FACT CHECK: Romney claim about size of Navy is WRONG.

[Steelplate]

US Ship Force Levels

In 1916 the Navy had 245 ships. As of today we have 287 ships.

That is that.

I posted from that exact site in Sarah Gs thread last night.


he said-


"Our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917"......



here ya go-

U.S.Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1917-1923

Date 4/6/17 11/11/18 7/1/19 7/1/20 7/1/21 7/1/22 7/1/23
Battleship 37 39 36 26 22 19 18
Monitors, Coastal 7 7 5 1 2@ - -
Carriers, Fleet - - - - - - -
Carriers, Escort - - - - - - -
Cruisers 33 31 28 27 10 12 13
Destroyers 66 110 161 189 68 (208rc ) 103 103
Frigates 17 17 - - - - -
Submarines 44 80 91 58 69 (11rc) 82 (7rc) 69 (5rc)
Mine Warfare - 53 62 48 50 (8rc) 36 38
Patrol 42 350 65 45 59 (1rc) 43 41
Auxiliary 96 87 304 173 104 83 82
Surface Warships 160 204 230 243 102 134 134
Total Active 342 774 752 567 384 (228rc) 379 (7rc) 365 (5r


not only did you burn yourself but you let PolitiHack do it to you. Pants on Fire? They are garbage, period.


I posted a thread today on being wary of Politihack sites, right left or center...do your own reading and do you own research .

yeah...but that was a lie....and his boys only had to research back to 2007 to correct it. I think he was being purposefully misleading for the WOW effect. But like he said..."we aren't going to let fact checkers run our campaign".

 

[Steelplate]

Who cares how many ships we have when 22% of them are broken as of July? LINK: More Than a Fifth of Navy Ships Aren't Ready to Fight | Danger Room | Wired.com

and this is all Obama's fault? I suggest you read your own link. First off, the date of the article is July 13......2011.

Next...go down to the 6th paragraph....here, I'll paste it....

Philip Ewing of DoD Buzz contends that today’s Navy is paying the bill for short-sighted Pentagon decisions in the late ’90s and early 2000s. As someone who documented “systemic, service-wide problems with preventive maintenance” at emerged at the end of the last decade, Ewing writes that the Navy cut back on maintenance crews, used computer programs instead of skilled chiefs for maintenance instruction, and “simple budget cuts meant ships didn’t get the regular maintenance or spare parts they needed.

To be fair...in the next paragrapgh....It mentions budget cuts $400 Billion......over 12 years...that's $30B/year for the mathematically challenged.

But then again....there are links available in these threads(mine is right above these posts) that show under this administration...20 ships are being commissioned as we speak....and an additional 10 slated to go into next year's budget....including a new Super-Carrier, the USS John F. Kennedy.

 

[Trajan]

Who cares how many ships we have when 22% of them are broken as of July? LINK: More Than a Fifth of Navy Ships Aren't Ready to Fight | Danger Room | Wired.com

and this is all Obama's fault? I suggest you read your own link. First off, the date of the article is July 13......2011.

Next...go down to the 6th paragraph....here, I'll paste it....

Philip Ewing of DoD Buzz contends that today’s Navy is paying the bill for short-sighted Pentagon decisions in the late ’90s and early 2000s. As someone who documented “systemic, service-wide problems with preventive maintenance” at emerged at the end of the last decade, Ewing writes that the Navy cut back on maintenance crews, used computer programs instead of skilled chiefs for maintenance instruction, and “simple budget cuts meant ships didn’t get the regular maintenance or spare parts they needed.

To be fair...in the next paragrapgh....It mentions budget cuts $400 Billion......over 12 years...that's $30B/year for the mathematically challenged.

But then again....there are links available in these threads(mine is right above these posts) that show under this administration...20 ships are being commissioned as we speak....and an additional 10 slated to go into next year's budget....including a new Super-Carrier, the USS John F. Kennedy.

The Gerald Ford class super carriers started out at 5, then 4 now 3, maybe, which will probably be 2, cvn 79 and 80, which they appear to have settled on. Bush cut one I believe the rest who knows. They cost approx $15 Bn and require need a large upfront cost outlay approx. 3 Bn to even start work.

11 carrier battle grps, each consist of approx. 9-15 ships depending on where and how long they plan to deploy. thats over 100 ships right there, then theres submarines, of which we have approx. 70, then add submarine tenders, logistical ships, etc.

600 is crazy, I would say 350-400 total is probably the optimal number.

And thats IF you think that 11 grps are enough, approx half or more of those are at sea on station, the rest in transit to or from port, undergoing refit, R&R etc.

 

[Warrior102]

Fact check this

Obama is a miserable failure

 

[ABikerSailor]

Who cares how many ships we have when 22% of them are broken as of July? LINK: More Than a Fifth of Navy Ships Aren't Ready to Fight | Danger Room | Wired.com

You might wanna go to a real Navy website to do your checking, because I've got news for you, ALL ships are on roughly an 18 month cycle, where they deploy for 6 months, do 6 months in repair and upkeep (shipyard/drydock if required), and then spend the next 6 months doing week long deployments for training every couple of weeks to get ready, and then deploying for another 6 months?

Sorry.............but your hack link is screwed.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Who cares how many ships we have when 22% of them are broken as of July? LINK: More Than a Fifth of Navy Ships Aren't Ready to Fight | Danger Room | Wired.com

and this is all Obama's fault? I suggest you read your own link. First off, the date of the article is July 13......2011.

Next...go down to the 6th paragraph....here, I'll paste it....

Philip Ewing of DoD Buzz contends that today’s Navy is paying the bill for short-sighted Pentagon decisions in the late ’90s and early 2000s. As someone who documented “systemic, service-wide problems with preventive maintenance” at emerged at the end of the last decade, Ewing writes that the Navy cut back on maintenance crews, used computer programs instead of skilled chiefs for maintenance instruction, and “simple budget cuts meant ships didn’t get the regular maintenance or spare parts they needed.

To be fair...in the next paragrapgh....It mentions budget cuts $400 Billion......over 12 years...that's $30B/year for the mathematically challenged.

But then again....there are links available in these threads(mine is right above these posts) that show under this administration...20 ships are being commissioned as we speak....and an additional 10 slated to go into next year's budget....including a new Super-Carrier, the USS John F. Kennedy.

The Gerald Ford class super carriers started out at 5, then 4 now 3, maybe, which will probably be 2, cvn 79 and 80, which they appear to have settled on. Bush cut one I believe the rest who knows. They cost approx $15 Bn and require need a large upfront cost outlay approx. 3 Bn to even start work.

11 carrier battle grps, each consist of approx. 9-15 ships depending on where and how long they plan to deploy. thats over 100 ships right there, then theres submarines, of which we have approx. 70, then add submarine tenders, logistical ships, etc.

600 is crazy, I would say 350-400 total is probably the optimal number.

And thats IF you think that 11 grps are enough, approx half or more of those are at sea on station, the rest in transit to or from port, undergoing refit, R&R etc.

You know............I remember when Reagan wanted to build a 500 ship Navy. One of the problems we had was that there weren't enough PEOPLE to run the ships they wanted to build, so it resulted in standards for enlistment being lowered. Telling someone they were part of Reagan's 500 ship Navy was like saying they were idiots and lowlifes.

I also remember the aftermath......some ships were deploying out on 6 month cruises and they were only 85 percent manned, resulting in extra watches for the entire ship.

Nope..............I think around 320 is a good number.

 

[Amelia]

Romney raised an important issue. Did Obama have a satisfactory answer at his disposal or not? All we got from him was snark. If he had a real answer, why didn't he share it with us?

 

[del]

the navy, like any federal bureaucracy, will always want more, and will always justify more.

that's not the same as needing more.

 

[del]

Romney raised an important issue. Did Obama have a satisfactory answer at his disposal or not? All we got from him was snark. If he had a real answer, why didn't he share it with us?

romney's point is what, exactly?

our navy is smaller than it was in 1917 and so.....what?

it's a meaningless stat meant to draw in rubes.

seems to be working, too.

 

[Uncensored2008]

the navy, like any federal bureaucracy, will always want more, and will always justify more.

that's not the same as needing more.

That would be a valid point, IF Obama were going to use the savings to reduce the deficit. But expanding the Foodstamp program seems a lousy alternative to defense expenditures.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1nv8G6UFfc]Food Stamp Commercial - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Valerie]

Romney raised an important issue. Did Obama have a satisfactory answer at his disposal or not? All we got from him was snark. If he had a real answer, why didn't he share it with us?

His answer was that it's not just about memorizing the number of vessels then and now as if our military budget is a game of battleship, and he reaffirmed that our strength is more about our military capability, so that horses and bayonet statement was just a logical extension of our technological advances...

 

[Amelia]

Romney raised an important issue. Did Obama have a satisfactory answer at his disposal or not? All we got from him was snark. If he had a real answer, why didn't he share it with us?

romney's point is what, exactly?

our navy is smaller than it was in 1917 and so.....what?

it's a meaningless stat meant to draw in rubes.

seems to be working, too.

The point is that Obama doesn't listen to his commanders. They know his tendency to want less force not more, so they lowball what they need to try to give him something in keeping with his vision. And then he gives them even less than their lowball figure.

Hopefully Romney will pay more attention to what the military commanders say they need. I think he will.

 

[Amelia]

Romney raised an important issue. Did Obama have a satisfactory answer at his disposal or not? All we got from him was snark. If he had a real answer, why didn't he share it with us?

His answer was that it's not just about memorizing the number of vessels then and now as if our military budget is a game of battleship, and he reaffirmed that our strength is more about our military capability, so that horses and bayonet statement was just a logical extension of our technological advances...

He dodged the issue of our capacity currently being less than what our naval leaders say it needs to be, and on the brink of being cut even further.


Some of us are concerned about that. Not just for political reasons. Really concerned. And instead of the sober answer the question of naval strength deserves we got Obama mocking Romney about submarines being ships that go under water.

 

[Valerie]

Here's our military budget going back to 1946.

U.S. Military Spending, 1946–2009 — Infoplease.com





2010 - $683.7 Billion

Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





The president's 2013 budget requests $728 Billion in military spending

Trends in U.S. Military Spending - Council on Foreign Relations

 

[del]

the navy, like any federal bureaucracy, will always want more, and will always justify more.

that's not the same as needing more.

That would be a valid point, IF Obama were going to use the savings to reduce the deficit. But expanding the Foodstamp program seems a lousy alternative to defense expenditures.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1nv8G6UFfc]Food Stamp Commercial - YouTube[/ame]

yeah, feeding people is a terrible idea.

we should expand the military while cutting taxes

when you think really hard, do you smell wood smoke?

 

[del]

Romney raised an important issue. Did Obama have a satisfactory answer at his disposal or not? All we got from him was snark. If he had a real answer, why didn't he share it with us?

romney's point is what, exactly?

our navy is smaller than it was in 1917 and so.....what?

it's a meaningless stat meant to draw in rubes.

seems to be working, too.

The point is that Obama doesn't listen to his commanders. They know his tendency to want less force not more, so they lowball what they need to try to give him something in keeping with his vision. And then he gives them even less than their lowball figure.

Hopefully Romney will pay more attention to what the military commanders say they need. I think he will.

and you know all this, how, exactly?

try harder.

even for you, this is some seriously weak bullshit

 

[Salt Jones]

Romney raised an important issue. Did Obama have a satisfactory answer at his disposal or not? All we got from him was snark. If he had a real answer, why didn't he share it with us?

His answer was that it's not just about memorizing the number of vessels then and now as if our military budget is a game of battleship, and he reaffirmed that our strength is more about our military capability, so that horses and bayonet statement was just a logical extension of our technological advances...

He dodged the issue of our capacity currently being less than what our naval leaders say it needs to be, and on the brink of being cut even further.


Some of us are concerned about that. Not just for political reasons. Really concerned. And instead of the sober answer the question of naval strength deserves we got Obama mocking Romney about submarines being ships that go under water.

Really? I spent 20 years in the Navy. How many did you spend? Know what happens each year around the second week of September? Commanders in the Navy buy furniture, tools, supplies, etc: even though their commands don't need them, because they want to spent unused money before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30th.

Why?

Because any money unspent means next year's funding will decrease.

 

[Amelia]

romney's point is what, exactly?

our navy is smaller than it was in 1917 and so.....what?

it's a meaningless stat meant to draw in rubes.

seems to be working, too.

The point is that Obama doesn't listen to his commanders. They know his tendency to want less force not more, so they lowball what they need to try to give him something in keeping with his vision. And then he gives them even less than their lowball figure.

Hopefully Romney will pay more attention to what the military commanders say they need. I think he will.

and you know all this, how, exactly?

try harder.

even for you, this is some seriously weak bullshit

I've been paying attention to his military force decisions since the Afghanistan surge. That's how I know.

 

[Steelplate]

The point is that Obama doesn't listen to his commanders. They know his tendency to want less force not more, so they lowball what they need to try to give him something in keeping with his vision. And then he gives them even less than their lowball figure.

Hopefully Romney will pay more attention to what the military commanders say they need. I think he will.

and you know all this, how, exactly?

try harder.

even for you, this is some seriously weak bullshit

I've been paying attention to his military force decisions since the Afghanistan surge. That's how I know.

and? You have access to these discussions between Obama and the Joint Chiefs? Do tell....

 

[Amelia]

and you know all this, how, exactly?

try harder.

even for you, this is some seriously weak bullshit

I've been paying attention to his military force decisions since the Afghanistan surge. That's how I know.

and? You have access to these discussions between Obama and the Joint Chiefs? Do tell....

With regard to the surge, it was public knowledge how many troops the commanders asked for. Some of the rationale behind the request was published. And Obama gave them less than requested.