U.S. Navy, shipbuilders ready for Trump's expansion plan

[F-22Raptor]

The U.S. arms industry is ready and capable of boosting production of new ships if President-elect Donald Trump makes good his vow to expand the U.S. Navy to 350 ships, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson told Reuters.

Shifting the current target of 308 ships upwards would be "remarkably easy" as long as there is funding to pay the bill, the top uniformed Navy official said in an interview at the annual Reagan National Defense Forum in southern California.

"If it's resourced, it's a matter of working closely with the industrial base, and they definitely are ready to do that," he said, adding the only limiting factor would be hiring and training workers to build the new ships.

"If I do not have that capacity, I can create it faster than you can appropriate the money," Mike Petters, chief executive of Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc (HII.N), the largest U.S. military shipbuilder, said in a separate interview with Reuters.

Trump promised during his U.S. election campaign to expand the Navy to 350 ships, although lawmakers and military officials caution that any such boost would require big increases in staffing, training, maintenance and infrastructure.

Richardson said the incoming administration could smooth the way toward the increase by submitting a supplemental budget for fiscal 2017, which ends Sept. 30. "It seems to me that if you want to get something done, you get started."

All eyes are on the funding for an expansion under the shadow of sequestration, the self imposed U.S. spending cap.

"The question is, can you get rid of sequestration, because that is going to cloud everybody’s judgment on how fast do I invest, how fast do I build that capacity." Petters said.

Navy officials were still calculating how much it would cost to expand the Navy to 350 ships from around 290 now, but it would depend on the mix of ships and related costs.

A supplemental budget request could include munitions, aircraft, and other equipment that can be bought on short notice, followed by later orders for submarines, destroyers, amphibious ships and potentially even carriers, Richardson said.

"If you build those closer together, you get economic order quantities. The learning curve gets to be a much more relevant thing and the cost starts to drive down," he said.

Building two carriers at a time would potentially save about $1 billion, Petters said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-navy-shipbuilding-idUSKBN13T0U3

 

[cloud4000]

Trump's economic plan -- if you want to call it that -- is outright crazy: wants to raise defence spending, cut taxes, don't touch social security or medicare, and spend billions on infrastructure. How's he going to pay for it all?

 

[randomradio]

Trump's economic plan -- if you want to call it that -- is outright crazy: wants to raise defence spending, cut taxes, don't touch social security or medicare, and spend billions on infrastructure. How's he going to pay for it all?

By building a wall.

 

[cloud4000]

By building a wall.

Has Mexico agree to pay for it? If not, that's another bill US will have to pay.

 

[Penguin]

Trump's economic plan -- if you want to call it that -- is outright crazy: wants to raise defence spending, cut taxes, don't touch social security or medicare, and spend billions on infrastructure. How's he going to pay for it all?

Fully eliminate the defense sequester. The sequester, a mandatory cut in spending that was split evenly between defense and non-defense spending that arose out of a 2012 budget dispute, has had a major impact on the ability of the military to train and equip U.S. troops. But ending it without increasing the federal deficit would require harsh cuts to other government programs. That’s where Trump’s promises get predictably vague. As part of removing the defense sequester, I will ask Congress to fully offset the costs of increased military spending,” he said. “In the process we will make government leaner and more responsive to the public.” [I.e personnel reductions in federal and state government. ]
Trump did hit on two legitimate sources of funding, identifying the billions of dollars in improper payments that the federal government doles out every year and the hundreds of billions in uncollected taxes that the Treasury never receives.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/09/07/So-Just-How-Will-Trump-Pay-His-Big-Military-Buildup

If the tax reform plan of candidate Trump were fully enacted, the proposal would cut federal revenue by $4.4 trillion over the next decade on a static basis under one set of assumptions, or $5.9 trillion under another, according to a Sept. 19 analysis of the Trump tax plan by The Tax Foundation, a non-profit tax research organization based in Washington, D.C.
The plan would reduce income tax revenue from individuals by $2.2 trillion over the next decade under one of the foundation’s assumptions, or $3.7 trillion under another, according to the analysis. Corporate tax revenue would fall by $1.9 trillion under both sets of assumptions, and the rest of the revenue loss would stem from the repeal of estate and gift taxes that Trump proposes.
The question on the minds of many, then, is: How will President Trump and the new Congress pay for that whopping loss of revenue?
Trump “has said repeatedly that he thinks economic growth will be the engine paying for his proposed rate reductions,” notes Gardner. “So he could go one of two ways: he could double down on his supply-side argument and say great reductions will unleash economic growth which will pay for most if not all of [the] rate cuts … or he could get real about it and come up with some loophole closers.”
http://ww2.cfo.com/tax/2016/11/will-trump-pay-huge-tax-cut/

Donald Trump says he would force Mexico to pay for a border wall as president by threatening to cut off the flow of billions of dollars in payments that immigrants send home to the country, an idea that could decimate the Mexican economy and set up an unprecedented showdown between the United States and a key regional ally.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article99063712.html

 

[randomradio]

Has Mexico agree to pay for it? If not, that's another bill US will have to pay.

The US can afford the wall, bro.

Fully eliminate the defense sequester. The sequester, a mandatory cut in spending that was split evenly between defense and non-defense spending that arose out of a 2012 budget dispute, has had a major impact on the ability of the military to train and equip U.S. troops. But ending it without increasing the federal deficit would require harsh cuts to other government programs. That’s where Trump’s promises get predictably vague. As part of removing the defense sequester, I will ask Congress to fully offset the costs of increased military spending,” he said. “In the process we will make government leaner and more responsive to the public.” [I.e personnel reductions in federal and state government. ]
Trump did hit on two legitimate sources of funding, identifying the billions of dollars in improper payments that the federal government doles out every year and the hundreds of billions in uncollected taxes that the Treasury never receives.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/09/07/So-Just-How-Will-Trump-Pay-His-Big-Military-Buildup

If the tax reform plan of candidate Trump were fully enacted, the proposal would cut federal revenue by $4.4 trillion over the next decade on a static basis under one set of assumptions, or $5.9 trillion under another, according to a Sept. 19 analysis of the Trump tax plan by The Tax Foundation, a non-profit tax research organization based in Washington, D.C.
The plan would reduce income tax revenue from individuals by $2.2 trillion over the next decade under one of the foundation’s assumptions, or $3.7 trillion under another, according to the analysis. Corporate tax revenue would fall by $1.9 trillion under both sets of assumptions, and the rest of the revenue loss would stem from the repeal of estate and gift taxes that Trump proposes.
The question on the minds of many, then, is: How will President Trump and the new Congress pay for that whopping loss of revenue?
Trump “has said repeatedly that he thinks economic growth will be the engine paying for his proposed rate reductions,” notes Gardner. “So he could go one of two ways: he could double down on his supply-side argument and say great reductions will unleash economic growth which will pay for most if not all of [the] rate cuts … or he could get real about it and come up with some loophole closers.”
http://ww2.cfo.com/tax/2016/11/will-trump-pay-huge-tax-cut/

Donald Trump says he would force Mexico to pay for a border wall as president by threatening to cut off the flow of billions of dollars in payments that immigrants send home to the country, an idea that could decimate the Mexican economy and set up an unprecedented showdown between the United States and a key regional ally.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article99063712.html

It will be done two ways. Quantitative easing and bringing back manufacturing jobs to the US.

Quantitative easing will weaken the dollar, thereby increasing exports in services.
And bringing back jobs to the US will stop outflows of dollars via imports, that will create a trade surplus which will mean the dollar's value can be manipulated much more easily.

And the companies which are setting up shop in the US will be able to buy the dollars that comes in through easy loans via the quantitative easing. The new manufacturing industry will add to the tax base and compensate for the reduced taxes. The fact is if jobs are created, it will reduce the need for welfare, so the stress on govt spending will reduce.

Since major job growth is expected, it will mean the US will have to attract foreign talent, which will further add to the tax base because of the focus on legal immigration.

Of course, there is a chance none of this will work, it all depends on Trump and the Congress.

 

[cloud4000]

The US can afford the wall, bro.



It will be done two ways. Quantitative easing and bringing back manufacturing jobs to the US.

Quantitative easing will weaken the dollar, thereby increasing exports in services.
And bringing back jobs to the US will stop outflows of dollars via imports, that will create a trade surplus which will mean the dollar's value can be manipulated much more easily.

And the companies which are setting up shop in the US will be able to buy the dollars that comes in through easy loans via the quantitative easing. The new manufacturing industry will add to the tax base and compensate for the reduced taxes. The fact is if jobs are created, it will reduce the need for welfare, so the stress on govt spending will reduce.

Since major job growth is expected, it will mean the US will have to attract foreign talent, which will further add to the tax base because of the focus on legal immigration.

Of course, there is a chance none of this will work, it all depends on Trump and the Congress.

You print quite the rosy picture. But how will Trump bring back jobs to US, especially low-skilled factory jobs that Trump supporters are keen on getting? Wouldn't it be better to spend money on retraining them for semi- and skilled-jobs that are going unfilled?

If Trump's idea is to engage in a trade war, it's a losing proposition for everybody. For everybody job Trump brings back, he will lose them elsewhere.

But let's what his economic plan will be. Hopefully, it will be laid out in his State of the Union speech. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[randomradio]

You print quite the rosy picture. But how will Trump bring back jobs to US, especially low-skilled factory jobs that Trump supporters are keen on getting? Wouldn't it be better to spend money on retraining them for semi- and skilled-jobs that are going unfilled?

A lot of Chinese companies are going for automation. So most of the jobs that rely on automation can be brought back. Then there's the automobile sector. Imports are ridiculously high, a lot of that can be brought back.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/bu.../us-auto-imports-hits-new-time-high/31159031/

China exports $225B in machinery to the US. That can be brought back as well, you just put import tariffs. No different from what China and India do.

At least about $200B worth of jobs can be brought back.

If Trump's idea is to engage in a trade war, it's a losing proposition for everybody. For everybody job Trump brings back, he will lose them elsewhere.

Why is Trump concerned about others?

Trade war is a very sketchy issue. Trade war against who? He prefers bilateral trade agreements over trade blocs. He won't do anything to hurt US-EU trade.

China sells manufactured stuff to the US, and imports very little. If Trump shuts off that tap, there is very little China can do. The goods deficit is $366B to date. There's a lot of stuff that the Americans can make at home while still allowing China to make low cost stuff. So a balance can be reached.

Trump won't be concerned about the long term effects of access to the Chinese market when his immediate concern is creating jobs in the US.

But let's what his economic plan will be. Hopefully, it will be laid out in his State of the Union speech. I'm not holding my breath.

Everything depends on how Congress supports him. He may be unorthodox, but he is no Modi. In India, what Modi says goes. But in the US, the politicians are easily controlled by the corporations, so even the GOP may not support Trump.

 

[C130]

need to cut programs that we don't need to make it a reality.

cut most if not all of your BMD programs, that right there will save the U.S $50 billion over 10 years.
scrap LCS it's a failure and a waste of money. that'll save u.s another $10 billion
replace LCS by outsourcing the construction of a frigate to South Korea or a European ship builder. they'll build the ship and in the U.S it'll be outfitted with the internals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incheon-class_frigate

go from a 10 carrier fleet to a 7 carrier fleet, that'll save $100 billion over 30 years

gotta have a replacement "boomer" no matter the cost.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/beyond-the-ohio-class-inside-americas-next-generation-16270

10 SSBN and 6 SSGN

 

[damiendehorn]

The US can afford the wall, bro.



It will be done two ways. Quantitative easing and bringing back manufacturing jobs to the US.

Quantitative easing will weaken the dollar, thereby increasing exports in services.
And bringing back jobs to the US will stop outflows of dollars via imports, that will create a trade surplus which will mean the dollar's value can be manipulated much more easily.

And the companies which are setting up shop in the US will be able to buy the dollars that comes in through easy loans via the quantitative easing. The new manufacturing industry will add to the tax base and compensate for the reduced taxes. The fact is if jobs are created, it will reduce the need for welfare, so the stress on govt spending will reduce.

Since major job growth is expected, it will mean the US will have to attract foreign talent, which will further add to the tax base because of the focus on legal immigration.

Of course, there is a chance none of this will work, it all depends on Trump and the Congress.

So your not an economist i take it?

 

[truthseeker2010]

The U.S. arms industry is ready and capable of boosting production of new ships if President-elect Donald Trump makes good his vow to expand the U.S. Navy to 350 ships, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson told Reuters.

Shifting the current target of 308 ships upwards would be "remarkably easy" as long as there is funding to pay the bill, the top uniformed Navy official said in an interview at the annual Reagan National Defense Forum in southern California.

"If it's resourced, it's a matter of working closely with the industrial base, and they definitely are ready to do that," he said, adding the only limiting factor would be hiring and training workers to build the new ships.

"If I do not have that capacity, I can create it faster than you can appropriate the money," Mike Petters, chief executive of Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc (HII.N), the largest U.S. military shipbuilder, said in a separate interview with Reuters.

Trump promised during his U.S. election campaign to expand the Navy to 350 ships, although lawmakers and military officials caution that any such boost would require big increases in staffing, training, maintenance and infrastructure.

Richardson said the incoming administration could smooth the way toward the increase by submitting a supplemental budget for fiscal 2017, which ends Sept. 30. "It seems to me that if you want to get something done, you get started."

All eyes are on the funding for an expansion under the shadow of sequestration, the self imposed U.S. spending cap.

"The question is, can you get rid of sequestration, because that is going to cloud everybody’s judgment on how fast do I invest, how fast do I build that capacity." Petters said.

Navy officials were still calculating how much it would cost to expand the Navy to 350 ships from around 290 now, but it would depend on the mix of ships and related costs.

A supplemental budget request could include munitions, aircraft, and other equipment that can be bought on short notice, followed by later orders for submarines, destroyers, amphibious ships and potentially even carriers, Richardson said.

"If you build those closer together, you get economic order quantities. The learning curve gets to be a much more relevant thing and the cost starts to drive down," he said.

Building two carriers at a time would potentially save about $1 billion, Petters said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-navy-shipbuilding-idUSKBN13T0U3

Any idea on the composition of 350 ship navy?

 

[Beast]

Trump's economic plan -- if you want to call it that -- is outright crazy: wants to raise defence spending, cut taxes, don't touch social security or medicare, and spend billions on infrastructure. How's he going to pay for it all?

Decommissioning 1000 USAF aircraft and cut down the US army more. The maintenance fee save will be enough to build the fleet

 

[randomradio]

So your not an economist i take it?

What do you think Europe and China are doing? All are growing through humongous amounts of cheap credit.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/13/12-trillion-of-qe-and-the-lowest-rates-in-5000-years-for-this.html

https://www.ft.com/content/9a45a960-e6ac-11e5-a09b-1f8b0d268c39

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...r-qe-as-monetary-policy-shifts-says-jefferies

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29227597

Trump's game plan is simple, reduce taxes in order to increase corporate investment and domestic consumption. Raise import duties on specific goods in order to get those manufactured in the US thereby creating jobs. The massive influx of dollars back into the US economy will strengthen the dollar which in turn will allow Trump to provide easy loans to the companies that are bringing back jobs.

Many other economies are working the same way. The Chinese stick 25% duties on car imports and provide easy money to companies so they can invest in manufacturing, thereby creating jobs.

 

[damiendehorn]

What do you think Europe and China are doing? All are growing through humongous amounts of cheap credit.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/13/12-trillion-of-qe-and-the-lowest-rates-in-5000-years-for-this.html

https://www.ft.com/content/9a45a960-e6ac-11e5-a09b-1f8b0d268c39

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...r-qe-as-monetary-policy-shifts-says-jefferies

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29227597

Trump's game plan is simple, reduce taxes in order to increase corporate investment and domestic consumption. Raise import duties on specific goods in order to get those manufactured in the US thereby creating jobs. The massive influx of dollars back into the US economy will strengthen the dollar which in turn will allow Trump to provide easy loans to the companies that are bringing back jobs.

Many other economies are working the same way. The Chinese stick 25% duties on car imports and provide easy money to companies so they can invest in manufacturing, thereby creating jobs.

If you say so, get back to me in 4 years and let me know how his policies are going....

 

[randomradio]

If you say so, get back to me in 4 years and let me know how his policies are going....

That's why I also said:
Of course, there is a chance none of this will work, it all depends on Trump and the Congress.