Cut the Navy by 50%?

[SMETNA]

Does the U.S. Navy really need:

3,700+ aircraft
11 aircraft carriers
9 amphibious assault ships
8 amphibious transport docks
12 dock landing ships
22 cruisers
62 destroyers
26 frigates
71 submarines
3 littoral combat ships

??

Hopefully someone else with more than my layman's knowledge will chime in, but, I really don't see any other Navies as a credible threat at this time. Why would it be a bad idea to mothball half of our ships for storage?

I'd never support cutting funding for the USAF or the US Army, because many potential foes keep an AF and Army. But nobody has a Navy 1/10th as powerful as ours. We could probably scale it back quite substantially and still be just as secure as we were, IMO.

Spending cuts need to happen.

[Iraqgunz]

Have you seen all the issues we get involved in? As long as politicians get us into shit we need to be able to support the warfighter.

Don't forget the U.S Navy is also doing anti-drug efforts, anti-piracy, as well as supporting other ongoing missions. I

We have all seen what happens when we cut the military, it takes years to rebuild it. What we should be doing is gutting worthless institutions like the Dept. of Education, and doing away with the BATFE or folding them into another agency.

Also, quite shelling out foreign aid to countries that dump a shit on our heads at every opportunity.

We could also spend the money better instead of adopting a new ****ing uniform every year and then wasting millions of dollars to find a replacement for it after some asshole realizes it doesn't work.

I would also much rather see subs be cut back then aircraft carriers and the like.

[Joeywhat]

I'd first like to see spending get cut (across the board but for this argument let's say just pertaining to the Navy). I don't mean cutting what we actually purchase, but stop spending so god damn much on it all. We should be able to spend a lot less on what we currently buy...there's plenty of stories about how we're paying absurd prices for even the most basic items, and if even half of them are true then we're getting screwed.

After that's in check, then maybe we can look at downsizing. I just don't see the point in downsizing when so much taxpayer money is wasted.

[Todd00000]

Have you seen all the issues we get involved in? As long as politicians get us into shit we need to be able to support the warfighter.

.

Yes please don't reduce the Navy but if the Navy is to be reduced by 50% I'd like to see welfare recipients reduced by 50% also. The Chinese aircraft carrier has been seen testing with fighter aircraft.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20483716

[Iraqgunz]

Absolutely correct. I agree. People think that the Chinese are stupid. They are far from it. They also don't think in election cycles either like we do.

Yes please don't reduce the Navy but if the Navy is to be reduced by 50% I'd like to see welfare recipients reduced by 50% also. The Chinese aircraft carrier has been seen testing with fighter aircraft.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20483716

[agr1279]

Just what are you thinking? In the 1950's we built the Forrestal and an Air Force base in Lybia. We were still using the Forrestal into the 90's. We weren't using the AF base. Your thinking is flawed. Yes a CV Battle group is expensive but when you park one of them off someones shore it gets attention. With the USAF and USA you need to be able to stage them somewhere and them get them to the the area of interest and then need somewhere to stash them when they get there. With a CVBG they are self contained.

Dan

[agr1279]

I would also much rather see subs be cut back then aircraft carriers and the like.

I disagree. Submarines are an extremely valueable assest due to the ability to show up without anyone knowing. They are an extremely great intel gathering platform. Even when you know where they are in the area they are hard as hell to find.

Dan

[SMETNA]

Yes please don't reduce the Navy but if the Navy is to be reduced by 50% I'd like to see welfare recipients reduced by 50% also. The Chinese aircraft carrier has been seen testing with fighter aircraft.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20483716

Thats my point. "The Chinese Aircraft Carrier". as in singular. Only one. We have 11 active duty, with a couple more old ones mothballed. I think it's over-kill personally.

But I do enjoy hearing other opinions on this

[HES]

There are plenty of places where cuts can be made in the military that don't affect readiness and training and wont take us back to the hell of the 90s and 70s and before. Cutting carriers ain't one of them. Our carriers serve two purposes. Force projection and protection of trade routes. Both are relatively simple concepts. The former can and has gotten more than one bad guy / nation to back down, thus keeping the peace. They also have been able to take action when necessary. The latter is just as, if not, more important. Trade is our lifeblood. Stop trade and this nation is more likely to collapse. Remember the oil embargo of the 70s? What if that was caused by military action rather than political. Suez Canal anyone? How about when we had to escort US Flagged tankers through the Persian gulf to ensure the flow of oil.

[SMETNA]

You guys really don't think America could protect her interests with 6 CVN battle groups? (with the other 5 CVN's and their accompanying vessels ready to be reactivated within 12 months)