I think our budget has crept up higher than that once you account for long term procurement averaged over the procurement time-frame.

That said, given the flaky nature of our current Federal Government, those procurements could be dropped.

I've often thought about America's standing nuclear and conventional arsenals.  You'd have to think that with say, two or three less carrier fleets, you'd be able to project the same or similar amount of power you currently do relative to the rest of the world.  And I couldn't see that having any effect on your home defense.

But you would save tens, even hundreds of billions a year.

The US still needs the carriers.

What the US doesn't need is to have soldiers in 156 countries around the world. 156 countries. Do we really need to be Team America: World Police? No. Not by a long shot. Of those 156 countries, we have 255,000 soldiers overseas. Each of those 255,000 soldiers cost money. Not just to America, but the money is also likely being spent overseas too - if you have a US soldier in Germany, there is a high likelihood that he will spend some of his money there, providing for their economy, not ours.

If we got out of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as removed all troops from every foreign country sans Korea and Japan (but reduced forces there, and re-negotiated a treaty with Japan allowing them to have a more robust military), we could save tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars a year - far more than nixing a carrier, which I believe we need as we do need a mobile army. We just don't need an army that is in well over half of the nations worldwide.

That's actually over two thirds of nations I believe.  I agree entirely with your first (main) paragraph.  The USA does not need to be in a large number of the countries it is in, and as such could save enormously here.

But when last I checked (which I admit was a while ago) the USA had eleven carriers in service, ten of which were Nimitz class.  Nimitz is by far the most advanced carrier in service anywhere, and the nearest rival nation to the USA is Britain, with three carriers that are generally seen as second rate.  They are in the process of replacing them with two much more advanced carriers, but I still doubt they'll be more advanced than Nimitz, and certainly not better than the Ford carrier you've started building. 

So to recap, you have eleven of the very best carriers, and most of the active carriers in the world are directly in the hands of your allies Britain and France.  Even with the potential for Russia and China to launch their own carriers (you'd have too think two each at MOST and unlikely to be as advanced as the USA's) sometime this decade, eleven is just ridiculous.

And you have to remember much of what some of these carrier fleets are doing now is supporting your troops overseas.  If they aren't overseas, why do you need eleven carriers and supporting fleets?

It cost a lot less to be so powerful no one would think to attack you, then it does to fight a war.

We have, and should keep, that power. What we need to fix, is stop giving people real reasons to want to attack us.

A good analogy would be if you were the strongest bad ass at school that everyone knew could pound them into sand, who just kept to your self, you would never get into a fight.

If that same guy started picking on people and taking there lunch money, one day people will start picking fights with you.

We need to keep our power. Just get out of the rest of the worlds business.

And as for Obama's attempt to make the rest of the world love us.. I don't care if the world loves us. I just want my president to make sure they won't attack us.

Oh hey I just realized you have a Ford quote in your sig. Well there you go, the bloke will have a Carrier and a whole Carrier class named after him.

Weigh in Mafoo, do you think that 11 carriers are (or will be in the next decade) needed to keep that power?

The 11 carriers are needed to ensure that there is at least some power projection. Just because most carriers are in the hands of allies does not mean that we do not need them - carriers aren't for attacking other carriers, but projecting air power over potential warzones.

For example, lets say a theoretical war starts in SE Asia, and Australia gets attacked. Australia wants our help. How are we going to provide air power to Australia if it is behind enemy lines? That is what aircraft carriers are for - mobile floating fortresses that can project strikes onto enemies.

And its precisely for that reason I want our troops out - the whole idea on having so many people overseas in bases is for power projection. Why do we need power projection like that when we have 11 said carriers?

Essentially, I want to see America like this (militarily):

Reduce our presence in Europe by 90% or more
Reduce our presence in Asia by 50% - force Korea, Taiwan and Japan to care about their own military for once
Remove all troops from Latin America and Africa
Reduce our presence in the Mid East by 80% (sans Diego Garcia)

To compensate for that, field about half of our carrier fleet around the world in case of wars, with the other half at port, ready to move in the case of a war.

I am glad you responded to this horrible statement.  It is a sad time when half the people think like this guy that nuclear weapons help defend against terrorist.  It is pretty much on the same line as giving up your freedoms to remain free (Patriot Act).  Statements like this make me want to just say f the human race and go live on an island.  Too bad the world is full of stupid people.

The sad thing is since they were created, more are going to be created and they will get deadlier and deadlier(just like every weapon mankind has ever made). I am sure within the next 3 generations someone will use one, let's hope I am wrong.