It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the US Navy too big?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Okay basically this is a response to the thread Is the US Navy to small? And remember I'm not neccesarily saying we should downsize the navy, in least not yet.


According to global security we have 50 Los Angele's class attack subs in commision, three SeaWolf class attack subs, and two Virginia class attack subs. And 14 SSBN's (nuclear missile launching subs)

source 1

source 2
source 3

source 4


The US navy will have 22 Ticonderoga class cruisers as of 2006, and as far as I know those are our only cruisers.


source



63 Arleigh Burke class destroyers, as far as I know our only destroyers.

source


10 Nimitz class carriers, 1 John F. Kennedy class carrier, 1 Enterprise class carrier, and 1 Kitty Hawk class Carrier.

source 1

source 2


source 3


source 4






Well my bro wants to get on, I'll do more later. But my main point in this post is to say quality is better than quanity. Right now downsizing would be stupid IMHO, but with the new ships, and technologies were developing we could have less ships doing more operations more effectively. I'll explain more later.




posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
your Virgnia Class Submarine list is not up to date. The USS Virginia is the only submarine of that class that the navy has in service. The USS Texas is still undergoing outfitting at a pier. Just thought you'd like to know this.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by blue cell
50 Los Angele's class attack subs in commision,


Yes, but they are old and will start retiring soon.


The US navy will have 22 Ticonderoga class cruisers as of 2006,


They are old and have already started retiring them.


10 Nimitz class carriers, 1 John F. Kennedy class carrier, 1 Enterprise class carrier, and 1 Kitty Hawk class Carrier.


Enterprise, JFK, and Kitty Hawk are all nearing the end of their lifes.


, but with the new ships, and technologies were developing we could have less ships doing more operations more effectively. I'll explain more later.


It's all about having plenty of ships, that way you can have a lot of them deployed around the world 24/7 even in a time of war.






posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I think the US Navy is obviously trying to get the most out of its assets.By basing them abroad and flying out crews on rotation rather than bringing back the ships they can obviously keep them on station for far longer.I think this will feature more and more in the future and could allow the US Navy to shrink a bit as its older assets get withdrawn and replacements come in slower.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Well the USN has undergone a change of missions. As a blue water navy its main goal till the fal of the USSR was to interdict and keep vital sea lanes opne. That ment taking on a large combined armes force of the USSR on the open seas.

With the change, and unless CHina starts a massive buildup of a huge bluewater navy, the USN is changing its focus to more littoral warfare type rols as that is the threat of the near future. Ideally we should have a total of 16 CBG's in my book. COnsidering that you can have two in overhaul status it gives you room for any issues that may crop up.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   


It's all about having plenty of ships, that way you can have a lot of them deployed around the world 24/7 even in a time of war.


My point is we can have less ships that can do more things, like for example the DDX can be a land attack destroyer, air defence destroyer, and anti-submarine destroyer all in one. That really lessens the number of ships we need, if one ship can do many tasks. And beside's as FredT said we won't need a huge navy in less we get in a conflict with China. And even then its not about numbers its about fighting capability.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   


My point is we can have less ships that can do more things, like for example the DDX can be a land attack destroyer, air defence destroyer, and anti-submarine destroyer all in one.


The Arleigh Burke's already are, the DDX will be geared more towards land attack. The Burke's are also not the only destroyers in the USN, I believe a few of the Spruances are still in service. There are also some Oliver Hazard Perry frigates still in use as well.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Actually the Navy doesn't have enough ships. I have made several deployments on aircraft carriers and the main problem is the duration of deployments. When you leave you have no idea when you will be back. A perfect example would be the battleship New Jersey in the 1980's. I believe that the New Jersey was deployed off of Lebanon for over two years. The Navy eventually rotated the entire crew whil she was deployed. Previous post satated that you can count on at least two carriers in overhaul at a given time. Add two more to that doing workup training prior to deployment. If you addin the transiting carriers and the ones on permanent stations you start running out of flattops quickly. I hope that the F-35 may help this. If you need aviation assets other than ground attack or helicopters right now you only have the option of using a full size carrier. The addition of the F-35's will allow some of these duties to be taken over by LHAs and maybe lead to the developement of smaller aircraft carriers.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
The US Navy is not too small. In fact it could stand to be bigger. It only makes life for us safer.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join