It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Pentagon Considers Retiring Navy Carrier

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   
The Navy would retire the USS John F. Kennedy under a new budget proposal being discussed by the Pentagon. This revelation comes on the heels of a recent announcement that the Air Force may reduce the number of F/A-22s by 100 planes. In addition, the Navy would reduce the number of LPD-17 San Antonio-class amphibious ship that cost 1.2 billion dollars each.
 



news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON - The Navy would retire one of its 12 aircraft carriers and the Air Force would reduce its buy of F-22 stealth fighters under budget proposals being discussed in the Pentagon, officials said Thursday.

Eric Ruff, a Pentagon spokesman, said he could not discuss specifics of the 2006 fiscal year defense budget to be submitted by President Bush for consideration by Congress early next year.

"The budget is not decided," he said, adding that it would be unwise to speculate on final decisions.

Other officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because proposals are still being weighed, said it appeared likely that for cost-saving reasons the Navy would retire one of its 12 carriers.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Carriers are a key part of US foreign policy and reflect our ability to project force. However, the Pentagon is looking for ways to help pay for the Iraq war. The John F. Kennedy is the third oldest in the fleet and was on pace to be retired in 2018. They also are looking at cuts to the JSF program. At this point it seems no weapons system may be immune to the budget cuts.




posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I posted this link to show operating expenses for the tub in question. 120 mil a year will be saved by decomissioning the ship.
www.fas.org...

At least they won't be out there for much longer, wasting 120 mil a year to run over small fishing boats. This was a small story, and not really that big a deal, I just happened to find the article while doing other research and I thought some people might get a kick out if it. Link below.

ap.tbo.com...

They're destroying the anti-iraqi forces?! That's US! No wonder this boat's getting retired. They're out there blowing up anti-Iraqi forces. LOL Check this link out below.

www.news.navy.mil...



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Why retire a carrier? Its built and being operational for awhile, it seems that they wont "get there money's worth" if the scrap it now.


This Iraq War is taking away all of the US's New toys.




[edit on 30-12-2004 by Murcielago]



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 12:17 AM
link   
What is transpiring is basically a "review" of options for cutting a near $500 billion dollar defense budget by a mere $60 billion. 'Options' are just that: options and do not amount to anything concrete or final.

From my perspective, despite future requirements, cutting the number of aircraft carriers from 12 to 11 is not worthy of being considered. The annual cost, which includes operating and support costs, equate to only $196.3 million dollars (and thats per 1993 figures) for just the conventional aircraft carriers (the Kennedy and Kitty Hawk). If one wanted to save some dough, why not axe both the conventional aircraft carriers? The amount saved would still be nothing when compared to $60 billion, IMHO. Besides, getting rid of a few carriers leaves room for maneuver when it comes to adding newer generation carriers at a later date.


Perhaps closing, thus shifting those troops to other preferred bases, the majority of our bases in Europe, and elsewhere, would be a better alternative then cutting carriers? Then again, BRAC (Base Closure And Reduction) isn't supposed to meet till sometime May 2005, so maybe we haven't heard the last on this option.





seekerof

[edit on 31-12-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 01:01 AM
link   
I think it's important to note that this is a very old ship and one that, I believe, isn't even nuclear-powered. No one is losing 'their money's worth' because this vessel has already seen decades of service.

And, to be frank, the F-22 is, perhaps, the greatest manned fighter in the world. Unfortunately, it arrived at the moment in time when big, manned fighters were made obsolete by 1) asymmetrical warfare 2)laser/beam weapons and 3)UCAVs.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 07:46 AM
link   
I agree Seeker, that one CBG is not really a huge impact. Cutting the conventional powered CBG out and replacing them with Nukes would be the way to go. 12 is the minimum number that the Navy needs to maintain power over the seas. Remeber that one is always in extended overhaul and is not able to put to sea.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Just what the Navy needs! Another one of their tools headed to the scrap heap. From what I understand, the Navy is underfunded to begin with. We all can thank ex- president Clinton aka Slick Willy for gutting the military budgets while he was in office. Pres. Bush is just now getting the military back up on its feet. Rummy has been pushing this notion since he was put in charge of the military, budgets... The JFK may be old, but it can be reto-fitted to bring it up to todays standards and needs. Putting this in the heap would send a wrong message to those govt.'s across the pond. They might start to think that we may be looking to cut costs due to the war in Iraq. Just a thought and have a happy New Year!



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 09:20 AM
link   
The cuttings are necessary due to the present need of cuts on the defense budget.

Right now our local base has a new contract for 45 million dollars to renovate Taiwanese combat vehicles.

So if you are in need of a job and knows how to weld our local base has about 200 openings to work on this project.


So our local base cut on the armor vehicle safety because the government cancels the production at the expenses of our troops in Iraq, but now we have Taiwanese vehicles to protect and repair.

Funny. Right?



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Personally I'm suprised that the USN would retire the JFK. I was expecting them to retire the USS Kitty Hawk (not sure if it's been retired yet) or the USS Enterprise (launched 1961, first nuclear powered aircraft carrier ever). The Enterprise was at supposed to be retired early this year according to reports around 2000-2001. It's really a shame to see the navy having to make these budget cuts.

That d@mn war in Iraq is really straining our budget. All those idiots in D.C. forget that low cost products doesn't create an effective military.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
They're destroying the anti-iraqi forces?! That's US! No wonder this boat's getting retired. They're out there blowing up anti-Iraqi forces. LOL Check this link out below.

www.news.navy.mil...


Of course the are attacking Anti-Iraqi forces that is what they are supposed to do. They are called insurgents I assume the word anti confused you. It happens.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   
A downfall is its powered by 8 boilers, nuclear is the way to go.

It started its life back in 1968, but carriers have a projected life span of 50 years, so it could stay operational for 13 more years. It has being in service for nearly 37 years, which is quite a while.

Newer Carriers (Ronald Reagan CVN-76) are more designed for the 50 year life, they have plenty of room on deck and other places for room for new future equiptment, since who knows what tech we will have in 50 years.
heres a pic of the shiny brand new CVN-76.



[edit on 31-12-2004 by Murcielago]



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Shots

It's called a joke. Humor, Irony, the spice of life. BTW, I would say the only anti-Iraqis in Iraq are foreign military. There may be anti-shiite, anti-sunni, anti baathist, anti american, anti-christian, or any number of other insurgents there of Iraqi or foreign descent. Most of them, however, are just trying to get their country back from the invaders.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join