The U.S. Navy's Master Plan to Rebuild Its Sub Fleet

[Disir]

The United States Navy is reexamining how many nuclear attack submarines it will in need in the coming decades in light of a resurgent Russia and an increasingly hostile China. Both of those nations are rapidly building fleets that are challenging the U.S. Navy’s ability to control the undersea domain.

Right now, the Navy has a standing requirement for forty-eight nuclear attack submarines—however, that number was set in 2006 when the international security situation was different. Faced with a Russia that is fielding advanced submarines and a China that is building a larger, but qualitatively inferior undersea fleet, forty-eight American attack submarines will not be enough.

“The security environment has changed a great deal since then, so I’ve commissioned a study to reassess that level this year,” Adm. John Richardson, chief of naval operations, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 15.

Richardson points out, however, that during the 2020s the number of attack boats in the fleet will dip below even the current requirement—leaving the Navy with only forty-one attack submarines by 2029. “That’s got us very concerned,” Richardson said. “We’re about able to meet about 50 to 60 percent of combatant command demands right now—so it’s a very high demand asset.”

Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, added that the problem has been long in the making because the service had not built submarines in adequate numbers in previous years. If the Navy fails to build submarines in adequate numbers in the coming years, the attack submarine shortage will continue to get worse. “You just don’t make that up,” Mabus said.

Going forward, Mabus said the Navy is committed to building two Virginia-class submarines per year. However, the Ohio Replacement Program (ORP)—as it is currently structured—will force the Navy to build only one Virginia-class boat per year starting in 2021. The Navy is currently working on a plan to continue building two Virginia-class boats while also building ORP ballistic missile submarines.
The U.S. Navy's Master Plan to Rebuild Its Sub Fleet

You have to read a little bit more into it but they are worried about funding.....of course.

 

[shadow355]

The future of warfare. The US Navy and Air Force.

Two subs a year would be nice. One a year evens out to longevity - when a sub meets its end, two would have to be replaced instead of just one. So replacing one ( after building only one a year ) a year seems better in my opinion.

I would hope that the Politicians would see that deploying hordes of ground troops is overly expensive. Yes, Ships an Aircraft and associated weaponry are expensive, like a Tomahawk Missile is about 1.5 Million dollars per launch. BUT, human lives are not in jeopardy, you done the job quicker with ordinance than could have been done with troops, and with troops you have a sustained costs; such as Food, Shelter, Ammo, Danger / Hazard pay, Fuel for vehicles and aircraft to transport them, Increased logistics headaches and worries, medical bills from injury and prolonged medical bills from longevity medical problems.

So.....Navy and Air Force platforms however seen as expensive...is cheaper in the long run. MUCH - MUCH cheaper.

Yes, you have to have a certain number of Troops on the ground. But with Navy Ships and Air Force aircraft - most jobs can be done faster, and more economical in terms of money and time.

Washington likes to window shop. Videos from News organizations of troops parachuting into combat areas, troops walking onto C-130 and C-141 aircraft, tanks speeding across the desert ......equals a fat politician behind a desk saying "Voters.....get a load of that." When the voters say "You could have saved seventeen trillion dollars by letting the Air Force and Navy do the bulk of the work."

When I was in the Gulf ( 1991 ) we still used ordinance, and even thermite grenades.....that were Vietnam era ordinance. So at that time we were using ordinance ( grenades - bombs - mortar ammo ) and some rifle ammo ; that essentially was already paid for.

Example = Just because your budget is 5 million dollars a year, does not mean you have to spend that entire 5 million dollars. Save money for contingencies / unforeseen problems..... and put money back each year for replacement of expensive items every three years or so. Your equipment stays relatively new - which employees like, and you save on expensive maintenance costs by not using old, and outdated equipment.

One has to set back and look at the future of warfare. Where will warfare be 10, 15 or even 20 years from now, and where will it be? Everyone in the 1960s - 70s and 80s seen Russia as the devil. Now it is the Middle East and Terrorism, along with those non-religious ( non Muslim ) people whom like the excitement of picking up a Ak-47 and doing a shooting rampage, OR bombing innocent women and children....because they simply enjoy the excitement.

Shadow 355