Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (336037)	5/2/2007 1:39:46 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574637

The U.S. Navy, for example, today has 276 active ships. This compares to 594 in 1987 and 654 in 1972." What would be the mission of those new ships? I wouldn't at all surprised if those 276 active ships outnumbered the rest of the world's naval ships, discounting patrol boats and such. Defense contractors are always building ships. Someone has to buy them.

To: combjelly who wrote (336037)	5/2/2007 2:02:28 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1574637

The 276 doesn't, and the 654 didn't outnumber the rest of the world combined. (And no I'm not counting patrol boats). OTOH the average US ship is bigger (again even if you don't consider boats). Of course many of those ships aren't combat ships but rather support vessels. The issue isn't as much fighting other navies (although we do want to have the ability to overwhelm any other navy in the world, or any possible coalition of navies), as it is total capability, including defeating other navies, and projecting power to the shore, and anti-mine and anti-submarine work. We don't lack for such ability, but longer deployments then optimal are required. Even so I wouldn't say that increasing the number of ships is worth the money at this time, considering the deficit, and the current high operations costs. But the article wasn't about growing the navy, but preventing it from continuing to get even older and smaller. Ground forces might be a higher priority. Not that they don't have the sheer combat power we need, but anti-insurgency operations require numbers, not just the ability to move fast and blow things up at a rapid pace.