Navy Balances Wants And Needs

Aviation Week And Space Technology ^ | 7/20/2010 | Bettina H. Chavanne

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

must come from the sea,” said the chief of naval operations, Adm. Gary Roughead, recently about any new U.S. Navy procurement, leaving open to interpretation the programs and projects that will be included in coming budgets.

The Navy is “reimagining naval power,” he said. “With cyber-power and unmanned systems we must ask ourselves fundamental questions.” If new capabilities proposed for procurement do not “come from the sea,” Roughead is not interested.

The Navy no longer has the luxury of being interested in every new program or platform. The defense budget is getting slimmer. And pressure is coming from above to trim programs deemed unnecessary or inefficient.

“The Navy and Marine Corps must reexamine and question basic assumptions in light of evolving technologies, threats and budget realities,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates told an audience at the Navy’s Sea-Air-Space symposium here. “We cannot afford to perpetuate a status quo that heaps more expensive technologies onto fewer platforms.” He questioned whether a Navy that “relies on $3-6-billion destroyers, $7-billion submarines and $11-billion carriers” is affordable.

“The biggest question is what are we going to afford?” Roughead said. “There is no way we can spend our way out of this challenge. We have to think our way out.” This is not a local problem, it is a global issue, he added. Every country faces cutbacks, and partnerships among nations may prove one way to maintain a strong maritime presence without having to spend more money.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

Ping

[Jacquerie]

“Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?”

Maybe not. Just be sure we have a force powerful enough to convince the PLA Navy not to take us on. FWIW, I’m not sure we can have too many attack subs.

[Vroomfondel]

Ping

[magslinger]

SONOBUOY PING!

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.

[pabianice]

Short version: Obama is robbing the military budget for more money for his constituancy: bums, communists, illegals, and racists. Come the next war our battle groups will be lost to mines and enemy SSKs before they even get onsta.

[Enchante]

"when no other country has more than one?"

It requires detailed thoughtful analysis, to be sure, but it's totally completely the wrong comparison for him to emphasize that "no other country has more than one"....

The issue is not whether other countries can project such power more than a few hundred miles from their own shores, the issue is what kinds of decisive local and regional superiority the USA needs to be able to attain on short notice just about anyplace on the globe. Given than only a handful (3-4) of our carrier battle groups can be on station far overseas at any moment, we effectively have far fewer than 11 in any actual conflict. 2/3 of our CBGs are not deployed at any given time and some cannot be deployed quickly due to requirements of long-term maintenance etc.

we need something close to 11 CBGs in order to have 3-4 actually on station in varied parts of the globe. No other nation has the same reasons for projecting such power.