The CIA needs to give up some of it's illicitly made money and lend it to the DoD.
Either that or we can steal, er I mean confiscate money tied to terrorism.
I bet we can get a few billion out of that.
Or we can just legalize and tax certain banned substances 100% and have enough money for everything.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They're preparing for sequestration. They've delayed Lincoln's refuel and refit, which is going to push back other refueling and refits on other ships. They've also had to delay other maintenance on other carriers because of no money. Sequestration is also added to the billions in extra repairs to other ships from collisions, fires, and various other mishaps.

Nonsense. These expenditures could simply be prioritized ahead of, oh I dont know, the parks service, obama phone subsidies, or any number of non-essential Government busy-work.

Originally posted by sprtpilot

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They're preparing for sequestration. They've delayed Lincoln's refuel and refit, which is going to push back other refueling and refits on other ships. They've also had to delay other maintenance on other carriers because of no money. Sequestration is also added to the billions in extra repairs to other ships from collisions, fires, and various other mishaps.

Nonsense. These expenditures could simply be prioritized ahead of, oh I dont know, the parks service, obama phone subsidies, or any number of non-essential Government busy-work.

The cuts agrred to be the GOP and DNC from the sequestration were deliberate in targeting things like the military so that it would matter and they would have to come to an agreement. Of course you could take money from a hundred other things and it would not be a drop in the bucket in the military budget. And how do phone subsidies from the 1930s some how become Obama's subsidies, of course they are not from taxes but fees the phone companies pay.

As for the safety of the carriers, nothing outside of a high yield ICBM is going to be able to take them out and if that is the case then they will not matter anyway as we will be in a full scale nuclear war. Comparing this to something like Pearl Harbor is just silly.

So sitting in Port.
What happens to the Military personnel on them? Still active duty getting paid.
Nuclear powered not costing that much to run like fuel would.
The military still eating.

Where is this saving money then?

I'm thinking something is up and something like we have something so crazy bad we just may not need these type military anymore. Like do we have these triangle craft so many people have seen as UFO's. Was that meteor shot down in Russia?

Or are they sitting in port so what ever happens to the ocean (Pacific) they don't take the hit as bad being in Virginia.
Could be we are actually out of money due to this crazy Government running the country these days.

Originally posted by Connman
So sitting in Port.
What happens to the Military personnel on them? Still active duty getting paid.
Nuclear powered not costing that much to run like fuel would.
The military still eating.

Where is this saving money then?

You don't have all the ships sailing (99% of the battle group is gas turbine powered so requires fuel which costs), you don't have all the support ships sailing (the USNS resupply ships), you don't have the air wing flying (which requires jet fuel, which costs), you don't have to pay for them to go into ports in foreign countries, etc. You actually save a lot by not sailing a carrier battle group, the problem is that when you need them they're weeks away from where you need them at, sitting in a port in the US.

One of the problems with sequestration is that the Navy has made the choice that they are going to cut opstempo, and leave R&D and ship building intact. They have decided that it's more important to have the capabilities later, than to have them now, and then have to ramp back up at a later date. So 10 years from now we're going to be in great shape, but for the next two or three, the Navy is screwed.

Lets think of other reasons to have them here, even at half capacity. With pending Civil problems at home the government is aware of, could they have been brought back for quick deployment along the East Coast and in the Gulf if needed? Paranoia talking but another angle. They can sequester all they want but if needed, the military will move. If it is not a good move to keep them all there I would look for a reason outside the box to use them all. There is always a reason something is done and you have to look 2 steps back and 4 forward...

1. Ban gun sales
2. Make US citizens register all firearms, banned will be confiscated.
3. Deploy NG for enforcement
4. SHTF and people say no more and resist
5. Plant a big ass boat off the coast. Mobile drone bases and no civilian tech can touch it. total enforcement
6. Boy, that would suck

The Navy is playing fear monger as is the illustrious Wrabbit....
Truley it would take a massive fleet of aircraft and a few carrier to attack the ship yards....
An ICBM would do it too, but that indeed would escalate things beyond the scope of aircraft carriers anyways.
Or were you worried about the Mexican Cartels submarines?

Originally posted by stirling
The Navy is playing fear monger as is the illustrious Wrabbit....
Truley it would take a massive fleet of aircraft and a few carrier to attack the ship yards....
An ICBM would do it too, but that indeed would escalate things beyond the scope of aircraft carriers anyways.
Or were you worried about the Mexican Cartels submarines?

No. 5 high-yield conventional hypersonic cruise missiles will to the trick. Whether this technology exists is a different matter.

But really if starting a war with the USA was my goal the first thing I would attack is not the port but all the nuclear submarines and mainland ICBM silos. Any good General worth the cent would reach this conclusion.

Call me naive.. but WHO exactly would it be that would attack us in port???

This isn't the 1940's. Nothing is going to "sneak up on us". So who would it be? Russia? We would see them coming. China? Doubt it. Sadam maybe comes back from the dead and attacks us with his ghostly wmd's?

I think those carriers are just as safe in port as they are in the Persian Gulf. And besides.. do you know how much it takes to run a carrier group?? If these jerk-offs can't even get the budget right, its no wonder they are sitting at port. Then again, is it possible they are cycling out crew??

In my opinion...

This is just more fear tactics to justify the continuing deficit spending. They have no intention of becoming realistic in their appropriations of money. The Democrats are up in arms over social cuts and 1 day a week furloughs and the Republicans are crying foul about defense cuts. Neither group is going to budge over their preferred programs.

Common sense left the building years ago.

I still find it striking that we "used" to manage our money much-much better and still got everything done that needed to be done and had a solid defense.

If they are sooo concerned about the big boats sitting in port...maybe they should drop the foreign aid...use that money here and stop handing money to the mega corporations and their Wall Street criminal friends. Whew!...what a concept!

Originally posted by watcher3339
This, the Woodward thing, the Palin comment...something doesn't smell good here. Either we are expecting something and need them there (bad), something is going to be staged (bad), or we are beyond wicked broke and we are just dead in the water (bad pun).

ATS is on all the pieces and I really hope that this thing just passes over, whatever it may be.

I don't understand how money could be a reason for them being all tied up sitting at port?

I mean, the sailors will disembark the ship, go to barracks or whatever and still be drawing their wages right?

The barracks will still be buying, cooking and serving them food, energy will still be used to power the barracks, and so really the only other cost difference would be to actually move the ship itself through the water wouldn't it?

Aren't most if not all of the carriers Nuclear powered? So where's the massive costs they would be worried about if these ships were out to sea?

Then there's the cost to the country of having 50% - 75% of your carrier fleet sitting ducks at port.

I thought the world was supposed to be a very dangerous place these days...guess it's all safe now.

That should save quite a penny, now there's no threat and DHS can be wound up and put to pasture....

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Call me naive.. but WHO exactly would it be that would attack us in port???

This isn't the 1940's. Nothing is going to "sneak up on us". So who would it be? Russia? We would see them coming. China? Doubt it. Sadam maybe comes back from the dead and attacks us with his ghostly wmd's?

I think those carriers are just as safe in port as they are in the Persian Gulf. And besides.. do you know how much it takes to run a carrier group?? If these jerk-offs can't even get the budget right, its no wonder they are sitting at port. Then again, is it possible they are cycling out crew??

Sabre rattling or not, North Korea just threatened to blow the USA away with nukes, only a few days ago.

I would have thought, even if the threat was being considered more of the same old NK nonsense, it would be prudent to come down on the side of caution.

We never stop hearing about Terrorists, wouldn't the bulk of the US carrier fleet be a tempting target for these?

We never stop hearing about Iran either, i'd imagine if they are as bloodthirsty and maniacle as they'd been repeatedly painted over the years, they might fancy a pop at a carrier or so.

The Chinese may decide to stage a preemptive missile strike, claim a missile test malfunction blah blah blah.

There's actually plenty of reasons to not put most of your eggs in one basket, however unlikely the threats might seem.

Originally posted by Tardacus
What are those other ships at the top of the photo, they look like carriers only smaller?

LHD = Landing Helicopter Dock, the main ship of am Amphibious Ready Group, about 40,000 tons displacement, carries a lot of choppers and some Harrier jets.

Originally posted by SG-17
So only 4 carriers are in port. 6 currently at sea. That is 5 more than any other country.

COMPLETELY false! Why does this get stars? Does anyone check anything? There are THREE carriers at sea and SEVEN in port.

CVN-68 Nimitz is in home port, Everett (11/21/12). Non-deployable. Cooling pump issue.
CVN-69 Eisenhower deployed to the 5th Fleet AOR (2/22/13).
CVN-70 Vinson is conducting training in the pacific (02/21/13).
CVN-71 Roosevelt is at Newport News for RCOH & non-deployable, Avail late 2012.
CVN-72 Lincoln is in home port, Norfolk for RCOH & non-deployable, Avail 2016.
CVN-73 Washington is in home port, Yokosuka, Japan (11/21/12).
CVN-74 Stennis is in the 5th Fleet AOR (10/26/12).
CVN-75 Truman is in home port, Norfolk, VA (02/07/13).
CVN-76 Reagan is in Bremerton for DPIA & non-deployable until 2013. should be done
CVN-77 Bush is in home port, Norfolk, VA (2/21/13).

As for the so-called ALT carriers, it hardly matters as they are not fit for sea anyway. Only ONE, the USS Kitty Hawk, is being kept in "ready reserve" status. Here is their disposition:

CV-59 Forrestal, 1955—1993, Newport, RI, Fate: scrap or sink
CV-60 Saratoga, 1956—1994, Newport, RI, Fate: scrap or sink
CV-61 Ranger, 1957—1993, Bremerton, WA, Fate: scrap or museum
CV-62 Independence, 1959—1998, Bremerton, WA, Fate: scrap or sink
CV-63 Kitty Hawk, 1961—2009, Bremerton; WA, Fate: reserve until 2015
CV-64 Constellation, 1961—2003, Bremerton, Fate: scrap or sink
CVN-65 Enterprise, 1962-2012, Norfolk, Fate: scrap
CV-66 America, 1965—1996, Fate: scuttled in live fire exercise, 2005
CV-67 John F Kennedy, 1968—2007, Philadelphia, Fate: donation hold