To build off Monday's post - I think it is clear that we are planning on going to 240.Don't ever doubt the Salamander: if you read it, you'll read it elsewhere a few years later.
From page 8 of the Congressional Research Service's Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress by Ronald O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs, October 13, 2011. Someone in SEP got a peek ....
September 2011 Press Reports of Navy Options for 250- or 240-Ship Navy
On September 1, 2011, it was reported that the Navy, in response to anticipated reductions in planned levels of defense spending, is discussing options for maintaining a fleet with considerably fewer than 300 ships. The report stated that the Navy is considering the following options, among others:... and just because I am feeling full of myself today - see that second to last bullet? Where did you read that first ... say ... 18-months ago? Oh, that's right - at CDR Salamader.
• reducing the Navy to a 250-ship fleet that includes 10 aircraft carriers or a 240- ship fleet that includes 8 aircraft carriers (a fleet with 9 carriers is another option);
• retiring (rather than performing a nuclear-refueling overhaul on) the aircraft carrier George Washington (CVN-73), which would be one measure for reducing the size of the carrier force;
• delaying the procurement of the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) by two years, to FY2015 (an option that was first reported in July 2011);
• eliminating six aircraft squadrons;
• retiring at least some of the Navy’s 22 Ticonderoga (CG-47) class Aegis cruisers;
• reducing the planned number of next-generation Ohio replacement ballistic missile submarines (SSBN[X]s) by two boats, from 12 to 10, and consequently delaying the procurement of the first SSBN(X), perhaps by two years; and
• maintaining funding for procurement of two Virginia-class submarines per year,
and for Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis destroyers and Littoral Combat
Ships (LCSs).
Hat tip J.
