Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 53
Thanks Tree24Thanks

Thread: How much is enough?

  1. #1
    Master political analyst Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    10,804
    Thanks
    5044

    From
    The formerly great golden state

    How much is enough?


    How many aircraft carriers does the US have?
    The U.S. Navy operates 19 ships that could be called aircraft carriers, but only considers 10 to be actual carriers. Last week the U.S. Navy accepted USS America, first of the America-class amphibious assault ships, into service.Apr 16, 2014
    The Ford is the lead ship of new class of aircraft carriers, the first new variant since the Nimitz-class was introduced in 1975. Construction began on theFord in 2005 and the ship was christened in 2013. As it currently stands the carrier will be the most expensive warship the United States has ever built.Jul 22, 2017

    America's New $13 Billion Aircraft Carrier Is Still Far From Ready
    https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/am...-still-far-179...
    Meanwhile:

    Russia's Only Aircraft Carrier Is Doomed

    Russia’s only aircraft carrier, the aging Admiral Kuznetsov, is in big trouble.

    This week, a Russian-language report in Interfax disclosed that Russia has cut in half funding for repairing and modernization its aircraft carrier. “Instead of [the] previously planned approximately 50 billion rubles [$867 million] for the work, it is planned to allocate about half of the previously announced amount,” Interfaxreported, citing a source “familiar” with the situation.
    China has launched a new aircraft carrier in the latest sign of its growing military strength.
    It is the country's second aircraft carrier, after the Liaoning, and the first to be made domestically.
    The as-yet unnamed ship was transferred into the water in the north-eastern port of Dalian, state media said. It will reportedly be operational by 2020.
    It comes amid heated rhetoric between the US and North Korea and ongoing tensions in the South China Sea.
    source

    and yet we hear of how the military has been depleted under Democratic rule....

    How many aircraft carriers do we need, when China has two and Russia is about to have none at all?

    Just wondering, just like I wonder whether we really need to spend so much on the military. What do you think?

  2. #2
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    66,316
    Thanks
    31449

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Meanwhile:





    source

    and yet we hear of how the military has been depleted under Democratic rule....

    How many aircraft carriers do we need, when China has two and Russia is about to have none at all?

    Just wondering, just like I wonder whether we really need to spend so much on the military. What do you think?
    Aircraft carriers are used to project military power far from your own borders.
    Do we NEED them to protect our own country? I'd say no, we don't need that many.
    Thanks from EnigmaO01 and Friday13

  3. #3
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    23,285
    Thanks
    4463

    England is just finishing up on their new high dollar carrier. With our fancy new carriers we need aircraft that work. I hope the new F 35C works. That plane is mega expensive and it's capabilities are
    questionable. Hornets will still be around awhile. With all the anti ship missiles out there and torpedoes , carriers are a high value risk.
    Thanks from EnigmaO01

  4. #4
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    66,316
    Thanks
    31449

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by THOR View Post
    England is just finishing up on their new high dollar carrier. With our fancy new carriers we need aircraft that work. I hope the new F 35C works. That plane is mega expensive and it's capabilities are
    questionable. Hornets will still be around awhile. With all the anti ship missiles out there and torpedoes , carriers are a high value risk.
    Because of anti-ship missile technology the large aircraft carrier will probably go the way of the battleship in the not too far distance.
    Maybe we should be putting that money into land based military planes with vastly increased ranges over carrier based plans.
    Thanks from EnigmaO01 and Friday13

  5. #5
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    60,673
    Thanks
    11093

    From
    By the wall
    We need enough carriers to ensure we can dominate in a fight.

    Why have just enough where it would be an even fight and we may lose?

    And our military spending is a drop in the bucket compared to entitlement spending.

    Besides, we see how you guys bitched and moaned about not sending in the military to help PR and now you want to cut them more?

    You can't have them do all these things if we don't have a large enough military to do it.

    The lefties just do not think ahead.

  6. #6
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    60,673
    Thanks
    11093

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    Because of anti-ship missile technology the large aircraft carrier will probably go the way of the battleship in the not too far distance.
    Maybe we should be putting that money into land based military planes with vastly increased ranges over carrier based plans.
    That would require more bases and far more planes to be stationed all over the world.

    Plus you would need a helluva lot more tankers than we currently have.

  7. #7
    Veteran Member Micro Machines Champion, Race Against Time Champion Tedminator's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    23,214
    Thanks
    13129

    From
    South Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Meanwhile:





    source

    and yet we hear of how the military has been depleted under Democratic rule....

    How many aircraft carriers do we need, when China has two and Russia is about to have none at all?

    Just wondering, just like I wonder whether we really need to spend so much on the military. What do you think?
    I'd say... 10 super carriers is plenty.
    Thanks from Friday13 and EnigmaO01

  8. #8
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    23,285
    Thanks
    4463

    Quote Originally Posted by Tedminator View Post
    I'd say... 10 super carriers is plenty.
    and stay out of other people's business. That Ford carrier is around 13 billion then you have to put planes on it that add another billion. F35's a couple billion. This war stuff gets expensive.

    F 35c = 122 million until the next price change.
    Thanks from EnigmaO01 and Tedminator

  9. #9
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    66,316
    Thanks
    31449

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    We need enough carriers to ensure we can dominate in a fight.

    Why have just enough where it would be an even fight and we may lose?

    And our military spending is a drop in the bucket compared to entitlement spending.

    Besides, we see how you guys bitched and moaned about not sending in the military to help PR and now you want to cut them more?

    You can't have them do all these things if we don't have a large enough military to do it.

    The lefties just do not think ahead.
    We already have plenty. Our carrier fleet more than equals the numbers of carriers in possession of ALL the fleets of ALL the countries in the world, friendly ones as well as potential enemies.

    What do aircraft carriers have to do with shipping relief supplies? They are not cargo ships.
    You don't seem to think at all.
    Thanks from OldGaffer and EnigmaO01

  10. #10
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    66,316
    Thanks
    31449

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    That would require more bases and far more planes to be stationed all over the world.

    Plus you would need a helluva lot more tankers than we currently have.
    It's called the DEFENSE Department. *shrug*
    We already have tons of military bases all over the world.
    Thanks from EnigmaO01 and Dittohead not!

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Facebook Twitter RSS Feed