Any questions?
Posted on 02/04/2006 1:42:28 PM PST by NormsRevenge
While the Army and Marine Corps bear the brunt of warfare in the Middle East, leaders of the Navy are looking west.
In a sweeping report on the nation's long-range defense needs, released yesterday in Washington, D.C., Pentagon leaders laid out plans for transforming the military to fight terrorist organizations.
They suggested boosting special-operations forces such as the Navy SEALs and the Marines' new MarSOC commando unit by 15 percent. They also pushed for closer participation between the U.S. military and foreign forces to defeat terrorism.
The 92-page Quadrennial Defense Review, which projects Pentagon needs 20 years ahead, seeks more funding for bioterrorism defenses and teams specializing in psychological warfare and civil affairs. It requests cuts in conventional-warfare troops for the Army, Marine Corps, Reserves and National Guard.
With a wary eye toward China's expanding military, the report calls for a significant shift of naval forces from the Atlantic to the Pacific to counter any future threat in the Far East.
The review is scheduled to be sent to Capitol Hill on Monday along with President Bush's proposed $439 billion Pentagon budget, which requests a 4.8 percent increase in spending over the current fiscal year.
“After two generations of focus on the European theater, they're now looking toward the Pacific,” said Steve Clarey, a spokesman for National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, or NASSCO. The San Diego shipbuilder stands to gain business if the Navy achieves its aim to build more vessels, a goal included in the review.
Adm. Michael Mullen, the chief of naval operations, wants to speed up construction of coastal warships and submarines to build the Navy's fleet of 280 ships to 313.
“His plan for 313 ships has become a major priority,” said Rep. Susan Davis, D-San Diego, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee. “He's staked a claim that we don't want to rob shipbuilding to pay for other needs.”
Even as the report gives shipbuilders such as NASSCO cause for optimism, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, cautioned that it could prompt the transfer of some San Diego-based ships to Japan or other ports in the Pacific.
“That allows you to move to crisis areas more quickly,” said Hunter, who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Some analysts criticized the review for creating a laundry list of Pentagon needs while ignoring the price tag.
“Any strategy must be supported by resources,” said Andrew Krepinevich of the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis in Washington, D.C. “Given that the current programs are likely underfunded . . . the Pentagon is facing tough choices.”
The review calls for the early mothballing of the Florida-based carrier John F. Kennedy, cutting the total number of flattops to 11, a move that has been opposed in Congress.
The number of Pacific-based carriers, however, would be increased from five to six, and the number of attack submarines from 20 to 25. The review also urges the rearming of some Trident subs, now used to carry sea-based nuclear weapons, with conventional ballistic missiles. And it recommends increasing construction of the new Virginia-class submarine from one to two per year by 2012.
The review doesn't specify where the Navy should base the extra vessels. San Diego is the home port for two aircraft carriers and three submarines. The city easily could absorb more vessels – as many as three carriers and 12 subs have been based here in recent years – but analysts' speculation has leaned toward other ports.
“A lot of people in the Navy would rather have as many ships as possible in Hawaii,” said Norman Polmar, an independent naval analyst and author of “The Naval Institute Guide to Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet.”
Polmar said the Navy also might look at placing more ships at existing bases in Guam and Japan, or even in Bahrain and Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean. All these spots are closer to China, which has approved double-digit hikes in defense spending during the past several years.
A key part of Mullen's fleet-building plan is to construct at least 50 relatively small littoral combat ships for shallow-water warfare.
These vessels are budgeted at about $200 million each, compared with $1 billion for a guided-missile destroyer of the Arleigh Burke class and approximately $3 billion for a next-generation DD(X) destroyer. The first littoral ship is scheduled for delivery to San Diego early next year.
Besides building up the coastal fleet, the review backs the Navy and Marine Corps' concept for “seabasing,” or clustering a group of ships offshore near a hostile country from which Marines or soldiers could launch an assault far inland.
NASSCO, the shipbuilder in San Diego, is enthusiastic about the report's fleet-expansion plans because it specializes in some of the amphibious-assault ships required for seabasing. It is the largest shipbuilder on the West Coast, employing more than 4,200 workers.
“We hope the plan we're reading about comes to pass,” said Clarey, the company's spokesman. “Only with a stable and predictable program can we train and keep a skilled work force.”
Mullen, the chief naval officer, has said the Navy can meet its shipbuilding goals by doing away with some of the high-tech frills on modern ships to get more hulls built faster.
“Everybody needs to have a more disciplined approach to modernization and transformation,” Mullen said last month in a speech at a defense-industry trade fair in San Diego. “We don't need the 'Star Wars' version of everything.”
The Quadrennial Defense Review is only a blueprint, requested by Congress to study what the Pentagon views as the biggest threats it faces. It doesn't address whether money is available to pay for the programs it advocates.
Like past reports, the new review fails to set spending priorities, critics say. It keeps all the Pentagon's existing big-ticket weapons systems, including expensive and controversial ones such as the Navy's DD(X) destroyers and the Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor fighter plane.
“They haven't made the hard choices,” said Lawrence Korb, a Reagan administration defense official who is now a senior fellow with the left-leaning Center for American Progress. “You can't fund all of these weapons systems.”
Korb's think-tank has come up with a proposal radically different from the Pentagon's. Its plan would scrap missile defense, the F/A-22 fighter, the DD(X) destroyer, the Virginia-class submarines and the Marine's trouble-plagued V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. Meanwhile, it would add 86,000 Army soldiers.
As he prepares to receive the Pentagon's report, Hunter said Congress never intended for budget concerns to govern the defense review process. The report is supposed to study what threats the military faces, leaving Congress to set the financial priorities.
Hunter said his committee has worked since the fall to prepare its own bipartisan defense review and expects to release it later this month.
The Associated Press and Otto Kreisher of Copley News Service contributed to this report.
Every four years, the Pentagon creates a report for Congress that maps U.S. military priorities for the next 20 years. The blueprint seeks:
To combat global terrorism by boosting U.S. military cooperation with other nations' armed forces.
To expand special-operations forces, such as the Navy SEALs, the Marine Corps Special Operations Command and the Army Green Berets, by 15 percent.
To increase the number of soldiers assigned to psychological-warfare and civil-affairs units by about one-third.
To create a five-year, $1.5 billion program for fighting bioterrorism.
To shift more naval operations from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
To put more emphasis on anti-sub and coastal operations for the Navy.
To keep all major existing weapons programs.
For the full review, go to defenselink.mil.
fyi
Deputy Defense Secretary
Gordon R. England
The Defense Department will “move in a direction of speed, agility, precision and lethality in force, shifting emphasis from the Cold War construct.”
Speech Hosted by Center for Strategic and International Studies Feb. 1, 2006
Any questions?
Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld
"This is the first such assessment conducted during a time of war, a war that is perhaps unprecedented in its complexity. It builds on several years of momentous change and on the lessons learned during the past four years of the global war on terror, peacekeeping operations, and yes, also several important humanitarian relief activities. These experiences highlighted the importance of building the capacity of partner states, other nations, friendly nations that are willing to help, and recognizing potential threats early and taking prompmeasures to prevent problems from becoming conflicts or crises."
Pentagon Briefing, Feb. 1, 2006
oops.
prompt measures
This is classic pragmatic diplomacy:
1st guy, "We should get together more, not be such strangers."
2nd guy, "yeah, good idea. Say, what do you do with that grinder?"
1st guy, "Oh, I was just sharpening my swords. You never know when you might need them."
America hating puke.
The re-orientation toward the Pacific has been underway for several years. Iran is about the same distance either way.
Yeah, how much does it cost to mission-kill a BB?
I think we should build a large number of intermediate ships that are stealthy and have a lot of bite. We have to expect to take some hits in a major naval war with a country such as China.
I'd also like to see some scaled-down carriers or even bare bones plane-recovery flat-tops built, which could land planes that were in the air if a carrier were (God forbid) heavily damaged or sunk, and could double as food, ammo or fuel transporters. If a major shooting war broke out, I'd also like some way to save every experienced pilot we had, not to mention their planes.
>> "A lot of people in the Navy would rather have as many ships as possible in Hawaii" <<
GREAT PLAN - That worked so well last time. :)
?
Essentially the size of an Essex Class carrier, the Amphibious Assault Ship design could be easily modified to fill the role of a modern escort carrier. Drop the well deck, giver her 36 F-35s, a couple of V-22s and your in buisness.
Sorry, a standard knock on the "reactivate the Iowas" question. Usually the argument goes something like this:
-"Reactivate the Iowas!";
-"Disagree, it's a poor use of money because the Iowas are compared to modern warships, overmanned, too expensive to operate, stuck with antiquated machinery and can do only one thing that other assets can't do, naval gunfire support and that's not in great demand";
-Answer to that usually is "poppycock, they're heavily armored and can withstand a modern missile/torpedo better than anything else afloat";
-answer to that usually is: "Have you seen what a modern torpedo or fast moving SSM can really do to a steel warship?
Without conceding the abilty of either to sink an Iowa, at the very least an Iowa is going to be prevented from doing its mission ("mission-killed") by a single torpedo or SSM that probably cost $1-3 million dollars to build. Factor in the cost of repairs and casualties (assuming an Iowa survives) and you can assme the bad guys can inflict about a $100 dollars in damage to the US fleet for each dollar they spent on the SSM or torpedo.
"How much does a mission kill cost?" has become a short hand for saying that the Iowas are extremely vulnerable and extremely expensive assets in a 21st Cnetury naval environment.
The best all around answer there is building at least 2-4 conventional carriers. We do not need to be downsizing our carrier fleet and the downsizing is due in part to a myth about nuke powered carriers. They can not spend any less time in the yards than a conventional carrier. They have the same maintenance ratio or schedule as conventional. Nukes however re-fuel the reactor once I think.
The conventional however would carry a substantial amount of DFM or diesel fuel marine which can run boilers or Deseil engine powered ships. Nukes would not have much reason except for the emergency generators and Utility Boats to carry but a fraction of DFM a conventional carrier does.
BTW for the scenario you mention to work about emergency recovery? It would simply be more practical to add another carrier than to have one in tow. I'll explain some of it.
Aircraft launch & recovery is just part of the task the carrier does. It has a fully equipped machine shop, motor rewind shop, print shop, Photo Lab, Intelligence processing center, Instrument Calibration Lab, O2N2 plant, post office, main communications center, Boiler Repair Shop, Pipe shop, Carpenter Shop, Pharmacy, Surgical Facilities with several surgeons onboard, Dentist, Supply department, Laundry, just to name a few. All of these are ran by what is called Ships Company or ones who are assigned to the ship on a permanent basis. A conventional can do all you stated. When it came to vertical replenishment at sea {from a supply ship to others} the carrier is the coordinator. We refuel other smaller ships plenty of times. All of our services were also support services to the other ships in company.
We need to get back closer to a Cold War defense posture which allows for more ships to be deployed at sea but still allows for reasonable needed downtime. A nuke needs as much time in the yards after a 6 month deployment as a conventional. If you have to change out galley equipment the procedure is the same meaning cutting through the hanger deck to get to it. The 3 month yard periods usually address ancillary equipment issues while the once every five year major overhaul addresses hull {drydock} and turbine issues as well as allows for replacing valves etc.
Smaller carriers will not work until Vertical Take off jets become more practical. In the past 25 years that technology has not be that much advanced. A vertical take off burns a substantial portion of fuel just getting airborne. One advantage though is they can operate from a helo carrier.
A modern version of a Battleship would be great also. Another major plus would have been keeping the F-14 program in place with focus on Avionics R&D rather than scuttling the entire program as was done.
As an offensive platform, yes, but used soley for naval gunfire support when we've got to take back islands in the Pacific again, they'd be well suited to the task.
Most people think I'm nuts when I spout off about rebuilding the battleships into something alot more modern. They get even more glossy eyed when I talk about bringing back the North Carolina, Massachusetts, Alabama; as well as the heavy cruisers Salem and Des Moines.
These ships' hulls were built like bathtubs, 12" thick! 8" in the case of the cruisers.
You could gut them, slap in nuclear reactors, rearm them with a modern version of the 12" guns off the Alaska class battlecruisers; along with the new 6" (155mm) Advanced Gun System (DDX) as secondary armament; Peripheral Vertical Launch System (DDX); brand new stealthy superstructures, etc.
These 9 ships showing up on anyones doorstep for a preinvasion bombardment would get a very good show?
It would take building new ships. I'm not saying they couldn't but you need several things the others didn't. A top speed of 35+ knots. The draft is the same as an aircraft carrier and just under 200 feet shorter. The hulls are too old now to go be putting new plants into them even conventional. Still though a modern higher operational speed variant could work.
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.