Just remember the USS Gerald Ford, costing (at the moment) $11.5 billion.
Is the Gerald Ford (and its two sister ships, totaling $40.2 billion — assuming the costs don't increase again) necessary? Is it a "boondoggle"? Were there cheaper alternatives? Is it more valuable than, say, a year's worth of Head Start ($8.5 billion in 2011)? I don't know.
But those are probably questions we should be asking, rather than simply taking the scissors to programs to help the poor and needy because "we can't afford all these consarned taxes!"
The Single Most Expensive Piece Of Military Equipment Ever Has Reached A Massive Milestone
Looking at the $11.5 billion carrier the USS GERALD FORD.
Any military futurist will tell you the days of the carrier's supremacy are numbered.
Supremacy, definitely. I would be surprised to see their utility, to project air power outside of land bases (and treaties) significantly diminished, but the mega-carrier concept seems to be as far-sighted as WWI dreadnaught construction …
The Navy has no defense against ballistic missile threats.
None.
http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/chinese-kill-weapon
People have been trying to kill the carrier for decades. They are actually a bargain when you consider how long they last and how flexible they are. They are less vulnerable than Guam because they move. They are an excellent deterrent. The Chinese government fears their impact enough to spend significant resources developing ways to neutralize them. While there is room to cut military spending, a maritime strategy build around carriers is far more efficient and less violent than a land based equivalent.
Excuse me? We're talking about honoring Gerald Rudolph Ford here. Not only the finest but also IMHO the hottest President to serve 60% of a term which this nation has ever had the privelage to install into office due to succession.
If that's not worth every single penny of this project, well…I just don't want to live in this country anymore.
The Navy needs to improve it fleet anyways. The carriers are old and the supporting ships are old as well. I hope the new ships are easy upgradable so you don't have to build from the ground up… then again I know nothing about ship building so perhaps its necessary. Oh and yes I think new ships are necessary. They float around and look powerful. I'm not saying the states is a police force but its like cops on patrol to deter violence, etc.
Actually, Jerry Ford wasn't a bad guy. Evidently he was well-liked and -respected by his congressional colleagues (one reason Nixon tapped him), and setting aside the whole pardon fiasco (if one can), he actually wasn't a bad president.
Of course, recalling his Chevy Chase-mocked pratfalls, I'm not sure I'd want to serve on the USS Gerald Ford …
+Dave Hill I'm proudly wearing my WIN button right now.
Head start …..LOL now THAT'S a waste of money
Well, there's a broad assertion. And arguments are always more convincing when accompanied by a "LOL".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/03/05/does-head-start-work-for-kids-the-bottom-line/
Why is it people always want or look at the military for cuts? Or say the money is being wasted? Or my favorite one of all, close all the bases overseas and bring the troops home?
What I am saying is, the military has a place in the world. Do I think they spend needless money, YES! However, carriers are a needed item for our government.
+Erik Myers The US spends more on its millitary than the next 10 or more countries combined spend on theirs. China is 2nd on the list, and we spend 4 times as much as they do. And 2.5 times as much as China and Russia put together. It seems reasonable that we could cut back on this dramatically. Especially given the changing state of world affairs. The age of Congressmen approving outrageously expensive boondoggle projects to line their own pockets and get re-elected must stop.
+Erik Myers, there is a reason why I didn't categorically assert that the Gerald Ford and her sister ships were a waste of money: I don't know enough about current carrier needs. A blanket cut of DoD funding would be as silly and counter-productive as a blanket cut of HHS or DoJ funding.
But … military spending has tended to be considered sacrosanct vs. any other sort of federal discretionary spending. Given the levels that +Capricia Pallasso cites, one could make a presumptive case that our overall degree of military spending should be examined and cut back, at least in an era when "austerity" is the policy buzz word. $40bn is not a trivial amount (the sequester cuts were, I believe, $85bn).
The capital cost of the Ford doesn't include the cost of the air wing and the operational costs. The ship will likely cost 100 billion over its lifetime. Plus the cost of ships to support and protect it. In addition you need three to maintain one on station. This is actually a half trillion dollar commitment over the next half century.
That said, defense spending should be based on requirements created by politicians. The US is committed to supporting the security of European and Asian allies. Much like drug prices where US consumers pay for the majority of R&D, the US provides significant coverage for defense. In some cases this makes sense. We don't want a nuclear armed Japan or South Korea so we provide a nuclear umbrella.
Outside of normal government waste, cutting defense spending requires changing commitments. We currently have 10 carriers meaning three deployed at any one time. Two are committed to the Indian Ocean and one to the Western Pacific. Not a lot of room for slack.