Posted on 08/24/2015 7:40:07 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
The GOP presidential field may not agree on everything, but it’s quickly coalescing around one big idea: vastly increasing the size of the Navy.
But the Republican vow — to go from 273 ships today to as many as 350 — is likely to run aground due to the enormous price tag for a military buildup that could cost hundreds of billions of dollars and a series of other political obstacles.
Story Continued Below
.
.
The ambitious plan would put the GOP presidential wing on a potential collision course with its own congressional budget hawks, along with key constituencies who would likely see their prized programs slashed to reach the goal.
Yet that isn’t stopped a growing roster of Republican hopefuls from going full steam ahead, with John Kasich the latest to join Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker and others in making the case for dozens of new warships.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Really does not matter what Putin threatened with; and nukes can be launched by a navy. And the primary reason for annexing Crimea is to use it as a base for the Russian Navy, frankly.
If we cannot reverse the trend of shrinking the military while our traditional and new enemies expand theirs (the goal of our fifth column in DC), then the writing is on the wall.
5.56mm
It’s been known for 10-20 years that more carriers and destroyers are becoming mostly just expensive drone and long-range missile targets - so why not spend money on drones and cruise missiles, as well as satellites, and special ops?
I am thinking bigger subs with lots of missiles : )
disband the TSA and DHS and use the money for ships, tanks and airplanes.
if we can afford multiple “stimulus” scams, obamacare scam, welfare, medicaid, wic, and on and on and on. we can afford a measly 350 ship navy. Reagan would scoff at the idea, especially in a world much more built up and out to get us.
A big ship presents a high-value target to missiles.
More, smaller ships carrying missiles, rail guns, and lasers would complicate the enemy's plans.
Yup as we saw last week a US DDG can take a direct torpedo hit and only break some glassware. Amazing machine.
1) Op tempo has not decreased significantly in line with the fleet size movement. Choice is grow fleet and maintain op tempo or reduce op tempo to allow current equipment and man power to survive - more use, less shipyard maintenance (big issue right now), less training time vs operations...
2) Things wear out and cannot be repaired after a certain life without overhauls that are more expensive and risky then building new.
3) Technology improves and advances both for the good, to be used by our guys, and the bad, to be used AGAINST our guys, and needs to be put into use or counteracted.
The Ohio class SSBNs are an example of a strategic asset that requires upgrade to include new tech, but also is past the scheduled end of life.
Reagan aimed for 600 ships and achieved 594 which was the high point of the 1980s (see: http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/us-ship-force-levels.html#1986).
Capability is based on threat faced - if we look at China, they have a handful (and growing fast) of ships at par with us. More overall combatants, tough we outweigh them in tonnage - mainly do to our carrier sizes. If they do nothing but swarm in numerous directions independently then sea lanes and shipping would be at serious risk with no way to counteract hundreds of independent attack points. Yes ours are more capable, but you have to have enough to cover the areas in question - currently we’re severly limited.
I’m hearinig 450 in most discussions which is about half way between now and the peak.
Those are the basics
Individual ships are not more capable than they were 30 years ago, and in some cases they are less capable. There are some individual systems that are on paper more capable, but for those high $ capabilities something else was sacrificed.
The fleet supply system 30 years ago could respond anywhere in a damned hurry. Today, not so much of a hurry. We depend on a supply system today that is not in our control at all points and therefore undependable.
Our amphibious Navy is a shame now compared to 30 years ago.
Our anti-submarine capabilities and ability to cover the globe with a sensor blanket is no more. We have to shift assets to where needed, thereby uncovering other areas.
Our mine clearance assets are greatly reduced as well.
I was in when we had a 600 ship Navy. It was sufficient for peacetime. It would have been too small for a protracted single theater war.
Nope. We don’t need a bigger politically correct sodomy club. FIRST sort our the problems and the cowardly leaders. Then when its reprofessionalized, then and only then do they get a bigger fleet.
What do you know about fighting at sea? You even admit not knowing squat about the subject and in the same breath lecture us who do?
Go study a subject (pick something easy to start), and then get back to us.
We need a six hundred ship Navy to uphold our treaty obligations. This allows us to control the seas. Naval deployments are tough on people and equipment. You need the ability to rotate ships into maintenance windows and give the crews a break. Pluse we need the ability to replace combat losses. Three hundred fifty ships is not enough.
We need 450 ship navy. Other nations are expanding their fleets. We need to build railgun cruisers, Light, fast Drone carriers, and a Tall Ship—The USS United States—for the cadets at Anapolis. A presidental yacht as well to do deals!
“And the primary reason for annexing Crimea is to use it as a base for the Russian Navy, frankly.”
Its been a Russian Navy base since 1783. As in, before Kentucky was a state.
What does it take to sink a ship?
http://www.military1.com/all/article/504-what-does-it-take-to-sink-a-ship
I would not want to be on a ship where the explosion is on the ship...
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/01/top-tester-tells-navy-to-test-carrier-destroyer-defenses-with-real-missiles-explosions/
Against who?
Three hundred fifty ships is not enough.
Well then how do you know we don't need seven hundred? Or eight hundred?
We never made it to Reagan’s 600 ship Navy. We got really close, but the decision to decommision the Garcia-class frigates (which were decrepiet death traps only kept in service to count towards the magic “600” number) doomed any chance of making it.
Additionally, the “600” figure included oilers, stores and ammo ships (and various classes of miscelaneous ship) that were then on the USN’s roles bearing the “USS” prefix. Those have now been moved into US Naval Ship. (USNS prefix) with civilian crews and no longer count towards the USNs overall number.
That having been said, we definitely need more hulls than we currently have. The vexing problem is really that we don’t have the right mix of ships for the coverage responsibilities. For instance, do we really need a billion dollar plus Arleigh Burke class destroyer for acting as a platform for a Navy Seal to take a few Somali pirates down with headshots? Or is an upgraded, Frigate-rated LCS (which in their current form are complete underkill to the Burke’s overkill) better? Especially if we can keep mission creep to a minimum and get a couple/few LCS “Frigate” variants for the price of a Burke?
So you would eliminate our carrier fleet?
“missiles, as well as satellites, and special ops?”
And honestly, special ops is cool, but we don’t need more of it. Spec ops is largely a result of the pussification of the American military.
In the 1940s we wouldn’t have had spec ops all over the middle east and Afghanistan. ISIS wouldn’t be meeting Delta and Seals. Blackhawk down wouldn’t have been lonely rangers.
When we had balls as a nation, ISIS would meet a Marine division, or an Army Armored division. Anyone remember the Highway of death in Desert Storm? We used to hit enemies with bone crushing raw power. We inspired fear and respect.
The Air Force could have dealt with ISIS like the Stukas over Dunkirk. An enemy like them could be child’s play.
But because of no resolve, we misuse spec ops mostly because we are sneaky now, and ashamed of our national goals.
This garbage wont end until the middle east is crushed like Germany and Japan were. And Islam has to be treated like Nazism is in Germany today. Utterly eradicated.
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.