![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
taxpayer money well spent
I had to do a double-take when I read that. Canberra class has a displacement of 27,100 long tons, they only have one, and that is the biggest ship in the Australian Navy?.
To compare, our 8 wasp-class LHD ships are 40,500 long tones, the new America class LHD is 45,000 long tones, and our 10 Nimitz Class aircraft carriers are ~105,000 long tones each, almost 4x the Canberra class
We just don't have the 300+ million people to collect tax revenue off to buy a Carrier. There are economic benefits from the ability to project power though, which history has proven should be obvious. Why is Russia getting access to the Crimean Peninsula, which happens to be the gateway to the mediterranean, black sea, and indian ocean? Because they asked nicely, or because they are slowly but surely using the threat of military force to weasel their way in, the way a huge guy on steroids can push his way through a door into a room.
Doesn't mean it still isn't a cool boat
Also the HMAS Adelaide should be commissioned by 2016 so we'll have a whole two by then
And that is a good point, as I'm more worried about the growing percentage of the population that contributes virtually nothing to society, but since their votes count equally are however VERY good at ensuring they keep electing officials that ensure they get their weekly handouts.
Disney boat is 128,000 tons.
Internet + cellphones and/or Craigslist used PC's are a hell of a lot cheaper than one of these battleships much less how much money is wasted on the military in the US.
Please explain to the class why teenagers need to be on government assistance. *pops popcorn*
Whatever economic benefits gunboat diplomacy has are more than overshadowed by its horrible cost in human lives and suffering. I mean look at how well our war liberating Iraq panned out right? That whole mess was supposed to pay for itself from all the oil we'd be getting from Iraq once Saddam and the Baathists were gone but that didn't turn out as planned either remember.
In fantasy land sure. In the real world this never happened or are you seriously going to claim the Cold War never happened? Hell look at what N. Korea or Iran have been up to for the last few decades if you want a non-superpower example. Or even pre-Gulf War I Iraq in the early 90's.
Russia is too broke and China is hell bent on improving their military power projection capability right now even with us spending more than twice what they do and have for decades. So this argument clearly is in the wrong.
If you have cruise missles, drones, and rail guns that allow you to stand off miles from the coast and hit hundreds or thousands of miles inland then a dedicated littoral combat ship is a waste of money and resources and your money is better spent on putting those new weapon systems on existing hulls.
The only reason they do that is because of the smaller budgets + more localized and shrunk areas they're supposed to patrol and defend. More fuel + more armor + more weapon systems = bigger ships that weigh lots more and there is no getting around that.
Nitpick: That's not a battleship. No one has had a battleship for a few decades now.
The Zumwalt-classes are essentially technology demonstrators. They're literally using every piece of the latest military technology on this ship in order to figure out what works and what doesn't. Then they can use that information to better design cheaper destroyers/surface combatants in the future. Played out well for the USN before with their Seawolf and Virginia-class submarines.
While I totally agree that there is a ton of wasted money when it comes to U.S defence spending, there are certain aspects of our military spending that doesn't get talked about:Russia is too broke and China is hell bent on improving their military power projection capability right now even with us spending more than twice what they do and have for decades. So this argument clearly is in the wrong.
The fact of the matter is there is tons of wasted money when it comes to US military spending and if much of that waste was removed we could probably have a similar size and capable military for much less.
The problem is that the U.S cannot always rely on long-range firepower to solve certain problems or do certain missions. There are going to be situations where we need a ship to go into the coastal areas. But many USN Admirals/commanders/captains aren't going to risk a $1 billon+ ship for such operations. Hence the LCS: They're cheaper than a destroyer and are technically "expendable" for the USN.
You do realize that you just made my point for me... LOL!!! What was the cold war? An arms race. What did I just say? Overwhelming military power avoids arms races, so you are pointing out one of the greatest arms races in history.
Agreed, and that's why I was questioning this specific investment, rather than investment in the military in general.
And for that, we have more say than anyone else, well provided we have a strong leader that doesn't pussy foot trying to be everyone's best friend and showing the world how he can prostrate in front of foreign leaders. And just like the barbary wars, we're really just protecting our trade interests overseas. The spice must flow.
That was my thought on the "aircraft carriers combined with littoral ship carriers". Let the aircraft carrier deliver the big air ordinance, and now that we've proven we've worked the bugs out of the Ospreys in Iraq there's really no need for helicopters and the Ospreys can fly off the carriers (300mph and 2000 mile range... cmon). The littoral craft can be hoisted off a mothership and for smaller air support it can launch and retrieve both UAVs and AUVs for air and water. Just a thought anyway.
As you noted yourself even before the wars we were still spending more than double what Russia and China are spending now combined. This situation is clearly ridiculous and BS and overshadows pretty much all those points you brought up.
That is what the Army/Marines are for. LCS's are some Navy warcrafting nerd's wet dream that caught the eye of some politicians looking for some political cover to throw money at the military.
The USSR had overwhelming military power in the form of a pretty badass conventional military post WWII. The only thing that stalemated them was our nukes and our threat to use them not just on the battlefield but also on their cities. This led to them eventually not only developing their nuke program, because you know arms race and all, but also a means to obsolete our SAGE program via the first ICBM's. Which they were successful at. Read up a hell of a lot more on the history of the era and you'll see other examples of that sort of thing. Also you're ignoring the other examples I gave.
Nope. They don't have the military they had in the 70's or 80's. Their power projection is like one country over and then they're boned.
Goal post shifting + incorrect. China can't shift more to military spending without cutting somewhere else in their budget which is political suicide at best. They also have only recently gotten half way decent ships to patrol the SEA area properly and are still trying to grow their navy. We also still have our base in Japan and send our ships into the area from time to time too thanks to our good relations with Singapore + S.Korea. Spend more time googling before posting. The magic phrase that pays when googling is 'US pivot to SE Asia strategy'.
The fact of the matter is there is tons of wasted money when it comes to US military spending and if much of that waste was removed we could probably have a similar size and capable military for much less.
No, Russia was broke for the majority of the past few decades. As a result, that led to major budget cuts for their military and also led to the deterioration of their military expeditionary capabilities. The war between Georgia and Russia shows how badly out of date, poorly trained, and inexperienced the Russian military was. In other words, despite having far newer and better weapons today, in terms of military leadership, logistics, and capability, the Soviet military of the 1980s was a far more formidable opponent than the Russian military of 2008 even if you base on comparable size. Anyway, that kind of deterioration means that even if Putin wanted to, the Russian military is incapable
Hence the Asia pivot plan. We're now stationing Marines in Australia, just negotiated with the Phillipines to allow us to restation forces there, making more and more diplomatic interactions with Vietnam, several U.S ships are now deployed in Singapore, etc, etc.
And as I noted earlier:
Yeah, no:
No it does not overshadow all those other points I brought up. Again, that higher budget meant that:
...Our personnel costs in 2010 was $153 billion alone. How is that high personnel cost have nothing to do with our military spending?
....No.
I know you're trying to be hyperbolic but you're really just hitting the nail on the head here.
Shitty or improper maintenance will ruin even new ships within a few years in saltwater so you don't just buy new ships in the situation you're describing.