What's new
What's new

US Navy locks in a record purchase

  • Thread starter otrlt
  • Start date
  • Replies 182
  • Views 28,096
O

otrlt

Guest
Great news for all Machinist;

US Navy awards largest-ever shipbuilding contract to Electric Boat for new attack submarines.

Although I won't be directly impacted by this 22 billion dollar procurement, this is very good for east coast defence contractors.
 
Great news for all Machinist;

US Navy awards largest-ever shipbuilding contract to Electric Boat for new attack submarines.

Although I won't be directly impacted by this 22 billion dollar procurement, this is very good for east coast defence contractors.

Something like that I don't get. It might be good for east coast defense contractors but who is providing the US Navy with the money? It couldn't be tax money, could it?

The only way money can be made from something like that is if the end product is sold to foreign countries at a profit. That kind of defeats the purpose.
 
The US has the bucks Gordon:

List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia

Might the more useful metric be the expenditure as percent of GDP?

Military expenditure (% of GDP) | Data

Spitballing here but isn't the role of US in international affairs as established by WWII sort of the story here.
We spend a good deal to maintain presence as a balance to other forces away from our direct defense needs.
No other county carries such weight and associated costs- I'm not sure how many would call for a retraction from that role including the leaders of EU countries.

We just had a nice gam at the NATO conference, I not sure I heard anyone call for the US to reduce our presence.
 
Trboatworks has exactly stated the case. The argument for "defense only" precludes a navy that can go anywhere in international waters and might even actually be inadequate to defend U.S. coastal waters in the face of aggression.

China in particular has tried to claim waters that have traditionally been open to navigation and is in violation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which China is a signatory.

The South China Sea Disputes: A clash of international law and historical claims | Journal of Law and International Affairs
 
The US has the bucks Gordon:

List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia

Might the more useful metric be the expenditure as percent of GDP?

Military expenditure (% of GDP) | Data

Spitballing here but isn't the role of US in international affairs as established by WWII sort of the story here.
We spend a good deal to maintain presence as a balance to other forces away from our direct defense needs.
No other county carries such weight and associated costs- I'm not sure how many would call for a retraction from that role including the leaders of EU countries.

We just had a nice gam at the NATO conference, I not sure I heard anyone call for the US to reduce our presence.

Here we go again - sigh.

The point I was trying to make, and I write "trying" as it obviously isn't getting through to the very pro military lot, is why does the US need a military the size it has?

I know this is open to discussion but the more the USA spends on "defense" (and anyone believing it is defense is naive) the more many other countries feel the need to do the same.

"Defense" probably hurts the Russia economy more than is good for them but their history helps me understand why they feel the need. Alliance agreements (France and Germany) weren't worth the paper they were written on.

China has the money and I'm sure most Chinese feel "enough is enough". They have no intention of being pushed around again.

Continually dragging up WW2 is pointless. Allies are now enemies and enemies allies. The only thing, as certain as Amen in church, is that there are more and more big weapons being made daily.

Has the world become safer or more dangerous after WW2? When's the last time military intervention by an "outsider" in a country getting involved resulted in peace?
 
I am not “dragging up WWII” as the increasing role of the US in international affairs predates that event by some time.
But...
WWII and the the events of the early twentieth century stand as seminal events in the development of the underlying features of the Geopolitical structure of Eurasia.
The US role in that structure was defined by that period and continues to this day.

WWII is a far more complicated event than it appears at first review.
The topography of grievance played out more nuanced than HITLER..

You guys are savages.
The EU, and the US presence moderates some of your worse tendencies.


Read this:

Savage Continent: Europe in the Aftermath of World War II: Keith Lowe: 9781250033567: Amazon.com: Books
 
If the US didn’t have the military that it has where do you think Taiwan would be right now Gordon? Or North Korea would of made a little move to the south
Don


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
This record purchase; (22.2 bl$) is for 9 subs and quite possibly options for upto 13 total.

Electric Boat and it's 5000 suppliers will be busy for the next 10 years.

Is this good news? HELL Yes!!
 
This is a OLD topic.

Domestically we have long debated the wisdom of foreign entanglements (and their expense).

I would say any such discussion should be informed with how our interests are served by such actions.
Seems a win win for EU members- we share common interests..
 
If the US didn’t have the military that it has where do you think Taiwan would be right now Gordon?
They'd be where they belong, along with the Confederacy - a part of history. Taiwan was the losers of a civil war. The guomindang also invaded what was once Formosa, an area that the US decided was part of China on the decks of the battleship Missouri in 1945. We don't even uphold the treaties we write.

That's where they'd be ....
 
Attack submarines are expensive. Except when you ask the question: "What's a cost-effective way to deter adversaries from developing aggressive ocean-going navies?" "How does one deter adventurism from those competing superpowers interested in dominating regional conflicts with fresh carriers?"

One answer: Develop more stealth attack submarines.

Test of the thesis: Can we think of any competing superpowers with a proximate history of adventurism, showing signs of bulking up their surface fleets?
Hint: China.
 
They'd be where they belong, along with the Confederacy - a part of history. Taiwan was the losers of a civil war. The guomindang also invaded what was once Formosa, an area that the US decided was part of China on the decks of the battleship Missouri in 1945. We don't even uphold the treaties we write.

That's where they'd be ....

Maybe so. But I wonder sometimes what the whole world would be like right now if it wasn’t for the US military. But I’m pretty sure Denmark would be screwed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Maybe so. But I wonder sometimes what the whole world would be like right now if it wasn’t for the US military. But I’m pretty sure Denmark would be screwed


Likely the world would have gone under Nazi rule until and perhaps after the demise of Hitler. Likely some other power crazed person would have taken over. Jews and some others exterminated. With not the bomb we could have lost. We near lost because of having no/little defense for Japanese guided missiles Kamikezs.

A next big war likely would be caused by radical Muslim movement on Israel, China, a Suez Gulf problem, North Korea disagreements on nuclear power limits or Iran the same, The USA sticking our nose to far into something might become the next reason/cause for war. What a shame we can not be smart enough to settle differences. "Blitzkrieg", Lightning war likely to start it with little warning. Might be so bad it would end in a few days or weeks.
 








 
Back
Top