Article

2004-12-30 Home Front: WoT

Pentagon to Retire Carrier, Buy Fewer Ships -- Report

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tu3031 2004-12-30 3:21:06 PM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The Navy plans to retire the carrier John F. Kennedy next year
She was scheduled to be decommissioned in 2018 anyway. Navy has one final Nimitz class under construction, the CV-77 USS George H.W. Bush, expected to join the fleet in 2009. They have 5 more authorized to build of the new CVX class.

Posted by Steve 2004-12-30 3:53:35 PM|| 2004-12-30 3:53:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 I see this as a mistake. The Navy will be our primary defence against China. We should not be reducing the number of carriers or amphibious capability.

We increased speinding dramatically after 9/11 but did not increase force size or weapons purchases. Where did the money go?

Does anyone know how much more it costs to keep a troop in combat than in peacetime duty?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-30 4:23:26 PM|| 2004-12-30 4:23:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 I can't say where all of it went, but a lot of it went into black boxes. However, the plus-up wasn't that big, really, and in 2002-2003 it bought tens of thousands of reserves and their equipment into the fight. We're still using reserves, but the reserve money has dried up, especially in the Navy. Also, most of the money went into unfunded requirements, that is, unprogrammed but real costs like uparmor kits for hummers. The defense increases didn't go into long-term planned expenses like new divisions, aircraft or ships. We're still carrying the debt from the 1990s budgets, the postponed purchases that were put off for years while current year money went to current ops and maintenance only.

Bush missed a tremendous opportunity to recapitalize the military in 2001, to add divisions, ships and aircraft (esp. tankers and airlift, the unsexy buys). This just continues a decade and a half of bad budget guidance.

Posted by longtime lurker 2004-12-30 4:37:04 PM|| 2004-12-30 4:37:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Now now. we can not look into the future. So spending billions on maintaining our Navy at current does seem like a bad investment from where we are right now.

I mean if you hope we avoid a war with China, then you have to assume the next 10 years is gonna be ground pounders carrying the load.

That means more low tech costs. You can still develope the high cost high tech stuff, and be ready to mass produce it, you just delay production.

Looks to me like Rummy is spending his money on Intel developement. which seems the smart move right now. But someone has to make that call, and he is the man.

Posted by Jimbo19 2004-12-30 4:52:24 PM|| 2004-12-30 4:52:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 I'm thinking L Lurker knows the score.

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-30 7:37:29 PM|| 2004-12-30 7:37:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 The F-22 Raptor procurement started at 700 and is now down to somewhere between 100 - 160. I'm betting more on the low end. This one reason that systems become so costly. The B-2 was originally scheduled for 300 and wound up with 23. Liberals were never good with math. They don't understand that if you reduce the denomator by a factor of 10 - 15 without changing the numerator, the dividend increases by a factor of 10 - 15 and the number of bullshit articles in the NYT increases by a factor of 100 - 150.

Posted by RWV 2004-12-30 7:55:19 PM|| 2004-12-30 7:55:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 RWV - Lol! I think this is where Barbie's supposed to tell us how hard Math is, heh.

Posted by .com 2004-12-30 8:01:09 PM|| 2004-12-30 8:01:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 I think getting "rid" of the JFK would be all right, if instead of breaking it up they transfer it to the Japanese navy, along with the Kitty Hawk. I think Japan is ready for a couple of carriers, and with Korea making noises, would welcome the chance to buy them. Both vessels are oil fired, and more expensive to operate than nuke carriers, such as the NIMITZ class. Personally, I'm going to wait and see what happens.

Posted by Old Patriot 2004-12-30 10:02:28 PM|| [http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2004-12-30 10:02:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 nice point OP! I have an office window that looks on North Island's Carrier berthing......use to be the one or two usually moored never sailed much, except for their wespac tours with one rotating back in. The last couple years, the sailing for training and "immediate readiness to deploy" efforts has been huge....also for the smaller ships and Pacfleet - a lotta traffic - Rumsfeld imprint?

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-30 10:10:31 PM|| 2004-12-30 10:10:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Pardon my ignorance - where's "North Island," Frank?

Posted by lex 2004-12-30 10:27:38 PM|| 2004-12-30 10:27:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 sorry - Coronado - San Diego Bay - North Island NAS....
Pacific Fleet's at the 32nd street south end) of the bay, and the sub base is at Point Loma

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-30 10:31:26 PM|| 2004-12-30 10:31:26 PM|| Front Page Top

23:57 Bomb-a-rama
23:50 Zenster
23:50 WingedAvenger
23:46 WingedAvenger
23:42 lex
23:40 lex
23:39 WingedAvenger
23:39 Bomb-a-rama
23:35 Poison Reverse
23:34 lex
23:32 lex
23:31 Sherry
23:31 WingedAvenger
23:29 lex
23:27 WingedAvenger
23:27 lex
23:23 Capt America
23:22 Poison Reverse
23:20 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:19 lex
23:17 lex
23:16 WingedAvenger
23:10 WingedAvenger
23:09 Capt America