Posted on 05/03/2010 4:36:43 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday called into question the Navy's heavy and expensive arsenal of ships and subs.
In a speech before naval officers and contractors, Gates did not say he was planning to cut any programs or its budget.
But he did say the military must rethink whether it can afford such a massive naval fleet at a time when the Army and Marine Corps need more money to take care of troops and their families.
"Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?" Gates asked.
He noted that the Navy's most expensive resources aren't on the front lines when it comes to countering many modern threats, such as piracy.
"As we learned last year, you don't necessarily need a billion-dollar guided missile destroyer to chase down and deal with a bunch of teenage pirates wielding AK-47s" and rocket-propelled grenades, Gates said.
John Pike, director of the GlobalSecurity.org defense website based in Alexandria, Va., said this is the first time, as far as he knows, that Gates has addressed the cost of maintaining the roughly 300-ship Navy.
Pike said that Gates, by raising the issue of the size and composition of the fleet with the Navy league, had entered "the Lion's den" — a reference to the pushback he's likely to get from Congress. Many lawmakers protect the Navy shipbuilding industry because it means jobs in their districts.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
We should either reactivate the Iowa Class battleship groups or bring the number of carrier groups up to 15.
in 2012.
No. He's telling the big Commie threat "we give up".
In the past, whenever there was a crisis, the first thing a President would say is “Where are my carriers!”
Hell, I want to bring Curtis LeMay back and make our Air Force the beast it once was. Give the Army their damned A-10s. There’s more to fighting or deterring a threat from a nuclear armed mega-nation like China than fielding a couple hundred thousand Army infantrymen in Humvees and Bradleys. As important as the Army is in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is not the end-all and be-all of a credible deterrence or war-fighting machine.
>>”Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?” Gates asked. <<
I dunno — do we have 12 or more enemies?
God help us all...
Reasonably speaking, he has a point.
Right now the US is buried under a mountain of debt and government promises. When the bubble bursts for this, the big four parts of the US federal budget are going to take the hit.
The means no more Social Security, no more Obamacare or Medicare or Medicaid. And last but not least, that the Defense budget will have to be slashed by at least 50%.
With history as our guide, the Russian navy was wiped out by trying to maintain a fleet far beyond its means, that ended up rusting in ports around Russia. Had they wisely decided to mothball, their recovery would have been a lot faster. Instead they almost lost it all.
So what does this mean for the US? Simple. We just return to the old naval rules. This means putting much of our high tech fleet in “half-mothballs”, keeping it as operational as possible in a protected situation, with much of its removable high tech stuff stored separately.
Then we do a ship for ship replacement with low tech, expendable, low cost ships. Theirs is a double mission, of peacetime operations, and to “hold the line” until the advanced ships can be refitted when war is impending.
They make up for lower level technology with numbers, many inexpensive ships to replace one high tech ship, and they are far from toothless.
If we do this in an intelligent manner, we will cover our bases, but at far less the cost it takes today. Not because we want to, but because we have no other choice.
We need that hardware to keep the Strait of Hormuz open...or to respond to the Chinese threat...or a dozen other scenarios.
There used to be a British Navy to help out, and Canadians and other allies. Now ours is about the last functioning Navy left on our side. The Canadians are down to a few rowboats, and the British apparently have orders to surrender if they are threatened.
For fifty years, those other countries have been saying "Do we really need more than one carrier strike group when the US will defend us with theirs?" How ironic that their decision to disarm and allow us to defend them while they spend all their money on socialism is being used as the justification to disarm ourselves and spend all our money on socialism. The difference is, they had us to defend them. Who will defend us?
This guy needs to go. It’s too bad the zero will appoint his replacement.
We had 600 ships when President Reagan was in the office, now it’s down to 300 or less and these commies will downgrade it even more.
These slime in power now are trying to destroy our country. God help us!!!
Scuttle what's left of the fleet.
I spoke with a bit of hyperbole, I do think the USAF needs reorganized to meet today's threat, but I would rather see them disbanded than our Navy gutted. IOW, I don't really want either to happen, but our carrier fleet strength is and has been our cornerstone in our ability to project power at incremental levels.
/johnny
How many Carrier Strike Groups are required to defend the United States?
Don't kid yourselves, this IS where we are headed.
We can no longer borrow enough money to defend our Socialist Allies.
I recall we had 15 active carrier groups in the day of Reagan. Sounds good to me.
But we will really only need five. The Chinese won’t develop their own carrier battle groups. They will just buy the other six from us.
With each passing day, I am reminded of the 1930’s.
Nobody ever needs a navy that can project power or an Air Force with Air Superiority fighters.
Until they actually NEED one.
These idiots just cannot get it through their THICK, DENSE, skulls that the best way to invite attack is to be weak.
The next big war, is going to be...er...a “special” one...and not in a good way.
Charleston County GOP Censures Sen. Lindsey Graham Senator Eyeing Sec Def Appointment?
Written by Bob Dill
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
ugh
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.