General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump wants a much bigger Navy
President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to maintain a naval fleet of 350 ships as part of an historic buildup of the U.S. military, but his ambitions come with a stiff price tag.
Our Navy is the smallest it's been since World War I, he said during a campaign stop last October in the Philadelphia Navy Yard. My plan will build the 350 ship Navy we need. This will be the largest effort at rebuilding our military since Ronald Reagan, and it will require a truly national effort.
The Navy on average has spent $15.9 billion annually on ship building over the past three decades, according to a new report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). In order to meet the Republican president-elects goal, the navy shipbuilding account would have to be boosted to $25 billion a year, 60 percent higher than the historical average.
That will mean having to find a way to lift the budget cap on defense spending by about $9 billion a year.
Trump is far from alone in his ambitions for expanding the U.S. fleet to counter Russia, China, Iran and other global adversaries. Last month, the Navy released a new force structure assessment a blueprint for the future -- which calls for building a fleet of 355 ships. That is in sharp contrast to a previous long-term goal of 308 ships.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trump-wants-a-much-bigger-navy-heres-how-much-itll-cost/ar-BBxWzbO?li=BBnbfcN&ocid=edgsp
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,956 posts)RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)I would bet our cavalry is way down from WWI numbers as well. We need more horses or we aren't prepared to fight WWI.
I dare to think how much fewer brewster body shields we have now then we did in WWI!!
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)xor
(1,204 posts)It seems to work with people who don't like to think much though.
sarah FAILIN
(2,857 posts)Yes, I know that is 3rd hand, but...
The story goes that when gas prices were so high, the friends Navy ship had to just stop. Drop anchor and stop because they were out of fuel and could not afford more. My point is that they couldn't afford fuel to keep that ship moving then they sure can't afford to buy more ships.
The only people to benefit from this will be the defense contractors.
hibbing
(10,098 posts)I remember in one of the debates he must have said 700 ship navy about thirty times.
And we all know how these types of things work, something for all these ships is prodced in almost every state,so the majority of Congress votes for this spending regardless of party.
Peace
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)We can't seem to develop weapons that work, so we have to buy more of them. Makes sense to me.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,175 posts)After Dukakis-in-a-tank, he scratched off the Army.
After Shit-fer-Brains showed off his sweat-sock-padding in his aviator outfit, he said "no" to the Air Force.
He can't squeeze his pasty body into anything a Marine might wear.
But the Navy, ah, that's the ticket! Lots of white space on those uniforms for medals, ribbons, sashes, gold braid (LOTS of gold braid!)... Standing at the bow of the ship, wind blowing his hair off, sinking everything Carnival puts in the water...
Mendocino
(7,488 posts)mission accomplished stunt was aboard a Navy Carrier. But I can see him in Navy whites, covered with medals, saber carrying, looking like something out of Gilbert and Sullivan. "I'M THE KING OF THE WORLD"
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)He's too stupid not to fall for it.
Mendocino
(7,488 posts)like littoral ships and the F-35, good for the defense contractors, bad for everyone else.
BSdetect
(8,998 posts)OMG, Romney stepped on that landmine with O during a debate.
Yes drumph, its all a matter of numbers.
You can bet he has an interest in shipbuilders.