Until moral improves:
As the Obama administration reorients its military strategy toward Asia and the vital maritime trade routes in the Pacific, the bulk of the responsibility will fall on the Navy, which was largely sidelined during the land wars of the last decade.
But the Navy will have to perform its mission in Asia with fewer ships in coming years than it had anticipated. Under President Obama’s proposed defense budget, the Navy will retire nine ships early and cut or delay the purchases of 16 others over the next five years.
The Navy had long planned to increase the size of its 285-ship fleet to 313 vessels by 2020, but under Obama’s budget it will fall far short. Under the new plan, the fleet will remain at 285 ships over the next five years.
The Navy is hoping to expand to a 300-ship fleet by 2019, but that’s only if the service doesn’t get hit with additional spending cuts, an optimistic scenario.
A real mission, facing a real adversary, at a great distance, who has the advantage of interior lines of communication. With fewer resources.
It’s all of a piece throughout. But at least we’ll have the USS Gabrielle Giffords.
THIS should be a surprise? And exactly WHAT different did anyone expect? “All of a piece” indeed. TOTALLY consistent…the Obama of my vid posted on the previous thread is alive and well..
We are on the precipice of a Mideast war. All this talk of budgeting will be gone..
“Boots and Saddles” shortly ,very shortly…
Maybe the incentive in naming the USS Gabby Giffords is for the example she has set for the future: She is small and weak, got ambushed, and she’s been brave in her recovery to something-less-than-what-she-once-was. See how inspiring? Keep your chins up Little Navy.
Damn, that’s cold. Not inaccurate or untrue but still cold.
Welcome, Navy, to the mode of operations that the Marine Corps has lived with for around 200 years.
Sarge, I would suggest that if your self serving libel carries any validity at all its genesis should be directed solely to the ethos of Corps itself. Best
Your criticism would have more force if USMC hadn’t been forced to live with Army hand-me-downs for so long.
My point exactly, sir.
Not sure what drives the animus against the USMC but unlike SPECWAR the USMC have always delivered, on time, as agreed and with vim, vigor and fortitude. Used to despise SPECWAR because they had funding from God and they never ever
That said, I’d take USMC support over SPECWAR any day of the week. Maybe just not in the UAE again. That was very ugly. The first of the fifth made the farking USAF look good in comparison.
Oooops. Meant Qatar, not UAE.
Sammy is gonna have his hands full after he leaves Naples.
Remember when we were talking about 600 ships? Now we strain for 300 … Mahan is spinning.
I say the flogging needs to occur in the voting booth, with extreme effort. Voting this poser out of office is the duty of every veteran, family of a veteran and/or those who care about our nation. The empty headed fools and Moonbats voted him in, we will reverse this curse.
The beating needs to take place on November 6th with a stern message sent to any other candidate who would ever endanger our nation like the half-wit from Chicago.
People nostalgic for the 600 ship Navy live in the past. They forget that it was more of a campaign slogan than a real need. They forget that it was excessive, and put this country hugely in debt. They forget it was about a Cold War that is no longer.
Having lived through arms races and the Cold War, I do not care to revisit either. Nor do I want the tax hikes necessary to pursue such excess. Witness how it broke the back of the Soviet Union.
Still the United States maintains the largest navy in the world, with a battle fleet tonnage greater than that of the next 13 largest navies combined! Link
Our capabilities and our needs have changed since 1980.
We have the 600-ship Navy [now],” in terms of overall capabilities, Navy Undersecretary Bob Work said at an industry conference this month. “The numbers don’t [matter]. We span the globe.”
Quality vs Quantity based upon real, and not imagined needs, like in the past.
would that “quality” include ships that can’t deploy, including brand new ones, and include brand new ones that don’t have weapons systems, and new ones that have deferred maintenance and thus shorten their planned service life, thereby increasing their overall life cycle costs?
Quality vs Quantity based upon real, and not imagined needs, like in the past.
Prior to 2003, the last time the US Navy was less than 290 ships was 1930. So when you say “Quality” “like in the past.”, what did you see as the quality in ship building at the beginning of the 20th Century?
Or was that some throw away phrase that is meaningless but you thought sounded cool?
Don’t have much time for a full response, but Bob Work is p$issing on our backs, and telling us it’s raining. Typical DC doubletalk.
As for equivalent capabilities, two words: minesweepers & logistics. Just for a start.
“The numbers don’t [matter]. We span the globe.”
Well that’s on the list of the most profoundly stupid things ever said. Of course numbers matter. Our ships are significantly more capable than those of 30 years ago. However, the one capability we have yet to perfect is having the same hunk of metal in two different places at the same time. If you have a mission, but you don’t have hulls because they’re all either on the other side of the ocean or sitting in a drydock you aren’t going to accomplish the mission. With 300 ships you will able to accomplish one half of what you were able to accomplish with 600 ships.
Numbers matter but it depends on what we’re building. In a previous thread I noted a perfectly fine example of a ship we should be mass producing but won’t because it doesn’t have every high-tech weapons system included.
We could afford a larger fleet if we did the smart thing – take a page from the Danes, build modular ships that can have various systems modules such as STANFLEX inserted, and go from there. Instead we do the usual hi-tech overpriced NIH crap (All ships must have AEGIS, 60+ cell VLS, AGS, etc.) that results in the LCS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knud_Rasmussen_class_ocean_patrol_crafts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thetis_class_patrol_frigate
A flotilla of Rasmussen and Thetis designs, based in the PI, and say Singapore, plus Korea, would make sense. Build enough of them to sell them to the PI which badly needs modern naval vessels. Build T-AKE’s as tenders and go from there.
Well sure, 10 Burkes are better than 1000 rowboats. I was assuming a basic level of ability for the comparison.
You don’t have to talk to me about the procurement system. If there’s anything that better demonstrates the results of regulatory capture and monopsony I can’t think of it.
I think we need to go deeper than design. We need to sit down and lay out exactly what we want the Navy to do and design ships to accomplish those goals at minimum cost.
One thing I clearly see here is Flit’s morale is very low. We need to commence the floggings forthwith to treat this serious psychological condition.
Seriously, Flit, 600 may not be a magical number, but 300 is far too low given maintenance needs and rest time for the crews. We also have a seriously unbalanced fleet with insufficient numbers of attack subs and auxiliaries. MSC, frankly, is an atrocity because of low numbers of hulls and we need at a minimum 25 more SSNs.
QM,
I never drank the cool aid. Why do we need 25 more SSN? Why do we need more ships? Seriously~!
Japan might need more ships.
Taiwan might need more ships.
Saudi Arabia might need more ships.
Singapore might need more ships.
Ummmm, you do realize in a bomber/cruise missile world a ship needs to be at a minimum, an Aegis equipped DDG right? Ever do ‘air defense’ with a couple of guns, 8 missiles and a prayer? Yeah, me neither but I read the Weapon SOP as my BIBLE for the Spruance Class DD and coming out of a Backfire raid was one of those things I didn’t envision.
When people talk about a strong navy and worthwhile ships I keep running those films of what happened against capable NATO warships in Falkland Sound against ancient A4 and gravity bombs. We saw what happened and then they used ship killing missiles and I don’t recall a single one that didn’t end without warheads on foreheads. Excocet and the Iraqi used them on us.
It is time to reevaluate the navy and see if that is what we want to buy. Amphibs, larger and larger and zero credible defense and absolutely no offensive weapons, MCM, no offense, no defense, FFG with the missile launcher torn off, MSC with no defensive capabilities at all. We got us a cruise ship navy.
I wonder, can you picture a CVN with 2 dozen vampires inbound?
Smoke and mirrors. At some point there will be smoke and where there is smoke there is fire.
Curtis:
The reason we need more SSN’s is because SSN’s can survive and bring a world of hurt to the enemy in the world you describe. At about a 20 percent loss rate.
Somebody has to go long and sneaky and sink the enemy’s navy and attrite his airfields.
It sure isn’t going to be the USS Gabby Giffords, poor designed to be a lamb sent to the slaughter thing that she will be.
LCS delende est.
As for the Gator Freighters, they need more AAM and
AAA. About a hundred times more. All those Brit Harriers the Corps got at the fire sale will be right handy too.
GP, I’m not seeing it.
Curtis, if we had at min 25 more SSNs we could do what Hitler wanted to accomplish in the Battle of the Atlantic. My personal desire is I would want to be able to keep at least 45-50 boats at sea constantly. The sensors and comms we have now would make the Karl Dönitz green with envy.
SSNs are about denying the oceans to our enemy. CVs and the rest are about projecting power from the sea. While the surface fleet can also deny the oceans to our enemies, SSNs can go far closer to the littoral without risk. The surface fleet requires something of a permissive environment, while teh SSNs can live with things the that would destroy the surface fleet
QM,
I’m sure you’re familiar with “the world wonders”. Where are these fleets of enemy ships that need some killing? I think with a basic load out any single one of our SSN or SSGN could sink every single ship of any foreign navy that posed any kind of threat to US. Why exactly do we need more SSN?
I dare to say that no USN officer will ever give the order to sink a merchant ship unless we have the tech to detect some sort of WMD on that ship. Sadly, that tech is still at a remote distance in time.
I’ll maybe chip in with a comment after we deal with the Falkland Islands – again – this time minus any form of aircraft carrier, no more Sea Harriers, no more no more and not much of that either. And have we got a decent supply of amraams? But there’s always my dear old Uncle Sam…. I suppose…..
With the Obummer around I seriously doubt our UK friends will get a warm reception when it comes to help.
I’m not particularly nostalgic for a literal 600 ship Navy, but rather for the days when we could make a moderately accurate claim to have any sort of control / impact on trade upon the seas.
I was actually quite excited when I heard that China was going to take a hand in patroling the Persian Gulf. They are not hampered by the absurd ROE’s of western nations. I was looking forward to watching them kick some butt!
China is Iran’s largest energy customer. They have a direct need to maintain order in that part of the world. I think it is a small step, as American power receeds, for China to take control of world wide shipping lanes. They have a vested interest in keeping order so all their I-Pads and other assorted junk make it to market.
As discussed in the previous thread and this one, if the American political climate continues we will no longer be able to supply countries like China with a free ride. I’m not so sure that is a bad thing. (ducks for incoming)
Babs, I tend to agree with you.
The trick will be to ensure that safe routes will be equivalent to routes open for all potential users.
What Cap’n Bill said. I’d be glad to see a country like India pick up it’s share of the load. They have their own interests to be sure, but at least they’re a representative democracy. China is not a partner to be trusted, and I’d much rather spend the money and have us decide what constitutes an open shipping lane than have China do so.
A few hours study of History and a smidgen of economics will explain why China has a big and correct interest in the world trade lanes. They must have dependable energy and trade routes to and from their large landmass. The trick will be to ensure that safe routes will be equivalent to routes open for all potential users.
I thought floggings to improve morals was already going on.
With great vigor. Morale, too.
“China is not a partner to be trusted”
They are to be trusted in so much as they want their raw materials and their finished goods delivered. In that respect I trust them.
I am all for India picking up part of the load (let’s not even talk about the EU; babies of the world market, coddled for far too long by the US.)
I just don’t think that the US can continue to keep shipping lanes open under the current changing world dynamics and, why should we? Do you think that China wants callamity on the high seas? I don’t. They want commerce. That is a pretty raw emotion.
China can also be trusted position themselves to have the upper hand in all dealings with foreign powers and over all resources they need. They are MiddleEarth. They have a right and destiny to be at the center of, and over, all.
Don’t project our American virtues of charity and sharing on their culture or world view — they’re counting on us doing that. They understand our values and optimism about other’s good intentions, play along with it and use it against us.
It’s not just a question of whether the US can continue to keep shipping lanes open. It’s a question of whether we’re willing to give China the ability to dictate terms of use of those shipping lanes in the future.
Frankly, if we abdicate the maintenance of sea lanes to the Chinks we will be asking for very serious trouble, and we will get it.
Anyone else read that the Navy had “been mostly sidelined”….. I guess the 5 deployments in 5 years REAGAN did is just sideline stuff nowadays?
I guess we were supposed to run the carriers ashore and tow them to Baghdad/Kabul.
We have to wonder why we were playing that game with carriers when it made far more sense to send the aircraft ashore, just as we do at home. What need a carrier to fly off/on when the plane was the weapon that was needed at the pointy end.
The sad part is that it now appears that I have seen (and participated) in the zenith of the US Navy….all in less than one generation.
We have less than half of the ships in the US Navy than when I was in (late 80′s/early 90′s) and some of the critical ones that we are depending on for the future have some SERIOUS issues that appear to resist being solved.
We appear to be wrapped up in side issues that sap our time, money, and strength
On paper we appear to be an overwhelming superior Navy. I certainly hope that our enemies feel that way for the next couple of decades as I do not share that same view. I think we are in serious trouble and we do not appear to be addressing the real concerns facing our Navy.
As someone once said, the “most expensive thing in the world is a 2nd class military”….
I’m gonna get flogged for this, but… we seriously need to take another look at the kinds of ships we’re building. I’d rather have 100 frigates than 30 destroyers. Presence matters, and you can not effectively have presence without numbers. We might want to have another look at Elmo Zumwalt’s model again.
Part of our problem is, don’t hit me for this… our military-industrial complex and the way it drives up prices. Even when we tell contractors that we want small and “cheap” warships, we get a mess like the LCS… a Coast Guard cutter at the price of a NATO destroyer. We don’t really have competition in weapons procurement and development, we have the illusion of competition. Perhaps competition isn’t really possible when you really have just one customer, and we should start designing and building ships by the Navy in Navy-owned yards. We used to do that, ya know. Some people think that helped keep warship prices down in the 20′s and 30′s.
Let me help you to a name for what you appear to want for a navy. Panay. Couldn’t fight, couldn’t run away. I suppose that she reported present. Was that enough for China and the USN mission there? You know, present?
The reality in these days with fast movers (and a UH-1 is a fast moved for this purpose) is that ship may be able to fight, but it will likely not be able to run away if there is any sort of aviation force with weapons near by. So for the Panay comparison to work, we will have to be unwilling to expose ships to any risk of combat.
The reality is the DE/FF today approaches the mass of a WW2 Destroyer. They can carry AA missiles and handle ASW as long as we aren’t facing a large submarine force. When we find ourselves facing a large Sub force these days, given our severely reduced ASW capability, then the surface fleet will be in deep trouble. Go after the small fry, the DE/FF and DD, then you will have stripped our ability to span the ocean because the merchies are naked and we will not be able to build replacements fast enough.
What won WW2 was time and industrial manufacturing ability. Next time you ain’t gonna have the time, so your fleet had better be able to take on what is out there at the time the party starts, or you will lose the war in mere months.
QM,
One of the problems of going to ASWIPs is knowing too much. That and spending so many years working at PMW 182 and 183.
To give you an idea and perhaps a parallel, never take a knife to a gunfight. Yes I do realize that this could be construed as an argument for more SSN but again, we seem to have plenty and if there is a scarcity it probably is not our problem. How about we let others fix their problem?
I would not flog you for pointing out what is majorly wrong about the entire military procurement process. Often military R&D money is just used for corporate welfare and/or other boondoggles that result in nothing added to the guys who pull the triggers etc.
Zumwalt had a great idea. Then when the 80′s came along the military got a blank check and that’s partially to blame for the ever rising cost/unit spiral etc.
Nonsense Lex…..no cut’s allowed!
We have the heroes of the Great Downward Spiral to honor……the carriers, Bawny Phrank, Kennedy (Tedster), Clinton, (x Two), Gore, Dodd, Reid, HMS Peelosi, Soros, a handful of shifty vessels…. Geithner, Fast & Furious, a prison ship, Blagoavich, the American apologist ship…Pardon Me, the weapons barge Moochelle, along with the solar powered, wind driven whatever, Barack…..thank goodness we already have the Jimmy Carter.
These clowns will need to keep building ships just to honor themselves over the next decade or two, at least.
I think what guys like Flit fail to realize that much of our Navy is old. The Ticos are old and need more maintenance. We just had the Bataan perform the longest deployment since WWII. We’re wearing them out faster, wearing out the crews with endless deployments and we are going to have LESS ships and less boots on the decks? We can’t be everywhere and when you consider all of things asked of the Navy and how many ships are in refit or repair or in port to give their crews a break, the numbers are way too small. I’m not thinking 600. I think 350-400 would do the trick.
But the force needs to be a high-low mix. The LCS isn’t the kind of low I’m thinking of. Something like that Absalon class frigate/multipurpose ship would be better for the low end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalon_class_command_ship
Maybe some real frigates with decent self defense capability and some great range and seakeeping. The Coast Guard’s new high-endurance cutter, with some more weapons, would work here.
Definitely invest in some more minesweeping, which ain’t sexy, but is vital.
What we’re doing now is ridiculous. Running ships to pieces. Running crews to pieces. We’re not going to be fighting a major land war, hopefully not for a decade or two. Time to replenish our fleet and prepare for the conflicts of the next decades. Somebody’s got to keep the sea lanes clear. That somebody, like or not, is us.
People tend to assume (like I did when I was a civilian) that ships, vehicles and aircraft are solid blocks that don’t need maintenance.
So the brain trust in Foggy Bottom and the MSM simply assume that the military is on call whenever. Most of the time the MSM speaks in numbers of troops, ships etc. The devil’s in the details. Most of our forces aren’t trigger pullers but logistics. Most of our systems are getting old. I was in the last PAC-2 unit in the US army, we converted to PAC-3 in 2007. Remember, F-15 in the Guard were falling from the sky due to metal fatigue. But that don’t sell or fit the narrative. The military is expensive and must be cut to fund the welfare state and buy votes for democrats.
Clinton canceled the M-8 armored gun system to pay for Bosnia & Kosovo. He sent the Air Force and Navy out on missions without spares and funds for maintenance. Why should a new crop of democrats be any different?
The Danes have quite the innovative little fleet there. Let’s do the smart thing and use what they have designed, not re-invent the wheel again. Cause when we re-invent it, it’ll end up costing beaucoup bucks.
The USCG Bertholf’s are nice ships that would make the good basis for an Absalon type vessel. I don’t know what kind of redesign would be needed to incorporate the STANFLEX modules.
As noted above about looking at it from a design perspective would it be possible to build submarines with not only tubes and VLS’s but conformal weapons bays on the flanks? Our SSN’s are very powerful but I’d like to see the weapons loadout go to something like 72-90 torpedoes, ASCM’s, LACMS, etc. This would allow the boats to stay on station longer before needing to reload. Would it work on a Virginia or would something along the size of an Ohio be needed?
FBAL: We do not talk that way among ourselves, here. I tried to make that politely clear to you in this post. You are violating the standards of the house. My house. It’s possible to disagree without being disagreeable. If you can’t engage in critical commentary without resorting to ad hominem, you’ll be banned.
This is your only warning.
Alas…I suspect that this Gomer thought that you would cut him some major slack because he used to check the tire pressure on all those Blue Angel Aeroplanes. Best
Lucky thing that “self-serving libel” pass didn’t blip the Skipper’s radar, isn’t it?
Cheers!
Sarge…you’re rather thin skinned…for a presumptive Sargent of Marines… are you not? Best
Nothing ‘presumptive’ about it, Mr. Eater; earned my third stripe in early ’86. It was ‘kept until sep’ed,’ too.
There is nothing inconsistent between my branch of service, and defending myself from mealy-mouthed accusations of ‘self-serving libel.’
And that’s “Sergeant” to you, woggie. A “Sargent” is a brand of flea collar.
…well done Sarge…I thought you’d run to the dictionary to check the “presumptive” reference…and you did…my “Sargent” reference however was gratutious/unnecessary *…and a cheap shot…Best
* as was your Jar-Head trash talk.
Maybe you need a dictionary for such words, sir; don’t presume that we all share your handicap.