I was just going to say... with what money ? Sure they’ve made a killing with oil and gas lately, but ships are extremely expensive.
But note they don’t define what type carriers. We know one can slap a flight deck on a Liberty Ship and have a “carrier”. If they are talking half a dozen full sized carriers they are playing games with the west yet again. If they are talking small ships comparable to the British and Italian ski-jump carriers, might be true.
Overall, I’d call this more bluff and fantasy.
Ping
McCain has to make oil a bigger issue than he has so far.
Oil wealth is empowering our enemies.
High oil prices are sapping the strength of America.
McCain has to do a better job of emphasizing how important this single issue — oil — actually is.
As for confining his new drilling initiatives to “off shore” (and leaving Artic Oil in the ground), maybe he should point out that “off shore” includes ALL our American coastlines:
Atlantic
Gulf Coast
Pacific
Bering Sea
Artic Ocean
Let ‘em spend all they like. You don’t build naval avaition overnight.
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
...and they plan to build these in Russian shipyards using Russian welders?
According to this list, Russia's defense spending is $40 billion, or about 2% of their GDP -- the same as the EU spends.
If Russia spent the same percent on defense as the US (4.3%) it would more than double.
So, yes, I'd suppose an extra $40 billion per year might buy them a few more aircraft carriers.
It might also motivate the EU to take a second look at their own defense budgets. The EU's 2% on defense equates to $312 billion. If that number were to, say, double, it could purchase a LOT of military equipment.
My only point here is that if Russia wants to fire up a new arms race, there's no way Russia can win that.