Mitt Romneys Navy.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Navy1960, Oct 10, 2012.

  1. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    The current level of ships, 285 in fiscal 2011, is actually not even the lowest since 1916. The historical list shows that the lowest ship force was reached during the Bush administration, when the number of ships fell to 278 in 2007. Given the change over time in the composition of the naval force, that probably is the most relevant comparison — and the trend line is up.

    Romney’s pledge to build 15 more ships per year, including three submarines, also is less than meets the eye. The current Navy plan is to build 34 ships over the next four years — 10 in 2013 — including seven submarines as part of its goal to reach at least 300 ships by 2019. (The Congressional Budget Office, however, has raised questions about whether this plan is feasible.)
    Mitt Romney’s claim that the Navy is as small as in 1916 - The Washington Post

    A couple of things come to mind here, one is a common misconception that building more ships per year equals a massive Fleet size. It does not, in fact according to John Lehman former Navy Sec. and one of the architects of Mitt Romneys plan here it will equate to an additional Carrier Battle Group and Air Wing, which seems to make sense if one understands that at least One Carrier is always out of service for various reasons , not the least of which is repairs that are always scheduled. The other thing that is overlooked here is the age of the current FFG-7 frigates which will soon be retired. So given these factors a plan to restore these and keep an additional Carrier Battle Group at Sea makes sense. While yes, it makes no sense at all to ask the Americans to cut programs and yet at the same time increase spending to make this happen, it does make sense to increase revenue in whatever method you wish to increase it in order to make your plans come to reality without impacting the budget. Another thing overlooked here is this, shipbuilding in this nation employs a great many Americans as well as the many industries that support it, such as Steel, Electronics, and hundreds of others. The article in The Post seems to be caught up in numbers and capability of current Naval assests rather than age and economic impact as well as force projection. For example, the older a ship is, the more it takes to keep that ship effective and at Sea, in terms of dollars and manpower, etc. I admit when I first heard of this plan by Mitt Romney it made little sense, however if the Navy builds these ships with a keen eye on keeping costs down, and for once pays attention not to the need of the contractors , but to the need of the Navy then it makes sense.
     
  2. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,283
    Thanks Received:
    19,826
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,348
    The numbers are irrelevant. Especially in a historical context

    It all comes down to threat, mission and battle readiness

    Newer ships have greater range, require less support and have much more lethality. It should be expected that we have a smaller fleet....which does not necesarily correlate to a weaker fleet
     
  3. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    That's just the point though, it makes perfect sense to advocate for replacing ships such as the FFG -7 Class OHP, which is approaching 30 years, as well as ships like the USS Enterprise which is over 45 years old and set to retire. There comes a time in a ships life-cycle where it becomes less lethal and technology catches up to it, as well as the costs to keep it at Sea are higher in the long term than those to replace it. My point here is that some see the sheer number of ships and think that equals a massive Fleet and it does not. Heres another thing that people seem to discount, no matter how lethal a ship is once it is at the bottom of the ocean it is no longer lethal, and you can have the best Missile platform ever devised but if you only have a few and all those are gone , you have no more Missile platforms. My feelings are that a fleet should consist of ships that meet the needs of the Fleet regardless of size, and should not only be lethal , but also be cost effective. Thats the rub here RW, I suspect with DODs spending habits in the last 15 years, the word cost effective has little meaning, especially when you look at the F-35 and what a spending cow that program is.
     
  4. Franticfrank
    Offline

    Franticfrank Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    Messages:
    250
    Thanks Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +23
    I agree that the numbers aren't too important in this case. A more advanced and powerful vessel equipped with advanced over the horizon weaponry could fill the position of six older and less capable ships. Also, the United States Navy has more battle tonnage than the next thirteen navies combined. I don't think Mitt needs to press this issue too strongly.
     
  5. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,283
    Thanks Received:
    19,826
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,348
    With todays missile technology, many of our ships are just targets anyway. In a real shooting war (which hasn't happened to the US in over 65 years), older ships would not last too long as was seen in the Falklands.

    Ships need to be smaller, faster and more stealthy
     
  6. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    Which makes a good case for a smaller , yet faster, and cheaper Ship that can be built in numbers with stealth technology. Heres a good example.

    The Sa’ar 5 only requires a crew of 71, costs far less to buy, support, and operate. Its smaller size makes it more difficult to target and its smaller draft allows it to operate in shallow waters. These three "Israeli" ships are built by Ingalls shipyard in Mississippi in 1995, the same location where the current Aegis destroyers are made. As a result, politicians should have no objections to building three Sa'ar frigates each year in place of one fewer Aegis DD-51 destroyer. The Navy would not need billions of dollars to develop and test these frigates, it could simply place an order this year for a Sa'ar design fitted with current Navy communications systems.
    21st CENTURY FRIGATES TODAY

    As a suggestion the Navy could build an updated version of a ship like this rather than a bloated LCS, for shallow waters and end up with a mixed fleet which is larger, more lethal and more cost effective and still have room for an additional Carrier Battle Group.
     
  7. Oldguy
    Offline

    Oldguy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Messages:
    4,328
    Thanks Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +592
    It's nice that Mitt has developed such a great love for the US Navy.

    Too bad he didn't love it all that much when he COULD have served in it on Yankee Station.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  8. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    Romney's advocating for building 15 ships a year and submarines.

    Seriously?

    15 ships is ALOT..and submarines are basically obsolete.
     
  9. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    Actually it's not , it's a little more than we are building right now, and as the current plan calls for a Fleet size of 313 Ships and Mitt Romneys plan calls for a Fleet size of 350 it represents an increase of one Carrier Battle Group and one Carrier Air Wing. As for being obsolete, submarines are no where near obsolete, while yes it's true that submarines are not performing the same mission they did during the cold war , if you looked you will find that large number of our long range strikes now are performed by submarines and several of the older Ohio class Ballistic Missile submarines have been restasked to perform new missions that are more suited to today. While there is little need to spend large sums of money on ships in my humble opinion that have a Cold War type stance that have cost large sums of money and use the "put all our eggs in one basket" so to speak, there is a large need to replace older ships with smaller , faster and more lethal, and cost effective ships and yes submarines as well. It's not my contention at all, to suggest we do this at the expense of programs that Americans enjoy, and to suggest we cut taxes and also do this is wreckless to say the least. In fact, it makes more sense that if this is your goal to increase the size of the Fleet, and replace those ships that need it, and I happen to agree with that, then pay for it, and not only that, make sure when you do, your getting what you asked for in terms of dollars and getting it on time.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2012
  10. Oldguy
    Offline

    Oldguy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Messages:
    4,328
    Thanks Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +592
    I could support a larger Navy. In fact, a MUCH larger Navy as I believe it is the basic, absolutely essential military force.

    However, I would not support paying for it with more borrowed dollars.

    Here's a suggestion to raise money for expanding the fleet:

    1. Reduce the size of the Active Duty Army to little more than a rapid reaction force and Special Operations, but upgrade the National Guard and Reserves to much more rapidly mobilized BCT's which could fall in on pre-positioned equipment and be gone in days, rather than weeks or months.

    2. Eliminate every mission of the Air Force except aerial warfare.

    3. Eliminate the Marine Corps totally. We don't need two ground combat forces.

    4. Cut out about 3/4 of the General or Flag officer slots. We have far too many senior officers running around doing nothing.

    5. Close the service academies. They're no longer producing combat leaders, but managers and we have enough of them. ROTC and OCS can do a better job.
     

Share This Page