First of all, I am in favor of a strong military. But right now, the Feds are borrowing 40% of the money they spend. They are taxing my unborn grandchildren for the things we want, not need, right now.
What conceivable naval threat requires the USN to have 11 CVNs, 22 Ticonderoga class CGs, 61 Arleigh Burke class DDGs (cruisers by any other name), 19 OHP FFGs, 55 SSNs, 4 SSGNs, ~400 F/A-18A/B/C/D, ~500 F/A-18E/Fs, and ~100 EA-18Gs?
Are we planning on fighting all the navies of the world? At the same time?
I know there is a need to build new ships as the current ones age and wear out, and to upgrade technology, but, for the foreseeable future, we have no rivals on the ocean. We cannot constantly maintain a navy capable of fighting the entire world. Also, we can’t really afford $3.45 billion dollar “destroyers” (in comparison, the current class of CVN costs $9 billion per unit; new Arleigh Burkes cost ~$1.85 billion).
In order to get the fiscal house in order, EVERYBODY has to take a hit. That includes the military.
I’m sure that you know at least as much about our defense requirements as our current Commander in Chief, but that doesn’t mean that either one of you are right about this issue. Every time that we have cashed in a “peace dividend”, we have paid a price in blood and treasure.
The United States currently spends less in GDP on defense since any time since 1940. The bloated growth in our federal budget is almost entirely in the individual entitlement programs which is nothing more than a politician vote buying scheme. Both parties do it and that’s what I am tired of seeing.
What you suggest is what Europe has done. They have disarmed in order to fund their bloated socialist programs. They will pay a very dear price for their folly.
No, we're not. But better to have such resources than not. BTW, where did you get your numbers? Also, at any given time, many of those ships are in overhaul or in stand down from deployments.
"I know there is a need to build new ships as the current ones age and wear out, and to upgrade technology, but, for the foreseeable future, we have no rivals on the ocean. We cannot constantly maintain a navy capable of fighting the entire world. Also, we can’t really afford $3.45 billion dollar “destroyers” (in comparison, the current class of CVN costs $9 billion per unit; new Arleigh Burkes cost ~$1.85 billion). In order to get the fiscal house in order, EVERYBODY has to take a hit. That includes the military. We cannot constantly maintain a navy capable of fighting the entire world."
Our fedgov now runs trillion dollar deficits every year and you're concerned about a few billion here and there for additional ships? However, I will say I don't really see the need for frigates or basic cruisers anymore. I'd prefer to see more Aegis equipped cruisers built. But then I wasn't and admiral, so maybe frigates/destroyers have some worth.
If there is one job of the Fedgov, it is to protect the United States. China is building up its fleet exponentially; Russia is rebuilding its offences; North Korea and Iran are building nuclear arsenals; missle systems are proliferating throughout the world; not to mention US need for power projection.
Don't know how old you are, but if young, there will come a time you will want enough ships to deploy aircraft, troops, and Aegis missle systems into a given hot spot. The nuclear world is expanding. ICBM's and bombers are old news. Navy ships (including subs) are becoming our best strategic defense. I say the more the better. Diplomacy through strength has always worked.
Cut the trillion dollar social programs (including fedgov employees) and protect our Nation. And contrary to apologist Obama, there are still lots of bad guys out there who would like to see the US go away, and they are growing in the Islamist community. The seas are the lifeblood of commerce and freedom. The more US ships out there, the happier I am. And give me more aircraft and missle delivery systems while you're at it.