Reduction in Military Reduces Navy Size

[hoytedow]

Our beloved leader has decided to gut the Navy to a level smaller than what we had prior to WW1. How will that affect boat design in the United States?
Will there even be a United States when he gets through with us?

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ar...-the-military/

"“Do we really need 11 Carrier Strike Groups for another 30 years,” Gates asked, “when no other country has more than one?” That seafaring strength is a source of pride for Navy League members, as is the United States’s having a navy second to none. The audience’s surprise at hearing the secretary of defense question the value of America’s overwhelming naval predominance as unnecessary soon turned to dismay. “We simply can’t afford to perpetuate a status quo,” Gates told his listeners. By “status quo,” he meant a navy that maintained 11 carriers, 57 submarines, and a battle fleet larger than the next 13 biggest national navies combined."

http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyUS.htm

[hoytedow]

"When World War I broke out among the European powers in early August 1914, the U.S. Navy had 29 submarines in commission."

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87...sue_22/ww1.htm

[michael pierzga]

USS Gerald Ford just launched. The most expensive military weapon ever built. If you want expensive toys you have to cut down on the size of your toy department.

[vadim_go]

It is not the question "to be or not to be". Since the other branch of the government - Congress in this case - already decided to cut the budget, it should come either from the Navy or other branches.
The more basic question is, there is simply No Money, you could keep trying to maintain the superiority by borrowing from China, or try to show more wisdom and find a better way.

[PAR]

The Navies around the world will all be reduced in size in the coming century. It's simply that they aren't as necessary as they once where.

The projection of power with a carrier task force parked off your shores, isn't as intimidating as an alpha flight over your president's personal residence, that your radar and other defense systems can't locate, until the security guard at the gate of the presidential palace verifies visually. Maybe they'll drop some leaflets saying, you could have been bombed, but we're a benign super power at the moment.

Knowing that a wing of B-2's or other stealth craft, can walk up and spank you on the back of the head, without detection, then leave or worse vectored targeting from 500 miles away with unmanned, guided ordnance, makes a large precentage of the Navies of the world, as obsolete as the battleship.

There is a need for coastal protection and other threat acknowledgement/assessment, but do we need a surface fleet of the size of ours, to accommodate this need. For years I've been saying this, much to the displeasure of most, but simply put, why have a surface fleet of this size, when a wing of something you can't see or hear, leaves Kansas, flies non-stop, then returns to Kansas unseen and unscathed.

The air forces of the world are in a similar position, with aircraft that can preform well beyond the abilities of the pilot's capability to endure the maneuvers. We're at a point where stand off, pilotless control is upon us and only the old farts are wondering if it's not a good idea.

The bottom line is, military engagements in the not so distant future,will be conducted with men sitting in air conditioned Winnebagos in the middle of the Nevada desert, while they direct ordinance to the target or even worse the ordnance becomes autonomous and just a button is pushed by a joint chief staffer.

Welcome to the 21st century folks. Get over it . . .

[hoytedow]

One nation will not shrink; China.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/global-fi...ng-naval-clout

[Boston]

The face of warfare changes constantly, change with it or perish.

The multi billion dollar fleets of the US navy will be quickly obsolete with the advent of stealth missile technology

http://weapons.technology.youngester...e-missile.html

kinda makes you wonder what the survivability of that gigantic bulls eye is if china really wanted to be a problem. Once upon a time these mega carriers may have been the preeminent power in the sea, but the advent of stealth anti ship missiles raises some serious doubts about there survivability.

I don't think we should be toothless but even the meanest dogs only got 4 canines

[troy2000]

According to the latest news story I read, the plan now is to keep all 11 carriers.

Although they're great for their purposes, I doubt shuttling stealth craft back and forth across the oceans will ever substitute for the ability to park a carrier in or near a combat zone -- any more than air freight has rendered cargo vessels obsolete.

[Boston]

and thats exactly what I'm talking about. Its not really going to be possible to park one of these gigantic floating targets off the coast of a hostile nation because pretty much everyone on the planet is working on stealth missile technology. One or two missiles later on the deck of a carrier loaded with jet fuel and multi million dollar planes and its all over.

I can't imagine it taking more than the lifespan of our present fleet before the face of naval warfare changes so completely that any additional carriers would be obsolete before they hit the water.

we'd be better off designing our next generation of naval craft which better address the dangers of the modern battle field.

my two cents but really, weapons are changing fast, we're better off going with the flow.

smaller vertical take off and landing platforms for SWARM type drone aircraft might be a better way to go. The manned fighter aircraft are going the way of the Dodo fast

[CatBuilder]

I'm going to have to agree 100%...

Originally Posted by PAR

The Navies around the world will all be reduced in size in the coming century. It's simply that they aren't as necessary as they once where.

The projection of power with a carrier task force parked off your shores, isn't as intimidating as an alpha flight over your president's personal residence, that your radar and other defense systems can't locate, until the security guard at the gate of the presidential palace verifies visually. Maybe they'll drop some leaflets saying, you could have been bombed, but we're a benign super power at the moment.

Knowing that a wing of B-2's or other stealth craft, can walk up and spank you on the back of the head, without detection, then leave or worse vectored targeting from 500 miles away with unmanned, guided ordnance, makes a large precentage of the Navies of the world, as obsolete as the battleship.

There is a need for coastal protection and other threat acknowledgement/assessment, but do we need a surface fleet of the size of ours, to accommodate this need. For years I've been saying this, much to the displeasure of most, but simply put, why have a surface fleet of this size, when a wing of something you can't see or hear, leaves Kansas, flies non-stop, then returns to Kansas unseen and unscathed.

The air forces of the world are in a similar position, with aircraft that can preform well beyond the abilities of the pilot's capability to endure the maneuvers. We're at a point where stand off, pilotless control is upon us and only the old farts are wondering if it's not a good idea.

The bottom line is, military engagements in the not so distant future,will be conducted with men sitting in air conditioned Winnebagos in the middle of the Nevada desert, while they direct ordinance to the target or even worse the ordnance becomes autonomous and just a button is pushed by a joint chief staffer.

Welcome to the 21st century folks. Get over it . . .

[PAR]

Anyone remotely familiar with the Nimitz class will tell you straight up it's a huge bomb, just waiting to go boom. We've had a handhold on stealth technology for well over a quarter of a century, but people are catching up quickly, mostly because it's not a hard technology to duplicate, either from plans theft or development.

Naturally, the joint chiefs want everyone to believe the technology is too far advanced, but we are seeing stealth aircraft from other countries already. Their clandestine operations have to include other delivery systems as well. Being the typical, close minded, pompous asses they generally are it'll take a single missile strike taking out a Nimitz class to reinforce what everyone already knows. Unfortunately, a few thousand sailors will have to die, to bear this point out broadly enough for the self absorbed, still fighting the last war mentality chiefs to comprehend.

We've preformed countless drone and autonomous attacks in the last decade. We've literally flown strike missions from US bases, thousands of miles from the target zones, landing and taking off from secured bases half way around the world, with extremely limited exposure to hostel intent. Parking a carrier task force within naval aviator strike range is just asking to see what's next after the DF-21C or DF-21D get significant deployment.

Hell, I could take out a Nimitz. Of course I'll hook up with TugBoat and sneak up on them with a truck bed liner coated, concrete sub.

[Boston]

bingo Par, truck bed liner for instance, the technology just isn't all that hard to duplicate and we're in for a big surprise if we park a target that fat and juicy in right smack in the middle of a bathtub like the Mediterranean. Unfortunately your also right about it taking a sever loss of life before the armed forces changes from its typical stand. Always seems to be that way. How long did it take them to get something simple like armored HV's to our guys ?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Boston

and thats exactly what I'm talking about. Its not really going to be possible to park one of these gigantic floating targets off the coast of a hostile nation because pretty much everyone on the planet is working on stealth missile technology. One or two missiles later on the deck of a carrier loaded with jet fuel and multi million dollar planes and its all over.

Not necessarily. Have you ever seen photo's or footage of the damage some of our WWII carriers survived?

Also, 'stealth' is a matter of degree. You can make a missile harder to spot and harder to destroy (mostly by making it faster, and making it hug the surface as much as possible), but you can't make it invisible or hide its heat signature. And the destroyers screening our carriers have some fairly impressive anti-missile capabilities.

I can't imagine it taking more than the lifespan of our present fleet before the face of naval warfare changes so completely that any additional carriers would be obsolete before they hit the water.

we'd be better off designing our next generation of naval craft which better address the dangers of the modern battle field.

my two cents but really, weapons are changing fast, we're better off going with the flow.

smaller vertical take off and landing platforms for SWARM type drone aircraft might be a better way to go. The manned fighter aircraft are going the way of the Dodo fast

Again, I think you're a little early with the obituary. Just as there will still be a place for a grunt with a weapon in his hands in future wars, no matter how hi-tech they become, there will still be a place for manned aircraft -- and a vessel for them to operate from, especially when there are no land bases handy.

But don't get me wrong; I'm all for any technology that reduces the number of our troops in harm's way.

[Boston]

Kinetic weapons have little or no heat signature, and missile bodies can be, and are being modified to absorb or reflect radar. Sure our carriers took some serious damage in WW2 but they also took months to repair. Todays conflicts tend to last weeks not months. So an asset that gets knocked out is unlikely to be replaced or repaired with the critical window of opportunity.

Smaller, faster, stealthier, remote operated and more survivable is the wave of the future. Pilots who are comfortably sitting in that air conditioned room Par mentioned.

Given our financial condition we'd better think fast if we want to maintain any sense of national security into even just the first half of this century. China is expanding fast.

[bntii]

The Russians went broke trying to keep the arms race going- so did we...

I don't think its a bad thing to lay off the up front expenditures and put the capital resources into building a society which has the wherewithal to arm themselves if required.