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
No new subs? That isn't what Joe Courtney (D-CT) whose district includes Groton is saying. Received a push poll from his people the other night. After ten minutes of normal questions, I was asked, among other things, if I would be more included to support Courtney if I knew, among other things, he had been able to have two more subs built in Connecticut.
( I said absolutely not. Told the pollster Courtney is a socialist, votes with Pelosi and no matter what he claims to have done for this district, it doesn't matter. Obama and Democrats are destroying the country's future with their spending, taxes and entitlements)
Go Gates!
Go Obama!
Let our sailors learn to swim!
Let our flyers learn to flap!
O brave new world that has such wise men in it!
5.56mm
Those who beat their swords into plowshares plow for those who didn’t. God Help our Country!!
When liberals like Carter and Obama are in office, the military mission is to become a social experiment to integrate gays and women into combat roles. They need to spend money on adding new restrooms to ships - men, women, and “other”. Under Carter, the Navy started accepting people who couldn’t qualify on the ASVAB for any specialties. They used them as unrated painters. Unfortunately, what do you do with an E-5 when he’s been promoted and the only thing he’s qualified to do is paint? The Army was forced to accept people with criminal records. A large percentage of them continued their criminal activities while in the service.
bump
I would like to hear about fewer immigrants, fewer welfare checks, fewer illegitimate babbies, fewer food stamps, fewer Democrats, etc. .”””””
AMEN
How about fewer appeals for prisoners? Death row inmates living there for over 20 years is a travesty.
NICE GOING VOTERS!!!!! You can protect your own ass!”
When the crapola hits the fan here in the USA over NObama & this administration—nobody better dare showing up at my place looking for comfort or cover.
Won’t happen.
There will be a pile of bodies at my front gate before anyone gets inside.
I would like to hear about fewer immigrants, fewer welfare checks, fewer illegitimate babbies, fewer food stamps, fewer Democrats, etc. .”””””
AMEN
How about fewer appeals for prisoners? Death row inmates living there for over 20 years is a travesty.
“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 am adding:
The ain’t the Garden of Eden
There ain’t no angels above
And things aren’t what they used to be
And this ain’t the Summer of Love.
If we can get control back from the dems, we are going to have to address the deficit and debt. I foresee a lot of painful cutting. Granted, as a constitutional mandate, DoD should be one of the last things cut, but even they will not be immune.
During the Vietnam War, McNamara created the “100,000 Program,” under which the Navy accepted people who were too stupid to pass the Navy’s basic IQ test. Many were alcoholics or had a criminal history. Such people immediately fell into the most menial rolls in the squadron. As Line Division Officer, they ended-up working for me. It was a disaster. They towed airplanes into the sides of hangars. They were UA and one of my guys simply deserted. Another decided he wanted a beer and drove his tractor through the base fence and into Cavite City to get one. Another was an alcoholic who had been thrown-out of the Army for his alcoholism, so naturally the Navy took him and allowed him to keep his rank (E-5). He missed movement back from the PI and showed-up a week later, still drunk. Each of these guys were called “Pink Pagers” because their personnel records started with a bright red page, warning the command of who and what they were under the “100,000 Program.” Along with Zumwalt being CNO at the time, the Navy was badly hindered in doing its job.
Some described Gates as the ultimate bureaucrat when he took the job under Bush, then stayed under Obama. And they were right.
The military is clearly not part of Ubama’s reparations agenda.
Whenever the AF recruiting goals lagged, someone would bring up the idea of lowering entrance requirements. The Navy’s 100,000 program was always the response. I didn’t realize that it was another McNamara policy. I’m surprised he didn’t force it on the AF like he did the F-111 and the M-16.
Navy over-reliant on ships?
Kind of like Soldiers and Marines over-reliant on bullets?
Or the Air Force over-reliant on planes?
As long as things stay conventional, they and other assets will be useful. But in an escalating nuclear conflict, you're right, they'll probably be goners, along with a lot of other stuff. That is the conundrum we face. We need both a credible nuclear deterrent and a strong conventional component. That takes money and my sense is that Bro and his boys aren't going to fund it. They have "other priorities" (i.e., welfare and lining up for "Obama Money").
Sooner or later (preferably sooner), the Nav is going to have to look at countering the threat the AIP subs pose to carrier groups. I know their range and time on (submerged) station is limited, but they add another dimension to quietness.
As long as things stay conventional, they and other assets will be useful. But in an escalating nuclear conflict, you're right, they'll probably be goners, along with a lot of other stuff. That is the conundrum we face. We need both a credible nuclear deterrent and a strong conventional component. That takes money and my sense is that Bro and his boys aren't going to fund it. They have "other priorities" (i.e., welfare and lining up for "Obama Money").
Sooner or later (preferably sooner), the Nav is going to have to look at countering the threat the AIP subs pose to carrier groups. I know their range and time on (submerged) station is limited, but they add another dimension to quietness.
I have two friends in the Army in Iraq. Both said that they weren't allowed to do weapons qual prior to deployment because of an ammo shortage. Pretty sorry state of affairs. It's nothing new, though. When I deployed for Desert Storm I hadn't fired an M-16 or M-9 in four years. Fortunately I kept proficient on my own weapons.
I bet the carriers would last longer than a Bomber base or missile sight.
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.