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.
To think, that at one time, between the MIDWAYS, ESSEX/ENTERPRISE/SARATOGA, the CVLs, and the CVEs, at the end of WWII, we had just over 150 carriers, and soon we will have 8.
ReplyDeletethis makes me think one base per coast my make sense, one carrier at the station overseas, one in training, one in shipyard for maintenance leaves only one to sit at the pier per ocean...
ReplyDeleteIf you want some foresight into where we are heading, just look to the British Navy. Years ago they had hundreds of ships. Last I checked, they had 28. The forces that reduced their Navy are the same ones that are in play here. Once we get to 240 ships, we will continue down.
ReplyDeleteSo, who gets to tell the President that his BMD plan is going to be unsupportable?
ReplyDeletebeyond that, who wants to tell him that the Navy BMD emperor is wearing no clothes? Lockheed Martin Corporate welfare, baby! Science Fair project run amuk.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree more. this is why study of the Falklands War is so germaine. We are facing this.........
ReplyDelete<span>" 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;"</span>
ReplyDelete<span></span>
<span>Okay Just shoot the bastard who came up with this stupid idea... </span>
For the past 60 years or so, the USN has been trending with the RN with a time lag of about 15-20 years. So it is likely that in 2030, we will be at about 100 ships or so and wondering what to do with our 4 aircraft carriers and 3 SSBN's. What we will not have is a country like America to cover our national defense requirements for us.
ReplyDeleteSide note, not only is the RN down to about 28 ships, but most of them stay tied to the pier becuase they cannot afford to operate them.
I have 240.
ReplyDeleteDo I hear 200?
150??
We have a loser in any case.
I propose we also pare down the 0-7's and above perhaps to below 200. For a start.
ReplyDeleteSpade, you start with the presumption that Dear Leader gives a rat's @$$ about anything he's said that's over 24 hours past.
ReplyDeleteJohn, were you speaking of Admirals, or ships?
ReplyDeleteJust don't aim for his head. Aim for something vital.
ReplyDeleteRetire, and not mothball, a 19-year old supercarrier, the replacement cost of which is in the $14-18B range, at less than half its service life.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Budget savings? So run that by me again? The loss of twenty to twenty-five years of remaining service life from this vessel costs the taxpayers how much? Add to that the cost of disposal, and the total becomes what, exactly?
I would love to see the figures. The only thing certain is that should Panetta send me that money in bundles of one-dollar bills, I could burn it and heat my house for the rest of my life.
Since it comes off the bottom line, there is no way to recoup such a cost. Ever. And I haven't yet mentioned the cost strategically of losing the asset and not having it when you desperately need it.
Butch = +1
ReplyDeleteIts damn near criminal.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking ships, but we should NEVER have more flag officers than ships, and preferably a lot fewer.
ReplyDeleteStart with anyone who ever rouched LCS or LPD-17, and add every one of the PAO, JAG and CHC flags.
"<span>or the chinese somehow wanting to cripple their largest debtor, thus shit-canning half their investment portfolio?? "</span>
ReplyDeleteSpoken like a true Occidental.
If only the nations - or rather their leaderships - behaved rationally, most of the wars would never happen.
ReplyDeleteI know why would our biggest trade partner EVER ATTACK US!!!.......said the British before the Germans started WW2.
ReplyDeleteWe need a huge fleet what we dont need is stupid spending habbits and worthless ships like LCS etc.
Stop looking for wizbang sparkly attention getting gadgets and just evolve the fleet as you go along.
THAT saves money.
What you talking about Hannibal?
ReplyDeleteYA'LL think the Canadians would be interested in LCS for those northern waters sense they are going to build all those frigates?
ReplyDelete/sarcasm.........just incase
Well we had these little things going on. Wars I think they're called. We aint got so much of that anymore.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any idea how devestating a CVBG is? Just one could take on the entire world and win hands down.
I think we deserve an EEZ around each CVN....AND NO SNIGGERING!!! Remember what Clinton did to Kaddafi. You don't want that to happen to you now do you?
I propose a far better way to cut cost: scrap the entire navy.
ReplyDeleteAt the proposed levels they'll be utterly ineffective anyway, so the difference between a 240 ship navy and no navy as in the level of effectiveness and contribution to national defense is minimal, therefore no navy is a better option as no navy means no money spent on ships, weapons, training, maintenance, and personel cost.
It will be still stronger than any other navy in the world, though Chinese will be inching closer with each carrier built...
ReplyDeleteEwok,
ReplyDeleteWatching the two curves between the PLAN and USN, "inching" closer is hardly the case. The Chinese will be bounding closer, and with much more of a regional focus, as opposed to our global commitments. Never match PLAN with the entire USN. Match it against US7F. The odds are rapidly approaching even.
In 1940, Germany's biggest trade partner was the Soviet Union.
ReplyDeleteIn 1941, Hitler invaded, triggering the most debastating military campaign in history.
Trade is no guarantee of peace...not to mention the potential for the Chinese to go after us in a collection effort.
Then USN will be in a position of Royal Navy abandoning the empire to concentrate on Kriegsmarine... History might not repeat itself, but is playing variations on same melodies...
ReplyDeleteRation knows no nation, 2+2=4 in every language... but leaders sometimes ignore hard numbers to their followers detriment. Like, counting enemy guns, ships, but also steel produced and shipyards before entering war. Japan could before Pearl Harbor abandon empire making but it went to war that was unwinnable and lost empire anyway. Germany attacked Soviet Union and declared war on the US at the same time in 1941. In 1861 South decided to go to war with North while having maybe 10% of industrial capacity. After being defeated in 1948, 1956, 1967, Egyptians insisted on attacking Israel again in 1973. Lately Quaddafi could have taken a jet to some friendly dictatorship anywhere in the world, but he insisted on fighting to the end, with resulting predictably gruesome ending.
ReplyDeleteRational knows no nation? Wow. Absolutely not the case. Not at all. Ever.
ReplyDeleteSadly, not only ration knows no nation, nations, usually do not know ration...
ReplyDeleteIt always does that.
ReplyDeleteAs my uncle used to say, it's all relative. If international relations was as easy as dealing with people who thought and reasoned exactly like you, even this group of ignoramouses would have the occasional success.
ReplyDeleteAnd would likely be able to tell success from failure.
One CVBG cant take on the whole world. It can take on a small reletively undefended country by modern standards. But if it were to encounter a small modern force it would be tested. Of course give it about 10 years each CVBG will consist of one tico, 1 burke, one virginia, and around 20 LCS.....when they can keep up......and the weather isnt to bad...and they arent out for repair......ok one or 2 LCS.
ReplyDeleteno no. against CINCPAC and CINCPACFLT. 3rd and 7th fleet and the 2nd ID and 25th ID and some numbered air force or two. Not to mention the Marines that dwell, linger and persist in the Far East. I don't think Guam is in danger of tipping over.
ReplyDeleteIt was a piece out of time. But think about it. A single CVBG really can take on the whole world. Just one battle group is larger than most nation's air forces. Larger and better armed than any other navies in the world. Well, OK, not SKORs but one battle group would still knock them dead and eat their lunch. I never really worked with one but I did have the honor to lead one through the Red Sea a very long time ago. Thanks to an SPS 40 I "saw" them operating well to the south.
ReplyDeleteProblem is one well commanded SSN or even lucky SSK can tear the heart of the CVBG (the flattop), second problem is such a loss in 15 carrier navy is about 6% of potential, in 10 carrier Navy 10% and in a 5 carrier navy 20%!
ReplyDeleteOne carrier here on SSN, second taken out by barrage of ASBMs, third went up on a mine because LCS had wrong module, and we have repeat of Enterprise vs Japan...
No, no, Bistro. We won't have soldiers and Marines, not many, anyway, and no means to project power ashore. We don't think we need them, anyway. Air-Sea Battle Doctrine, and all.
ReplyDeleteHere's betting that some PLAN presence turns up at the maritime chokepoints. Horn, Good Hope. The Panama Canal? Who runs that? Oh yeah. China. Good luck with elements of 3rd Fleet fighting their way to WESTPAC.
Oh, and unlucky coincidence for us, just as we are trying to muster forces to counter PLAN on the seas, all o' them artillery tubes on the Kaesong Heights commence a 100,000 round per hour bombardment of Seoul. Gee, those other CVBGs would come in handy right about then....
"<span>and we have repeat of Enterprise vs Japan..."</span>
ReplyDeleteOh no we don't ewok! THEN we had near-complete Essex carriers in the water or about to be launched. In fact, more than a hundred warships being commissioned, built, or building. 1942 had a painful seven months, making good our losses today is not even a consideration.
Ewok: A carrier likely would not face one SSN, or one SSK. There are reasons wolves run in packs. Jes' sayin'.
ReplyDeleteAnd if we are really unlucky, at the same time Iran storms thru Iraq into Saudis, and Russia moves to occupy Baltics.
ReplyDeleteYeah, i AM a true occidental , what of it? The only reason why any of you wax neurotic about some nonexistent Chinese threat is because they've adopted "decadent" western ways and now finally have a global presence -- had they remained true reds they'd still be eating tree bark like the north koreans.
ReplyDeleteWe aгe a gгoup of vοluntеers аnd stаrting a neω sсhеme in our cοmmunity.
ReplyDeleteYouг wеbsite οffеreԁ us
ωіth valuаble informаtion to woгk on.
You hаve done an impresѕiνе јob аnԁ our wholе community ωill be gratеful to you.
Review my weblog ... payday loans
Ahaa, its pleasant cοnverѕatіon on the topic of thіs piece of writing
ReplyDeletehегe at this webpage, I hаve read аll that, so at
this time me аlso cоmmenting hеre.
Check out my web-site :: payday loans online
hello theгe and thanks in youг information ? I've definitely picked up something new from right here. I did then again expertise several technical issues using this web site, since I experienced to reload the site a lot of instances prior to I could get it to load properly. I had been puzzling over if your web host is OK? No longer that I am complaining, however sluggish loading circumstances instances will sometimes impact your placement in google and can injury your high-quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Well I am adding this RSS to my email and can glance out for a lot more of your respective fascinating content. Make sure you update this once more very soon..
ReplyDeleteMy weblog: instant payday loans
This іnformаtion is priceless. Ηow can I find out mοre?
ReplyDeleteLook at mу homeρage :: Instant Payday Loans
Vегу soon this web рage will be famous amid all blog vieweгѕ,
ReplyDeletedue to it's good content
Here is my blog Same Day Payday Loans