Posted on 05/06/2010 5:46:40 AM PDT by pabianice
In his first speech to the Navy League, Defense Secretary Robert Gates laid out a grim portrait of a smaller fleet, one with fewer aircraft carriers, few or no new submarines and a sharply curtailed expeditionary capability for the Marines.
Gates told a somber audience today that he did “not foresee any significant top-line increases in the shipbuilding budget beyond current assumptions. At the end of the day, we have to ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines, and $11 billion carriers.” On top of that, as the current wars “recede, money will be required to reset the Army and Marine Corps, which have borne the brunt of the conflicts. And there will continue to be long-term – and inviolable – costs associated with taking care of our troops and their families.” Bottom line: no “significant top-line increases in the shipbuilding budget beyond current assumptions.”
Gates also fired a clear shot across the bow at Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway. Conway told DoD Buzz several weeks ago that the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle was on track and performing well and remained a core commitment of the Marines as they seek to rebuild their ability to mount major amphibious operations. And the first EFV prototype is being unveiled by the Marines tomorrow in a public ceremony.
So Gates asked rhetorically, “what kind of new platform is needed to get large numbers of troops from ship to shore under fire – in other words, the capability provided by the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. No doubt, it was a real strategic asset during the first Gulf War to have a flotilla of Marines waiting off Kuwait City – forcing Saddam’s army to keep one eye on the Saudi border, and one eye on the coast. But we have to take a hard look at where it would be necessary or sensible to launch another major amphibious landing again – especially as advances in anti-ship systems keep pushing the potential launch point further from shore. On a more basic level, in the 21st century, what kind of amphibious capability do we really need to deal with the most likely scenarios, and then how much?”
While the Marines fended off efforts by Gates and others to reform their expeditionary role during the Quadrennial Defense Review, the SecDef clearly has not given up.
After Gates took on the Marines, he moved on to aircraft carriers, perhaps the holiest of holies for the surface Navy. “Our current plan is to have eleven carrier strike groups through 2040. To be sure, the need to project power across the oceans will never go away. But, consider the massive over-match the U.S. already enjoys. Consider, too, the growing anti-ship capabilities of adversaries. Do we really need eleven carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one? Any future plans must address these realities,” he said.
(Buzz readers will remember that we reported the QDR was on track to slice the carrier fleet to nine groups and the EFV.)
In case no one had yet gotten his general message that Navy and Marine Corps platforms face the axe, he made it explicit. “But, mark my words, the Navy and Marine Corps must be willing to reexamine and question basic assumptions in light of evolving technologies, new threats, and budget realities. We simply cannot afford to perpetuate a status quo that heaps more and more expensive technologies onto fewer and fewer platforms – thereby risking a situation where some of our greatest capital expenditures go toward weapons and ships that could potentially become wasting assets.”
Lest anyone point to China and its burgeoning blue water presence, Gates laid out the arguments that the Navy’s own deputy secretary, Bob Work, made before leaving the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment: “Potential adversaries are well-aware of our overwhelming conventional advantage – which is why, despite significant naval modernization programs underway in some countries, no one intends to bankrupt themselves by challenging the U.S. to a shipbuilding competition akin to the Dreadnought race prior to World War I.”
Comparing sub and carriers to dreadnoughts must leave ship drivers bereft. After all, this is the generation that oversees the greatest, most potent mix carrier. And he hammered home just how tough both the budget and congressional environments are, saying, “we have to accept some hard fiscal realities. American taxpayers and the Congress are rightfully worried about the deficit. At the same time, the Department of Defense’s track record as a steward of taxpayer dollars leaves much to be desired.” Then he mentioned that he would be addressing “the issues surrounding political will and the defense budget” at a Saturday speech at the Eisenhower library. The tepid applause that greeted Gates’ speech demonstrated pretty clearly that the Navy, Marine Corps and their friends got the message.
Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/05/03/gates-fires-at-carriers-subs-efv/#ixzz0n9XLmhCh
I thought gates was an honorable man. I can’t believe he’s now doing obama’s bidding to dismantle our military.
Carrying Obama’s water in the effort to dismantle the US Military
They are going full speed ahead with thie modernization program and money isn’t an issue. Additionally, they have the advantage of a political system which allows them to direct their priotities wherever they want them and public opinion polls aren’t taken.
Yes, we must level the playing field in the name of Social Justice! Scrap the carriers!
“one with fewer aircraft carriers, few or no new submarines and a sharply curtailed expeditionary capability for the Marines”.
I would like to hear about fewer immigrants, fewer welfare checks, fewer illegitimate babbies, fewer food stamps, fewer Democrats, etc. .
No way to avoid a smaller navy, unfortunately. Already, we have the smallest number of ships since God knows when.
I love the carriers and their capabilities. But, it is my impression that, in a real slug out at sea with either the Chinese or the Russians, the flatops are really big targets, and not the strategic assets they were during the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam and WWII.
I don’t know what the answer is, but it seems idiotic to me that, in the midst of two wars, cutting back the fleet comforts enemies and makes us weake.
God help us.
PROGRESSIVES.....
“We are the world, we are the children”
“Come on people now, smile on your brotha’, everybody get together, try to love one another right now”
“This summer I hear the drummin...”
Well, if Barry and Bella are partying, doing drugs and can “see clearly”, maybe we all need to join in.
I’m certain that they know the right thing to do.
.
.
.
NICE GOING VOTERS!!!!! You can protect your own ass!
We need the money for ‘programs’ for the poor.
Gates is right, enough is enough.
I never thought he was an honorable man from the minute I saw he stayed on when the Obama regime came into power....and I so posted right on this forum.
If he didn't know that Obama was an evil imposter from the evidence during the campaign and, indeed, the Usurper's history (or lack of it) then Gates is too stupid or too twisted himself to hold the critical position he occupies.
Everyone in a position of power who surrounds Obama and does his bidding is just as evil as he. Honorable people would have no connection to this amoral communist AT ALL.
Leni
Looks like Premier Hussein’s Les Aspin has finally found a way to finance AlGore’s “Peace Dividend”.
Keep working on that emergency preparedness plan Boys and Girls...
Gates is the lapdog of whoever is in power.
You were absolutely right.
A troll surfaces!
The money is going to baby boomers’ and government pensions and the interest on the debt to pay them the benefits they demanded in return for their votes. AND the enormous military we are far to PC to ever use effectively. So, yes, the financial realities play into the agenda of O and Pelosi, but they had plenty of help from WE the people.
>>>>At the end of the day, we have to ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines, and $11 billion carriers.” <<<<<
At the end of my day I wonder can we afford not to have these assets.
I too wonder about the carriers though. 6,000 men all in one place a perfect target for a cruise missile. I know all the arguments about the weapons we have to defend these ships, but it only takes one to get through.
I agree with you a thousand percent. Can’t add a thing to it.
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
And Gates goes right along with anything they come up with. It is way past time for Gates to go, but his replacement could be far worse!
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.