Navy too broke to re-fuel carriers

[Anti Federalist]

Navy: Lincoln Refueling Delayed, Will Hurt Carrier Readiness

By: USNI News Editor
Friday, February 8, 2013

http://news.usni.org/2013/02/08/navy-lincoln-refueling-delayed-will-hurt-carrier-readiness

The U.S. Navy will delay the refueling of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) for an unknown period because of the uncertain fiscal environment due to the ongoing legislative struggle, the service told Congress in a Friday message obtained by USNI News.

Lincoln was scheduled to be moved to Huntington Ingalls Industries’ (HII) Newport News Shipyard later this month to begin the 4-year refueling and complex overhaul (RCOH) of the ship.

“This delay is due to uncertainty in the Fiscal Year 2013 appropriations bill, both in the timing and funding level available for the first full year of the contract,” the message said.
“CVN-72 will remain at Norfolk Naval Base where the ships force personnel will continue to conduct routine maintenance until sufficient funding is received for the initial execution of the RCOH.”

Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower subcommittee released a statement denouncing the need for decision.

Forbes called the delay, “another example of how these reckless and irresponsible defense cuts in Washington will have a long-term impact on the Navy’s ability to perform its missions. Not only will the Lincoln be delayed in returning to the Fleet, but this decision will also affect the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) defueling, the USS George Washington (CVN-73) RCOH, and future carrier readiness.”


View RCOH in a larger map

The move by the navy is the second this week involving funding for carriers. On Wednesday it announced it would delay the deployment of the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) to the Middle East do to the ongoing budget strife bringing the total number of carriers in U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) to one until funding normalizes.

“Canceling and deferring maintenance creates a significant backlog of deferred maintenance and affects future year schedules and cost, as well as future readiness,” said Lt. Courtney Hillson, a Navy spokesperson.
“The fiscal uncertainty created by not having an appropriations bill — and the measures we are forced to take as a result, place significant stress on an already strained force and undermines the stability of a fragile industrial base.”

The delay in the RCOH for the Lincoln translates into a carrier that will be undeployable for the foreseeable future. It is ‘not possible to restore,’ the carrier to active service without the $3.3 billion overhaul, Hillson said.

Under the current Continuing Resolution (CR), the Navy is $1.5 billion short on its accounts. Combined with coming sequestration in March the number grows to $9 billon for FY 2013, according to Navy documents.

The Navy had budgeted $92 million for the Lincoln refueling in its FY 2012 budget.

Each Nimitz-class carrier undergoes a refueling and complete overhaul at the halfway point in its 50-year service life.

HII said the company is, “disappointed with this turn of events,” and said the delay, “is the direct result of the lack of a defense appropriations bill,” HII spokesperson Christie Miller said in a statement.

“This is not a cancellation of the Lincoln’s RCOH at Newport News Shipbuilding,” Miller said.
“We intend to continue our efforts on the ship at the Navy base in Norfolk and will work to make as much progress as possible, as efficiently as possible, prior to its arrival.”

[Sola_Fide]

Well, the solution is simple: we must continue spending money we don't have on nation-building missions that never end.

[acptulsa]

That would be what we get for building a few hundred nuclear-powered vessels.

[RJB]

This is what happens with troops stationed in 130+ countries. This is what happens when you invade two countries because of 19 men with box cutters and expired VISAs (according to the official story), this is what happens when you give up your sovereignty to foreign banks-- you are ultimately left penniless and defenseless.

Most U.S. officials of the last 100 years should stand trial for treason.

[vita3]

$3.3 Billion overhaul. That's a lot of dough

Interesting to see how they re-fuel the nuclear reactors

[Occam's Banana]

Forbes called the delay, “another example of how these reckless and irresponsible defense cuts in Washington will have a long-term impact on the Navy’s ability to perform its missions. Not only will the Lincoln be delayed in returning to the Fleet, but this decision will also affect the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) defueling, the USS George Washington (CVN-73) RCOH, and future carrier readiness.”

[...]

“Canceling and deferring maintenance creates a significant backlog of deferred maintenance and affects future year schedules and cost, as well as future readiness,” said Lt. Courtney Hillson, a Navy spokesperson.
“The fiscal uncertainty created by not having an appropriations bill — and the measures we are forced to take as a result, place significant stress on an already strained force and undermines the stability of a fragile industrial base.”

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever. Forbes, Hillson & Co. are all full of shit.

This is nothing more than the same deceitful & manipulative drama-queening that happens whenever any area of federal spending faces any "cuts" (whether *real* cuts, or merely reductions in spending increases).

Whenever they face such "cuts", they always trot out some critical budget line item (such as fueling for carriers, in this case) or some popular & highly visible program (such as touristy stuff for places like Yosemite National Park) as some kind of "poster child" - and then proceed to loudly announce how such things are facing bloody dismemberment at the hands of irresponisble barbarians, and ain't it awful & terrible & wah-wah-wah & so forth.

They completely & deliberately ignore all the cruft & garbage & waste - because that's where alll the cronyist gravy comes from ...

[phill4paul]

Remember "The Green Fleet"? Perhaps they should have budgeted.

[TheTexan]

I wonder how many lives will be saved from this

[pacodever]

Navy: Lincoln Refueling Delayed, Will Hurt Carrier Readiness

On Wednesday it announced it would delay the deployment of the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) to the Middle East do to the ongoing budget strife bringing the total number of carriers in U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) to one until funding normalizes.



Good. Should place some constraints on strategic planning and possibly deter us from starting another war in the Middle East.

[alucard13mmfmj]

shouldnt this be of DEFENSE concern? i know we have a couple of carriers... it just seems unsettling though.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I wonder how many lives will be saved from this

Hopefully at least a few

[american.swan]

Does anyone have a list of our full navy fleet?

[pacodever]

shouldnt this be of DEFENSE concern? i know we have a couple of carriers... it just seems unsettling though.

Guess we'll just have to make do with the other 9. The sky is not falling. They just need to adjust the plan to the available resources.

Active Nimitz-class carriers:


Nimitz (CVN-68) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_(CVN-68))
Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Dwight_D._Eisenhower_(CVN-69))
Carl Vinson (CVN-70) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Carl_Vinson_(CVN-70))
Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Theodore_Roosevelt_(CVN-71))
Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Abraham_Lincoln_(CVN-72))
George Washington (CVN-73) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_George_Washington_(CVN-73))
John C. Stennis (CVN-74) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_C._Stennis_(CVN-74))
Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Harry_S._Truman_(CVN-75))
Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ronald_Reagan_(CVN-76))
George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_George_H.W._Bush_(CVN-77))


The Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Gerald_R._Ford_(CVN-78)) joins the fleet in 2015 and they just deactivated the Enterprise in December and will be decommissioned in March.

[pacodever]

Does anyone have a list of our full navy fleet?


There are currently 10 aircraft carriers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier), 22 cruisers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser), 62 destroyers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer), 28 frigates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate), 3 littoral combat ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship), 9 amphibious assault ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_assault_ship), 2 amphibious command ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_command_ship), 9 amphibious transport docks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_transport_dock), 12 dock landing ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dock_landing_ship), 53 attack submarines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_submarine), 14 ballistic missile submarines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile_submarine), 4 guided missile submarines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_missile_submarine), 13 mine countermeasures ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_countermeasures_ship), 11 patrol boats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrol_boat), and 1 technical research ship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_research_ship) (military intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intelligence) ship, the USS Pueblo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pueblo_(AGER-2)), which is currently held by North Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea)).[a] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy#ci te_note-notuptodate-1)

Support ships include 2 hospital ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital_ship), 4 salvage ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage_ship), 2 submarine tenders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_tender), 1 ammunition ship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammunition_ship), 5 combat stores ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_stores_ship), 4 fast combat support ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_combat_support_ships), 9 dry cargo ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cargo_ship), 15 replenishment oilers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replenishment_oiler), 4 fleet ocean tugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_ocean_tug), 11 large harbor tugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_harbor_tug&action=edit&redlink=1), 4 ocean surveillance ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_surveillance_ship), 4 container ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_ship), 16 cargo ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_ship) (used for prepositioning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_Prepositioning_ship) of Marine and Army materiel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materiel)), and 7 vehicle cargo ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_cargo_ship) (also used for prepositioning).[a] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy#ci te_note-notuptodate-1)


Current ships include commissioned warships that are in active service and also warships that are in the later stages of construction or that are undergoing sea trials but which have not yet gone through the ceremony of ship commissioning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_commissioning). Ships in early stages of construction (keel not yet laid down) are not included. Also included as current ships are support ships (usually denoted USNS) and leased ships (usually denoted MV) that are never commissioned but which are part of the effective force of the U.S. Navy.
There are about 436 ships listed here (238 USS ships, 198 USNS, MV, SS and other ships) that meet this definition of current ships

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/lists/shipalpha.asp

[pacodever]

And another thing. Two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf is not the norm. There have been two since 2010, when we were doing all our posturing against Iran. There is no need for two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf except for intimidation or impending combat operations.

[kcchiefs6465]

And another thing. Two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf is not the norm. There have been two since 2010, when we were doing all our posturing against Iran. There is no need for two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf except for intimidation or impending combat operations.
War games must be fun when others foot the bill.

[Origanalist]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever. Forbes, Hillson & Co. are all full of shit.

This is nothing more than the same deceitful & manipulative drama-queening that happens whenever any area of federal spending faces any "cuts" (whether *real* cuts, or merely reductions in spending increases).

Whenever they face such "cuts", they always trot out some critical budget line item (such as fueling for carriers, in this case) or some popular & highly visible program (such as touristy stuff for places like Yosemite National Park) as some kind of "poster child" - and then proceed to loudly announce how such things are facing bloody dismemberment at the hands of irresponisble barbarians, and ain't it awful & terrible & wah-wah-wah & so forth.

They completely & deliberately ignore all the cruft & garbage & waste - because that's where alll the cronyist gravy comes from ...

Same old same old, every stinking time.

[HOLLYWOOD]

YOU BETCHA... Propaganda and Con Artists well planned in media. 100% garbage by the department pf fear.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever. Forbes, Hillson & Co. are all full of shit.

This is nothing more than the same deceitful & manipulative drama-queening that happens whenever any area of federal spending faces any "cuts" (whether *real* cuts, or merely reductions in spending increases).

Whenever they face such "cuts", they always trot out some critical budget line item (such as fueling for carriers, in this case) or some popular & highly visible program (such as touristy stuff for places like Yosemite National Park) as some kind of "poster child" - and then proceed to loudly announce how such things are facing bloody dismemberment at the hands of irresponsible barbarians, and ain't it awful & terrible & wah-wah-wah & so forth.

They completely & deliberately ignore all the cruft & garbage & waste - because that's where all the cronyism gravy comes from ...

[phill4paul]

Should have budgeted..........

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/19/us-usa-navy-greenfleet-idUSBRE86I0B220120719


While some have criticized the demonstration as unnecessary and the $12 million cost of the fuel as excessive, Mabus told reporters on Thursday that the event, which was witnessed by airline and air industry leaders, was worth it.


The 450,000 gallons of biofuel the Navy purchased at $26 a gallon for the occasion and blended in equal parts with petroleum-based fuels to fill up three warships and 71 aircraft was just enough to last two to three days, Navy officials said.

[puppetmaster]

Hey their commercial says they are a "global force for good".....let the globe pick up the bill for the good force

[anaconda]

Propaganda to keep the sheeple voting for more military industrial complex.

[VBRonPaulFan]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever. Forbes, Hillson & Co. are all full of shit.

This is nothing more than the same deceitful & manipulative drama-queening that happens whenever any area of federal spending faces any "cuts" (whether *real* cuts, or merely reductions in spending increases).

Whenever they face such "cuts", they always trot out some critical budget line item (such as fueling for carriers, in this case) or some popular & highly visible program (such as touristy stuff for places like Yosemite National Park) as some kind of "poster child" - and then proceed to loudly announce how such things are facing bloody dismemberment at the hands of irresponisble barbarians, and ain't it awful & terrible & wah-wah-wah & so forth.

They completely & deliberately ignore all the cruft & garbage & waste - because that's where alll the cronyist gravy comes from ...

Forbes is a schizophrenic douche-bag of the highest order. He represents my district. He will send an email out on a Monday saying "WE MUST STOP THIS IRRESPONSIBLE DC SPENDING! BUDGET CUTS NEED TO HAPPEN!", and on Wednesday will blast out an email saying "THE SEQUESTRATION CUTS WILL BE DEVASTATING TO THE VA ECONOMY! IT IS CRAZY TO LET THESE CUTS HAPPEN!".

I voted for Radtke in the primary - I wish Forbes would just disappear.

[anaconda]

Well, the solution is simple: we must continue spending money we don't have on nation-building missions that never end.

I was thinking that they should simply send out a Navy Seal search team to the Pentagon to look for that $2 Trillion that went missing from the DOD under Rumsfeld's watch. That should pay for the refueling.

[HOLLYWOOD]

I thought Iraqi OIL was going to pay the bill? Oh Wait... :rolleyes:

PS: Well there's fresh "Liberated Oil & Gas" @ a Libyan port near you?

PSS: How'a all that Kuwaiti, Bahrainian, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. & Kerplunkistan Fuel levels... can't imagine them picking up the tab for Middle/Near East naval protection?

110% Pure Propaganda Crafted Bullshit

BUT... check this out:

The Jet That Ate the Pentagon (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/26/the_jet_that_ate_the_pentagon)

The F-35 is a boondoggle. It's time to throw it in the trash bin.
BY WINSLOW WHEELER | APRIL 26, 2012
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/flight109026037.jpg
Click here to see pictures of the supersonic albatross. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/26/Supersonic)
The United States is making a gigantic investment in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, billed by its advocates as the next -- by their count the fifth -- generation of air-to-air and air-to-ground combat aircraft. Claimed to be near invisible to radar and able to dominate any future battlefield, the F-35 will replace most of the air-combat aircraft in the inventories of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and at least nine foreign allies, and it will be in those inventories for the next 55 years. It's no secret, however, that the program -- the most expensive in American history -- is a calamity.


This month, we learned that the Pentagon has increased the price tag (http://defensenewsstand.com/index.php?option=com_ppvuser&view=login&return=aHR0cDovL2RlZmVuc2VuZXdzc3RhbmQuY29tL2NvbXB vbmVudC9vcHRpb24sY29tX3Bwdi9pZCwyMzk2MzcyL3ZpZXcsY XJ0aWNsZS8) for the F-35 by another $289 million -- just the latest in a long string of cost increases -- and that the program is expected to account for (http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/04/this-is-obscene.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+InformationDissemination+%28I nformation+Dissemination%29) a whopping 38 percent of Pentagon procurement for defense programs, assuming its cost will grow no more. Its many problems are acknowledged by its listing in proposals for Pentagon spending reductions by leaders from across the political spectrum, including Rep. Barney Frank (http://www.comw.org/pda/1006SDTF.html) (D-Mass.), Sen. Tom Coburn (http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/?p=deficit-reduction) (R-Okla.), President Barack Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/news/cochairs-proposal), and budget gurus (http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/restoring-americas-future) such as former Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Alice Rivlin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget.
How bad is it? A review of the F-35's cost, schedule, and performance -- three essential measures of any Pentagon program -- shows the problems are fundamental and still growing.
First, with regard to cost -- a particularly important factor in what politicians keep saying is an austere defense budget environment -- the F-35 is simply unaffordable. Although the plane was originally billed as a low-cost solution, major cost increases have plagued the program throughout the last decade. Last year, Pentagon leadership told Congress the acquisition price had increased another 16 percent, from $328.3 billion (http://www.acq.osd.mil/ara/2009%20DEC%20SAR.pdf) to $379.4 billion (http://www.acq.osd.mil/ara/am/sar/SST-2010-12.pdf) for the 2,457 aircraft to be bought. Not to worry, however -- they pledged to finally reverse (http://armed-services.senate.gov/Webcasts/2011/05%20May/05-19-11%20Webcast.htm) the growth.
The result? This February, the price increased (http://www.defense.gov/news/PAC.PDF) another 4 percent to $395.7 billion and then even further in April. Don't expect the cost overruns to end there: The test program is only 20 percent complete, the Government Accountability Office has reported (http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589454.pdf), and the toughest tests are yet to come. Overall, the program's cost has grown (http://www.acq.osd.mil/ara/am/sar/2001-Dec-SARSUMTAB.pdf) 75 percent from its original 2001 estimate of $226.5 billion -- and that was for a larger buy of 2,866 aircraft.

Hundreds of F-35s will be built before 2019, when initial testing is complete. The additional cost to engineer modifications to fix the inevitable deficiencies that will be uncovered is unknown, but it is sure to exceed the $534 million already known from tests so far. The total program unit cost for each individual F-35, now at $161 million, is only a temporary plateau. Expect yet another increase in early 2013, when a new round of budget restrictions is sure to hit the Pentagon, and the F-35 will take more hits in the form of reducing the numbers to be bought, thereby increasing the unit cost of each plane.
Don't Miss
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/front.jpg
The U.S. Jets That Ruled the Skies (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/26/Supersonic)

A final note on expense: The F-35 will actually cost multiples of the $395.7 billion cited above. That is the current estimate only to acquire it, not the full life-cycle cost to operate it. The current appraisal for operations and support is $1.1 trillion -- making for a grand total of $1.5 trillion, or more than the annual GDP of Spain (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sp.html). And that estimate is wildly optimistic: It assumes the F-35 will only be 42 percent more expensive to operate than an F-16, but the F-35 is much more complex. The only other "fifth generation" aircraft, the F-22 from the same manufacturer, is in some respects less complex than the F-35, but in 2010, it cost 300 percent more to operate per hour than the F-16. To be very conservative, expect the F-35 to be twice the operating and support cost of the F-16.
Already unaffordable, the F-35's price is headed in one direction -- due north.
The F-35 isn't only expensive -- it's way behind schedule.The first plan was to have an initial batch of F-35s available for combat in 2010. Then first deployment was to be 2012. More recently, the military services have said the deployment date is "to be determined." A new target date of 2019 has been informally suggested in testimony -- almost 10 years late.
If the F-35's performance were spectacular, it might be worth the cost and wait. But it is not. Even if the aircraft lived up to its original specifications -- and it will not -- it would be a huge disappointment. The reason it is such a mediocrity also explains why it is unaffordable and, for years to come, unobtainable

UPDATE: Pentagon buys 32 more F35s
http://www.dodbuzz.com/wp-content/themes/dodbuzz/thumb.php?src=http://www.dodbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/F35-Sea-Trials.jpg&w=300&h=200&zc=1&q=80

The Pentagon announced Thursday the U.S. has reached an agreement with Lockheed Martin on production lot five of the Joint Strike Fighter program meaning the U.S. officially bought 32 more F-35s.

Pentagon and Lockheed Martin negotiators have negotiated the contract for the past year leading to frustration on both sides. However, Defense Under Secretary Frank Kendall said Wednesday a contract was imminent.
“It was a tough negotiation and we are pleased that we’ve reached an agreement. It ends the year on a positive note and sets the program to move forward,” said George Little, the top Pentagon spokesman.


The break down for the fifth production lot will see the Air Force receive 22 fighters, the Navy will receive aircraft carrier versions and the Marine Corps will receive three short takeoff-vertical landing models.
Future Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson indicated a contract for the sixth production lot, which includes another 32 aircraft, is not far off. She said Thursday she expects the framework of the deal to be done by the end of the month.

Pentagon and Lockheed leaders rushed to complete these contracts in order to protect them from sequestration cuts should the Congress fail to reach a deficit reduction deal. The sequestration law stipulates that the cuts can’t touch previously obligated funds.


Settling on this contract means the F-35s also funds for the fifth, and possibly sixth, production lots will be insulated from the $500 billion in defense cuts stipulated in the Budget Control Act.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/11/30/update-pentagon-buys-32-more-f35s/

[devil21]

Hey their commercial says they are a "global force for good".....let the globe pick up the bill for the good force

They have a new Navy commercial out that highlights the duties of naval personnel. I was surprised when one that was centered prominently in the commercial was "TO OBEY AND FOLLOW THE ORDERS OF MY SUPERIORS". Right in the commercial. First time Ive ever seen such a thing in a military recruitment commercial.

[anaconda]

...

[tod evans]

Just think of all the money the Navy wouldn't spend if it were to stop ferrying troops and gear halfway around the world to engage in undeclared wars on foreign deserts....

[jclay2]

This is the best news I have heard in a while regarding our military activity. Too bad, this news will reignite the defense budget as the sheeple cry foul.

[A Son of Liberty]

Somewhere, a small middle eastern country full of people breathe a sigh of relief in unison.

[S.Shorland]

If there are budget cuts,the first thing they do are turn off the lights at your national monuments?This is probably the same thing.If the Dollar cracks,you will be huddling behind the sofa,listening to the riots outside.

[HOLLYWOOD]

In the FY2013 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) bill... Congress authorized $4 Billion for "Propaganda" targeting both foreign and domestic "audiences".

I can't imagine the SPENTAGON using that money to cover their fuel costs? That in itself reveals what a scam the; Military Industrial Complex, DOD, and Washington DC thievery, fabricate against the low information public.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr4310enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr4310enr.pdf

[acptulsa]

In the FY2013 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) bill... Congress authorized $4 Billion for "Propaganda" targeting both foreign and domestic "audiences".

I can't imagine the SPENTAGON using that money to cover their fuel costs? That in itself reveals what a scam the; Military Industrial Complex, DOD, and Washington DC thievery, fabricate against the low information public.

This.

If we really needed all the carriers we have, and if the Navy were really that broke, they'd stop production on the Gerald R. Ford class and make do with the excellent Nimitz class for a few years longer. But the Gerald R. Ford is still under construction. What does that tell you?

[camp_steveo]

Why is the Navy calling itself a "global force for good" anyway?

The purpose of the Navy is to protect the US, not the entire globe. Understanding this and applying it to our foreign policy would cut back significantly on fuel and other expenses.

[FindLiberty]

LOL. It's as easy as 1-2-3.

Arrange to get the entire crew off safely, move to deep waters and then scuttle it.

But, instead of doing the right thing, they'll invade some country that has fuel...
and then just take it.

[acptulsa]

LOL. It's as easy as 1-2-3.

Arrange to get the entire crew off safely, move to deep waters and then scuttle it.

But, instead of doing the right thing, they'll invade some country that has fuel...
and then just take it.

They've got a couple of liquid-fuel carriers up Bremerton way, sitting 'in mothballs'. Do you have any clue what we've spent over the decades to nominally maintain ancient ships so that if we have a huge shooting war we can bring them back to operating condition faster and more cheaply than we could build new, non-obsolete vessels? And now we have the third(?) Enterprise, the world's first nuclear-powered carrier. One reason the old girl's still in service is because they're not sure how to dispose of the radioactive-as-hell boiler in a way that won't piss off environmentalists.

Pete was right. It isn't even about defense. It's the Spendagon. Who else would keep building new ships even as they loudly proclaim to anyone who'll listen that they can't afford to fuel the ships they have?

[jbauer]

$3.3 Billion overhaul. That's a lot of dough

Interesting to see how they re-fuel the nuclear reactors

Realitive to what? The $85B a month in funny money?

[anaconda]

If there are budget cuts,the first thing they do are turn off the lights at your national monuments?This is probably the same thing.If the Dollar cracks,you will be huddling behind the sofa,listening to the riots outside.


Or, like Rand has said on national t.v., "they turn out the lights at the Little League park...."