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

[Trajan]

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.

I was in then and remember hearing that thru the service grapevine. I don't have a real problem with 320, let's split the difference, say 340, as I draw the line at 11 Carr. batt. Grps. I actually would prefer 12, but those days appear to be over.

 

[Steelplate]

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.

So....you use one incident......and apply it across the board? OK.....Romney's Company sent jobs to overseas......so....by your rationale. he will send all of our jobs to China and other countries turning most of the 400 million of our population into peasants slaving away in the world's largest Banana Republic.

 

[Amelia]

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.

So....you use one incident......and apply it across the board? OK.....Romney's Company sent jobs to overseas......so....by your rationale. he will send all of our jobs to China and other countries turning most of the 400 million of our population into peasants slaving away in the world's largest Banana Republic.

My assessment is not based on only one instance. My observations started with that and have been reinforced since then. Reinforced, for example, by Obama drawing down forces in the middle of fighting season, against the commanders' recommendations.


His unwillingness to discuss ship strength being up to recommended levels, resorting instead to a cheap shot during a national debate, is part of a broader pattern which causes concern.

 

[Borillar]

Your wrong he said since 1917 not 1916.
Obama Rips Romney's Navy Expansion Plans: 'We Also Have Fewer Horses and Bayonets' - YouTube
This is true, in 1917 we had 342 ships
Today we have 285 ships. Not 287. They are going down to 200 if the cut backs happen.
The Navy says they need 313 ships.

and as I said in my previous post...in 2007, we had 279 and in '08 we had 282....there are 20 ships that were commissioned two years ago...which is probably why we're up from 282.... and there's an allotment for 10 more in the 2013 budget.....your boy lies.

As far as the budget cutbacks? both sides agreed to the rules of play on that shit. Guess they better work something out.

Now we know you are a liar.

There is no 2013 budget.

The question is this: Did we have fewer ships in 1917 than we do today?

the answer is: yes.

The question is does it matter? Modern warships are far more capable than those of the past. We have a Navy that is big enough and capable enough to do the job. We don't need to throw even more money at the military than they are even asking for.

 

[CMike]

Does baraj Hussein know aircraft carriers and submarines existed before he got elected?

 

[Steelplate]

Does baraj Hussein know aircraft carriers and submarines existed before he got elected?

and out of left field comes......the Narcissist angle!

Give it up....your boy lost last night. Spinning shit only makes your side look the fool.

 

[Steelplate]

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.

So....you use one incident......and apply it across the board? OK.....Romney's Company sent jobs to overseas......so....by your rationale. he will send all of our jobs to China and other countries turning most of the 400 million of our population into peasants slaving away in the world's largest Banana Republic.

My assessment is not based on only one instance. My observations started with that and have been reinforced since then. Reinforced, for example, by Obama drawing down forces in the middle of fighting season, against the commanders' recommendations.


His unwillingness to discuss ship strength being up to recommended levels, resorting instead to a cheap shot during a national debate, is part of a broader pattern which causes concern.

OK....first off...the whole "fighting season" thing.....We have spent years training Afghani troops to provide for their own security....The "drawdown" is part of that transition of returning Afghanistan to it's own governance, as planned. Yes....SOME generals disagreed with this. But at the same time....we've been there for over a decade, spent many hundreds of billions of dollars, lost many American and allied lives....and have a defined plan to get the fuck out of there in two years. You really want an open ended war? We aren't going to change these people....the Soviet Union damn near Bankrupted themselves trying to change them....is that what you want from us? Plus....our continued presence in the country is a source of irritation and anger to many Afghanis....We need to stick to the plan.

285 ships.....plus the 20 that have been commissioned two years ago.....plus the 10 that are approved to be constructed in the 2013 military budget is....how many? According to my calculations? That's 315. Both of those numbers....20 and 10....have links......that I am not going search for the fifth or sixth time today....go ahead...help yourself.

Hint....the 20 are from a company in Wisconsin, I believe.....that one wasn't my research...

 

[Amelia]

So....you use one incident......and apply it across the board? OK.....Romney's Company sent jobs to overseas......so....by your rationale. he will send all of our jobs to China and other countries turning most of the 400 million of our population into peasants slaving away in the world's largest Banana Republic.

My assessment is not based on only one instance. My observations started with that and have been reinforced since then. Reinforced, for example, by Obama drawing down forces in the middle of fighting season, against the commanders' recommendations.


His unwillingness to discuss ship strength being up to recommended levels, resorting instead to a cheap shot during a national debate, is part of a broader pattern which causes concern.

OK....first off...the whole "fighting season" thing.....We have spent years training Afghani troops to provide for their own security....The "drawdown" is part of that transition of returning Afghanistan to it's own governance, as planned. Yes....SOME generals disagreed with this. But at the same time....we've been there for over a decade, spent many hundreds of billions of dollars, lost many American and allied lives....and have a defined plan to get the fuck out of there in two years. You really want an open ended war? We aren't going to change these people....the Soviet Union damn near Bankrupted themselves trying to change them....is that what you want from us? Plus....our continued presence in the country is a source of irritation and anger to many Afghanis....We need to stick to the plan.

285 ships.....plus the 20 that have been commissioned two years ago.....plus the 10 that are approved to be constructed in the 2013 military budget is....how many? According to my calculations? That's 315. Both of those numbers....20 and 10....have links......that I am not going search for the fifth or sixth time today....go ahead...help yourself.

Hint....the 20 are from a company in Wisconsin, I believe.....that one wasn't my research...

Nice of you to give those numbers regarding the ships. Naturally I'll want to follow up on them, and am interested to see if those numbers will be jeopardized by the coming cuts or any other predicted events.

It's too bad Obama didn't give those numbers and instead acted as if Romney's claim was true that we're on track to have even fewer ships than we now have. Instead of contradicting Romney's claim, he snarkily suggested that we'll be just fine with fewer ships than our naval leaders recommended. Wonder why he didn't dispute Romney's projection if we're actually on our way to a larger fleet.

 

[Old Rocks]

How many nations could just one of our nuclear submarines take out? Or a carrier armed with nukes? How many nations have air forces that could stand up to just one of our carrier groups? How much is enough? How much is too much?

The President was far closer to the correct anology when he spoke of bayonets and horses. This is not 1916 or 1917. Just one of our missile frigates could easily defeat that whole navy without the navy of that time every seeing that ship. The fact that you people have to even think twice before seeing the nonsense of Romney's statement is indictive of how out of touch with reality that you truly are.

 

[Erand7899]

I like Obama's response that we have fewer buggies and bayonets too, and that we have these things that carry aircraft - aircraft carriers. We aren't playing "Battleship".

We aren't playing "Battleship", because the Navy no longer has battleships, but we do need cruisers, frigates and destroyers to protect those aircraft carriers. We also need support ships to refuel and resupply those fleet units at sea.

Obama's comments were beneath the dignity of a commander in chief, and were more fitting to be uttered by a sixteen year old or an ignorant adult. However, that appears to be about the mental level of this President. The Chinese are rapidly building a blue water navy, to challenge our navy, and the threat is great enough that our naval assets are being repositioned from the Atlantic to the Pacific to counter that threat.

We need a navy capable of protecting both coasts, and that means more ships.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I like Obama's response that we have fewer buggies and bayonets too, and that we have these things that carry aircraft - aircraft carriers. We aren't playing "Battleship".

We aren't playing "Battleship", because the Navy no longer has battleships, but we do need cruisers, frigates and destroyers to protect those aircraft carriers. We also need support ships to refuel and resupply those fleet units at sea.

Obama's comments were beneath the dignity of a commander in chief, and were more fitting to be uttered by a sixteen year old or an ignorant adult. However, that appears to be about the mental level of this President. The Chinese are rapidly building a blue water navy, to challenge our navy, and the threat is great enough that our naval assets are being repositioned from the Atlantic to the Pacific to counter that threat.

We need a navy capable of protecting both coasts, and that means more ships.

Actually, the Navy has battleships, but they're currently mothballed (as in storage). If we need to bring them back out, we can. I remember a battleship coming around Beruit back in '83 and saw them fire. Impressive ships I have to say.

As far as needing to protect a carrier? I've deployed on carriers, and spent a bit of time in the PRP program (which means I had access to information), and I've got to tell ya...........yes, the Aegis class destroyers can put up a screen, but the main firepower comes from the carrier. And yeah.............they can defend themselves.............ever heard of a CIWS (also known as R2-D2 with a hard-on).

As far as the resupply? We've already contracted that out to civilian outfits. It's called MSC, and yeah...............I worked in it for a couple of years.

By the way................if you think China's navy can challenge ours, I've got some really nice beachfront property to sell you, located straight here in Amarillo.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I like Obama's response that we have fewer buggies and bayonets too, and that we have these things that carry aircraft - aircraft carriers. We aren't playing "Battleship".

We aren't playing "Battleship", because the Navy no longer has battleships, but we do need cruisers, frigates and destroyers to protect those aircraft carriers. We also need support ships to refuel and resupply those fleet units at sea.

Obama's comments were beneath the dignity of a commander in chief, and were more fitting to be uttered by a sixteen year old or an ignorant adult. However, that appears to be about the mental level of this President. The Chinese are rapidly building a blue water navy, to challenge our navy, and the threat is great enough that our naval assets are being repositioned from the Atlantic to the Pacific to counter that threat.

We need a navy capable of protecting both coasts, and that means more ships.

Actually, the Navy has battleships, but they're currently mothballed (as in storage). If we need to bring them back out, we can. I remember a battleship coming around Beruit back in '83 and saw them fire. Impressive ships I have to say.

As far as needing to protect a carrier? I've deployed on carriers, and spent a bit of time in the PRP program (which means I had access to information), and I've got to tell ya...........yes, the Aegis class destroyers can put up a screen, but the main firepower comes from the carrier. And yeah.............they can defend themselves.............ever heard of a CIWS (also known as R2-D2 with a hard-on).

As far as the resupply? We've already contracted that out to civilian outfits. It's called MSC, and yeah...............I worked in it for a couple of years.

By the way................if you think China's navy can challenge ours, I've got some really nice beachfront property to sell you, located straight here in Amarillo.

You don't know squat about how an Aegis cruiser works. The carrier has no firepower itself, without the air-wing it is nothing but a target. An Aegis cruiser can coordinate the firepower of every ship in the carrier croup, assign target priorities based on the danger to each individual ship and the position of the ships, and place a defensive envelope around the entire battle group that will stop anything short of a carrier air-wing. CIWS is only effective at close range, hence the name Close In Weapons System.

 

[ABikerSailor]

We aren't playing "Battleship", because the Navy no longer has battleships, but we do need cruisers, frigates and destroyers to protect those aircraft carriers. We also need support ships to refuel and resupply those fleet units at sea.

Obama's comments were beneath the dignity of a commander in chief, and were more fitting to be uttered by a sixteen year old or an ignorant adult. However, that appears to be about the mental level of this President. The Chinese are rapidly building a blue water navy, to challenge our navy, and the threat is great enough that our naval assets are being repositioned from the Atlantic to the Pacific to counter that threat.

We need a navy capable of protecting both coasts, and that means more ships.

Actually, the Navy has battleships, but they're currently mothballed (as in storage). If we need to bring them back out, we can. I remember a battleship coming around Beruit back in '83 and saw them fire. Impressive ships I have to say.

As far as needing to protect a carrier? I've deployed on carriers, and spent a bit of time in the PRP program (which means I had access to information), and I've got to tell ya...........yes, the Aegis class destroyers can put up a screen, but the main firepower comes from the carrier. And yeah.............they can defend themselves.............ever heard of a CIWS (also known as R2-D2 with a hard-on).

As far as the resupply? We've already contracted that out to civilian outfits. It's called MSC, and yeah...............I worked in it for a couple of years.

By the way................if you think China's navy can challenge ours, I've got some really nice beachfront property to sell you, located straight here in Amarillo.

You don't know squat about how an Aegis cruiser works. The carrier has no firepower itself, without the air-wing it is nothing but a target. An Aegis cruiser can coordinate the firepower of every ship in the carrier croup, assign target priorities based on the danger to each individual ship and the position of the ships, and place a defensive envelope around the entire battle group that will stop anything short of a carrier air-wing. CIWS is only effective at close range, hence the name Close In Weapons System.

The alert aircraft might wish to discuss that with you.

So might CIS.

 

[Borillar]

Does baraj Hussein know aircraft carriers and submarines existed before he got elected?

Will the Romney administration demand that Navy aircraft have roll down windows?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Wow, four pages and only one person seems to get it. I consider this a very successful troll. Even more so, that I got both sides of the aisle.

 

[Borillar]

I like Obama's response that we have fewer buggies and bayonets too, and that we have these things that carry aircraft - aircraft carriers. We aren't playing "Battleship".

We aren't playing "Battleship", because the Navy no longer has battleships, but we do need cruisers, frigates and destroyers to protect those aircraft carriers. We also need support ships to refuel and resupply those fleet units at sea.

Obama's comments were beneath the dignity of a commander in chief, and were more fitting to be uttered by a sixteen year old or an ignorant adult. However, that appears to be about the mental level of this President. The Chinese are rapidly building a blue water navy, to challenge our navy, and the threat is great enough that our naval assets are being repositioned from the Atlantic to the Pacific to counter that threat.

We need a navy capable of protecting both coasts, and that means more ships.

We can protect both coasts plus project power in the Pacific, Atlantic, IO, and Med with the Navy we currently have. If we only needed coastal defense, we could do it with a lot less. A few of our attack subs could take out the Chinese Navy. The only other threat is Russia, and their Navy is mostly rusting away at port. They aren't the threat they once were.

 

[FA_Q2]

I am outraged. Today, BECAUSE OF OBAMA, we have the fewest bayonets in the military since 1850…



The reality is that the size of the armed forces is not measured in the number of assets that we have. In WW2, we had FAR more aircraft employed than we have today. Does that mean squat? No.

The comment was meant to highlight the cuts that the military is taking and that it is affecting our military might. It might have been a rather misguided way of highlighting it but it does work in a way. Welcome to the new way we elect presidents where a thought out accusation that included specifics would be wholly ignored (and actually hurt Romney) so instead, we get these one liners that actually bear little truth and even less relevancy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

yeah, feeding people is a terrible idea.

Right, because so many are starving in the streets. I mean, I tripped over at least a dozen dead bodies from those who had perished from starvation during the night...

we should expand the military while cutting taxes

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

On thing is for certain, you'll never know what one smells when they think.

 

[Uncensored2008]

and out of left field comes......the Narcissist angle!

Uh, the guy fucking named his dog with his initials.

Narcissist is putting it lightly.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The comment was meant to highlight the cuts that the military is taking and that it is affecting our military might.

You know, nothing is accomplished by being able to destroy the world 20 times over. After the first time, we won't be around to do it a second time.