Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-08-2013, 21:23   #21
railfancwb
Senior Member
 
railfancwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Shelbyville, Tennessee TN
Posts: 4,415
Seems I read that a nuc carrier or sub is built for fifty year life expectancy and the reactor must be refueled after twenty-five years.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
"Never give to your friend any power that your enemy may some day inherit." -- Paul Weyrich
railfancwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 21:29   #22
wprebeck
Got quacks?
 
wprebeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In a flooded corn field
Posts: 8,759
And people wonder why folks shouldn't speak on topics about which they are uneducated.

Further proving the stereotype of Kentucky, my fellow from the eastern portion of the state shows his ignorance. Pray tell, do you know the difference between CV and CVN? While you're at it, how is the rest of the battle group powered? You don't believe that carriers sail out without support ships, both armed and unarmed, do you?


Honestly, I'm surprised you are allowed in whatever county you reside. Anti military folks don't do so well in the hills.

Lest you think I'm some city dweller - I own a farm in eastern KY (like near the WV border) and have family in Boyd county. Also grew up in rural AL so I'm not some ignorant city slicker running his mouth. I know the area, and know what kind of folks populate it - you're definitely atypical.
wprebeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 21:30   #23
geauxbubba
Member
 
geauxbubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Bayou State
Posts: 30
It's not about filling the tank with fuel, it is a major overhaul, probably hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. see below from the article.

"Shipyard later this month to begin the 4-year refueling and complex overhaul (RCOH) of the ship."
geauxbubba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 22:22   #24
GAFinch
Senior Member
 
GAFinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 5,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnemyOfTheState View Post
Neoconservative alarmism, nothing more.
More like Obama and his minions trying to scare Republicans into trading the sequestration for more tax increases. So far, almost every Republican is favoring the sequestration.
__________________
Fear the government that fears your guns.
GAFinch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 22:43   #25
EOS
Headbanger
 
EOS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 1,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAFinch View Post
More like Obama and his minions trying to scare Republicans into trading the sequestration for more tax increases. So far, almost every Republican is favoring the sequestration.
Why shouldn't the military budget of 900 billion be cut?

I dont like huge government spending no matter if it is on the military or the welfare state.

Seems to be a double standard with you folks. I'd say trillion dollar deficits, a 16 trillion dollar national debt warrants a cut on government spending across the board. Obviously you prefer big spending.
EOS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 23:03   #26
EOS
Headbanger
 
EOS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 1,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by wprebeck View Post
And people wonder why folks shouldn't speak on topics about which they are uneducated.

Further proving the stereotype of Kentucky, my fellow from the eastern portion of the state shows his ignorance. Pray tell, do you know the difference between CV and CVN? While you're at it, how is the rest of the battle group powered? You don't believe that carriers sail out without support ships, both armed and unarmed, do you?


Honestly, I'm surprised you are allowed in whatever county you reside. Anti military folks don't do so well in the hills.

Lest you think I'm some city dweller - I own a farm in eastern
KY (like near the WV border) and have family in Boyd county. Also grew up in rural AL so I'm not some ignorant city slicker running his mouth. I know the area, and know what kind of folks populate it - you're definitely atypical.
I'm not ignorant nor uneducated.


I don't care if the carriers run on veggie oil. The fact is, if 900 billion dollars isn't enough, some serious cuts need to be made. I'm not anti-military for your information, my cousin was in the Marines and served in Iraq. I don't hate, nor disrespect any servicemen. So I'm gonna head you off right there.

But I'm not so hypocritical that I ridicule a POTUS for his fiscal policies, and complain and moan when the military isn't given a blank check.


When I advocate staying out other country's internal affairs, closing the 200 foriegn military bases all over the globe, and stop arming the supposed enemy in one country while we fight them in another, isn't ignorant or anti-military, it's simple math, chief, just math.


When the government spends more than it takes in, it's a problem and sooner or later will affect the standard of living.


Borrowing money from China to police the world, doesn't make much sense to me. Sorry, but I just can't get on board with that asinine thinking. If that makes me ignorant and uneducated then whatever, Hoss.
EOS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 23:21   #27
Slug71
Senior Member
 
Slug71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oregon - U.S.A
Posts: 4,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnemyOfTheState View Post
Why shouldn't the military budget of 900 billion be cut?

I dont like huge government spending no matter if it is on the military or the welfare state.

Seems to be a double standard with you folks. I'd say trillion dollar deficits, a 16 trillion dollar national debt warrants a cut on government spending across the board. Obviously you prefer big spending.
Agreed.
Every one wants spending cuts but don't touch defense. Actually, increase it! :rolleyes:

The U.S. has as many carriers as every other country combined. The U.S. carriers are also far more capable.
I don't think more than 3 carriers have ever been deployed at one time either.

Between the entire carrier group, I don't think the other countries combined could take on half of the U.S.'s fleet.
__________________
GSSF Member
Bull Dawgs Club #571
Rimfire Club #571
Slug71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 23:24   #28
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnemyOfTheState View Post
Borrowing money from China to police the world, doesn't make much sense to me. Sorry, but I just can't get on board with that asinine thinking. If that makes me ignorant and uneducated then whatever, Hoss.
Good post. However, China now isn't even buying US gov't debt anymore. The Federal Reserve is pretty much monetizing the entire federal deficit right now. I can't find the article offhand but last month the Fed bought more Treasury debt than was actually issued during the month. The central bank is just creating money to pay for this crap and you see the effects with rising prices, reduced standard of living for everyone (except those that benefit from the military spending), elderly seeing their checks lasting less and less, etc.
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 23:27   #29
Slug71
Senior Member
 
Slug71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oregon - U.S.A
Posts: 4,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Good post. However, China now isn't even buying US gov't debt anymore. The Federal Reserve is pretty much monetizing the entire federal deficit right now. I can't find the article offhand but last month the Fed bought more Treasury debt than was actually issued during the month. The central bank is just creating money to pay for this crap and you see the effects with rising prices, reduced standard of living for everyone (except those that benefit from the military spending), elderly seeing their checks lasting less and less, etc.
Sadly its seems its only going to get worse too. They just don't seem to care nor realize the impact its having. Like its just eventually going to disappear.
__________________
GSSF Member
Bull Dawgs Club #571
Rimfire Club #571
Slug71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 23:36   #30
EOS
Headbanger
 
EOS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 1,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Good post. However, China now isn't even buying US gov't debt anymore. The Federal Reserve is pretty much monetizing the entire federal deficit right now. I can't find the article offhand but last month the Fed bought more Treasury debt than was actually issued during the month. The central bank is just creating money to pay for this crap and you see the effects with rising prices, reduced standard of living for everyone (except those that benefit from the military spending), elderly seeing their checks lasting less and less, etc.
You are absolutely correct, but im betting the military is using equipment purchased with Chinese money.


I could've explained that the Fed is creating money out of thin air to finance the military adventurism. Sadly when you start talking about the Fed is when you lose most neocons. It's like explaining land to a fish.



It's sad to watch folks defending policies that are detrimental to their on wellbeing.

Last edited by EOS; 02-08-2013 at 23:39..
EOS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 00:15   #31
czsmithGT
Senior Member
 
czsmithGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by railfancwb View Post
Seems I read that a nuc carrier or sub is built for fifty year life expectancy and the reactor must be refueled after twenty-five years.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Correct. The Lincoln was launched in 1988 so it is due for its Refueling Complex Over-Haul (RCOH) which will take around 4 years. After that it will be going into the second half of its projected lifespan.

We need to have 11 carriers in order to be able to have 3-6 always available for combat duties. It would have been nice to have had one in the Mediterranean when the Benghazi attack was taking place.
czsmithGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 00:50   #32
wprebeck
Got quacks?
 
wprebeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In a flooded corn field
Posts: 8,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnemyOfTheState View Post
I'm not ignorant nor uneducated.


I don't care if the carriers run on veggie oil. The fact is, if 900 billion dollars isn't enough, some serious cuts need to be made. I'm not anti-military for your information, my cousin was in the Marines and served in Iraq. I don't hate, nor disrespect any servicemen. So I'm gonna head you off right there.

But I'm not so hypocritical that I ridicule a POTUS for his fiscal policies, and complain and moan when the military isn't given a blank check.


When I advocate staying out other country's internal affairs, closing the 200 foriegn military bases all over the globe, and stop arming the supposed enemy in one country while we fight them in another, isn't ignorant or anti-military, it's simple math, chief, just math.


When the government spends more than it takes in, it's a problem and sooner or later will affect the standard of living.


Borrowing money from China to police the world, doesn't make much sense to me. Sorry, but I just can't get on board with that asinine thinking. If that makes me ignorant and uneducated then whatever, Hoss.
So, how do we then maintain our strategic interests, if we just close up shop? Ever think it's highly advisable to maintain a presence around the world, in case a flare up happens, and we need a quick response? Hoss?

As far as your comments regarding the military and family - my sister is a lawyer. Doesn't mean I like them any more just because she chose that particular field for a career.

And yes, you ARE ignorant, using the word as defined. You have no idea what is involved in pushing a carrier group (the most common and effective means of power projection ever devised by man) around the globe. These battle groups protect United States interests in every corner of this little planet. They are vital to the security of this country, like it or not. Hoss (We're in KY, not TX - where'd the Hoss thing come from?)

I can think of a number of places to cut (EBT/WIC anyone) before we touch the people and equipment that keep us safe from clowns who'd just as soon hurt us. And for all you idiots who can't figure it out - asymmetrical warfare won't last forever. One of these days, another world war will occur - I'd like to be ahead of the curve this time, instead of trying to ramp up for 2-3 years, and almost losing the war.

We've scaled so far back, that we're likely behind the curve already, but hopefully tech will overcome numbers long enough to get the tools of war back into production.

Again, we WILL have another world war one day - I might be long gone before then, might not. Until then, I'd like to see a big, bad ass military that causes enemies to shake at the mere thought of it coming the kick their ass. If it means we pay more, at least we're paying for something that's actually in the Constitution. Beats paying for abortions.
wprebeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 01:35   #33
Slug71
Senior Member
 
Slug71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oregon - U.S.A
Posts: 4,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by czsmithGT View Post
Correct. The Lincoln was launched in 1988 so it is due for its Refueling Complex Over-Haul (RCOH) which will take around 4 years. After that it will be going into the second half of its projected lifespan.

We need to have 11 carriers in order to be able to have 3-6 always available for combat duties. It would have been nice to have had one in the Mediterranean when the Benghazi attack was taking place.
Will be going to a smaller fleet than that. Only 3 Gerald R. Ford class are planned(being built) for not and is not expected to exceed 10.
On top of that, we still have like 10 Amphibious Assault ships which the Harriers operate from.

With the advancement in technology and weapons, we could probably easily drop to 8 carriers without it effecting our military might compared to other countries. If they are spaced out correctly you could still have 3-6 ready at any given time.
__________________
GSSF Member
Bull Dawgs Club #571
Rimfire Club #571
Slug71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 01:41   #34
EOS
Headbanger
 
EOS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 1,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by wprebeck View Post
So, how do we then maintain our strategic interests, if we just close up shop? Ever think it's highly advisable to maintain a presence around the world, in case a flare up happens, and we need a quick response? Hoss?

As far as your comments regarding the military and family - my sister is a lawyer. Doesn't mean I like them any more just because she chose that particular field for a career.

And yes, you ARE ignorant, using the word as defined. You have no idea what is involved in pushing a carrier group (the most common and effective means of power projection ever devised by man) around the globe. These battle groups protect United States interests in every corner of this little planet. They are vital to the security of this country, like it or not. Hoss
(We're in KY, not TX - where'd the Hoss thing come from?)

I can think of a number of places to cut (EBT/WIC anyone) before we touch the people and equipment that keep us safe from clowns who'd just as soon hurt us. And for all you idiots who can't figure it out - asymmetrical warfare won't last forever. One of these days, another world war will occur - I'd like to be ahead of the curve this time, instead of trying to ramp up for 2-3 years, and almost losing the war.

We've scaled so far back, that we're likely behind the curve
already, but hopefully tech will overcome numbers long enough to get the tools of war back into production.

Again, we WILL have another world war one day - I might be long gone before then, might not. Until then, I'd like to see a big, bad ass military that causes enemies to shake at the mere thought of it coming the kick their ass. If it means we pay more, at least we're paying for something that's actually in the Constitution. Beats paying for abortions.
Well, heres the problem with your current WW3 fantasy. At the rate we are spending money, the country will be long bankrupted by the time a WW3 occurs. In such a case, the country will either be restructuring or still under civil unrest. In either scenario, we damn sure won't be able to fight another world war. Frankly I think you wanting to spend us into collapse over a speculative and hypothetical situation is quite foolish.

We can either cut spending across the board right now, and silence our egos and give up this big dick foreign policy and maybe if a WW3 occurs at least we MIGHT still have a country.

You must understand that in order to finance the foriegn policy you advocate, The Federal Reserve must create it out of thin air by monetizing our debt. This has a disasterous effect on the value of our dollar. Eventually people who hold their pensions, 401k and IRA in dollars will have their life savings severly devalued. Is all that worth it to you? Just to have a dick measuring contest with the world?

BTW we use Hoss all the time where im from. The name isn't just a Texas term.
EOS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 01:49   #35
Slug71
Senior Member
 
Slug71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oregon - U.S.A
Posts: 4,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by wprebeck View Post
So, how do we then maintain our strategic interests, if we just close up shop? Ever think it's highly advisable to maintain a presence around the world, in case a flare up happens, and we need a quick response? Hoss?

As far as your comments regarding the military and family - my sister is a lawyer. Doesn't mean I like them any more just because she chose that particular field for a career.

And yes, you ARE ignorant, using the word as defined. You have no idea what is involved in pushing a carrier group (the most common and effective means of power projection ever devised by man) around the globe. These battle groups protect United States interests in every corner of this little planet. They are vital to the security of this country, like it or not. Hoss (We're in KY, not TX - where'd the Hoss thing come from?)

I can think of a number of places to cut (EBT/WIC anyone) before we touch the people and equipment that keep us safe from clowns who'd just as soon hurt us. And for all you idiots who can't figure it out - asymmetrical warfare won't last forever. One of these days, another world war will occur - I'd like to be ahead of the curve this time, instead of trying to ramp up for 2-3 years, and almost losing the war.

We've scaled so far back, that we're likely behind the curve already, but hopefully tech will overcome numbers long enough to get the tools of war back into production.

Again, we WILL have another world war one day - I might be long gone before then, might not. Until then, I'd like to see a big, bad ass military that causes enemies to shake at the mere thought of it coming the kick their ass. If it means we pay more, at least we're paying for something that's actually in the Constitution. Beats paying for abortions.
The next WW will be a cyber war.

The carriers are vital to our security. But we don't need bases in every country. We are not the world police. Thats what we have the carriers and allies for.

Abortions and EBT/welfare definitely needs to be cut. Drastically. To a number below that of the defense budget.
But defense needs cuts too.
Every single acquisition runs over budget and we just throw more money at the manufacturers. F-35(most expensive to date and falls short), the new tankers, F-22, V-22 Osprey, the new Zumwalt Destroyers....etc. Hold the damn pricks accountable. Make them fix their eff ups. If they can't stay on budget, give the contract to someone else. Billions of $$$ have been waisted from botched tenders. When Boeing started running over on the new tankers, they should have given the contract back to Airbus and told them to stay on target or it goes back to Boeing.
__________________
GSSF Member
Bull Dawgs Club #571
Rimfire Club #571
Slug71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 01:52   #36
Slug71
Senior Member
 
Slug71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oregon - U.S.A
Posts: 4,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnemyOfTheState View Post
Well, heres the problem with your current WW3 fantasy. At the rate we are spending money, the country will be long bankrupted by the time a WW3 occurs. In such a case, the country will either be restructuring or still under civil unrest. In either scenario, we damn sure won't be able to fight another world war. Frankly I think you wanting to spend us into collapse over a speculative and hypothetical situation is quite foolish.

We can either cut spending across the board right now, and silence our egos and give up this big dick foreign policy and maybe if a WW3 occurs at least we MIGHT still have a country.

You must understand that in order to finance the foriegn policy you advocate, The Federal Reserve must create it out of thin air by monetizing our debt. This has a disasterous effect on the value of our dollar. Eventually people who hold their pensions, 401k and IRA in dollars will have their life savings severly devalued. Is all that worth it to you? Just to have a dick measuring contest with the world?

BTW we use Hoss all the time where im from. The name isn't just a Texas term.
Well said.
__________________
GSSF Member
Bull Dawgs Club #571
Rimfire Club #571
Slug71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 02:37   #37
Gary W Trott
Prickley Fan
 
Gary W Trott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: West Warwick, RI
Posts: 15,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnemyOfTheState View Post
Why shouldn't the military budget of 900 billion be cut?

I dont like huge government spending no matter if it is on the military or the welfare state.

Seems to be a double standard with you folks. I'd say trillion dollar deficits, a 16 trillion dollar national debt warrants a cut on government spending across the board. Obviously you prefer big spending.
That's the game. One side demands cuts to the military budget while the other side demands cuts to the social spending budget. Then in the manufactured gridlock of DC they compromise and guarantee that the pork continues to flow to both sides and doesn't go down. That's how we came to have the $17+ trillion debt that we have.

I agree with the poster up above who says that this aircraft carrier situation is just another version of threatening to close the beaches unless budget demands are met. Maybe someday people will really be fed up with all of this and change our elected officials accordingly, but to be honest I'm not going to be expecting it any time soon.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


"What I want most from the government is to be left alone." GWT
"Don't take my, or anyone else's, word for anything. Look it up for yourself." William Cooper on The Hour of The Time

Last edited by Gary W Trott; 02-09-2013 at 10:22.. Reason: to add: "to close"
Gary W Trott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 03:07   #38
Slug71
Senior Member
 
Slug71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oregon - U.S.A
Posts: 4,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary W Trott View Post
That's the game. One side demands cuts to the military budget while the other side demands cuts to the social spending budget. Then in the manufactured gridlock of DC they compromise and guarantee that the pork continues to flow to both sides and doesn't go down. That's how we came to have the $17+ trillion debt that we have.

I agree with the poster up above who says that this aircraft carrier situation is just another version of threatening the beaches unless budget demands are met. Maybe someday people will really be fed up with all of this and change our elected officials accordingly, but to be honest I'm not going to be expecting it any time soon.
On the money.
__________________
GSSF Member
Bull Dawgs Club #571
Rimfire Club #571
Slug71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 15:04   #39
G29Reload
Tread Lightly
 
G29Reload's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPIN2010 View Post
Who cares about carrier fuel? That is the least of my concerns. The BIGGESTconcern I have is freedom
Ironic poster is ironic.



You really, really think those aircraft carriers have nothing to do with your freedom?

Russia treating us like a punk?
Iran hellbent for nukes
NK always on the warpath
China arming itself at an alarming rate


You think appearing weak will help with that?
__________________
Avenge me...AVENGE ME!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
G29Reload is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 16:51   #40
QNman
resU deretsigeR
 
QNman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAFinch View Post
More like Obama and his minions trying to scare Republicans into trading the sequestration for more tax increases. So far, almost every Republican is favoring the sequestration.
Yup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnemyOfTheState View Post
Why shouldn't the military budget of 900 billion be cut?

I dont like huge government spending no matter if it is on the military or the welfare state.

Seems to be a double standard with you folks. I'd say trillion dollar deficits, a 16 trillion dollar national debt warrants a cut on government spending across the board. Obviously you prefer big spending.
I'm thinking you should probably Google "sequestration" before you get too deep here...

In fact, here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_sequestration
__________________
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

TERM LIMITS NOW!!!
QNman is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:39.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 891
261 Members
630 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31