Posted on 03/30/2019 4:25:31 PM PDT by robowombat
USS Harry S. Truman has seen its day.
Democrats want to save it because Trump wants to mothball it in favor of new ships with advanced technology, stealth and nukes.
Did anyone see any Republicans bemoaning this decision? All I saw were featherbedding RAT names.
Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.), the ranking member of the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee whose district stretches into the Hampton Roads region.
This is all about the Navy doing whatever it can to get a larger slice of the defense budget. There’s always some sort of absurd leverage they can dream up and present to Congress when the budget is large and has been increased but they feel their share of it isn’t in line with what they should have.
Give it to Japan.
The main problem for me, if I understood the dynamics from the other day, is that around 2025 we are looking at a low point of carriers as we wait for a couple of new ones to come on line a few years later.
At that point we’ll be down to nine.
If you figure a few are in port at any given time, the leaves us rather short.
China is gearing up as we seems to be looking to a low point.
Not too happy about that.
Keep the Truman for another seven to ten years or so, then retire it.
In that period of time we’ll spend $5 trillion dollars on Welfare.
God, lets not every thing of sorting that out.
They will. I wish they would all realize that it is “National Defense” and not a district jobs program and let the DOD set the priorities.
We have an enormous amount of money and resources tied up in one platform. I like carriers as much as the next person, but they are the biggest targets in the world for a non-nuclear conflict and our foes - even the little guys like Iran - are very focused on how to kill them.
The Navy (to their credit by the way - I am an Army guy) really seems to be pushing new technologies and they deserve credit for it. If this frees up a lot of money for that they should be allowed to proceed (they are not getting rid of the aircraft).
God, lets not ever think of sorting that out...
Oops.
Not really. It's a nice ship.
Problem is, all the older, less-nice Nimitz-class CVNs have already undergone their multibillion dollar planned refueling and overhauls.
This being said, we're in the twilight of the CVN-era. Their days are numbered. Too expensive and now too vulnerable to carrier-killer weapons. Relics of the Cold War and force projection efforts in the Gulf, they're just too much of a liability these days.
It's not an easy decision for the President to make and there's going to be unhappy people on both sides of the aisle no matter what happens.
I’m no nuclear plant expert. Why is it so laborious and expensive to refuel and re-fit? Can’t they design a bolt-in system?
3 billion dollars for fuel????
Italy is a better choice. China has been spending a lot of time on the how to sink carriers problem.
Give it to a good ally.
Normally fewer carriers means a LOT fewer admiral slots. Retiring must be the best idea if the Brass are wilking to do it.
Primo case of "Follow the Money!"
Could you please list the ‘new ships’ with advanced technology? How many billions have been wasted on the Little Crappy Ship and they have yet to make a deployment after a decade?
How many years were you in the Navy?
Close the southern border and we’ll soon have billions for refueling. There is plenty of money already for R&D of new systems. They tried to retire the A 10 when there was nothing to replace it too. Somebody wants some money to play with. That’s all.
With a $3.4 billion price tag to refuel it? I doubt anybody but the Chinese would write that check.
Heh, I love that idea.
They may not want it, though, given the ship's name. It's a Nimitz-class ship, too...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.