performance deadlines, there should be penalties.  When there are cost over-runs, the contractors should be responsible for footing that bill.  There's no reason that Lockheed should be making billions in profits when they can't produce the F-35 on schedule for the price that the originally agreed to do it for.  Force the defense firms to eat the cost of their own failures, and light a fire under their ass by building in clauses to the contracts that all of the IP will be made available to competing firms to complete if they fall behind too far, fail to produce a product that performs the way they promised, or fail to be able to produce it for the price they agreed to.  Make the defense contractors accountable so that they risk going out of business if they don't do their jobs well.
 
2013-10-17 11:14:47 PM  

Sgt Otter: TheOnion: This is more valuable than feeding and educating children, helping the homeless, and research into cancer and other diseases.  What's more likely to improve the lives of Americans?  Billions spent on helping the needy, or billions spent on one more aircraft carrier.  The answer seems clear.

The billions went to paying the salaries of the tens of thousands of people directly, or indirectly employed by the construction of that thing.  Who then turned around and spent that money on various goods and services, helping keep thousands more working.

It doesn't just vanish into a black hole.


This is, without a doubt, the worst possible argument for military spending. You could pay people to dig holes, fill them with money, and cover them over, and it would make better economic sense than spending money on unnecessary military forces and equipment.

It's also the weirdest possible argument for anybody on the Right to make. Any Republican who seriously believes in their party's economic theories should argue that returning that money to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts would cause them to turn around and spend that money etc. etc. to create more jobs and economic activity than having the government spend it on something intrinsically wasteful could ever do. That's pretty much an axiom of conservative economic theory.

On a more serious note: it is readily demonstrable that if your justification for taxing and spending is the promotion of economic activity, almost anything else the government spends money on -- healthcare, education, transportation infrastructure, you name it -- produces a better economic return than military spending, for the simple reason that not only do you get to inject money into the economy, you also get the benefit of the thing you bought with it (unlike, say, buying yet another aircraft carrier). Almost everything is more multiplicative than military spending.
 
2013-10-17 11:28:08 PM  
cache.desktopnexus.com

That boat is of adequate size.
 
2013-10-17 11:28:21 PM  

Mugato: And who exactly are we at war with that we need all this shiat?


As Eisenhower said - you cannot improvise a defense. You're forced to maintain a necessary and vast military-industrial complex.

So really, you're asking why we need this fire extinguisher when there's no fire.
 
2013-10-17 11:29:22 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Why do you think we created AFRICOM?


*snicker*

Because it was just too difficult NOT to.

/Sadly, rather close to the truth.
 
2013-10-17 11:29:43 PM  

Sgt Otter: TheOnion: This is more valuable than feeding and educating children, helping the homeless, and research into cancer and other diseases.  What's more likely to improve the lives of Americans?  Billions spent on helping the needy, or billions spent on one more aircraft carrier.  The answer seems clear.

The billions went to paying the salaries of the tens of thousands of people directly, or indirectly employed by the construction of that thing.  Who then turned around and spent that money on various goods and services, helping keep thousands more working.

It doesn't just vanish into a black hole.


While that argument is true, it's also true of the F-35 and the 200 Abrams tanks nobody wants. I'd much prefer that money be spent on fixing the tens of thousands of deficient bridges in this country. That way the money is spet spurring local economies and we get a domestic good.
 
2013-10-17 11:31:35 PM  

nmrsnr: [cache.desktopnexus.com image 450x194]

That boat is of adequate size.


Boat goes in the water, planes go on the boat. Sub's in the water. Our sub.

Farewell and adieu to you, fair Spanish ladies. Farewell and adieu, you ladies of Spain. For we've received orders for to sail back to Boston. And so nevermore shall we see you again.
 
2013-10-17 11:31:47 PM  

Sgt Otter: Ramstein Air Base is a great hub


I do not want it closed. There are a lot of armchair generals here who think we can close everything. Ramstein is crucial to any foreign op, considering our AO.

That is why I pointed out how many soldiers who are alive because of it.

We have cuts to make, but we have to be smart about it. If we cut Ramstein, that would be asinine. We would, literally, be killing people.

We can make cuts, though I do agree with you on jobs for building the new carriers. I just want less carrier groups. We do not need 11-13 of them. Pay the money to upgrade, but try 75% of those groups. But, keep funding for R&D and building the next gen fighter and carrier and cruiser... just don't purchase until the fleet shows it's age...

Fund innovation but don't pull the trigger unless we really need to upgrade or other things happen.
 
Displayed 50 of 183 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report