• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can You Answer These Questions? (1 Viewer)

a777pilot said:
Great question! I would think that we ought to be protecting OUR borders.

I am a true believer in Naval power. CBG's (Carrier Battle Groups) lessen the need for ground bases to protect vital national interests. I would think you would agree that we, the USA, needs to reduce our ground footprint around the world.
Click to expand...

So 6 sitting duck, multi-billion $ carriers aren't enough, instead of 12, right?
 
TheHammer said:
Being a Navy vet myself, I have to wonder about what I’m seeing from the Trump agenda concerning a rebuild of the military.


I’ve ask this question several times in the past without any satisfactory answers coming from anyone on a political forum, old Navy vet friends, or letters to my congress critters. Why does America have and keep consistently in commission 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers and sometimes just 10 in commission and now Trump is calling for a 12 nuclear carrier Navy and a whole new class of nuke carriers?


As far as I can determine, the rest of the world combined only has 2 nuclear powered aircraft carriers, one in China and France has one. Why the American overkill?


Why aren’t the multi-billion dollar nuclear carriers simply sitting ducks in a world of highly technological weaponry?


As far as I know, it takes at least a dozen other ships just to protect the carrier and it takes over 2000 crew mwmbers for a single carrier.


What in hell is “conservative” about a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers?
Click to expand...

Those carriers including all the water purification capability, well equipped hospitals, etc. have been invaluable in relief efforts around the world. And because they can be positioned widely apart and do have heavy protection, they are not so easily pinpointed and taken out, most especially when they are widely deployed.

Trump's concept of a military so strong and so powerful that nobody will dare mess with us is not a foreign concept nor does it chart new waters. Peace through strength. I can't fault the concept.
 
a777pilot said:
State by State: The Cost of Illegal Immigration Infographics – Dr. Rich Swier
Click to expand...

the Nimitz class carriers the US operates cost about 4.5 billion each

That does not include the air wing (65-75 aircraft and related support equipment and parts), which would add another few billion.

So far we have only paid for the hardware. Fortunately the fuel is not a recurring cost. but we have 3200 men to feed and house. An aircraft carrier is a complex machine with a lot of wear and tear, generally in peacetime use the ships spend half their time on patrol and half their time in port. So for the money we really get only fifty percent availability. https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-it-cost-to-build-and-to-maintain-one-aircraft-carrier
 
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-United-States-only-have-11-aircraft-carriers

Aircraft carriers provide four-and-a-half acres of survivable,sovereign U.S. territory wherever they deploy. They represent a unique warfare capability that can quickly arrive at a trouble spot and provide robust, and sustainable combat air power. The modern air wing can provide credible combat capacity with 80-125 air dominance, strike, electronic warfare and surveillance combat missions each day. Carriers are both responsive and capable of immediate action as they enable our nation to project power worldwide from the sea without dependence on other governments or local bases. By relying on aircraft carriers our country avoids the huge investment required to establish and maintain bases and infrastructure ashore in a foreign country. So there’s no question our nation needs its aircraft carriers- so the next question is why do we need 11? The combatant commanders request aircraft carrier presence the same way they request ground troops or aircraft deployments. Their staffs analyze the current environment and decide what forces they require to maintain peace, or if necessary, conduct combat operations. While wartime capacity and routine operational presence are very important they are not the only factors defining the need for 11 aircraft carriers. Maintenance required for the ship, and the training required to keep the crew combat ready are also essential considerations that have been studied and refined over the history of aircraft carrier operations.
Click to expand...

The best way to demonstrate why we need 11 aircraft carriers is to look at a recent typical day in the Navy. On that day, two carriers were deployed to the Middle East. Another carrier was under way to relieve one of those deployed carriers. Two carriers were underway near the coast of the United States conducting training. One carrier had just returned from deployment and was in a post-cruise stand-down period. Two were in-port for light maintenance and were conducting shore-based training events. Two were in various stages of a heavy maintenance period, and one was in a Refueling Complex Over-Haul (RCOH) period. So let’s add it up -- two deployed, one on its way, two underway for training, one in post deployment stand-down, two in-port for light maintenance/training, two in heavy maintenance and one in RCOH equals 11 total aircraft carriers. While on any given day these numbers may be somewhat different, the fact remains that the aircraft carrier fleet is kept busy with operational requirements, training and maintenance.
Click to expand...
 
TheHammer said:
So name the existing country today that has such capability. There are none. So why the 12 nuclear powered aircraft carrier muscle flex? We're looking at and talking about insane OVERKILL here not to mention the whopping debt we're running up. It's nuts!
Click to expand...

Here is a list of countries, today, that have the capability to destroy America with nuke weapons.

Russia
China
Israel
France
United Kingdom
North Korea

And very soon, if not already, thanks to obama, Iran.
 
I wonder if Trump knows how long The USS Gerald R. Ford has been sitting there and how much it cost?
 
There is also the age old response:

"I'd rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it."
 
AlbqOwl said:
Those carriers including all the water purification capability, well equipped hospitals, etc. have been invaluable in relief efforts around the world. And because they can be positioned widely apart and do have heavy protection, they are not so easily pinpointed and taken out, most especially when they are widely deployed.

Trump's concept of a military so strong and so powerful that nobody will dare mess with us is not a foreign concept nor does it chart new waters. Peace through strength. I can't fault the concept.
Click to expand...

Who's willing to mess with the US now militarily? 6 carriers won't do the job, right?

I can see the Russians and Chinese laughing now!

When will the national debt start messing with us?

the Nimitz class carriers the US operates cost about 4.5 billion each

That does not include the air wing (65-75 aircraft and related support equipment and parts), which would add another few billion.

So far we have only paid for the hardware. Fortunately the fuel is not a recurring cost. but we have 3200 men to feed and house. An aircraft carrier is a complex machine with a lot of wear and tear, generally in peacetime use the ships spend half their time on patrol and half their time in port. So for the money we really get only fifty percent availability. https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-it-cost-to-build-and-to-maintain-one-aircraft-carrier
 
a777pilot said:
Here is a list of countries, today, that have the capability to destroy America with nuke weapons.

Russia
China
Israel
France
United Kingdom
North Korea

And very soon, if not already, thanks to obama, Iran.
Click to expand...

And WHY would they attempt it? How does 12 nuclear powered aircraft carriers lessen their ability? Have you ever heard of "MAD," mutual assured destruction? We're gonna destroy them BIGGER and MORE expensive than they can destroy us, right?
 
I am actually ok with more carriers if it means closing down more bases overseas. Of course, I don't think that is the plan.
 
azgreg said:
There is also the age old response:

"I'd rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it."
Click to expand...

Does that go for the national debt, a failing infrastructure, crummy public schools and a failed veterans healthcare single payer system too?
 
TheHammer said:
Who's willing to mess with the US now militarily? 6 carriers won't do the job, right?

I can see the Russians and Chinese laughing now!

When will the national debt start messing with us?

the Nimitz class carriers the US operates cost about 4.5 billion each

That does not include the air wing (65-75 aircraft and related support equipment and parts), which would add another few billion.

So far we have only paid for the hardware. Fortunately the fuel is not a recurring cost. but we have 3200 men to feed and house. An aircraft carrier is a complex machine with a lot of wear and tear, generally in peacetime use the ships spend half their time on patrol and half their time in port. So for the money we really get only fifty percent availability. https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-it-cost-to-build-and-to-maintain-one-aircraft-carrier
Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from. But the bigger the club, the less likely the weaker guys are going to be to challenge it and countries like China and Russia etc. would go broke trying to duplicate it. I just can't see a stronger, more powerful military that doesn't stretch itself so thin as a bad thing. And I think deterrence is a lot cheaper than fighting wars that didn't have to happen.
 
BrewerBob said:
I am actually ok with more carriers if it means closing down more bases overseas. Of course, I don't think that is the plan.
Click to expand...

If that's the plan, it's TOP SECRET!
 
AlbqOwl said:
I understand where you are coming from. But the bigger the club, the less likely the weaker guys are going to be to challenge it and countries like China and Russia etc. would go broke trying to duplicate it. I just can't see a stronger, more powerful military that doesn't stretch itself so thin as a bad thing. And I think deterrence is a lot cheaper than fighting wars that didn't have to happen.
Click to expand...

Does that go for the national debt, a failing infrastructure, crummy public schools and a failed veterans healthcare single payer system too?
 
TheHammer said:
With today's technological weaponry, why aren't the massive carriers just sitting ducks for subs and long range missiles?
Click to expand...

CWIS

The Navy can shoot them down.
 
TheHammer said:
Does that go for the national debt, a failing infrastructure, crummy public schools and a failed veterans healthcare single payer system too?
Click to expand...

I'd be fine with spending more money on all those things.
 
Lutherf said:
You may recall a little dustup in the Pacific back in '42 between a few US carrier groups and a few Japanese groups. That win by the US put a dead stop to Japanese expansion in the Pacific and showed, beyond any doubt, the power of a carrier group.

Carriers are the key to being able to prosecute an air campaign across pretty much 80% of the globe. We don't need a friendly ally to let us use their air fields is we have a carrier group or two and that means a lot. That means a WHOLE lot.
Click to expand...

The threats we're facing are quite rather different. The countries we see as legitimate rivals to reckon with do not want a hot war with us nor us with them (China, Russia, etc); the cost in blood and treasure would vastly outweigh any conceivable benefit of victory and everybody knows it. The threats we do face seem to be largely made up of terrorism, cyber attacks, and economic shenanigans. Building extra carriers doesn't really help with any of those, unless we're hoping to ignite an arms race big enough to bankrupt one of our rivals. (But again, to what end?).

Besides, if you're going to cite WWII as an example, you cannot overlook just how quickly we managed to build up. Can we really afford to be on a war footing all the time?




Meanwhile, one of the things Trump is actually right about is that we need massive infrastructure investment. We needed it 10, 20 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom