US Navy $1.2+ Trillion Dollar Plan to Increase Fleet to 355 Ships

If the US spends $20-55 billion per year more on ships and maintenance then the Navy will reach its target of 355 ships. They will slow down retirements and increase the purchase of ships. Initial estimates put the cost at least $40 billion a year from 2020-2050.
SOURCES- US Navy Written By Brian Wang

19 thoughts on “US Navy $1.2+ Trillion Dollar Plan to Increase Fleet to 355 Ships”

  1. With all countries building more and better weapons,no one can win.Talk is much cheaper than war.It kills less people.Life is too short without all the killing of wars.The UN is a bad joke on all.The Lord Jesus Christ is the answer to all of mans problems.

  2. The Japanese used dive bombers to destroy most of our battleships. Our navy for years ignored the possibility. But in a way the Japanese did us a favor. We had to depend on our aircraft carriers to fight the war.

  3. Nope. US exports oil.

    Other nations NEED to sell stuff to the US far more than the US needs to buy it from them.

    Of course, you think that Von Braun killed thousands of Irish with V-2s during WWII as well.

    Your ignorance knows no bounds, it seems.

  4. No, the US economy will not tank.

    The share of US GDP that is from international trade is not that big. And with a weaker dollar, we will even export more and import less. With our national debt wiped out, a great weight will be lifted from the federal and state governments’ shoulders, too.

  5. Wars haven’t been winnable for a few hundred years now. Much easier to trade for what you want.

  6. Yes, we default on all the rest of the world. We basically got the benefit of spending that $22T over three decades while leaving the rest of you with the check.

  7. Yawn!

    When a person owes $1 million to the banks and can not pay, then that person is in trouble, sure enough.

    But when a person owes $22 trillion to the banks and can not pay, then it is banks that are screwed.

  8. This isn’t about war, it is about pork.

    Just like NASA isn’t really about science or space exploration. It’s really about pork, too.

  9. I can’t help but think of the old expression that we are training and arming to fight the last war instead of the next one. None of these ships are anything but a target from orbit, nowhere to hide. Why are we spending money to build the next fleet of targets instead of securing the military high ground? Apparently they need to hold some war games where, over and over, the fleet never even makes it out of the harbor to get the point across to the DoD brass.

  10. If you’ve ever used rope before you’ll realize you need about 11 meters of rope to allow for joining.

  11. Mark is wrong. You don´t build aircraft carriers to last in a superpowers’ war.

    Like the words of Dr Zubrin, bashing NASA at a NASA Ames Convention:

    “How much rope do you need to connect to posts separated by a distance of 10 meters?

    In principle, you can do it with 10 meters of rope.

    But if you let the rope get tangled all the way, it can take an infinite amount of rope.

    Thus, it really depends if you want to connect the two posts, or if you are a rope seller”

  12. Mark is right, in the 80’s an aircraft carrier would last 15 to 20 minutes in a confrontation of near equivalent abilities.

  13. The Navy needs to stop building expensive targets. Nothing they have except the submarines will survive day one of a superpowers war.

  14. I’m a bit surprised that they consider the manpower cost to be an ever larger fraction of the total over time.

Comments are closed.