Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Navy Expected to Recommend a Force of About 300 Ships
National Defense Magazine ^ | 3/16/2012 | Sandra Erwin

Posted on 03/23/2012 9:08:26 PM PDT by U-238

A "force structure" review that is about to be completed is likely to recommend that the Navy needs around 300 ships to meet its future demands.

The study is not yet finished, but could be presented to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus as early as next week, said Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert.

A 300-ship Navy is slightly larger than the current fleet of 285, but it is smaller than previous recommendations. Navy leaders since 2006 have said the fleet should grow to 313 ships.

During a breakfast with reporters March 16, Greenert said the review is not "budget driven" but is based on what the Navy projects it will need to carry out global responsibilities by 2020.

After Mabus gives the study the green light, it will be sent to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for approval, and then presented to congressional committees before it is publicly released, Greenert said.

The 300-ship recommendation is likely to spur criticism from Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee, who have chided Navy leaders for under-funding shipbuilding accounts at a time when naval forces are in high demand, and a potential crisis is brewing in the Persian Gulf.

From the current fleet of 285 ships, 100 are deployed, said Greenert.

He pushed back on the criticism that the Navy is not budgeting enough money as it seeks to expand its presence in Asia-Pacific, the Middle East and increase support of Southern Command's antidrug campaign. "I am comfortable that we can resource the strategy properly," Greenert said.

The 300-ship Navy, however, would not materialize until after 2020. The current budget forecasts a 285-ship force at least through 2017.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationaldefensemagazine.org ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dod; nsp; nss; pentagon; raymabus; usnavy

1 posted on 03/23/2012 9:08:30 PM PDT by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: U-238
If they put 2 or 3 carriers and their air wings into the equation it might be reasonable...
2 posted on 03/23/2012 9:22:53 PM PDT by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: U-238

do the launches, gigs, water taxis and whatnot count against the 300?


3 posted on 03/23/2012 9:26:31 PM PDT by RitchieAprile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: U-238
Never happen with SecNav Mabus, SecDef Panetta, or POTUS Obamination in charge.
4 posted on 03/23/2012 9:47:35 PM PDT by MasterGunner01 (11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

No.


5 posted on 03/23/2012 9:47:40 PM PDT by BigCinBigD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MasterGunner01

I can’t remember

What did Reagan want?

600?


6 posted on 03/23/2012 9:55:59 PM PDT by Steve Newton (And the Wolves will learn what we have shown before-We love our sheep we dogs of war. Vaughn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Steve Newton

In regard to the 600 Ship Navy, understand that the mission has changed, the enemies have changed, and the technologies have changed.

While you still need a certain amount of iron-on-target, 100% control of the world’s sea lanes against a huge, worldwide naval adversary is no longer required.


7 posted on 03/23/2012 10:05:35 PM PDT by tcrlaf (Election 2012: THE RAPTURE OF THE DEMOCRATS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MasterGunner01

If 0bama gould get away with it, he’s sell the US Navy to the Chinese or Russians.


8 posted on 03/23/2012 10:22:59 PM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Steve Newton

Yes. 600 minimum.


9 posted on 03/23/2012 10:23:45 PM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: U-238
A 300-ship Navy...

You just can't have Too Much Navy.

10 posted on 03/23/2012 10:34:09 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve Newton
Reagan took us up to a 594 active duty fleet in 1987 up from Cater's 533 in 1979.. Poppy had us down to 471 by 9/30/92. Slick Willy had us cut even lower at 318 in 2000. Not to be out done by Slick Willie or Poppy the Smirking Chimp's Navy was at 278 in 2007. U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1886-present We are at 285 as of 9/30/11.
11 posted on 03/23/2012 10:44:51 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: U-238
From the current fleet of 285 ships, 100 are deployed, said Greenert.

Which in the long run will bring serious issues. The ratio for standard deployments should be about 1:4 meaning three ships to one deployed either in overhaul, brief shipyard period {three months post deployment}, doing pre-deployment work ups {which is not same as a deployment} or deployed. There just isn't much way too keep the fleets maintained right otherwise. 400 active duty should be minimal.

12 posted on 03/23/2012 10:52:02 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

I want the go back to the days where we had a 600 ship navy.


13 posted on 03/23/2012 10:57:37 PM PDT by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

In 1990, we had the largest fleet in the world.With 15 carrier battle groups, four battleship surface action groups, and over 100 attack submarines.


14 posted on 03/23/2012 11:02:31 PM PDT by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: U-238
A lot of the maintenance issues started about that time as well as the cuts. The JFK's Ship Lift Extension Program was botched, America was denied S.L.E.P. and was literally ran to death early, JFK after S.L.E.P. was unofficially a reserve ship meaning lacking funds for maintenance. All of which came to a head immediately after 9/11. We also went from four too one carrier builder.

The nuke powered subs had a service life of about 20-25 years and could not be extended. When their time was up many were decommissioned with no replacement.

Congress, POTUS, Sec of Defense, and Service Secretaries of the post-Reagan years basically let things start declining and none of them had the ambition nor will to stop the gutting of our military in either party.

15 posted on 03/24/2012 12:21:55 AM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: unkus

The way that ship construction costs are going through the roof, the Navy won’t be able to AFFORD a 300 ship fleet, unless you count lifeboats and rafts.


16 posted on 03/24/2012 12:48:28 AM PDT by MasterGunner01 (11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

I agree with you.


17 posted on 03/24/2012 12:58:39 AM PDT by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

100% control of the world’s sea lanes against a huge, worldwide naval adversary is no longer required....

At this time.

Ok, I’ll settle for 400.


18 posted on 03/24/2012 1:14:59 AM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Steve Newton

I believe that was then SecNav Webb, that requested a 600 ship navy. Subsequently, he resigned because he refused to reduce the size of the navy.


19 posted on 03/24/2012 2:56:33 AM PDT by stuartcr ("In this election year of 12, how deep into their closets will we delve?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: U-238
U.S. Code of law explicitly limits the total number of four-star admirals that may be on active duty at any given time. The total number of active duty flag officers is capped at 216 for the Navy

Let's mandate that the ratio of flag officers/Navy ships be capped at 1/4. It seems to me that four ships per admiral is reasonable. /S

20 posted on 03/24/2012 5:30:52 AM PDT by Makana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Makana

The number of admirals is not really a function of the number of ships. The number of admirals is rather a function of the executive management structure. certain jobs require certain pay grades to be in line with DOD civilian and private pay.

There can be some argument as to the fact there are unnecessary slots and if a Captain can function where there might be admiral creep, but that is different.


21 posted on 03/24/2012 5:51:27 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 ..... Crucifixion is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: U-238

With 0 forcing 3,000 CPO’s out early who is going to run the ships? Brass give orders, they don’t do grunt work, that is what CPO’s and lower class ranks do.

This goes DITTO for the other branches of the Military..he has a vendetta against the mid ranks who are the back bone, and trainers in our Military.


22 posted on 03/24/2012 5:55:54 AM PDT by GailA (Any congress critter or president who FAILS to keep faith with the Military, WON'T keep faith with U)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: U-238

Oh, I forgot to add IF you passed your EVALS for this year, you can kiss your promotion GOODBYE according to the Navy Times. And your health ins is GOING UP! Retired included in that one.


23 posted on 03/24/2012 5:57:58 AM PDT by GailA (Any congress critter or president who FAILS to keep faith with the Military, WON'T keep faith with U)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Humm

Food for thought

Thank all of you


24 posted on 03/24/2012 8:45:29 AM PDT by Steve Newton (And the Wolves will learn what we have shown before-We love our sheep we dogs of war. Vaughn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steve Newton; U-238
Here's more food. Basically we have left two shipyards one on each coast that are set up to do overhauls and maintenance on carriers. One is located across the river from our only carrier builder left.

What doesn't get discussed is things like when the Base Closures starting in early 1990's began key defense production facilities as well as various military bases weren't just simply mothballed. They were tore down, land sold, tooling sold or destroyed, and no replacement. Russia wasn't even this stupid.

Before WW2 we went from 790 active duty ships in Dec 1940 to 6768 in August 1945. We were able to do so because we already had factories set up which could easily be adjusted to defense production use. Today much of our production capability comes from the very nation we will one day be going to war with which is China.

Shipbuilding is a learned trade that takes years to perfect. Next real major all out war we won't have the time margin we did in WW2 to allow us to catch up. We won't even have fuel to power transportation.

There is also a false notion that a nuclear powered ship can deploy indefinately. That is not true realistically. Their required downtime is much the same as a conventional. The reason being the downtime is also for replacing and repairing things like pumps, galley equipment, repair/replace steam pipes, repair/replace air conditioning plants, hull painting/repairs, etc. This involves cutting through several decks to accomplish and it takes a few months to do it right.

Generally after an six month deployment every surface ship needs a shipyard period for repairs that are not safe or able to do else where. Anything less greatly shortens the ships service life.

25 posted on 03/24/2012 5:41:36 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Uh

I didn’t know this and it’s a little on the scary side.

Thank you my FRiend


26 posted on 03/24/2012 6:00:59 PM PDT by Steve Newton (And the Wolves will learn what we have shown before-We love our sheep we dogs of war. Vaughn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Just thinking

We DO have the capacity to bring our moth balled fleet on line?

Don’t we?


27 posted on 03/24/2012 6:03:53 PM PDT by Steve Newton (And the Wolves will learn what we have shown before-We love our sheep we dogs of war. Vaughn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Steve Newton

I do not think the USN “moth balls” ships anymore. I think we use them for target practice and to make reefs.


28 posted on 03/24/2012 6:07:41 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Steve Newton; central_va
We DO have the capacity to bring our moth balled fleet on line? Don’t we?

Without altering down times for our active because of available yard space to do the work? I'm not sure. On the smaller surface ships yes we can bring them back because there are several yards that can do the work. The smaller ships are Diesel Engine or Gas Turbine powered. The subs? No. They have to be rebuilt from keel up. The carriers? Limited yards. Bremerton on the west coast {Long Beach was the other but is no more} and Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, VA is the other carrier yard. Newport News Shipbuilding if not doing construction could do some work. They do the carrier Ship Life Extension Program now.

But the reality is the ones in mothball are wore out. The boilers is the real issue. All but Forestall are 1200 PSI systems 8 boilers per ship. To replace the boilers would be easier and likely quicker to build a new conventional. 1200 PSI of superheated steam with a leak the size of a pencil lead can dismember you. Worse is you can't hear it and you can't see it.

JFK was the newest conventional but she's had it and is mothballed. Too much neglect due to underfunding. America the next one back was sank for data for the Gerald R Ford. She had a major boiler-room explosion in 1994 I think it was at the pier. She had done three - six month deployments in three years. She was towed Cold Iron up the river to Portsmouth, VA then patched up and made one deployment afterward. Enterprise is still active and 50 plus years in age now. Constellation and Kitty Hawk could possibly fire up but for how long? It's really asking a lot out of the boilers and would be placing the crew at substantial risk as well. But the carriers would not matter because we don't have planes for them either.

Short Term solution till we get the numbers back up on surface ships is building submarines nuclear and conventional. Conventional powered ships have one huge advantage and that is in training a crew. A conventional Snipe will be standing advanced watches before a Nuke gets out of school and will have acquired a good sum of knowledge about the ship.

One other issue is IIRC the Navy discontinued the Boilerman Rating. It was consolidated with Machinist Mate I think.

29 posted on 03/24/2012 6:56:08 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Mercy my friend

You should write a book if you haven’t already. I have learned more today about our naval capacity than I have in a long time.

Thank you for taking the time.

And by the way, I want you as my SECNAV


30 posted on 03/24/2012 7:08:40 PM PDT by Steve Newton (And the Wolves will learn what we have shown before-We love our sheep we dogs of war. Vaughn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Steve Newton
LOL I don't know nothing about it really. I just understand carriers basic deployment and maintenance cycles and observed what happens when they aren't followed. The two carriers that failed to get underway after 9/11 was a direct cause of upkeep not being funded. The Navy's answer was firing the C.O.'s who had little say in funding.

I do wish the Navy would spread out it's remaining assets in terms of homeports. I won't go into it here but most persons understand where I'm coming from. One or more of the Norfolk bases needs to be relocated further south as does pier 10 at N.O.B. Norfolk. Norfolk Naval Base should never, ever, for any reason, have five carriers berthed there at once.

31 posted on 03/24/2012 7:23:35 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson