Better than the current 'lapse' in providing ample equipment. Just need to ensure that when completed they are capable of performing the assigned tasks.
1 posted on
12/16/2016 7:23:57 AM PST by
rktman
To: rktman
F’n yeah! tired of the Chinese and Russian military build up.
2 posted on
12/16/2016 7:25:46 AM PST by
12th_Monkey
(I'm DEPLORABLE and I'm OK with that.)
To: rktman
Reagan worked towards a 600 ship navy.Less military, more debt. Something’s wrong.
3 posted on
12/16/2016 7:28:49 AM PST by
Dr. Sivana
(There is no salvation in politics.)
To: rktman
That means, a lots more Sailors to.
5 posted on
12/16/2016 7:30:06 AM PST by
SandRat
(Duty - Honor - Country! What else need s said?)
To: rktman
Build the Montana Class BBs.
Because we can.
7 posted on
12/16/2016 7:32:34 AM PST by
Jim Noble
(Die Gedanken sind Frei)
To: rktman
outlining a massive increase in the size of its high-end large surface combatant and attack submarine fleets
"High-end large surface combatant" . . . you mean, battleships? (Oh well, one can dream . . .)
10 posted on
12/16/2016 7:36:11 AM PST by
bus man
(Loose Lips Sink Ships)
To: rktman
> ...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.
To: rktman
and NO Littoral Combat, (Torpedo Target) Ships
13 posted on
12/16/2016 7:38:58 AM PST by
SandRat
(Duty - Honor - Country! What else need s said?)
To: rktman
GOOD ....jobs, defense etcetera ....... whats not to like .
15 posted on
12/16/2016 7:42:25 AM PST by
Squantos
(Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet ...)
To: rktman
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....
17 posted on
12/16/2016 7:47:31 AM PST by
Spruce
To: rktman
Kill the LCS program and transfer existing hulls to the USCG.
19 posted on
12/16/2016 7:49:53 AM PST by
paddles
("The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." Tacitus)
To: rktman
40 of those ships are the failed littoral ship concept. "In response to the mounting storm of criticism, on Dec. 16, 2015, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced that the original buy of 55 LCSs, already cut to 52, would be cut to 32 ships plus an additional eight frigate versions of the original LCS. The Navy prefers to go even further by cutting the LCS buy to 28 ships plus 12 frigate LCSs - and is requesting approval of a 12 ship block buy to lock in the programs production commitment with a concomitant large increase in concurrency." See post: The U.S. Navys Redesigned Future Ship Still Wont Fight http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3505267/posts
23 posted on
12/16/2016 8:06:04 AM PST by
PIF
(They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
To: rktman
Build DE subs instead of the extremely expensive complex Nuke types.
The new DE subs are quiet, fast, can stay submerged for extended periods.
26 posted on
12/16/2016 8:11:24 AM PST by
Vinnie
To: rktman
This Army Officer, Retired, says Go For It!!
To: rktman
Gasp - the Navy knows it need more equipment to do its job. Gonna be some heavy spending happening to try to rebuild our Military after Obama gutted it while still increasing the debt astronomically despite the “peace savings”.....
34 posted on
12/16/2016 9:11:07 AM PST by
trebb
(Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
To: rktman
Ulithi anchorage, 1945:
At one point prior to the Okinawa invasion there were over 700 ships anchored there.
Murderer's Row:
44 posted on
12/16/2016 10:04:18 AM PST by
PLMerite
(Lord, let me die fighting lions. Amen.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson