U.S Navy's 30 year fleet plan

U.S Navy lays out 30 year fleet plan

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS
DefenseNews.com


"The U.S. Navy plans to operate 11 aircraft carriers for the next quarter century,"

"The plan also shows the service hopes to build up to a dozen of the new DD(X) destroyers — currently estimated to cost about $3 billion a copy — and up to 18 CG(X) cruisers, a derivative of the DD(X) devoted to ballistic missile defense."

"The Navy prepared two plans: one for a fleet of 325 ships, another for a smaller fleet of 260 ships. The range of numbers reflects the unknown outcome of new technologies, manning concepts and forward-basing requirements, Adm. Vern Clark, chief of naval operations, explained in congressional testimony last month."

• Attack submarines: The Navy plans to maintain a fleet of between 41 and 45 nuclear attack submarines, including four SSGN cruise missile conversions.

• DD(X)/CG(X): The plan calls for eight to 12 DD(X) destroyers by 2035, along with 15 to 18 CG(X) cruisers.

• LCS: The plan shows 63 to 82 Littoral Combat Ships by 2035.

• Sea Basing: The plan calls for 19 to 25 Sea Base ships by 2035, including 14-20 Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) ships. Both the big and little fleets call for two High Speed Sealift ships and three connector ships to shuttle between the ships and forces ashore.

(Edited to make it shorter)


I already knew that Bush would never get his 375 ship Navy. But what the f**k, only a dozen DD(X) and 15-18 CG(X) ?! They must be smoking some good crack over at the Pentagon. Only the first DD(X) is going to cost $3 billion. While the rest will cost about $1.8 billion each.

All is lost. We already proved how doomed we are.

We have bombs that can wipe out hundreds of miles, but we cant protect ourself from unarmed commercial airliners.

Any high schooler can build explosives, but we have no means to detect explosives.

We have Bio Weapons and Chemical weapons and no means to prevent them.

Plus the whole world is cuckoo and full of idiots.

This is the era we are going to end ourselves. It is inevitable. We have a whole planet to have our way with, and we are fighting wars and building weapons to destroy it.

Someone, somewhere is laughing about this im sure. Murphy's Law. Which means we are screwed. For being so stupid.

If 600 billion dollars a year and the so called "World's supreme force" cant protect the world largest city from suicide jumbo jets, all is pretty much lost.

Who cares about a navy, If they cant stop slow flying jumbo jets, what makes you think they can stop hypersonic missiles from blowing up naval ships. Nevermind its actual citizens its supposed to be protecting.

Stopping a jumbo jet isnt the navies job...its the FBI's overall...
This is simple makeing a smaller elite force, we already have it here and it worked well then it went a bit OTT.....but it wont go OTT in the USA

smaller elite force = less bad guys for the enemy to find and destroy.

if you have a large navy you can possibly win a war of attrition, or adapt to attack.

if you have a small force and are struck with speed and accuracy, then you have nothing to fall back on. And you have nothing left to try and adapt and counter attack. loss is potentially too great.

375 ships. Small drop in the immenseness of the ocean.

i think its a bad situation.

they should just make a mandatory service or bump minimum wage to 10$ an hour and force people who go unemployed by the small companies that cant afford that into the military. And to force people who are unemployed to serve for their country if they arent in school or find a job within a certain amount of time.

It would raise the standard of living in the US, People wont be living off 10,000$ a year. They will be making 30,000$ a year in the Military.

It would probably bump the Military by 100% +. And evolve the US.



[edit on 24-3-2005 by Ritual]

Originally posted by Ritual
smaller elite force = less bad guys for the enemy to find and destroy.

if you have a large navy you can possibly win a war of attrition, or adapt to attack.

A war of attrition is not a viable option, are you willing to have several thousand men and womens blood on your hands to win a "war of attrition" look at WW1 not viable.
[qoute]
if you have a small force and are struck with speed and accuracy, then you have nothing to fall back on. And you have nothing left to try and adapt and counter attack. loss is potentially too great.

Actually a small force can do a hell of a lot of damage than an entire navy.
In a small force you will never go all out , you will only use small quick attacks to weaken the enemy then take him out....the loss is acceptable...

375 ships. Small drop in the immenseness of the ocean.

375 is big, esspecially when alll of them are able to destroy a large portion of the planet.

i think its a bad situation.

they should just make a mandatory service or bump minimum wage to 10$ an hour and force people who go unemployed by the small companies that cant afford that into the military. And to force people who are unemployed to serve for their country if they arent in school or find a job within a certain amount of time.

So you believe in FORCEING people into the military?
If you have that then the force is not as commited as a volenteer force.

It would raise the standard of living in the US, People wont be living off 10,000$ a year. They will be making 30,000$ a year in the Military.

It would also remove your rights....it would also give a bad military..

It would probably bump the Military by 100% +. And evolve the US.

A larger military does nothing if the soldiers arent prepared to fight for something they dont believe in...take china, its army is massive but are all willing to fight and die for thier country?

I don like this new "military structure" that the DOD and the Pentagon is considering. I think we should increase our military and our weapons systems. We are increasing our enlisted service man numbers but we should also be making more planes, jets, ships, tanks etc...

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I don like this new "military structure" that the DOD and the Pentagon is considering. I think we should increase our military and our weapons systems. We are increasing our enlisted service man numbers but we should also be making more planes, jets, ships, tanks etc...

Quantity doesnt always make up for quality....
Besides isnt america supposed to be a peaceful nation.....

Peaceful? In a time like this? I don't think so, the U.S. currently has no big stationary threat like the Soviets so we need do be quick and light according to the Pentagon. I agree wit hits but the Chinese are soon going to be the new Soviets and we have to prepare for them and I don't think that downsizing our forces is the right thing.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Peaceful? In a time like this? I don't think so, the U.S. currently has no big stationary threat like the Soviets so we need do be quick and light according to the Pentagon. I agree wit hits but the Chinese are soon going to be the new Soviets and we have to prepare for them and I don't think that downsizing our forces is the right thing.

The chinese wont attack since your its biggest sales partner and always will be....
why remove your biggest profit?
The US is supposed to be a peaceful nation, why do you think otherwise?

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

We seek peace but are not afraid nor willing to resolve a situation which we think is threatening us or others.

The return of the Westy, welcome back, school holidays?

Originally posted by WestPoint23
the Chinese are soon going to be the new Soviets

- Come on Westy; even Bush gave up trying to flog that one pretty early on.

On look at the comparitive spending, the technical abilities and relative size of high-tech military kit makes this the obvious and very apparant laughable claim it truely is.

and we have to prepare for them and I don't think that downsizing our forces is the right thing.

- Yeah, what you need to do - rightaway - is increase the already absurdly bloated US military budget to much more absurd levels to match the current absurd and grossly bloated levels of US paranoia!

(.......and who cares if there is no serious credible threat of any kind, there's mega-bucks to be made in the 'military-industrial-security complex'.

Just ignore any rational assessment of the situation and keep 'wondering' about the 'imminent threat' China, Iran, India etc etc might be on the verge of becoming in the next decade(s)...... and if all else fails 'terrorists' will have to do...... but at all costs keep the US public convinced the world is one big scary place about to attack at any time)

You can never be too sure you know!



[edit on 24-3-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Thank You, I am indeed back, and here to say I might add. And I was busy with school yes, but WestPoint is back and he will wear his opinion on his sleeve like always.

Well we though the world was one big friendly place and it bit us in the A on 9/11. I think with our troops spread thin across the world we have to get enlist more troops and create new Weapons Systems to help us deal with these new terror threats. I’m only suggesting that the DoD budget go form 466B to about 700B.

[edit on 24-3-2005 by WestPoint23]

Well whatever I am not a naval warfare expert.

With good sensors all over the ocean and good intelligence I guess you might not need the plan for attrition.

It seems like there are alot of people stationed on each ship. I think there is 200,000 in the Navy. 375 ships means that there are 533 people on each ship on average.

That seems like alot of people for one ship. That is almost the size of my high school (800 people).

WHy you would need that many people I am not too sure. I have never been in the Navy, and I know jack about what they do.

Originally posted by Ritual
smaller elite force = less bad guys for the enemy to find and destroy.

if you have a large navy you can possibly win a war of attrition, or adapt to attack.

if you have a small force and are struck with speed and accuracy, then you have nothing to fall back on. And you have nothing left to try and adapt and counter attack. loss is potentially too great.

375 ships. Small drop in the immenseness of the ocean.

i think its a bad situation.

they should just make a mandatory service or bump minimum wage to 10$ an hour and force people who go unemployed by the small companies that cant afford that into the military. And to force people who are unemployed to serve for their country if they arent in school or find a job within a certain amount of time.

It would raise the standard of living in the US, People wont be living off 10,000$ a year. They will be making 30,000$ a year in the Military.

It would probably bump the Military by 100% +. And evolve the US.



[edit on 24-3-2005 by Ritual]

A paid volunteer military is the best. Forcing people against there will to join just brings in demoralized people who won't perform as well as a willing volunteer serviceman.

I'd rather make 10,000 a year than be forced against my will to enter military.

Right now we don't need a draft, but if there is another world war we need to draft just like we did back in WWII. Those were the good old days when we had 16 Million men enlisted. But I think if there is another large scale war that threatens the continental U.S. people would volunteer to fight.

I'm glad they are atleast mentioning the CG(X). There has not been news on that ship in a long time.

Originally posted by Ritual
Well whatever I am not a naval warfare expert.

With good sensors all over the ocean and good intelligence I guess you might not need the plan for attrition.

It seems like there are alot of people stationed on each ship. I think there is 200,000 in the Navy. 375 ships means that there are 533 people on each ship on average.

That seems like alot of people for one ship. That is almost the size of my high school (800 people).

WHy you would need that many people I am not too sure. I have never been in the Navy, and I know jack about what they do.

I believe an Aegis destroyer as 300 something crewmembers. DD(X) will have just 150 crewmembers, because it will be highly automated.

Originally posted by NWguy83
Attack submarines: The Navy plans to maintain a fleet of between 41 and 45 nuclear attack submarines, including four SSGN cruise missile conversions.

Aren't those SSGN Conversions already 20 plus years old already? Or am I thinking of another boat?

Phae

Originally posted by Ritual

Any high schooler can build explosives, but we have no means to detect explosives.

What are you talking about we have no way to detect explosives?

You ever hear of bomb sniffing dogs? They can be trained to detect more the drugs Simple and crude maybe but very effective.

Then there is also electronic devices that can detect explosives a technology called ion mobility spectrometry can detect explosives. Infact a guy invented a version that is 1,000 times more sensitive the current ones.

uanews.org... ls?ArticleID=10768

Israel also developed a laser that can detect explosives."a laser beam's ultra-violet spectrum to "light up" molecules in fumes given off by TNT explosives from a distance of up to eight feet."

www.i.../0903ar2.htm

And these are just conventional explosives there is even more methods to detect something like a nuke.

So please get your facts straight before you start making this stuff up

[edit on 25-3-2005 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by Ritual
It seems like there are alot of people stationed on each ship. I think there is 200,000 in the Navy. 375 ships means that there are 533 people on each ship on average.

That seems like alot of people for one ship. That is almost the size of my high school (800 people).

WHy you would need that many people I am not too sure. I have never been in the Navy, and I know jack about what they do.

You know 1 carrier could have 5000+crewmembers. So 11 carriers=55000. +some are never stationed on ships.