25
26

Navy awards huge $4 billion contract to shipyard for 2nd Ford Class Carrier (zacks.com)

PackingAHamster が 投稿

全 33 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]J1b 11ポイント12ポイント  (30子コメント)

Mahan was right, Mahan is right, and Mahan will continue to be right: Naval power is truly the only power that matters in geopolitics. This is an important and well-thought-out decision that will only increase the United States' ability to project power at a global scale.

[–]SicInOmnibus -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

Do we really need to, though? $4 billion could do a lot of good back home.

[–]Allergic_To_Me 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

Where do you think that money is going? Shipyard workers, steel mills, US design firms, workers who will then turn around and spend it at their local grocery stores, car dealerships, restaurants, etc.

The government doesn't just throw this money into a pit and burn it. It's already doing plenty of "good back home."

[–]zachattack82 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

and you can't just let shipyards and infrastructure like that sit idle. when you needed it, it would be impossible to restart that quickly enough.

[–]nebuchadrezzar 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes, if you need an aircraft carrier you need to be able to produce it in 10 years, not 12 years!

[–]zachattack82 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

we're already constantly buying ships, if we stopped committing resources to them it would take a lot longer than that.

steel mills have to be diverted to create the types of hulls used in these ships. reactors can take years to build. thousands of people with specialized skills and industry knowledge that cut the building time by years would be lost to other industries.

the list goes on and on, but if you halt the funding for these ships then there goes your entire shipbuilding industry. who do you expect western oriented shipbuilders to sell their ships to, particularly with regards to military hardware? either the industry sinks or it stays afloat by selling technology built in the west to it's competitors and potential enemies in the east.

[–]adirtygerman 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Where do you think all that moneys goes? It pays for stuff made by Americans.

[–]PrioritySeven 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Our defense budget is bloated but the majority of it goes to employ Americans. Also our bloated defense budget allows us to make weapons that other countries buy... whos money goes to pay Americans. As much as people want to point out how much spending we have in defense it has been the back bone of our economy since 1943 ;)

[–]nebuchadrezzar -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

Your comment works great as sarcasm. It's a dinosaur that will be sunk by a few million dollars worth of weaponry. Its great for projecting power against developing countries, sure. But it is at risk from any country with advanced weapons, or any country that has allies with advanced weapons.

The US is forever gearing up to fight the previous major war, not the next one.

[–]G-Solutions 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

What are you talking about? Carriers don't float solo, getting even anywhere close to a carrier and impacting it would be a monstrous task for any military.

[–]nebuchadrezzar -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

That's why they developed relatively inexpensive anti-ship missiles. Or if you have a nuke you don't even have to get the missile within range of countermeasures.

[–]G-Solutions 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Most nukes can be shot down before they got close, and the only countries capable of delivering it would be China or Russia.

If we get to the point where we are nuking each other's navies trust me everyone is already fucked.

The carriers are escorted by ships that will destroy anything incoming and an entire airforce that will actively destroy anything before it can come within miles of it. You are making it sound easy when it is not fucking easy, at all.

There's only one type of ordnance that can take it down and it's to big to be deployed by air or sea. The last carrier we lost was in the battle of iwo jima to kamikaze attacks. It just doesn't happen as easily as you make it. No inexpensive shit is taking down a modern carrier.

[–]nebuchadrezzar 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I just think you are nuts to call a ship unsinkable. I thought the US had the mightiest military in history, but a few guys with box cutters kicked our ass. We even knew that kind of attack was coming! Then we failed to defeat the Taliban, headed out of Yemen with the enemy victorious, etc. People find ways to do "impossible" things.

If you don't think all the major powers have spent a lot of time figuring out how to defeat a carrier group, you're nuts. What else have their militaries got to do? They're not running around engaging in pointless conflicts like we are.

The only way to keep our carriers safe is to continue to use them against poorer nations that have no defense.

[–]G-Solutions 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

They did not attack our military, they attacked a building, and our government likely had some level of complicity with it if not at least allowing it to happen to serve as a reichstag fire to bring forth the PNAC to its ideological conclusion.

However, you cannot discount the extreme military might harbored by the United states, particularly in its carrier groups. Unless you got an operative on board it's very hard to sink. You have to fight through an entire navy just to get near a carrier group. A navy of battleships which can take on the most advanced countries. Only China or Russia could even hope to touch them as the only ordnance capable of sinking them has to be fired from land. With an array of new laser weaponry and rail guns etc, it would be very very difficult to take one down, let alone an entire carrier group of 4 which is how they operate.

[–]nebuchadrezzar 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

They did not attack our military, they attacked a building...

To be fair, one of those buildings was pretty much the most important building our military has, and I would assume an attack on our military headquarters is an attack on our military. As for the rest, I completely agree that either there are a lot of military leadership who are enormously incompetent, or they were complicit. And how many folks were imprisoned, fired, demoted, or even chastised? I think zero. That's the level of responsibility our military leadership takes.

So if there are vulnerabilities or problems with our crazy expensive weapons systems that make our ships unsinkable, don't expect them to be addressed honestly. Weapons systems are a milk cow for too many people for anyone to be able to criticize them with much effect.

So I won't hold the same level of confidence that you have about our unsinkable ships. I'm sure it would be incredibly difficult, but so was the Taliban holding out against two superpowers in a row. Our enemies won't all waste their time and their lives trying to negotiate, like Saddam or Gaddafi. No doubt Iran, after being threatened countless times by US politicians, has a plan ready to spring into action. I just really don't want to find out if they are sinkable, I hope we are done with pointless conflicts.

[–]Jambox_Ready 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Thats just for the keel and power plant it's more like $10 billion for the finished ship - and $60 billion more over ship lifetime to add aircraft and 5500 sailors to man it...

[–]GrumpyKatze 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yea, I was wondering why the price was so low. Four billion for a ford-class carrier? No way