SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (159584)3/1/2006 6:38:22 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793559
 
True there will be less of a reserve and a little less flexibility. But I'm not sure that more carriers are the best place to put the money.

That's what some said about going down to 10 Army divisions in the 90s.

The army divisions went from 17 to 10, a much larger cut, and a cut that has more effect on us now.

I'm not really campaigning for a reduction in the size of the carrier force, just pointing out that it isn't really unreasonable. At the time I thought the cut from 17 to 10 army divisions was a bit to big, although I wasn't against making some cut. 17 divisions would cost too much, but if we had say 12 now instead of 10 the extra two divisions might be useful.

Tim



To: D. Long who wrote (159584)3/1/2006 6:56:27 PM
From: Hoa Hao  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793559
 
The general situation with carriers is one on station, one working up, and one in refit. You thus have one on station for every 3. Lately, the Navy has tried to work around that but I can not say as to it's effectiveness. They may have some means of having 3 on station with a total of 10 now.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News