HMS Dauntless

[phucheneh]

I won't ever understand the military contracts = jobs thing.

So, blow billions on programs we don't need, like cutting edge aircraft, ships, ect to patrol...Somalia? Afghanistan?

...just to give people jobs? Isn't that basically just an extremely wasteful form of welfare? I mean, seriously, removing the super-expensive shit from the equation, the profiteering by the leaders of these defense companies...you could give more people 'jobs' (read: incomes) AND save the country money.

Why are we not using these kinds of federal funds to put people to work fixing our broken-ass infrastructure, rather than building fighter planes that cost fifty million dollars a piece or whatever?

 

[freegeeks]

And one of them is going to be mothballed as soon as it's completed because the Royal Navy's budget has been gutted. Sad, sad state of affairs.

never read something about the mothballing, more active reserve, the plans are basically to have only 1 air wing so 1 ship will be active and the other one in reserve if the active one needs maintenance.

 

[ichy]

Pretty outdated. The UK only has one aircraft carrier still in service, the Illustrious, and it doesn't even carry aircraft anymore and will be retired in 2014. And the US only has 10 aircraft carriers still in service - all the little ones on the left side are retired, and two of the larger ones are out as well (they've probably included the Enterprise and the John F. Kennedy).

I think for the US they're counting amphibious ship that carry helicopters and Harriers as aircraft carriers. For the UK they were probably also counting HMS Ocean.

 

[ichy]

I rather they cut the waste in Defense then fucking me out of my S.S. and/or making me retire when I hit 80.

Nobody will be fucked out of Social Security. This notion that you should be able to pay into SS for 30 years and then receive benefits from it for 30 years is insane.

 

[ichy]

jobs? defense contracts employs an army of people. I call that a good thing.

Absurd argument. The purpose of defense spending is to protect our national interests. If you want to create jobs you're better off cutting taxes or building infrastructure that we actually use.

 

[techs]

never read something about the mothballing, more active reserve, the plans are basically to have only 1 air wing so 1 ship will be active and the other one in reserve if the active one needs maintenance.

♫Don't cry for me Argentina♫

 

[phucheneh]

Oh, and the corrections for the US portion of the carrier graphic, I believe:

Left top is Tarawa class, which has five, but is down to one active. Below is Wasp, which has eight active. New America class ships of this size are already under construction.

There are now ten active Nimitz carriers, with one Gerald Ford (I know, not the most intimidating designation) coming soon and more to follow.

We has boats. In dif'rent area codddessss....

 

[techs]

I think the US Navy could destroy every other navy combined in like five minutes. With half its fleet tied behind its back.

 

[Yreka]

SBD Dauntless is the superior Dauntless.

Good man...

I was going to post "this (op) is my 2nd favorite Dauntless", but that works too

 

[OutHouse]

Absurd argument. The purpose of defense spending is to protect our national interests. If you want to create jobs you're better off cutting taxes or building infrastructure that we actually use.

lol

 

[ichy]

lol

Lol yourself. If military spending generated prosperity then the USSR would have been the richest nation on Earth.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Exterminate!

 

[OnePingOnly]

Lol yourself. If military spending generated prosperity then the USSR would have been the richest nation on Earth.

+1

 

[Rubycon]

Good place for...

:wub:

 

[Ausm]

Nobody will be fucked out of Social Security. This notion that you should be able to pay into SS for 30 years and then receive benefits from it for 30 years is insane.

Then raise the 110K cap for deductions...problem solved.

 

[techs]

Well, that's just weird.
I posted a picture of a strange looking warship and it turned into a debate on Social Security?

 

[soccerballtux]

lmfao

 

[midnight growler]

You could make a pretty good Christmas tree out of that...

 

[LegendKiller]

Absurd argument. The purpose of defense spending is to protect our national interests. If you want to create jobs you're better off cutting taxes or building infrastructure that we actually use.

There has not been one study that has shown that cutting taxes lead to more long-term jobs. Not a single one. Reaganomics is a joke.

 

[destrekor]

Good place for...

:wub:

I :wub: Tesla!

One day, we'll be able to look back and acknowledge that the vast majority of his "failed" ideas will actually just have been way too early and before their time, and in active use at some point.

 

[ichy]

There has not been one study that has shown that cutting taxes lead to more long-term jobs. Not a single one. Reaganomics is a joke.

Oh please, as if a study in economics can prove anything. I'm not a proponent of low taxes above everything else but this notion that military spending leads to prosperity is idiotic. Why not pay people to just build shit and then throw it into the ocean.

 

[StinkyPinky]

One of the US's many aircraft carriers alongside Britain's only aircraft carrier still in service.

Bit misleading as that is being replaced with two of these...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier

Which is not as big as the US Carriers, but still a lot bigger than that one.

 

[techs]

Bit misleading as that is being replaced with two of these...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier

Which is not as big as the US Carriers, but still a lot bigger than that one.

Yep, billions and billions of pounds to build the ships, man the ships, operate the ships and buy and maintain the F35, yet the Brits couldn't spare a few pence(figuratively) to put in catapults which would have multiplied the ships capabalities.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Yep, billions and billions of pounds to build the ships, man the ships, operate the ships and buy and maintain the F35, yet the Brits couldn't spare a few pence(figuratively) to put in catapults which would have multiplied the ships capabalities.

What do you mean?

 

[techs]

What do you mean?

They originally were supposed to be built without catapults and only handle the STOVL version of the F35. Then the Brits changed their minds and were going to put in cats and use the naval version F35. Then they changed their minds again and no cats.

Its a whole thing with the company that is building the boats. Something about how they have the contract to upgrade and maintain another British jet that would we retired if they used the naval F35. So they jacked up the estimate for the catapults.