• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

HMS Dauntless

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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?
 
ichy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AstroManLuca said:
Pretty outdated.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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ausm said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
OutHouse said:
jobs? defense contracts employs an army of people. I call that a good thing.
Click to expand...

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.
 
freegeeks said:
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.
Click to expand...
♫Don't cry for me Argentina♫
 
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....
 
I think the US Navy could destroy every other navy combined in like five minutes. With half its fleet tied behind its back.
 
Good place for...

tesla-wardenclyffe-tower-shot.jpg


:wub:
 
ichy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then raise the 110K cap for deductions...problem solved.
 
Well, that's just weird.
I posted a picture of a strange looking warship and it turned into a debate on Social Security?
 
ichy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
LegendKiller said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
techs said:
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.
Click to expand...

What do you mean?
 
StinkyPinky said:
What do you mean?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top