Amphibs, frigates, large combatants, and carriers, yep. But we probably need tankers and tenders more. And shore-based Naval Air (P-8s and F-15EXs). A couple floating dry docks would be nice for peace, and essential for wartime.
And do we really need to mention increased ammunition production capacity?
“The Navy shall be organized, trained, and equipped for the peacetime promotion of the national security interests and prosperity of the United States and for prompt and sustained combat incident to operations at sea."
Interesting comment from Title 10 in that it says nothing about "WINING AT SEA". LCS can conduct "prompt and sustained combat incident to operations at sea", you may just need to re-define "sustained" and "at sea". We can do what Title 10 says we're to do with what we have now so what's the big deal?
Looking forward from Ford, DDG 1000, and LCS doesn't give one much hope for a better USN future.
"Just maintaining the status quo (11) requires a new carrier to be built every four years. "
Reading the USNI story that Nimitz will be decommed in 2026 and Eisenhower in 2027, will Vinson be next before 2030? Has the Ford even started a full deployment yet ten years after launch? The USS Nimitz was launched in 1972 and started a seven-month Med cruise in 1976. Yes, I know - Ford in more complex than any other warship in history. Isn't that the problem though? New carrier every four years - pffft. In a pigs eye.
What bothers me about that picture is McKee (AS 41) sitting there in Category X status. She's the youngest of the three Emory S. Land class tenders, yet she's been out of commission for over twenty years while her two sisters are still out there. That ship is needed.
BZ on the analysis. Only politely hinted at is the fact that this administration will never budget enough money to allow the Navy to get anywhere near the force level it needs to fulfill its duty. Administration priorities--are reflected faithfully (or even slavishly) by DOD direction. Those priorities are Climate change, social welfare and remolding the US society into a genderless no fault and Woke brave new world.
The big issue is budget and recruiting. No Money, No Mahan. Congress wields ultimate authority over the budget, they need to start using it.
I'll add that a "Navy Get Well Fast" plan will probably be aviation-based. We can build airplanes, train aviators, and fill out the carrier air wings a lot faster than we can build ships.
New mission requires more, faster! But how many more? Current plans don’t even maintain current deficient levels. BZ to Bryan for his consistent message. More, faster.
Congress simply has to be convinced,.... forcibly, immediately, thoroughly......that WAR is certainly coming; and far, far more soon than a 6" rise in sea level............
Never read Title 10 until now. But back on staff duty as an enlisted man in the readiness section, my O-6 boss lectured me on the mission of the Navy. He said, "...Prompt and sustained combat operations at sea in support of national policy". Looks like he was paraphrasing Title 10. "...in support of national policy" would seem a catch-all to support what our Navy does in peacetime. Looking through a link provided by Mr. McGrath above it is sickening to me to see the Army and Air Force nibble away the Navy's rice bowl by adhering to the letter of the law in Title 10. Legal but picayune. FOGO's playing a Washington contact sport with little sense of teamwork.
“The Navy shall be organized, trained, and equipped for the peacetime promotion of the national security interests and prosperity of the United States and for prompt and sustained combat incident to operations at sea."
Fortunately, the BHR was pierside and not at sea.
"Secretary of the Navy touts climate as a top priority"
Editorial Note: while I tend to give a lot of running room in comments - I would like to remind everyone of a few bright lines on the chart.
- Sharp elbows and contrary opinion, including those related to your host, are more than welcome. Green range. "Your ideas are on this topic are wrong and stupid." - that is OK. "You are a nazi." - that is not OK.
- Personal attacks against the host, Front Porch member or guest of the blog that are of a violent or psycho-sexual nature, or are considers an insult to honor will result in a deletion of comment, temporary ban, or permanent ban depending on the nature and severity of the comment. Appeal can be made by email is so desired.
In the 1980's we were building five Aegis ships a year (mix of CG 47's and DDG 51's). My memory (I was in NAVSEA 05 at the time working on DDG 51 Flight upgrades) was that the constraint was at the LM facility in Moorestown, not the shipyards. I'm curious what has happened since then. BIW has had significant upgrades in their facilities since then. I understand that Ingalls has a lot going on with the DDG, LHA, LPD and NSC production lines but BIW doesn't seem to have other programs. It would be interesting to see a historical analysis of what has happened taking into account the combat system and other suppliers as well.
Amphibs, frigates, large combatants, and carriers, yep. But we probably need tankers and tenders more. And shore-based Naval Air (P-8s and F-15EXs). A couple floating dry docks would be nice for peace, and essential for wartime.
And do we really need to mention increased ammunition production capacity?
“The Navy shall be organized, trained, and equipped for the peacetime promotion of the national security interests and prosperity of the United States and for prompt and sustained combat incident to operations at sea."
Interesting comment from Title 10 in that it says nothing about "WINING AT SEA". LCS can conduct "prompt and sustained combat incident to operations at sea", you may just need to re-define "sustained" and "at sea". We can do what Title 10 says we're to do with what we have now so what's the big deal?
Looking forward from Ford, DDG 1000, and LCS doesn't give one much hope for a better USN future.
"Just maintaining the status quo (11) requires a new carrier to be built every four years. "
Reading the USNI story that Nimitz will be decommed in 2026 and Eisenhower in 2027, will Vinson be next before 2030? Has the Ford even started a full deployment yet ten years after launch? The USS Nimitz was launched in 1972 and started a seven-month Med cruise in 1976. Yes, I know - Ford in more complex than any other warship in history. Isn't that the problem though? New carrier every four years - pffft. In a pigs eye.
What bothers me about that picture is McKee (AS 41) sitting there in Category X status. She's the youngest of the three Emory S. Land class tenders, yet she's been out of commission for over twenty years while her two sisters are still out there. That ship is needed.
I am fully confident that we will read how "really smart people" don't have it right again next year.
This annual DC pookie dance is tiresome.
https://youtu.be/twS4fOA2NGs
BZ on the analysis. Only politely hinted at is the fact that this administration will never budget enough money to allow the Navy to get anywhere near the force level it needs to fulfill its duty. Administration priorities--are reflected faithfully (or even slavishly) by DOD direction. Those priorities are Climate change, social welfare and remolding the US society into a genderless no fault and Woke brave new world.
The joint gorilla is now part of our mission.
The big issue is budget and recruiting. No Money, No Mahan. Congress wields ultimate authority over the budget, they need to start using it.
I'll add that a "Navy Get Well Fast" plan will probably be aviation-based. We can build airplanes, train aviators, and fill out the carrier air wings a lot faster than we can build ships.
New mission requires more, faster! But how many more? Current plans don’t even maintain current deficient levels. BZ to Bryan for his consistent message. More, faster.
Will building another Ford-class every 4 years really help the fleet size?
Congress simply has to be convinced,.... forcibly, immediately, thoroughly......that WAR is certainly coming; and far, far more soon than a 6" rise in sea level............
Never read Title 10 until now. But back on staff duty as an enlisted man in the readiness section, my O-6 boss lectured me on the mission of the Navy. He said, "...Prompt and sustained combat operations at sea in support of national policy". Looks like he was paraphrasing Title 10. "...in support of national policy" would seem a catch-all to support what our Navy does in peacetime. Looking through a link provided by Mr. McGrath above it is sickening to me to see the Army and Air Force nibble away the Navy's rice bowl by adhering to the letter of the law in Title 10. Legal but picayune. FOGO's playing a Washington contact sport with little sense of teamwork.
*https://conservativewahoo.substack.com/p/the-mission-of-the-navy
“The Navy shall be organized, trained, and equipped for the peacetime promotion of the national security interests and prosperity of the United States and for prompt and sustained combat incident to operations at sea."
Fortunately, the BHR was pierside and not at sea.
"Secretary of the Navy touts climate as a top priority"
We are not a serious Navy.
1/6
Editorial Note: while I tend to give a lot of running room in comments - I would like to remind everyone of a few bright lines on the chart.
- Sharp elbows and contrary opinion, including those related to your host, are more than welcome. Green range. "Your ideas are on this topic are wrong and stupid." - that is OK. "You are a nazi." - that is not OK.
- Personal attacks against the host, Front Porch member or guest of the blog that are of a violent or psycho-sexual nature, or are considers an insult to honor will result in a deletion of comment, temporary ban, or permanent ban depending on the nature and severity of the comment. Appeal can be made by email is so desired.
In the 1980's we were building five Aegis ships a year (mix of CG 47's and DDG 51's). My memory (I was in NAVSEA 05 at the time working on DDG 51 Flight upgrades) was that the constraint was at the LM facility in Moorestown, not the shipyards. I'm curious what has happened since then. BIW has had significant upgrades in their facilities since then. I understand that Ingalls has a lot going on with the DDG, LHA, LPD and NSC production lines but BIW doesn't seem to have other programs. It would be interesting to see a historical analysis of what has happened taking into account the combat system and other suppliers as well.