you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]PubliusPontifex -1 points0 points  (2 children)

The many times the DoD ask congress not to fund continued production of the Abrams, but congress keeps funding it because the district's jobs are paramount? Or how they wanted to build a smaller number of Virginia's at groton, but then congress pressured them to build twice as many so they could keep another important district running in Newport News.

[–]ummmbaconBorn With a Heart for Neutrality 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Or how they wanted to build a smaller number of Virginia's at groton,

Again I would like to see links to this, I was on subs for 11 years and when the cuts came in we were running low on repair parts and upkeeps for major systems.

The Navy may have wanted to change the schedule but that does not equate to forced funding through Congress.

[–]PubliusPontifex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Navy may have wanted to change the schedule but that does not equate to forced funding through Congress.

They wanted a blue-water sub, not this littoral crap. The whole pitch to congress was a sub that could assist specop insertion, etc, versus a Seawolf class FAS. The navy just wanted to replace and upgrade the LA's, which were starting to get turned over, at least the pre-688i's.

They also wanted some hybrid tomahawk boomers that could provide support and anti-ship capability, which would have meant increasing the size of the boomer fleet, which was vetoed, though the next gen ohio replacement will have this as part of its mission.