HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » $12.3 Billion per aircraf...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 05:56 PM

$12.3 Billion per aircraft carrier

The U.S. Navy is betting $42 billion on a new class of aircraft carriers, the world’s biggest and costliest warships ever, even as the Pentagon budget shrinks and China and Iran arm themselves with weapons to disable or destroy the behemoths.

The Navy says the new carriers -- rising 20 stories above the water, 1,092 feet (333 meters) long, moving at 30 knots (35 miles per hour) with almost 5,000 Americans on board -- can project U.S. power around the globe.

“A carrier is 4 1/2 acres of sovereign U.S. territory,” Captain Bruce Hay, a Navy pilot who helps set requirements for the new carrier, said in an interview. “An aircraft carrier is a piece of America, and we’re going to do what it takes to keep them relevant because a carrier is presence and American resolve all at one time.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-19/u-s-navy-bets-42-billion-on-carriers-in-china-s-sights.html

For the price of one of those, the US could build 61 commercial cargo ships to show the flag in 61 places around the world at the same time. And the cargo ships would pay for themselves instead of continually costing money. But that's moot since most of the cargo between the US and the rest of the world is shipped on non-US ships.

These carriers are the cure for which there is no disease. What we spend on defense has no basis in reality. The return on investment that we get here is that it keeps sucking up more.

7 replies, 1172 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply $12.3 Billion per aircraft carrier (Original post)
Turbineguy Jun 2012 OP
Indydem Jun 2012 #1
ChairmanAgnostic Jun 2012 #2
sarisataka Jun 2012 #5
apocalypsehow Jun 2012 #3
Ghost of Huey Long Jun 2012 #7
Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #4
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2012 #6

Response to Turbineguy (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:18 PM

1. GOP argument:

We are spending 431 billion in welfare this fiscal year for people to sit on their dead asses.

At least ACC are built in America by Americans, doing real jobs. Many of which are union members.

When the US spends absolutely nothing on welfare, the GOP will submit to defense spending cuts. Not before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turbineguy (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:19 PM

2. a floating Maginot Line.

this technology is 60 fucking years old.

The exocet missile proved that relying on "tried and true" methods, only updated, is a trip into major league disaster.

Some of our experimental drones are invisible to radar, and pretty damn hard to see optically. Do we REALLY think that we are the only ones doing that? One well directed missile and BOOM, no more control of the 4.5 acre target. The Chinese were actually ahead of us in deploying super-super sonic cruise missiles. (you don't hear much about it because we really don't have a defense to it) The only good news is that its targetting system needs work. But, now that the Chinese are putting manned space craft into orbit and locking up with artificial moons, how can we dismiss their ability to fix their targetting issues?

Reagan loved big boats, too, and wasted billions putting fucking battleships back into service. Why? probably because of a movie he watched. But that kind of nonthinking is precisely what guides today's republicans, and therefore, a lot of our defense policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChairmanAgnostic (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:48 PM

5. old but works

A carrier group is still the best power projection force out there. Submarines are near as good, but their lack of visibility offsets that to an certain degree.

As far as launching an attack at a carrier, remember they never go anywhere alone. A group of dedicated anti-aircraft/missile/submarine ships will be providing escort. Any missile must get through those ships, the carrier's aircraft and its own defense systems just to get a hit. A carrier is large enough to shake off many smaller missiles, the most likely to pass through the defenses, and still be operational.
As for supersonic cruise missiles, the SeaRAM system looks pretty effective. Guidance is a major issue, it is easy to match up with a moving target when you know where it is, how fast it is going and that it does not change course. totally different to hit something that is actively trying not to be hit.

Having said all of that, in a battle between one Nimitz-class battle group and the entire Chinese navy, I would strongly consider betting on the carrier. No other navy approaches the raw firepower such a group can put out. We have eleven, I believe. $42 billion would keep them floating and operational for a very long time. There is not much point in creating an entirely new class until some other country gets even one full-sized carrier operational or develops a weapon system that is a viable threat to the existing carriers, short of nuclear weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turbineguy (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:22 PM

3. A vast waste of money while 1 in 5 children will go to bed tonight hungry in America.

USA! USA! USA!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:57 PM

7. yes, and Republicans want to cut food stamps some more

 

Republicans want food stamps cut by $2 billion a year
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002830093

This is nothing compared to their spending on the pentagon, is not about the money. They do this because they are sick sadistic selfish bastards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turbineguy (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:25 PM

4. Military spending is a dead-end. The multiplier effects are anemic compared to almost

 

any other spending. IOW it is a sinkhole that returns little, and that is short lived.

The economy benefits more from even direct payments to citizens than it does from military spending. Investing in infrastructure has the greatest returns. Our bloated military is driving us to bankruptcy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turbineguy (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:53 PM

6. You'd think with all that money available, somebody could come up with something useful.

Not to mention beneficial to humanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread