View Single Post
  #7   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
Mr. Luddite[_2_] Mr. Luddite[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Sep 2013
Posts: 224
Default What Teabaggerism Begets



"amdx" wrote in message ...


"Mr.Luddite" says...


I agree, it's time we got to hell out of the idea that we are the
world
police.


"It's not rocket science.
Done. I've dealt with the national debt.
Implement it and consider the debt reduction goals in it sacrosanct."


So is this the solution to our national debt with you have dealt?

Mikek

------------------------

Not sure to whom you addressed your question Mikek, but my point was
that our Navy is structured for the Cold War Era when bigger and
badder was important. That's not the case anymore.

We could cut the size of our Naval battle groups in half and still be
5 times the size of any other Navy in the world. Hank's idea of
giving a few away to trusted allies is an excellent idea. Maintains
the original overall strength and shares the cost of operating and
maintaining the fleets.

One of the new carriers currently under construction is the USS Gerald
R. Ford (CVN-78). Total cost, including research and development is
currently projected to be over $14 billion. When commissioned it
will have a *daily* operating cost of $7 million. Might not pay off
the national debt, but it's money we really don't need to spend.
There are two more scheduled after the Ford. Meanwhile, the last of
the Nimitz class aircraft carriers (which the Ford class replaces)
won't be taken out of service until 2058.

We donate about 25 percent of ex-Navy destroyers and cruisers to
allies now, rather than scrap them. Why not give away a few battle
groups?