Jump to content


Click to shop at Weed Seed Shop
Photo
- - - - -

U.s.s. Ford Aircraft Carrier




  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 JPN2

JPN2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts
  • LocationThe ninth level of hell

Posted October 16 2016 - 03:17 AM

From what I have read, it is a boomdoggle. Taxpayers are being taken again. Two years over due, at a cost of $13 billion. 20% over original price. They say it will not be ready til 2017.

#2 Wolf Angel.

Wolf Angel.

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,178 posts
  • LocationWyth in the Shaw = Manchester - England

Posted October 16 2016 - 03:31 AM

Taxpayers are always being taken  = :( 


  • JPN2 likes this

"And in the End, the Love You Take, is Equal to the Love, You Make"

< Peace + Love . Protest + Protect . Save the Planet > 


#3 ʈuɱɓɭiɳɠ.ƌičɛ

ʈuɱɓɭiɳɠ.ƌičɛ

    Hitchhiker

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,209 posts
  • LocationKentucky, USA

Posted October 16 2016 - 03:41 AM

What do we expect from something named after Gerald Ford?  I don't really see why we need another aircraft carrier either.  We already have 19 of the things.

 

APDF_V41N1_ENGgraph2.jpg

 

39 The number of aircraft carriers in service worldwide

The United States and the nations of the Indo-Asia-Pacific region account for the vast majority of carriers in use. Outside of these craft, 10 other aircraft carriers are in operation.

France has four. Italy has two.

Brazil, Russia, Spain and the United Kingdom each has one.

* Includes super carriers, fleet carriers, light aircraft carriers, escort carriers, helicopter carriers and helicopter destroyers. Total of In service, Under Construction, and Planned totals are not cumulative given the decommissioning of older ships.

 

http://apdf-magazine...ojecting-power/


play-craps.jpg


#4 JPN2

JPN2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts
  • LocationThe ninth level of hell

Posted October 16 2016 - 01:08 PM

Thailand really does not need a carrier. They can not afford it. If it was up to me, I would cancel the U.S.S. Ford class.

#5 orison

orison

    my dog is full of stars

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 64,858 posts
  • LocationSquirrel Hill Penisylvania

Posted October 16 2016 - 01:32 PM

$13 billion dollars goes to the manufacturing, iron workers, welders, electricians, weapons manufactures, computer technicians, delivery of parts services(railroads) and so on.. 

 

Where do you think the $13billion goes? ..


  • fourth wise man likes this
gallery_104050_1936_34168.jpg
 

Into the flood again
Same old trip it was back then
So I made a big mistake
Try to see it once my way


#6 JPN2

JPN2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts
  • LocationThe ninth level of hell

Posted October 16 2016 - 02:14 PM

I know where it goes. For that kind of money it should be working.

#7 Irminsul

Irminsul

    Valkyrie

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,790 posts
  • LocationBavaria, Deutschland

Posted October 16 2016 - 02:21 PM

You can't just slap money down and expect whatever your building to be up and running just because the money is spent. Lol.
  • orison likes this
Red, white, black are our true colours
For these colours we will fight!
Red, white, black will crush the enemy
And will bring back what is right!

#8 ʈuɱɓɭiɳɠ.ƌičɛ

ʈuɱɓɭiɳɠ.ƌičɛ

    Hitchhiker

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,209 posts
  • LocationKentucky, USA

Posted October 16 2016 - 02:29 PM

Where do you think the $13billion goes? ..

Personally I'd like to see it go into the aging electrical grid, bridges, bypasses and such.  Just my opinion though.  I don't understand why we need another carrier when we already have as many as everyone else combined.


  • JPN2 likes this

play-craps.jpg


#9 JPN2

JPN2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts
  • LocationThe ninth level of hell

Posted October 16 2016 - 02:32 PM

If it does not work it should not be built. It is 2 years overdue. Monopoly at work. No competition.

Edited by JPN2, October 16 2016 - 02:38 PM.


#10 Thefutureawaits

Thefutureawaits

    Psalms 37:29

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,075 posts

Posted October 16 2016 - 08:31 PM

I think it is stupid we spend all this money on war machines. Why? Is America going to lock down the world? We cry about other countries having weapons, look at our arsenals. The world should be nervous. America is a war machine with a steady stream of fighters volunteering for service. How convenient. TV and propaganda much.

#11 NotDead

NotDead

    Not even close.

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,297 posts

Posted October 16 2016 - 10:47 PM

The Ford class carriers are intended to replace older aircraft carriers as they age out.  These ships are designed to have lower operating costs than the ones they replace.


gallery_144011_8064_856.jpg

The more wrong a person is about something, the more certain he is that he is correct. I am absolutely sure about this.


#12 Irminsul

Irminsul

    Valkyrie

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,790 posts
  • LocationBavaria, Deutschland

Posted October 16 2016 - 11:07 PM

USS Nimitz: $4.5 billion.
USS Ford: $12.8 billion

With 70+ years of inflation, I believe it's relatively easy to see that, regardless of the money saved to operate the vessel, that the justification of "spend now save later" is quite flawed. Especially considering another 11 vessels are planned and if we even round them down to only $10 billion a pop, that's $110 billion dollars ready to be spent. There's no financial savings going on here, just might, power and strength games.

Edited by Irminsul, October 16 2016 - 11:10 PM.

  • orison and morrow like this
Red, white, black are our true colours
For these colours we will fight!
Red, white, black will crush the enemy
And will bring back what is right!

#13 Vanilla Gorilla

Vanilla Gorilla

    Go Ape

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,288 posts
  • LocationDown Under

Posted October 17 2016 - 02:49 AM

We have an aircraft carrier?

 

 

No we dont

 

A ship that carries a couple helicopters isnt an aircraft carrier, well technically it is, but you know pfffft



#14 Irminsul

Irminsul

    Valkyrie

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,790 posts
  • LocationBavaria, Deutschland

Posted October 17 2016 - 03:16 AM

I think maybe the submarine chart might be interesting too. Like, who has how many submarines. Someone go look that up and post it. :)
Red, white, black are our true colours
For these colours we will fight!
Red, white, black will crush the enemy
And will bring back what is right!

#15 Tyrsonswood

Tyrsonswood

    Senior Moment

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,747 posts
  • LocationThe Woods

Posted October 17 2016 - 03:40 AM

.......  I don't understand why we need another carrier when we already have as many as everyone else combined.

 

 

66384100.jpg


  • ʈuɱɓɭiɳɠ.ƌičɛ likes this

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti


"there was something big happening that night, decisions were made and destiny was cast..."~jfw~



~ I chop wood, I carry water, I tend the Earth, This is my prayer. ~


.

#16 NotDead

NotDead

    Not even close.

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,297 posts

Posted October 17 2016 - 11:57 AM

USS Nimitz: $4.5 billion.
USS Ford: $12.8 billion

 

Do you have any clue what it would cost to build the Nimitz today?

 

Everything about the Ford class has been downsized and simplified, reflecting the end of the Cold War.  The crew is smaller.  This is one of those rare examples where the Pentagon is acting as if it cares about money.

 

When the Nimitz (and each of its clones) reaches the end of its intended useful life, we don't need to replace it with something that has identical capabilities.


gallery_144011_8064_856.jpg

The more wrong a person is about something, the more certain he is that he is correct. I am absolutely sure about this.


#17 GeorgeJetStoned

GeorgeJetStoned

    Free Psychotic Readings

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,352 posts

Posted October 17 2016 - 06:54 PM

Carriers are fine when you're attacking a nation that doesn't have the means to sink a carrier or other large ship.  Otherwise they are an obsolete white elephant, a massive floating target.  When the Soviets were in Afghanistan, they ruled the skies and blasted the crap out of anything that looked like a rebel.  This was because the Afghans lacked the technology to combat aircraft.  The US supplied them with portable missiles and suddenly the Soviets had their own "Vietnam" to deal with.  

 

The same kind of paradigm in battle befell the British during their conflict with Argentina over the Falkland islands.   The moment Argentina declared war on the UK, the French defense technicians bailed after disabling most of the combat aircraft, an odd requirement of their treaty with the UK.  However, they missed a trainer that had been fitted with a hard point.  The Argentine military was able to get a plane off the ground with a state of the art Exocet cruise missile.  

 

I read the account of it when I went there in 1999.  The pilot struggled to take off because the missile was so heavy and hung under a wing, throwing the balance off.  He flew out to the Atlantic and acquired a radar contact where he expected a UK ship to be.  He transferred the radar data to the missile and launched it.  The plane immediately flipped over from the sudden loss of weight and the pilot almost ended up in the ocean, but managed to correct.  The missile hit the target.    

 

That was 1982 technology, a single cruise missile sinking a ship.  Consider how technology has advanced.   Among the things we don't need are gigantic ships, huge standing armies, massive nuclear arsenals, military "dependents" and we do not need the draft.  This is the age of robotic warfare already.  But the basic military infrastructure is still based on a 1940s model.  A model that is people-hungry.  This is no longer necessary.  One operator can control several drones, missiles or guns (soon to be beam and rail delivery).  And don't forget the guns in the sky. All those "secret military" shuttle missions in the 80s and 90s.

 

But surrendering to technology would mean reducing military personnel to probably 1/8th to 1/20th of what it is now.  A huge dent in the Military Industrial Complex.  In the 21st century ALL industries are going through a technology shakedown.  Work as we know it is changing.  Combat is as well.  but dismantling the excess blubber won't happen overnight.  After all, look how long the US Postal Service has been totally obsolete.  If not for taxes it would not likely exist as it does.  It would be a web site or operate like UPS/DHL.

 

I freakin LOVE the 21st century.


  • orison likes this

#18 Irminsul

Irminsul

    Valkyrie

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,790 posts
  • LocationBavaria, Deutschland

Posted October 17 2016 - 07:02 PM

Do you have any clue what it would cost to build the Nimitz today?

Everything about the Ford class has been downsized and simplified, reflecting the end of the Cold War. The crew is smaller. This is one of those rare examples where the Pentagon is acting as if it cares about money.

When the Nimitz (and each of its clones) reaches the end of its intended useful life, we don't need to replace it with something that has identical capabilities.


Yep. That's why added the part about inflations. :)
Red, white, black are our true colours
For these colours we will fight!
Red, white, black will crush the enemy
And will bring back what is right!

#19 NotDead

NotDead

    Not even close.

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,297 posts

Posted October 17 2016 - 08:48 PM

Carriers are fine when you're attacking a nation that doesn't have the means to sink a carrier or other large ship.

 

And that's how we have used them, since the end of World War II. More recently, carriers have become bases for drones.

 

Most countries (including Russia) keep their aircraft closer to home, allowing them to use ordinary runways on land.  Just look at a world map and see how many of the world's worst trouble spots are within a thousand miles of Russian territory.  Aircraft carriers are not very helpful to them in those situations.

 

Next, we need to take a look at our aircraft inventory.  Supersonic fighters are drastic overkill for fighting something like ISIS.  We could use a few jets that are less capable and less expensive to operate, like the A-7 and S-3.  We have large fleets of them stored in the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico.

 

Some terrorist cells are so primitive in their technology that we could drop hand grenades on them from a Cessna 172.


gallery_144011_8064_856.jpg

The more wrong a person is about something, the more certain he is that he is correct. I am absolutely sure about this.


#20 JPN2

JPN2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts
  • LocationThe ninth level of hell

Posted October 19 2016 - 01:23 PM

I have recently read the Continental Congress was opposed to establishing the navy, Because they feared it would want to spend more money. The government was indebt after the revolution.

#21 fourth wise man

fourth wise man

    Member

  •  Supporters
  • PipPip
  • 647 posts
  • LocationEarth

Posted November 04 2016 - 02:06 PM

There is a military museum about 15 miles from where i live, that has old retired military hardware. Tanks, Planes, Jeeps, Motorcycles, etc.

Ever seen a Civil War-era Submarine? That thought scares me just looking at it. Not very big...looks like a sinking death chamber.

Those guys were taking their life in the hands just going underwater in that thing.



#22 Wolf Angel.

Wolf Angel.

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,178 posts
  • LocationWyth in the Shaw = Manchester - England

Posted November 04 2016 - 02:15 PM

One just has to hope that the biggest concern / issue is the cost - and not it's mobilisation and use in conflict


"And in the End, the Love You Take, is Equal to the Love, You Make"

< Peace + Love . Protest + Protect . Save the Planet > 





Click to shop at Sensi Seed Company