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 ...
It’s hard to translate any sort of assessment into hulls because the time from concept to getting an actual hull into service is so hideously long. And, thanks to than length subjected to all sorts of requirements changes.
Look at the development timeline for the Zumwalts. Which will be very expensive white elephants. We’re putting upgraded (read: expensive) Burkes back into production. The previous class of surface warship to the Burkes (Ticonderogas) was an evolutionary hybrid of an existing hull (Spruance) and new weapons system (Aegis).
In order to cut development time on the LCS, existing commercial hulls were used as a starting point. To keep costs low they were designed for swappable mission modules. Neither of which worked out too well and has resulted in ships with hull issues, systems issues and a decided lack of effectiveness for every mission they were designed for.
Wonderful... /s
So enlighten me. How many more aircraft carriers, how many more cruisers, how many more submarines do we need?
In today’s geopolitical environment, we should be at double what we are now, although not on carriers or even cruisers/destroyers. Littoral craft, minesweepers, fast attack subs, amphibs, LCACs, riverine patrol craft and supply vessels are what we need to strengthen numbers in the most. Oh, we really need many more anti-submarine patrol aircraft and helos for the cruisers and destroyers.
Of course, with your great knowledge, you already knew all of that......
As long as we have international trade with shipping between ports-o-call, there is a need for the US Navy, not to mention strategic missions requiring aviation and submariner prepositioning. Our Navy needs to always be in the 500-600 ship range. Anything less reflects inadequate planning and fails to defend our interests overseas from enemies foreign and domestic.
When we had a policy that the U.S. Military was to be able to fight two major wars simultaneously essentially in Europe and Asia, analysis concluded a six hundred ship navy was the minimum needed to control the sea lanes and project American force. At the time the Soviet Union, North Korea, and China were considered likely adversaries. Today you could make the case for Russia, China, DPRK, and their allies as likely opponents. I would be happier with 750 ships personally.
We may have 273 ships but we do not have 273 deployable ships. Some like a CVN can be down for five years for refueling or at least a year for the required every 5 year drydock maintenance period. Every time a ship deploys for six months it is essential that it enter the shipyards for maintenance which can not be done anywhere but in the yards. Skimp on that part and the service life of the ship is shortened significantly even to half.
It takes rotations of the deployments to allow first for maintenance, then work ups and re-qualifying the crew which takes up to a year in some cases then the six to eight months deployment. Or about a 15 month cycle.
Here is what the politicians and experts aren't telling you. Due to shipyard closures back in the 1990's we no longer have the infrastructure we have had to fall back on since WW1. We turned out ships fast in WW1 & WW2, Korea, and Nam because we had the shipyards and trained shipbuilders. A lot of the skills needed to build Navy ships you don't find just anywhere.
Lets take the figure 272 and see where it goes. 272 minus roughly 25% in the yards means 204 ships. The first 25% would be in maintenance leaving 204. Of the 204 to maintain a once every 18 months rotation would take another 25% off. 204 minus 50% would leave 102 ships. I would say closer to 50 left due to Murphy's Law. Now where is the allowance for battle loss if we were at war? 50 ships? 75 perhaps? And what about trained and qualified crews? To get a sailor from Basic Training through say Nuclear Propulsion school and to a ship and qualified can take over two years. All carriers are now Nuke. A positive about having conventional carriers also was the training issue. It takes a very high IQ and lots of common sense to pass Nuke school. But the Navy can take a high school drop out and within a year or less have a man working in a boiler room and competent to be there.
All our eggs are in one basket.
Worse is we learned Diddly Squat from Pearl Harbor. Naval Operations Base Norfolk home of the carriers had three carrier berths from WW2 up through 1981 or later. Another pier with double berth capacity was built so very regularly now we have five carrier sitting in port because we abandoned deployment zones which were in our interest.
Used to there were two carriers on station at all times in the MED Sea and at least one deployed in the Pacific. The Obama administration has had us down to no deployed carriers. That is not healthy for the ships nor it's crew. You have to be underway for periods of time to keep the equipment in working order and crews battle ready.
If a conventional war breaks out involving Naval battles we are very close to being screwed. All because funding is being put into environmental and other liberal issues that once went to national defense. Reagan had us at almost 600 ships. We are less than half of that and this is counting subs as well. We are being set up to fall. And it is a Bipartisan effort.
Going to all nuke generated steamer carriers was a stupid idea to start with. We needed at least three conventional steamers. Faster crew training in the event of mass casualties by about two thirds, faster to build by half, and cheaper to build. If our politicians had allowed drilling and exploration for our own oil the fuel would have been cheap as well.
Built where? The U.S. has one supplier of carriers, one for large amphibious ships, two for subs, two for destroyers, two for smaller amphibious ships, two for LHAs, and one for oilers and the like. And those yards that do build the ships are at capacity and are incapable of delivering a quality product on time and within budget. Link
Yep.
There is no functional difference between a nuclear carrier and a conventional carrier. One has a very exotic way of boiling water....
Very true.
That is true we went from four carrier builders too one. But that one did build all but one or two of the carriers from Forestall through present both conventional and Nuke. That yard is Newport News. We were FOOLISH for closing all the other yards. Half maybe justifiable but all? No and it will come back to haunt us. We also need another east coast deep draft major Naval Base. We used to put one or two conventional down at Mayport, FL. Get a map of Norfolk and draw a 15 mile radius circle from downtown. There sits 75% of our east coast assets. FOOLS making foolish decisions.
But there is a very, very, huge difference in the Navy's ability to man them. You can take a man who joins the Navy with a high school diploma, send him to basic, send him to Apprenticeship training, all a total of three months, and he is on the ship after that. Within a year to a year and a half he is experienced, capable, and well on his way to becoming a Top Watch. A Nuke Snipe will just be coming out of school maybe and still must qualify on their ship. Nuke school is difficult and rightfully so. I know very smart guys who didn't make it including a guy who is now a Math professor. I also know a former nuke school instructor who was out in Idaho in the early 1980's. It takes lots of time to qualify them. That is why I say we needed more conventionals built & not nukes.
No one is thinking about what has happened before. In an opening war easily a third of our Navy could be taken out I would dare say even 45%. We would be well below 150 ships remaining. We need them all spread out but still run the strength in numbers policies in deployments. For the Cole bombing Sec of Def, SECNAV, and CNO all should have been fired. Their policies set that ship up.
We need to spread out what we still have left ASAP as well as rebuild. Five carrier berths at NOB NORVA is insane and I don't care who's idea that idiotic policy was. We ran up to 20 plus carriers prior to the mid 1970's with three carrier piers at Norfolk Naval Base. The fools even have pictures of five berthed in port there. Past mistakes ignored.
There is NOB, The Amphib Base at Little Creek, Oceana NAS, Newport News Shipbuilding, and Norfolk Naval Shipyards all within a 15 mile radius of downtown NORVA. Gee I wonder where our enemy will strike first? /sarcasm.
A shoulder fired could be launched from I-64 into N.O.B. expansion into that region should have been halted in the 1950's the same with Oceana. And I'm only listing the Naval assets there. From Hampton Roads Tunnel you can see the N.O.B. carrier piers. FOOLS!!!!
Concur. Too many assets in the area. One good strike gets far too many of them. Let’s not forget the shipbuilding and commercial port capability in the area also. A hell of a mess.
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.