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

Skip to comments.

Defense Cuts: Four Navy Programs To Watch Closely
Forbes ^ | September 13, 2013 | Loren Thompson,

Posted on 09/14/2013 9:16:12 AM PDT by yoe

Over the next several weeks, there will be a raft of news stories disclosing cuts to Pentagon weapons programs. The stories will begin with briefings by the military services to the defense secretary’s management team next week about their planned budget requests for fiscal 2015, and then continue into the fitful beginning of the 2014 fiscal year two weeks later. In both cases, the focus of stories will be on how the Pentagon proposes to cope with deficit-reduction provisions in the Budget Control Act.

Those provisions are likely to significantly reduce the military capabilities of the U.S. because they mandate a trillion dollars in savings from the defense department between 2012 and 2021. Half of the cuts are already reflected in Obama Administration budget requests, but the other half — known a sequestration — are not. The sequestration cuts are expected to cut $52 billion, or roughly 10%, from the Pentagon request in the fiscal year beginning October 1, with the biggest percentage reductions coming from weapons programs.

[snip] The impact on military capabilities will become much more noticeable in the new fiscal year, potentially affecting programs vital to the nation’s future security. What follows is a brief description of four Navy programs that all have been subject to rumors about budget cuts. If any of them actually are cut, warfighters are more likely to die in the future, and wars are less likely to be won.

(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: defense; defensecuts; nationalsecurity; navy; usnavy
Actually if the RofE allowed our warriors to fight, we could live with a leaner-meaner military.
1 posted on 09/14/2013 9:16:12 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yoe

Everything I’ve read about the littoral combat ship has been bad. It is too lightly armored and vulnerable in its close-in mission profile to shore launched missiles and shallow water mines. The do-everything concept doesn’t work yet. It failed in the Army’s FCS and it isn’t looking good for mission modules either.

So, one ship can do every mission, have no armor and not use any support...okay.


2 posted on 09/14/2013 9:28:13 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

The LCS is a complete disaster going back many many years.
In an attempt to be everything to everybody, it became nothing to anybody. Everybody involved in the planning of this ship should be fired.


3 posted on 09/14/2013 9:33:35 AM PDT by calljack (Sometimes your worst nightmare is just a start.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather
LCS is a POS. overpriced, lightly armed and armored for inshore work and not enough crew for damage control. plus the turnaround for change of mission modules is a lot longer than envisioned. did i say overpriced? remind me of the CVEs at leyte gulf when they were put in a situation they weren't designed for. hell an SS-N-22 or 26 would probably pass right through an LCS without exploding.
4 posted on 09/14/2013 9:34:19 AM PDT by bravo whiskey (We should not fear our government. Our government should fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

read the article. what frigates? haven’t had FFGs in years.


5 posted on 09/14/2013 9:38:16 AM PDT by bravo whiskey (We should not fear our government. Our government should fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Aren’t we to the point where we could build a really fast and agile drone that would blow the doors off an F-35?


6 posted on 09/14/2013 9:38:42 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (Islam offers choices: convert, submit, or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calljack

“In an attempt to be everything to everybody, it became nothing to anybody.”

You put your finger on the problem. In order to get funded a project promises that it can do every mission and therefore it can get the funding of those other projects that are more specialized. (The more funding you get the more powerful you are.) FCS did this. One vehicle was supposed to be modifiable to do every vehicle’s function. Main battle tank, mobile hospital, ambulance, scout vehicle...It was ridiculous. The Army spent more money than if it had designed all new special purpose vehicles and they ended up with NOTHING.


7 posted on 09/14/2013 9:42:07 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bravo whiskey

“read the article. what frigates? haven’t had FFGs in years.”

You must have posted this to the wrong guy. Don’t know nothin’ ‘bout no frigates.


8 posted on 09/14/2013 9:43:23 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bravo whiskey
remind me of the CVEs at leyte gulf when they were put in a situation they weren't designed for

At Leyte, the CVEs were doing the job they were designed for, but the enemy always has a say. Considering the odds and the outcome when the enemy came, they kicked ass.

9 posted on 09/14/2013 9:46:03 AM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bravo whiskey

The LCS is made in my area. We want to keep the money here but I won’t disagree with anything you’ve said.


10 posted on 09/14/2013 9:46:55 AM PDT by boycott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

The four cuts are a new ballistic-missile submarine, a new payload module for attack subs, a littoral combat ship, and a stealthy carrier-based fighter. Thanks yoe.


11 posted on 09/14/2013 9:55:22 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's no coincidence that some "conservatives" echo the hard left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: boycott

Next LCS to be named USS Edsel?


12 posted on 09/14/2013 9:55:25 AM PDT by A Formerly Proud Canadian (I once was lost but now I'm found; blind but now I see.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: xone

Show me any other naval action where a CVE sunk a heavy cruiser with gunfire!


13 posted on 09/14/2013 10:13:35 AM PDT by catman67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather
I remember when I was working on the FCS pre-contract efforts. Some egghead told us how they had a deterent that would stop a long-rod penetrator from destroying a 25-ton FCS combat vehicle. We asked what Sir Issac Newton had to say about it, other than the energy had to go somewhere, other than putting the intact vehicle upside down in the ditch, with the crew turned to jelly.

Dead silence.

14 posted on 09/14/2013 10:13:36 AM PDT by Redleg Duke ("Madison, Wisconsin is 30 square miles surrounded by reality.", L. S. Dryfus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: yoe

It’s hard to know what to think of this kind of news. Is this a press release by a lobbying firm working for defense contractors sucking at the government teat? Is this the top brass who after careful analysis feel the need to warn Americans about a severe reduction in our capability or are these the top brass who after a long career signing off on invoices are now looking forward to lucrative ‘consulting’ careers in retirement?


15 posted on 09/14/2013 10:22:17 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Actually if the RofE allowed our warriors to fight, we could live with a leaner-meaner military.

Actually if the Gubment would end the welfare programs, the military budget could be increased significantly. Ah dreams are nice to have.

16 posted on 09/14/2013 10:34:31 AM PDT by thegrump
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke

“would stop a long-rod penetrator from destroying a 25-ton FCS combat vehicle. “

When I asked how the vehicle would survive I was told that they planned on keeping them behind the battle lines and that the Army would have “total control of the air.” Nothing would get close enough to kill them. (Fire and forget munitions have now been around for 20 years.) But shortly after we went into Iraq and, lo-and-behold, there were no “battle lines.”

They had decreed that the vehicles would all be transportable by air, so they were all narrow and fairly short and LIGHT weight. Because they wanted them to have insanely impossible capabilities, they were all upright square boxes with slab sides. One thing they learned from WWII is that the sides need to be inclined at 30 degrees to bounce off shells. Oh, and they have to be massive enough that the shells do bounce off.

The whole concept was crazy. But it did make lots of people rich. (Don’t get me started on TWO integrators of integrators. It ended up that way because neither SAIC or Boeing had sufficient pocket senators by themselves. They had to combine their pocket senators to get it funded. So, 50 cents of every dollar went to the integrators of integrators who had not a clue what was going on.)


17 posted on 09/14/2013 10:37:47 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: calljack

Absolutely. Of the 3 programs listed if one had to go, please make it the LCS. The missile package thing next. The Ohio replacement and F35 are absolutely mandatory.


18 posted on 09/14/2013 10:43:01 AM PDT by Monty22002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
I remember when I was working on the FCS pre-contract efforts. Some egghead told us how they had a deterent that would stop a long-rod penetrator from destroying a 25-ton FCS combat vehicle. We asked what Sir Issac Newton had to say about it, other than the energy had to go somewhere, other than putting the intact vehicle upside down in the ditch, with the crew turned to jelly.

Dead silence.

I do believe they got the Saudi's to buy into a bunch of these.... That could be a small plus.

19 posted on 09/14/2013 10:46:26 AM PDT by thegrump
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: catman67

I don’t think the CVEs were credited with sinking any if the enemy ships, but your statement would be true if it was ‘show me any naval action where a CVE fought a heavy crusier using its gun.’ The performance of the DDs and DEs of Taffy-3 were legendary and tough to read without choking up a bit. Mega-balls and such bravery demonstrated.


20 posted on 09/14/2013 10:47:08 AM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bravo whiskey

I know nothing about these ships, so you might need to explain it like I am five.

That said, are any ships armored enough to withstand a direct hit by one of those Russian or Chinese missiles? If that is the case, should the goal be sipped and aggressive defense (like a phalanx).

Again, I know nothing about this. Just wondering.


21 posted on 09/14/2013 10:50:13 AM PDT by Vermont Lt (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will watch the watchers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: calljack

The LCS has far less capability than a fletcher class destroyer from WII. That’s true in every measure except electronics and the ability to briefly speed like a motorboat.

The LCS firepower is a sad joke. A Fletcher could operate in water just as shallow, but it comes with a deadly battery of five 5 inch guns, and was festooned with 20mm and 40mm. It carries depth charges and 10 torpedoes.

An LCS basically carries the gun from a Bradley fighting vehicle, and an indirect rocket launcher that is the equivalent in range and power of large mortar.

The LCS is exempted from time proven USN damage control standards.

An LCS would be in grave danger if it comes within 2 miles of shore. It could easily be bested by a standard main battle tank on the beach.


22 posted on 09/14/2013 10:53:30 AM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bravo whiskey

You mentioned Leyte gulf. Think of the USS Johnston. That ship took on a column of Japanese cruisers and Battleships. It blew the bow off one and set it afire with a torpedo, and raked the superstructure of another with a storm of 5 inch fire.
They bought precious time for the CVEs.

No matter how brave the lesbian captain might be, an LCS is utterly helpless if any other ship whatsoever decides to attack it


23 posted on 09/14/2013 11:06:34 AM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | 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