The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins: Lavender Room: Slowtwitch Forums

Bike Shops Coaches Fitters Race Calendar Running Stores Store Stack & Reach Training Log Triathlon Clubs We Noticed
		MAIN INDEX	RULES & LEGEND	LOG IN

Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room:
The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins

big kahuna

Mar 15, 12 18:05

Post #1 of 56 (1756 views)

The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins	Quote \| Reply

11 ships (6 Perry class "figs" (fast frigates), the USS Enterprise (it's pretty old, but still...) -- first put into service when we had something like 800 ships in the fleet (during my service I saw more than 600 ships on a couple of occasions) and 15 flattops -- and 4 Ticonderoga class cruisers being put into mothballs, sold to some other country or scrapped altogether. The figs and the Big E are probably at the end, really, of their useful service lives but the four CGs each have maybe another decade's worth of use out of them, though as ships gets older they take more in maintenance and that can get expensive, even if you SLEPd every one of them to extend their service lives. I'll miss the Port Royal (homeported in Pearl Harbor) most. I've had the privilege of dining in the officer's mess on several occasions and the ship's still relatively young. Anyway, combined; we're parking more than 500 VLS (vertical launching system) cells and that's a lotta missile launch capability that we ain't gonna get back in a hurry if we need it.

I also don't know what the downstream shipbuilding or commissioning picture looks like, though I'm thinking we can kiss the idea of a 15-carrier force goodbye just because of simple economics. We just can't afford that sorta capability anymore, sadly. I freely admit that I'm no great strategic thinker or tactician when it comes to my beloved Navy and Marine Corps fighting team (that's CDR Slowguy's bailiwick) but the sea lanes of communication (SLOC) still have to be kept open and the oceans ain't getting any smaller, even if we're undergoing some sort of shrinkage in them due to global warming or climate change or something, right? Maybe a shift in capability -- to a more littoral, "brown water," nature -- with amphib ships, super-fast catamaran-type aluminum-hulled platforms, special warfare assets and the like -- is in the future? I'm hopeful...

Still, it's sad to see the world's finest nuclear navy contracting in such a fashion. Sad for the country and sad for the world, which benefited from the Pax Americana the U.S. Navy helped to maintain, after picking up the baton from the once-great (British) Royal Navy, which had established the Pax Brittanica that made the world's oceans safe for the passage of all. Maybe that's not needed anymore, though. Here's the list of the soon-to-be-dearly-departed:

From NAVADMIN 087/12

2. THE PROJECTED FY13 SHIP INACTIVATION SCHEDULE FOR INACTIVATING U.S. NAVAL VESSELS IS PROMULGATED AS FOLLOWS TO FACILITATE FLEET PLANNING EFFORTS TO CONDUCT A DECOMMISSIONING CONTINUOUS MAINTENANCE AVAILABILITY (CMAV) OR INACTIVATION AVAILABILITY (INAC):

SHIP NAME INACTIVATION POST DECOM STATUS
USS CROMMELIN (FFG 37) 31 OCT 2012 SEE NOTE 1
USS UNDERWOOD (FFG 36) 15 FEB 2013 SEE NOTE 1
USS CURTS (FFG 38) 27 FEB 2013 SEE NOTE 1
USS CARR (FFG 52) 15 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 1
USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65) 15 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 2
USS KLAKRING (FFG 42) 22 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 1
USS REUBEN JAMES (FFG 57) 30 AUG 2013 SEE NOTE 1
USS COWPENS (CG 63) 31 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 3
USS ANZIO (CG 68) 31 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 3
USS VICKSBURG (CG 69) 31 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 3
USS PORT ROYAL (CG 73) 31 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 3

NOTE 1: VESSEL IS DESIGNATED FOR FOREIGN MILITARY SALE (FMS). PER REF A, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NON-TRANSFERRABLE TECHNOLOGY IDENTIFIED BY NAVSEA AND NAVY IPO UNDER SEPCOR, NO ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT REMOVALS ARE AUTHORIZED ON THE FRIGATES EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY OPNAV N8F IN RESPONSE TO A RECORD MESSAGE REQUEST THAT INCLUDES JUSTIFICATION FOR REMOVAL AND INCLUDES COORDINATION VIA THE APPROPRIATE SYSTEMS COMMAND. TYCOMS ARE REQUIRED TO ENSURE STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS DIRECTION. PER REFS A AND B, IT IS NAVY POLICY THAT SHIPS DESIGNATED FOR FMS TRANSFER SHALL NOT BE STRIPPED. STRIPPING OF SHIPS PROVIDES DIMINISHED OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY TO MARITIME PARTNERS AND CORRODES OUR EFFORTS TO BUILD MARITIME PARTNER CAPACITY. SEE PARAGRAPH 3 FOR ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT REMOVAL GUIDANCE.

NOTE 2: DATE INACTIVATION BEGINS IN A NAVAL SHIPYARD AND THE UNIT IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR OPERATIONAL TASKING. FINAL DECOMMISSIONING DATE SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE CNO AND NVR CUSTODIAN IAW REFS B AND C.

NOTE 3: VESSEL WILL BE DECOMMISSIONED AND DISPOSED OF BY DISMANTLEMENT. REQUEST USFFC AND CPF COORDINATE REQUIREMENTS FOR UTILIZING VESSELS IN A LOGISTIC SUPPORT STATUS PRIOR TO THEIR DISMANTLEMENT WITH OPNAV N8F VIA N86.

3. AN OPNAV WORKING GROUP WILL BE REVIEWING THE LOGISTICAL NEEDS OF THE NAVY AND THE CAPABILITY NEEDS OF OUR MARITIME PARTNERS. FLEET REPS, PROGRAM OFFICES, AND FMS STAKEHOLDERS WILL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO JUSTIFY THEIR REQUIREMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT REMOVALS AND EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES TO MITIGATE IMPACT TO FLEET AND INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS AS PART OF THAT REVIEW. DETAILS OF THE WORKING GROUP FORUM WILL BE PROVIDED VIA SEPCOR.

More on this at: http://www.informationdissemination.net/...vation-schedule.html

Quel

Mar 15, 12 18:15

Post #2 of 56 (1739 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

big kahuna wrote:

I'll miss the Port Royal (homeported in Pearl Harbor) most

"Homeported" is a pretty generous term:)

mck414

Mar 15, 12 18:19

Post #3 of 56 (1737 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I wonder what the oldest warship still in commission is? I've only ever been aboard the Dubuque and it was launched in '66.
--------------------------
Sponsored by Hammer Nutrition and Brooks Running
Altitude Multi Sport

My body tells me no, but I won�t quit 'cause I want more

Billabong

Mar 15, 12 18:22

Post #4 of 56 (1732 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [mck414] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

mck414 wrote:

I wonder what the oldest warship still in commission is? I've only ever been aboard the Dubuque and it was launched in '66.

http://www.history.navy.mil/ussconstitution/

All I Wanted Was A Pepsi, Just One Pepsi

http://teamredwhiteandblue.org/

Desiderata

Mar 15, 12 18:22

Post #5 of 56 (1729 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [mck414] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I'll give you a hint: she was named by George Washington and is named after a famous document that he signed.

__________________________________________________
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

(This post was edited by Desiderata on Mar 15, 12 18:23)

big kahuna

Mar 15, 12 18:24

Post #6 of 56 (1723 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [Desiderata] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Been on that gal, too. But I'm not a plankowner. ;-)

big kahuna

Mar 15, 12 18:26

Post #7 of 56 (1719 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [Quel] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Quel wrote:

big kahuna wrote:

I'll miss the Port Royal (homeported in Pearl Harbor) most

"Homeported" is a pretty generous term:)

Yeah, that's some bad juju, and some folks think the ship's got serious material conditions issues that are forcing her decommissioning. I don't know, though. I'll just be sad to see her strike her colors.

Billabong

Mar 15, 12 18:46

Post #8 of 56 (1690 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

worked a couple ships in Pearl, scuttlebutt is that Port Royal is a mess

All I Wanted Was A Pepsi, Just One Pepsi

http://teamredwhiteandblue.org/

big kahuna

Mar 15, 12 18:51

Post #9 of 56 (1680 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [Billabong] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Billabong wrote:

worked a couple ships in Pearl, scuttlebutt is that Port Royal is a mess

Yeah, that's what I've been hearing. Hull issues that took millions to address (as noted in that link I provided, as well), maintenance problems, the whole nine yards. And she's the youngest of the four CGs, too. See what having bad ship drivers and a somewhat-lacking 3M (and PMR) program can do to a fine warship?

iO4

Mar 15, 12 18:56

Post #10 of 56 (1673 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

All the money is in unmanned systems these days. I bet within 20 years there won't be a manned airplane in the air force and most ships will also be largely unmanned as well.
----
Don't hold back

big kahuna

Mar 15, 12 18:58

Post #11 of 56 (1669 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [jO4] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

jO4 wrote:

All the money is in unmanned systems these days. I bet within 20 years there won't be a manned airplane in the air force and most ships will also be largely unmanned as well.

That could indeed be the way of things, sad to say.

tri_yoda

Mar 15, 12 19:39

Post #12 of 56 (1648 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [jO4] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

jO4 wrote:

All the money is in unmanned systems these days. I bet within 20 years there won't be a manned airplane in the air force and most ships will also be largely unmanned as well.

Considering about 40% of the existing fleet is nuclear and the nuclear fleet size is extremely unlikely to be significantly downsized (it really doesn't make a ton of sense to de-comission nuclear ships early, when there is still plenty of gas in the tank), this is probably not going to happen. The Navy has made a sizeable commitment to keeping a pipeline of sailors for its nuclear ships for at least the next 20 years.

AnthonyS

Mar 15, 12 20:56

Post #13 of 56 (1612 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [tri_yoda] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

tri_yoda wrote:

jO4 wrote:

All the money is in unmanned systems these days. I bet within 20 years there won't be a manned airplane in the air force and most ships will also be largely unmanned as well.

The nuclear fleet has already been significantly downsized. Every new nuclear class of vessel sees less and less built. Reagan was the last President to spend a lot of money on new ships. All of those ships are now being decommissioned. It's not like I was ever in a shipyard in a drydock full of submarines being decommissioned or anything like that.

Go look in Janes Fighting Ships at the numbers of submarines being built and what year they were built in. We have no nuclear cruisers anymore (all decommed). And now we are decomming carriers. Frigates, destroyers and all the fleet support ships are not nuclear. Most of the ships are non nuclear. We don't have enough nuke operators as it is. We can't educate or retain enough either.
--------------------------------------------------------

You will remain the same person, before, during and after the race. So the result, no matter how important, will not define you. The journey is what matters. ~ Chrissie W.

last tri in 83

Mar 15, 12 20:58

Post #14 of 56 (1611 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

bad move

_____________________________________________
To err is human, to forgive, canine

BarryP

Mar 15, 12 21:07

Post #15 of 56 (1608 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [last tri in 83] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Tim, I thought you were one of those responsible small government conservative types.
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

last tri in 83

Mar 15, 12 21:28

Post #16 of 56 (1597 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [BarryP] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Own the seas baby.

_____________________________________________
To err is human, to forgive, canine

Steve Hawley

Mar 16, 12 0:07

Post #17 of 56 (1569 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I'm a firm believer in A.T. Mahan thesis in that we [America] are a sea power and as our military [rightly] downsizes I'd much rather the land forces--including the USMC--be downsized as opposed to some sort of 'fair sharing' of the pain. Don't need a large standing Army or Marine Corps and in fact such a state is ahistorical from a American perspective. A large Army just invites adventureism too IMO. Our economy and the whole world's in fact depends upon the free flow of commerce upon open sea lanes and for that you need a large and professional Navy. We can do what we need to do (your odd Grenada, Panama, etc) with a small professional Army & USMC and expand our land forces as necessary when vital national interests are threatened via our Guard and Reserve Forces (very professionalised for another generation due to their involvment in OEF/OIF). Older Perry class FFs are probably more maintenance and personnel intensive than their worth but decommissioning Ticonderoga class aegis missle cruisers seems like cutting meat vice 'fat.' Of course the one based out of Pearl got run up onto the reef outside the harbor--amazing to me in this age of GPS--so maybe it does need to get turned into a new batch of Prius' ?

/r
Steve

Constantine

Mar 16, 12 4:26

Post #18 of 56 (1528 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [Quel] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Nice Starboard list.
Oh no watch out for the reef OOD

YaHey

Mar 16, 12 5:01

Post #19 of 56 (1518 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

On the one hand, I can see why you would be sad to see the navy shrink.

On the other, it's simple economics. We spend all our money to defend our economic competitors? We're not even the hegemon in Asia. Anyway, all this money could be spent for economic rebuilding.

Bruce Wayne

Mar 16, 12 5:04

Post #20 of 56 (1515 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [mck414] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I was on the Dubuque in 1997...good times.

_________________________________________________

vibrolux

Mar 16, 12 5:49

Post #21 of 56 (1482 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [YaHey] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Don't get too excited. As the Navy didn't grow like the Marine Corp or Army did during the last 11 years of war, it also won't see the massive downsizing they will.

big kahuna

Mar 16, 12 6:06

Post #22 of 56 (1473 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [Steve Hawley] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Steve Hawley wrote:

The above episode at LSA Anaconda illustrates why you were a great leader, Steve. You thought of a lot more other things than just the need to stack your weapons and proceed on. You also were willing to take the heat from your own chain of command because you did what you thought was correct from a tactical as well as strategic-thinking viewpoint.

I'm also with you about those Aegis cruisers. That's a lot of blue water capability being taken out of hide that, maybe, could have a place out in Asian waters or WestPac, which I guess is where we're going to shift focus in the near future. I'll leave the force reduction activities for Army and Marine end strength to the folks that are better informed than me on what Army and Marine Corps feels they need.

BarryP

Mar 16, 12 7:20

Post #23 of 56 (1447 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [last tri in 83] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Quote:

Own the seas baby.

We curretly spend more on our military than the next 19 nations combined. So since you think spending more than the next 18 nations combined is a mistake, I'm wondering what you think the right number is. Is 19 too small? Should it be 50? Keep in mind that we are in the most defensible position in the world of any industrialized nation, we have been borrowing to fund our military for over 3 decades, and most of our threats require small special forces and CIA operatives, which has drastically shrunk in the last 20 years.

Really? You think shrinking the military is a mistake?

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

slowguy

Mar 16, 12 7:29

Post #24 of 56 (1443 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [BarryP] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

"Keep in mind that we are in the most defensible position in the world of any industrialized nation, we have been borrowing to fund our military for over 3 decades, and most of our threats require small special forces and CIA operatives, which has drastically shrunk in the last 20 years. "

Nations don't build navies to protect their shorelines, and if you think most of our threats can be fought by special forces and CIA, you're woefully underinformed.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

trail

Mar 16, 12 8:03

Post #25 of 56 (1410 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [slowguy] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

>Nations don't build navies to protect their shorelines,

I'd argue that some do. China, for instance, has little ability with their Navy very far from shore. But taking the Formosa Strait (and therefore two shorelines) from them would be *extremely* hard.

last tri in 83

Mar 16, 12 8:21

Post #26 of 56 (884 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [BarryP] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I think shrinking the Navy (much) is a mistake. See Steve's post above.

Certainly interested in slowguy's take.

_____________________________________________
To err is human, to forgive, canine

(This post was edited by last tri in 83 on Mar 16, 12 8:24)

slowguy

Mar 16, 12 8:24

Post #27 of 56 (877 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [trail] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

"I'd argue that some do. China, for instance, has little ability with their Navy very far from shore. But taking the Formosa Strait (and therefore two shorelines) from them would be *extremely* hard. "

Taking the Taiwan Strait from China would be difficult for a whole host of reasons not having anything to do with their naval prowess.

In general, nations build navies to be able to exercise control over the high seas, where something like 90% of all commerce flows. They build navies to be able to project power outside of their borders. They build navies to be able to expand their spheres of influence.

Sure, some countries have navies that simply aren't big enough to do anything but coastal defense. But major powers typically aren't relying on their navies to protect their shorelines.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

trail

Mar 16, 12 9:10

Post #28 of 56 (859 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [slowguy] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

>Taking the Taiwan Strait from China would be difficult for a whole host of reasons not having anything to do with their naval prowess.

Some of those reasons have everything to do with their naval prowess. One, really.

>Sure, some countries have navies that simply aren't big enough to do anything but coastal defense.

Most, not some. The projection of power across oceans is done by a relative handful of countries. (e.g. major powers)

>But major powers typically aren't relying on their navies to protect their shorelines.

Because they're not at war, for the most part. But the force structure of most major Navys do account for protection of the motherland in event of war. Fortunately, not in effect most of the time.

slowguy

Mar 16, 12 9:38

Post #29 of 56 (849 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [trail] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

"Some of those reasons have everything to do with their naval prowess. One, really."

What "one" reason are you thinking of?

"The projection of power across oceans is done by a relative handful of countries. (e.g. major powers)"

First, that's not entirely true. Second, the ability to project power effectively is part of what makes a nation a major power. Certainly you don't want us to lose that capability.

"Because they're not at war, for the most part. But the force structure of most major Navys do account for protection of the motherland in event of war. Fortunately, not in effect most of the time."

The force structure of some navies accounts for direct protection of shorelines, but not much. A big reason for having a navy is to be able to push your defenses outward. In this day and age, we're not too concerned about naval vessels sitting a mile off shore, bombarding cities with cannons. And we're not particularly concerned with needing our ships to sit in the harbors to prevent other navies from landing on our shores.

Obviously, every navy for every nation serves a slightly different purpose. But in general, the purpose of a navy is to exert control over the seas in an effort to influence trade routes, move your goods or forces quickly to distant locations, and maintain power projection overseas without having to permanently base forces on another country's soil. Some countries do these things more effectively than others.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

(This post was edited by slowguy on Mar 16, 12 9:46)

big kahuna

Mar 16, 12 9:48

Post #30 of 56 (842 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [Steve Hawley] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Steve Hawley wrote:

Mahan was way ahead of his time and his tenets still make strategic sense today. See CDR Slowguy's observations about seapower and force projection as well as how navies are used as an instrument of national policy, which you and CDR Slowguy know better'n me. The FFGs and the Big E I can live with -- though losing an entire platform for combat aircraft, at least until a new one is underway, I dunno... -- but losing four Aegis CGs in one year, when a few of them were supposed to serve as part of that ballistic missile defense system DoD keeps yapping about, makes me scratch my head.

I'd say we might regret losing those, especially if -- as the original link I provided pointed out -- we're starting to move minesweeper assets (four of them) into the Persian Gulf (the link provides the shipping order as well) in preparation for a dustup later in the year with Iran, which seems increasingly likely. And we're also going to regret not having those MK-41 VLS assets in that regard.

BarryP

Mar 16, 12 9:58

Post #31 of 56 (831 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [slowguy] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Quote:

Nations don't build navies to protect their shorelines, and if you think most of our threats can be fought by special forces and CIA, you're woefully underinformed.

I'm only reading the information out of books. Would you care to elborate? What military is a serious threat to the US?

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

BarryP

Mar 16, 12 9:59

Post #32 of 56 (828 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [last tri in 83] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Fair enough.
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

big kahuna

Mar 16, 12 10:06

Post #33 of 56 (823 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [BarryP] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

BarryP wrote:

Quote:

Nations don't build navies to protect their shorelines, and if you think most of our threats can be fought by special forces and CIA, you're woefully underinformed.

I'm only reading the information out of books. Would you care to elborate? What military is a serious threat to the US?

I don't want to answer for CDR Slowguy because he's top hand at this stuff but national navies aren't only an instrument of raw force projection. They're maintained for many other purposes, including influencing the direction of foreign policy (both ours and other nations'), they're there to keep the sea lanes of communication open for the safe passage of maritime shipping of all countries, which makes the world as a whole a much safer place, at least out on the oceans, and because of their ability to carry combat troops as well as combat aircraft they're one of the most versatile platforms for force projection and protection that we can own, if it's needed. I don't think COL Steve and CDR Slowguy and me or any of the other advocates of naval power are arguing against force drawdowns, just that -- in this case -- it seems like the drawdown that's been promulgated in that NAVADMIN message I included isn't making sense in some respects.

There might not be as many 'blue water' threats as there were during the Cold War, but that doesn't mean that our navy won't be challenged out on the high seas or that it won't be required to establish battlespace dominance at some point in the next decade or half-decade or so in a number of potential hot spots (the Strait of Hormuz, the Taiwan Strait, other chokepoints where commercial shipping, for example, could be interrupted).

slowguy

Mar 16, 12 10:06

Post #34 of 56 (822 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [BarryP] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

"I'm only reading the information out of books. Would you care to elborate? What military is a serious threat to the US? "

Really?

Well, China's military poses a serious threat to our ability to influence economic power in Asia.

Iran's military poses a serious threat to the international community (including us), and they have the ability to quickly impose dramatic impacts to our allies in the ME and to global oil prices.

N.Korea's military poses a significant threat to S.Korea, an ally with whom we have a tight relationship and would almost certainly go to war to protect.

Russia's military, poses a threat, although we're not particularly worried about them right now, because relations are more friendly than in the past.

There are several other militaries and terrorist organizations who could threaten us in various ways that special forces and CIA simply are not equipped to counter.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

vibrolux

Mar 16, 12 10:16

Post #35 of 56 (815 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [BarryP] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Don't look at the US Navy in terms of protecting us from other hostile countires. Think of it in terms of a forward projection of our power. What do you think would happen to the sea lanes if we pulled all of our groups back as sat them off the US coasts?

Our shores would be protected, but, there'd be a pretty quick move to close down our merchant marine/cargo activities by those who don't like us.

Read up on some history of the US Navy. After the Revolutionary War, the Navy was actually disbanded and all ships sold off, till our trade with other countries was effected due to piracy. That's when the Navy was again built up and commissioned. Not to directly protect our shores, but, to protect our national interests abroad.

Forward Projection of Power...............

big kahuna

Mar 16, 12 10:22

Post #36 of 56 (814 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [slowguy] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

slowguy wrote:

"I'm only reading the information out of books. Would you care to elborate? What military is a serious threat to the US? "

Really?

Well, China's military poses a serious threat to our ability to influence economic power in Asia.

Iran's military poses a serious threat to the international community (including us), and they have the ability to quickly impose dramatic impacts to our allies in the ME and to global oil prices.

N.Korea's military poses a significant threat to S.Korea, an ally with whom we have a tight relationship and would almost certainly go to war to protect.

Russia's military, poses a threat, although we're not particularly worried about them right now, because relations are more friendly than in the past.

There are several other militaries and terrorist organizations who could threaten us in various ways that special forces and CIA simply are not equipped to counter.

This is the attitude among higher leadership (that SOF and covert agencies are enough when it comes to the threat matrix) that worries me. Lord knows I'm a big fan of spec war and spec ops and the paramilitary stuff that some of our agencies can bring but they're not enough and, in many cases, they're simply "too light to fight" in terms of doing the heavy lifting that's still needed. A lot of folks don't realize that that Army SSG alleged to have done so much bad in Afghanistan was part of a unit providing force protection for the SOF assets in the area. We're going to be in a world of hurt if the prevailing attitude among people in government who should know better is that special forces and special warfare and a few spooks is all we need these days.

slowguy

Mar 16, 12 10:30

Post #37 of 56 (809 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

"We're going to be in a world of hurt if the prevailing attitude among people in government who should know better is that special forces and special warfare and a few spooks is all we need these days."

Agreed. It's a similar mindset to the one that took hold for awhile a few years back that said that air power was all we needed. Just fly high, bomb the shit out of people, and ground and naval forces are overrated. It's simply shortsighted to bore in on any single capability.

Special operations capabilities are a hugely important thing, and I'm glad we're working to expand that capacity, but they eat up a ton of money proportionate to other forces, and simply can't do a lot of what other force can do. They are "special" as in "specialized." They do a very specific and narrowly focused job.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

big kahuna

Mar 16, 12 10:33

Post #38 of 56 (806 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [vibrolux] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

vibrolux wrote:

We are still a maritime nation, and the vast, vast majority of all imported and exported goods in the world also still travels around on ships. I'm thinking that as we've become more disconnected from our maritime heritage, though (as fewer of our "men" (men and women, really) go down to the sea in ships -- relative to our population and the ever-shifting geographic nature of that population), we've started losing sight of how truly important the oceans are to our way of life and to international commerce as well as international peace (as illusory as that sometimes is). Seven-tenths of the planet is made up of water, right? And if the warmists among us are correct about the issues such warming might cause, the struggle between nations for resources -- most of which will travel over the water, or become a struggle for water itself -- could become quite acute in the years ahead. Those nations with a strong navy protecting a healthy merchant marine force will stand the best chance of making it through trying times, I'd say.

slowguy

Mar 16, 12 10:37

Post #39 of 56 (803 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

"Seven-tenths of the planet is made up of water, right? "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qxfzcRvFrA

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

big kahuna

Mar 16, 12 10:43

Post #40 of 56 (800 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [slowguy] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

slowguy wrote:

"Seven-tenths of the planet is made up of water, right? "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qxfzcRvFrA

Awesome. And folks, no matter where in the world they live, even if hundreds or thousands of miles inland, need to remember that we're basically a water planet with tiny outcroppings of land upon which we as a species have thrived.

BarryP

Mar 16, 12 11:03

Post #41 of 56 (791 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [vibrolux] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I fully understand that concept and I also understand the points that LT83 and Steve made regarding "if you have to cut military, cut somewhere else."
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Quel

Mar 16, 12 11:06

Post #42 of 56 (789 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [slowguy] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

The Navy has the best commercials. I'd like to say it's just because they have the coolest toys, but the Air Force has enough cool shit to keep up with them on that front and doesn't.

big kahuna

Mar 16, 12 11:23

Post #43 of 56 (783 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [Quel] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Quel wrote:

The Navy has the best commercials. I'd like to say it's just because they have the coolest toys, but the Air Force has enough cool shit to keep up with them on that front and doesn't.

It's hard not to get emotional when you see that big 'ol bird farm steaming past, loaded to the gunwales ("gunnels") with birds of prey and their helpers. ;-) More'n few tinhorn dictators have shee-ite'd a green brick when one of those things has showed up in the neighborhood, that's for sure. Of course, they show up in the middle of a battle group, and isn't that a sight to see?

travisml

Mar 16, 12 13:23

Post #44 of 56 (759 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Former Reuben James and Enterprise sailor here. Loved my time on the Big E. That makes all four ships I was on have been decommissioned. I was on the decommissioning crew of the USS Canopus (AS-34) and USS Guam (LPH-9).

trav
____________________________________________________
"As for "xxxxxx"...what can I say? You sound like a dick. If you don't want to answer the question, just shut up." AllezPappa

marmentrout

Mar 16, 12 14:20

Post #45 of 56 (747 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [travisml] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

So you're to blame?

--------
"When you stop trading time for money, and spending money to eat up time, you opt out of a perpetual cycle that is keeping you basically imprisoned in a corporate system."

Alvin Tostig

Mar 16, 12 15:41

Post #46 of 56 (735 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [Quel] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Quel wrote:

The Navy has the best commercials. I'd like to say it's just because they have the coolest toys, but the Air Force has enough cool shit to keep up with them on that front and doesn't.

The USN has much better uniforms than the USAF.

Some say "I can". Others say "I can't". Both manage to be correct.

OneGoodLeg

Mar 16, 12 16:24

Post #47 of 56 (726 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [travisml] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Was on the decom crew of the Long Beach (CGN-9) myself. Of the list on this thread, I've also set foot on the Cowpens, visiting an old Great Lakes buddy of mine, and my last division chief before I got out had just come from the Enterprise. At this point, though, realistically I see us needing less ballistic missile capability for what it costs to operate and maintain that shit.

The shift to more smaller, cheaper, more flexible craft seems to be inevitable... Kinda like a forward-deployed version of the Coast Guard; it just won't be our own coasts we're guarding.

last tri in 83

Mar 16, 12 16:59

Post #48 of 56 (718 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Fleet Week was always pretty special when I lived in the bay area.

Now I am right next door to Lemoore NAS so we get the Blue Angels.

_____________________________________________
To err is human, to forgive, canine

slowguy

Mar 16, 12 17:04

Post #49 of 56 (717 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [OneGoodLeg] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

"The shift to more smaller, cheaper, more flexible craft seems to be inevitable... Kinda like a forward-deployed version of the Coast Guard; it just won't be our own coasts we're guarding."

You might think so, but that's what vision started off as for LCS, and now that thing is a monster. Ship building is highly political, and everyone adds their piece into the puzzle. It's like a piece of legislation, and pork keeps getting added. So instead of a whole fleet of flexible, inexpensive, relatively expendable vessels, we have a handful of very expensive, big ships, that we're well behind the delivery timeline for.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

big kahuna

Mar 16, 12 20:58

Post #50 of 56 (691 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [slowguy] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

slowguy wrote:

Your observation above reminds me of the design history of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and especially the movie that was made about it. I think it starred that guy from the Princess Bride (Cary Elwes?) and Robin Hood: Men in Tights, or sommat. The vision for the Bradley was it originally was supposed to be a lightweight, lightly armored battlefield transportation vehicle for squad-sized elements that, through the design and requirements processes, became a beast at one point before saner heads prevailed. Same thing happens almost every time to the lead ship in a class, like the LCS you highlighted. As you say; it's all about politics and pork, unfortunately. I'm amazed useful platforms end up coming out in spite of all that nonsense.

Constantine

Mar 19, 12 3:55

Post #51 of 56 (415 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Yep FSA for the LCS.

Austal Shipbuilding had plenty of reason to drink green beer this weekend following the US Navy�s confirmation of two more orders for Austal USA-built Littoral Combat Ships (LCS).
The US$691 million contract options fund construction of the Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10) and Omaha (LCS 12), the third and fourth ships in the 10 ship block buy award made to an Austal-led team in December 2010. That 10 ship program is potentially worth over US$3.5 billion. As a result of this contract, Austal�s order backlog as grown by US$691 million.

The rest here:
http://gcaptain.com/...ontent=Yahoo%21+Mail

I miss the Iowa Class 16's

Specifications Class: Iowa-class battleship
Length: 887 feet 3 inches
Beam: 108 feet 3 inches
Draft: 34 feet 9 1/4 inches
Weight: 58,000 tons (full load)
Speed: In excess of 30 knots
Boilers: Eight 600 PSI Babcock & Wilcox
Main Engines: Four geared GE turbines
Anchors: Two 30,000 lb. anchors - port and starboard
Armor: The main armor belt of the hull is 13.5" thick
WWII Crew: 134 Officers, 2,400 enlisted
Prior to decommissioning: Navy officers 64, Marine Corp officers 2, Navy enlisted 1,500, 38 Marines.
Main Gun Battery: Nine 16"/50 caliber guns in three turrets, with 2,700 lb armor piercing projectiles and
1,900 lb high capacity projectiles. Rate of fire
- two rounds per min. per gun.
Following the 1987 reactivation, Missouri deployed Tomahawk Cruise Missiles.

big kahuna

Mar 19, 12 14:22

Post #52 of 56 (383 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [Constantine] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Had the "privilege" of being in the vicinity on a number of occasions, on shore in Lebanon, when one a those bad boys let fly with her 16-inchers. Naval gunfire, when it's done right, is a sight to see, and feel. The earth feels like it's moving, even if you're several miles away.

As to those LCS ships, well it looks like the brown water folks got their dream boats, though they look like swollen ticks to me. ;-) That naval gun looks mighty lonely up there near the prow, too. Is that an R2D2 up at the top of what passes for the mast? The thing looks pretty fast, I gotta admit.

tri_yoda

Mar 19, 12 16:11

Post #53 of 56 (372 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [AnthonyS] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

AnthonyS wrote:

tri_yoda wrote:

jO4 wrote:

All the money is in unmanned systems these days. I bet within 20 years there won't be a manned airplane in the air force and most ships will also be largely unmanned as well.

The nuclear cruisers were decommissioned almost 15 years ago, that is old news. There has been no announced reduction in the nuclear fleet in at least 10 years.

(This post was edited by tri_yoda on Mar 19, 12 16:30)

tri_yoda

Mar 19, 12 16:29

Post #54 of 56 (368 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [AnthonyS] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

(This post was edited by tri_yoda on Mar 19, 12 16:31)

AnthonyS

Mar 19, 12 16:44

Post #55 of 56 (355 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [tri_yoda] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I'm pretty bummed you edited your post. I really liked the version where you were sad and whipping out your e peen better.

Anyway, yes nuclear cruisers have been gone a long time now. The number of nuclear subs is way down too. While the Exposureprize is ling overdue there is simply nothing to replace it.

With 50% drawing govt assistance our other nuclear ships days are numbered too. Socialism is epic failure waiting to happen.

tri_yoda wrote:

AnthonyS wrote:

tri_yoda wrote:

jO4 wrote:

All the money is in unmanned systems these days. I bet within 20 years there won't be a manned airplane in the air force and most ships will also be largely unmanned as well.

The nuclear cruisers were decommissioned almost 15 years ago, that is old news. There has been no announced reduction in the nuclear fleet in at least 10 years.

--------------------------------------------------------

You will remain the same person, before, during and after the race. So the result, no matter how important, will not define you. The journey is what matters. ~ Chrissie W.

tri_yoda

Mar 20, 12 17:58

Post #56 of 56 (313 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [AnthonyS] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

AnthonyS wrote:

tri_yoda wrote:

AnthonyS wrote:

tri_yoda wrote:

jO4 wrote:

All the money is in unmanned systems these days. I bet within 20 years there won't be a manned airplane in the air force and most ships will also be largely unmanned as well.

The nuclear cruisers were decommissioned almost 15 years ago, that is old news. There has been no announced reduction in the nuclear fleet in at least 10 years.

Tell us some more shipyard stories. Tell us more about the nuclear training pipeline.

Tell me when your open literature sources say the Navy is planning to inactivate the first OHIO Class submarine? Until they inactivate the first one, the ballistic missile fleet is not getting any smaller.

Tell me what the current build rate is for the VIRGINIA Class and what your open literature sources tell you is the inactivation schedule for the LOS ANGELES Class. Until the inactivation rate is greater than the build rate, the fast attack fleet is not getting any smaller.

Then do some basic math. Then explain to me how the submarine fleet is shrinking. The submarine fleet was downsized in the late 90s in response to the end of the cold war. Since the late 90s (15 years ago), they have not announced any additional plans to downsize the nuclear fleet. You do know that we currently have more nuclear carriers than we have ever had at any time in the history of the navy.

Everything you posted is dated generalizations that are not accurate about the near future of the nuclear navy. Yes, the fleet may be continuing to shrink, but not the nuclear part. Big surprise, since if you really want to talk about projected force, the nuclear Navy is the it.

(This post was edited by tri_yoda on Mar 20, 12 18:02)