US navy christens costly new carrier

[Mr Natural]

A new carrier?

I thought Obama was gutting the military.

Ordered in 2005 years before obammy could cut it.

And by the time it's finished, it'll be obsolete and ready for mothballs.

But in the meantime, it'll be a good public works project.

 

[Meathead]

A new carrier?

I thought Obama was gutting the military.

Ordered in 2005 years before obammy could cut it.

And by the time it's finished, it'll be obsolete and ready for mothballs.

But in the meantime, it'll be a good public works project.

While it is true that some battleships became obsolete by carriers by the time they were commissioned, there is no way that a floating ship capable of delivering aircraft and troops to almost anywhere in the world can be replaced by anything short of Star Trek technology.

 

[Unkotare]

"Life?"

Sorry, but the ship is not alive.

You sailors really need to get a grip on reality: The USS George Washington is a COST that cannot be justified.

Did you ever serve in the Navy? I didn't. If you haven't either then you have no place telling sailors what they need to get a grip on. They have a grip on keeping the country secure for people like you and me. They have a grip on guaranteeing sea lanes that make not only our own economy but the world economy possible. They have a grip on assisting the most vulnerable following natural disasters. They have a grip on peace and security around the world that no other force could possibly gets its hands around and without which we would all be screwed a lot more than you seem to appreciate. Cost? The cost of weakening America militarily while others are busting their asses to get stronger is what a reasonable person would be concerned with. "Life"? Get one.

Speaking of another that needs to get a grip.



Now that you've spouted off, Lets have a look at reality: As long as US citizens paying taxes and voting, then we can offer an opinion about wasteful government spending, as well as the ridiculous notion that every military expenditure is essential. You want to throw more money into wasteful programs sold on "assisting the most vulnerable following natural disasters," then I suggest you begin donating to UNICEF, but leave my money alone.

I asked you a question. Did you ever serve in the Navy?

 

[regent]

I wonder if carriers are already obsolete as was the battleship some years ago.

 

[william the wie]

I wonder if carriers are already obsolete as was the battleship some years ago.

You definitely have company in that opinion. Although most critiques concentrate on the use of manned aircraft rather than drones, RPVs and such. Air power is needed for power projection. But unless you are illegally using access to classified documents then neither of us have access to the data needed to make that call, if it exists at all, which I suspect is not the case.

 

[Politico]

"Life?"

Sorry, but the ship is not alive.

You sailors really need to get a grip on reality: The USS George Washington is a COST that cannot be justified.

Did you ever serve in the Navy? I didn't. If you haven't either then you have no place telling sailors what they need to get a grip on. They have a grip on keeping the country secure for people like you and me. They have a grip on guaranteeing sea lanes that make not only our own economy but the world economy possible. They have a grip on assisting the most vulnerable following natural disasters. They have a grip on peace and security around the world that no other force could possibly gets its hands around and without which we would all be screwed a lot more than you seem to appreciate. Cost? The cost of weakening America militarily while others are busting their asses to get stronger is what a reasonable person would be concerned with. "Life"? Get one.

Speaking of another that needs to get a grip.



Now that you've spouted off, Lets have a look at reality: As long as US citizens paying taxes and voting, then we can offer an opinion about wasteful government spending, as well as the ridiculous notion that every military expenditure is essential. You want to throw more money into wasteful programs sold on "assisting the most vulnerable following natural disasters," then I suggest you begin donating to UNICEF, but leave my money alone.

Speaking of reality. Perhaps you should get a grip. The term life refers to service life.

But if he'd served he would know that. Hope that answers your question unko.

 

[Navy1960]

A product's service life is its expected lifetime, or the acceptable period of use in service. That includes the USS George Washington, I also would suggest any ship never truly comes alive until the sailors and Officers who man her actually bring her to life. Having said that from a a cost standpoint think of it this way. Think of it this way, to refuel and refit the George Washington for another 28 years will cost around 4.7 Billion dollars, the USS John F. Kennedy which has yet to be built will cost the the taxypaers and the Navy right around 15 Billion but by the time she is completed she will be around 20 Billion. So if the goal is cost savings here, to retire a Carrier that has 28 years of service life aka life left in her would be an unwise use of taxpayer money and would be akin to taking half of the 13 Billion it took to build the Washington and throwing it out the window. I did not mention at all the cost in terms of having a service ready CBG ( Carrier Battle Group) available for national defense . There are plenty of things in terms of spending to be upset about when it comes to how the Navy spends its money ( Littoral Combat Ship, F-35) just to name a few, but retiring ships in the middle of their service life and not replacing an aging fleet is not one of them.

 

[Samson]

A product's service life is its expected lifetime, or the acceptable period of use in service. That includes the USS George Washington, I also would suggest any ship never truly comes alive until the sailors and Officers who man her actually bring her to life. Having said that from a a cost standpoint think of it this way. Think of it this way, to refuel and refit the George Washington for another 28 years will cost around 4.7 Billion dollars, the USS John F. Kennedy which has yet to be built will cost the the taxypaers and the Navy right around 15 Billion but by the time she is completed she will be around 20 Billion. So if the goal is cost savings here, to retire a Carrier that has 28 years of service life aka life left in her would be an unwise use of taxpayer money and would be akin to taking half of the 13 Billion it took to build the Washington and throwing it out the window. I did not mention at all the cost in terms of having a service ready CBG ( Carrier Battle Group) available for national defense . There are plenty of things in terms of spending to be upset about when it comes to how the Navy spends its money ( Littoral Combat Ship, F-35) just to name a few, but retiring ships in the middle of their service life and not replacing an aging fleet is not one of them.

Let's split hairs on the semantics of the word "life" rather than saving money.

Typical responses from Wards of the Big Government Spenders.

Scrap BOTH carriers and their operational costs.

 

[Samson]

Did you ever serve in the Navy? I didn't. If you haven't either then you have no place telling sailors what they need to get a grip on. They have a grip on keeping the country secure for people like you and me. They have a grip on guaranteeing sea lanes that make not only our own economy but the world economy possible. They have a grip on assisting the most vulnerable following natural disasters. They have a grip on peace and security around the world that no other force could possibly gets its hands around and without which we would all be screwed a lot more than you seem to appreciate. Cost? The cost of weakening America militarily while others are busting their asses to get stronger is what a reasonable person would be concerned with. "Life"? Get one.

Speaking of another that needs to get a grip.



Now that you've spouted off, Lets have a look at reality: As long as US citizens paying taxes and voting, then we can offer an opinion about wasteful government spending, as well as the ridiculous notion that every military expenditure is essential. You want to throw more money into wasteful programs sold on "assisting the most vulnerable following natural disasters," then I suggest you begin donating to UNICEF, but leave my money alone.

Speaking of reality. Perhaps you should get a grip. The term life refers to service life.

But if he'd served he would know that. Hope that answers your question unko.

So I guess you'll also be donating to UNICEF and get your hands out of my pockets looking for excuses to fund additional government made-work programs?




Nope.

 

[Unkotare]

A product's service life is its expected lifetime, or the acceptable period of use in service. That includes the USS George Washington, I also would suggest any ship never truly comes alive until the sailors and Officers who man her actually bring her to life. Having said that from a a cost standpoint think of it this way. Think of it this way, to refuel and refit the George Washington for another 28 years will cost around 4.7 Billion dollars, the USS John F. Kennedy which has yet to be built will cost the the taxypaers and the Navy right around 15 Billion but by the time she is completed she will be around 20 Billion. So if the goal is cost savings here, to retire a Carrier that has 28 years of service life aka life left in her would be an unwise use of taxpayer money and would be akin to taking half of the 13 Billion it took to build the Washington and throwing it out the window. I did not mention at all the cost in terms of having a service ready CBG ( Carrier Battle Group) available for national defense . There are plenty of things in terms of spending to be upset about when it comes to how the Navy spends its money ( Littoral Combat Ship, F-35) just to name a few, but retiring ships in the middle of their service life and not replacing an aging fleet is not one of them.

Let's split hairs on the semantics of the word "life" rather than saving money...

Yeah, who started splitting those hairs? Oh right, it was YOU!

 

[Politico]

So I guess you'll also be donating to UNICEF and get your hands out of my pockets looking for excuses to fund additional government made-work programs?




Nope.

Seeing as I made no comment on the subject of spending your point again makes no sense. Either way I have no interest in your pockets. And certainly not in Unicef.

 

[Samson]

So I guess you'll also be donating to UNICEF and get your hands out of my pockets looking for excuses to fund additional government made-work programs?




Nope.

Seeing as I made no comment on the subject of spending your point again makes no sense. Either way I have no interest in your pockets. And certainly not in Unicef.

Another typical Federal response: Funding grows on trees, and we can print as much as we need.

 

[Navy1960]

A product's service life is its expected lifetime, or the acceptable period of use in service. That includes the USS George Washington, I also would suggest any ship never truly comes alive until the sailors and Officers who man her actually bring her to life. Having said that from a a cost standpoint think of it this way. Think of it this way, to refuel and refit the George Washington for another 28 years will cost around 4.7 Billion dollars, the USS John F. Kennedy which has yet to be built will cost the the taxypaers and the Navy right around 15 Billion but by the time she is completed she will be around 20 Billion. So if the goal is cost savings here, to retire a Carrier that has 28 years of service life aka life left in her would be an unwise use of taxpayer money and would be akin to taking half of the 13 Billion it took to build the Washington and throwing it out the window. I did not mention at all the cost in terms of having a service ready CBG ( Carrier Battle Group) available for national defense . There are plenty of things in terms of spending to be upset about when it comes to how the Navy spends its money ( Littoral Combat Ship, F-35) just to name a few, but retiring ships in the middle of their service life and not replacing an aging fleet is not one of them.

Let's split hairs on the semantics of the word "life" rather than saving money.

Typical responses from Wards of the Big Government Spenders.

Scrap BOTH carriers and their operational costs.

Well it's good to know, that those like myself and the many men and women in the US Navy and other branches of the service are seen as "Wards of Big Govt. Spenders". If you are really interested in saving money in Defense then you don't have to look far at the hundreds of programs that have gone nowhere, have little if any benefit , and under perform, and simply not wanted by the Military, to rein in spending. Speaking of operating costs, a Nimitiz Class Carrier like the Washington costs the taxpayer around 240M a year in operational costs. So lets look at that for a moment, the cost of a F-35 which I have mentioned is a disaster of a program and you would get no disagreement from me to cut that program, is right around 133M, so to operate the Washington your looking at what it costs to buy 2 F-35's. Even if you added in the operational cost and the cost to refuel the Washington, over 28 years it's still cheaper than building a brand new Carrier and after a refit the ship is as new as she is ever going to get. Frankly the problem with spending in Washington D.C. is not the amount they spend but HOW they spend it and what they spend it on. I'll cite you a few example's, Army, (Future Combat Systems ) money spent 1.5 Billion, result nothing, RH-66 Comanche Helicopter,money spent 7 Billion , result nothing, USMC, VH-71 Presidential Helicopter, money spent 13 billion, result nothing, F-35 Cost Overruns all services, 136 Billion. Finally the US Navys Littoral Combat Ship, which is so bad it has been given the nickname Little Crappy Ships, Cost overruns 37 Billion dollars. Those are just a few programs that DoD has managed in the last several year and flushed the taxpayers money down the tubes. Advocating the retirement of a currently working carrier that has almost 3 decades of service life left in it and buying a brand new one to replace it is just nonsense and an unwise use of taxpayer dollars as well as taking away the ability of the the Navy to perform its mission.

 

[Samson]

Well it's good to know, that those like myself and the many men and women in the US Navy and other branches of the service are seen as "Wards of Big Govt. Spenders". .

I imagine it is quite illuminating to hear opinions other than those from Washington DC and the cocoons surrounding Federal installations where retirees and business owners who survive off Federal contracting dollars chant the daily praise for a bloated military, bleeting for MORE PORK every time someone farts in Syria, or Putin manages to scatch together an army to invade a mud hole, or China builds another ship out of bamboo.

 

[Navy1960]

Well it's good to know, that those like myself and the many men and women in the US Navy and other branches of the service are seen as "Wards of Big Govt. Spenders". .

I imagine it is quite illuminating to hear opinions other than those from Washington DC and the cocoons surrounding Federal installations where retirees and business owners who survive off Federal contracting dollars chant the daily praise for a bloated military, bleeting for MORE PORK every time someone farts in Syria, or Putin manages to scatch together an army to invade a mud hole, or China builds another ship out of bamboo.

I've had the honor of hearing many different opinions on Military Spending other than my own, so to hear that some would regard those that have spent 20 or more years in the service of this nation , often times away from their loved ones at great personal sacrifice , both in terms of physical, mental , and financial well being, and yet ask nothing in return other than what they were promised, as "Wards" or somehow living in a cocoon ,those opinions do not surprise me in the least little bit. In fact, my post does not advocate for rampant Military spending, but rather spending money smartly and in where it is needed, rather than the way it has been for the last 20 years. In that you will find your cost savings and perhaps have a little less animosity for those so called "wards" who defend this nation.

 

[Samson]

Well it's good to know, that those like myself and the many men and women in the US Navy and other branches of the service are seen as "Wards of Big Govt. Spenders". .

I imagine it is quite illuminating to hear opinions other than those from Washington DC and the cocoons surrounding Federal installations where retirees and business owners who survive off Federal contracting dollars chant the daily praise for a bloated military, bleeting for MORE PORK every time someone farts in Syria, or Putin manages to scatch together an army to invade a mud hole, or China builds another ship out of bamboo.

I've had the honor of hearing many different opinions on Military Spending other than my own, so to hear that some would regard those that have spent 20 or more years in the service of this nation , often times away from their loved ones at great personal sacrifice , both in terms of physical, mental , and financial well being, and yet ask nothing in return other than what they were promised, as "Wards" or somehow living in a cocoon ,those opinions do not surprise me in the least little bit. In fact, my post does not advocate for rampant Military spending, but rather spending money smartly and in where it is needed, rather than the way it has been for the last 20 years. In that you will find your cost savings and perhaps have a little less animosity for those so called "wards" who defend this nation.

Every bureaucrat wraps themself in the flag, then claims to be spending smartly.

Then they ask for more funding and claim anyone who won't ante-up is less than patriotic.

Rinse

Wash

Repeat.

 

[Politico]

So I guess you'll also be donating to UNICEF and get your hands out of my pockets looking for excuses to fund additional government made-work programs?




Nope.

Seeing as I made no comment on the subject of spending your point again makes no sense. Either way I have no interest in your pockets. And certainly not in Unicef.

Another typical Federal response: Funding grows on trees, and we can print as much as we need.

Ahh so you are just a troll. You just type shit regardless of what anyone says or even if it's relevant.

 

[Navy1960]

I imagine it is quite illuminating to hear opinions other than those from Washington DC and the cocoons surrounding Federal installations where retirees and business owners who survive off Federal contracting dollars chant the daily praise for a bloated military, bleeting for MORE PORK every time someone farts in Syria, or Putin manages to scatch together an army to invade a mud hole, or China builds another ship out of bamboo.

I've had the honor of hearing many different opinions on Military Spending other than my own, so to hear that some would regard those that have spent 20 or more years in the service of this nation , often times away from their loved ones at great personal sacrifice , both in terms of physical, mental , and financial well being, and yet ask nothing in return other than what they were promised, as "Wards" or somehow living in a cocoon ,those opinions do not surprise me in the least little bit. In fact, my post does not advocate for rampant Military spending, but rather spending money smartly and in where it is needed, rather than the way it has been for the last 20 years. In that you will find your cost savings and perhaps have a little less animosity for those so called "wards" who defend this nation.

Every bureaucrat wraps themself in the flag, then claims to be spending smartly.

Then they ask for more funding and claim anyone who won't ante-up is less than patriotic.

Rinse

Wash

Repeat.

I'll just leave you with this..
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

It is the constitutional duty of Congress to provide and maintain a Navy, so I would suggest to you that if spending money for this nations defense is something you don't wish to happen, then by all means, you can always advocate for amending that part. Again, as mentioned because Congress must under the constitution provide and maintain a Navy then as I suggested , using the taxpayers money in smart way is much better than just spending it on programs that the Military does not want, does not need, or will never use.

 

[Samson]

I've had the honor of hearing many different opinions on Military Spending other than my own, so to hear that some would regard those that have spent 20 or more years in the service of this nation , often times away from their loved ones at great personal sacrifice , both in terms of physical, mental , and financial well being, and yet ask nothing in return other than what they were promised, as "Wards" or somehow living in a cocoon ,those opinions do not surprise me in the least little bit. In fact, my post does not advocate for rampant Military spending, but rather spending money smartly and in where it is needed, rather than the way it has been for the last 20 years. In that you will find your cost savings and perhaps have a little less animosity for those so called "wards" who defend this nation.

Every bureaucrat wraps themself in the flag, then claims to be spending smartly.

Then they ask for more funding and claim anyone who won't ante-up is less than patriotic.

Rinse

Wash

Repeat.

I'll just leave you with this..
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

It is the constitutional duty of Congress to provide and maintain a Navy, so I would suggest to you that if spending money for this nations defense is something you don't wish to happen, then by all means, you can always advocate for amending that part. Again, as mentioned because Congress must under the constitution provide and maintain a Navy then as I suggested , using the taxpayers money in smart way is much better than just spending it on programs that the Military does not want, does not need, or will never use.

"Provide for the Common Defence" include 10 carriers costing billions to build and operate?

Why not 20?

In fact, why not employ every American to Provide for the Common Defence?

I Want My Pork.