Posted on 12/16/2016 7:23:57 AM PST by rktman
The Navy released a new fleet plan that calls for 355 ships, outlining a massive increase in the size of its high-end large surface combatant and attack submarine fleets but a modest increase in its planned amphibious ship fleet, according to a Dec. 14 summary of the assessment.
The findings of the latest Force Structure Assessment adds 47 ships to the Navy’s battle force over the 308-ship figure from a 2014 FSA.
According to the summary, the service determined the 355 total was the “minimum force structure to comply with [Pentagon] strategic guidance” and was not “the “desired” force size the Navy would pursue if resources were not a constraint, read the summary.
“Rather, this is the level that balances an acceptable level of warfighting risk to our equipment and personnel against available resources and achieves a force size that can reasonably achieve success,” according to the summary, which notes it would take a 653-ship force to meet all global requirements with minimal risk.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.usni.org ...
F’n yeah! tired of the Chinese and Russian military build up.
Reagan worked towards a 600 ship navy.Less military, more debt. Something’s wrong.
anybody know the largest sized Fleet we had in recent memory?
Two things. Trying to fight an Asian land war and the DoD acquisition system presided over by Carter and Kendall. Whatever anyone here thinks about Gates or Rumsfeld, at least they tried to fight it.
Because we can.
Actually not, 30 attacks x 120 men + 70 destroyers x 300 = 3600 + 21000=25,000.
Now adding 25,000 REAL SAILORS may be an interesting exercise in this PC world but it isn't a pimple on the 1.3M DoD active duty manning roster and 1.1M civilians + contractor administrative base, or whatever the numbers actually are.
That’s why we built the Alaskas. Other nations scraped together resources to build what they desperately needed. We built stuff just because we could. Like B-29s that carried atomic weapons.
But that was when we had industry...
> ...this is the level that balances an acceptable level of warfighting risk to our equipment and personnel...
“Warfighting”?
Could we use terms any more liberal.
“Combat” was the accepted term for centuries, let’s keep it that way.
Close to 600 after Reagan’s increases.
As long as they’re not named for lesbians.
GOOD ....jobs, defense etcetera ....... whats not to like .
They want to add another carrier group. The carrier would have to have about 6,000 sailors.
How about a cross between a HUGE gunned battleship that can withstand atomic weapons and a drone carrier with swarms of attack and defense drones......yeah man....
The Alaskas: the last gasp of the battle cruiser (in fact, if not in name).
Kill the LCS program and transfer existing hulls to the USCG.
+6,000 REAL SAILOR and AIRMEN still isn’t a pimple on the Defense establishment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.