Comments on: US Navy Plan Suffers Deficiencies

By: Valcan

Valcan — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:10:39 +0000

Hell the damn chinese got close enough to ask for a delivery fee..you want fried rice?…sigh im going to hell.
So if no bb what about a replacment…something with serious armor, nuke powered for power, crapload of antiair and missile defenses, crusie missiles for longer range firesupport or something like it. rail guns eventually though i have to wonder how theyll do it and if it would be worth the cost from what ive heard there big problem is that firing the guns pretty much destroys them…oh well i still think big gun naval arty is the way to go not 155mm but 14 to 16in.
Hell way i see it is this china probbly has something close to aegis probbly so does russia. The land based phalanx system is pretty much a naval anti air system tied to the radar…well if they can build them they can sell em what happenes when say a power like iran or syria buys them rendering our naval missiles, aircraft,(dont give me that stealth crap theyve beaten it before)arnt expected to be able to penetrate? youll have to spend retarded amounts of money firing 5mil missiles so 4 out of 5 are shot down. What is the cost in lives and dollars when a 140mil f22 gets reduced to scrap?
anyways we have seen the enemy and he uses mass attack tactics.….why because they work. a marine proved that using small cheap ships you could sink a carrier battle group. More AA and antimissile.

By: M167A1

M167A1 — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:05:14 +0000

The current rate of SSN production isn’t enough to replace the 688s as they are retired. This should be doubled.
Reduce the Ohio fleet to 10 and convert the retires to the Ohio SSGN configuration.
Delay CVN production as much as possible, just keep enough work to maintain the yard.
I don’t see the utility of build more Burkes. Why pout more money into a dated design? Maybe we could use it as a basis for a follow-on but it dosn’t meet the landing support requirement.
Sorry BB fans, these were great ships but they are too expensive to run. Having said that what is so hard about building a ship with armor some heavy Arty on it? Seems the navy thinks this isn’t cool anymore.
As someone also said, prety much the whole CV air wing is F-18s. We could use a S-3 replacement or reactivation. Some jackass in a Kilo is going to creep up and pop a Nimitz one of these days.

By: stephen russell

stephen russell — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:48:38 +0000

Reuse SSBNs for Sub Training OR marine research mobile labs,
Ramp up UAV Dev & production.
Ramp up Multipurpose Submersibles
Do a carrier 1X for 10 years.
Merge DDX & CG 51 Projects to cut costs.
CUT Navy Dept bureaucracy alone.
Make ships more Multipurpose?
Retrain crews?
New names for ships:
USS, USNS:
John Wayne
Clint Eastwood
Burt Lancaster
Cold Harbor
Gettysburg
Concord
Kirk Douglas
Lord Nelson from RN?
Apache
Zuni
Comanche

By: Valcan

Valcan — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:46:12 +0000

Gentlemen, bring back the battleships.
in a word..amen iread some where a iowa class could take something like 17 hits from modern anti ship missiles. though with the room and power available(nuke power of course) for anti missile systems doubt anywhere near that many could get through. With upgrades in weapons new main guns rocket assisted etc… well it would scare the crap out of anyone stupid enough to mess with its battlegroup.
When the North Vietnamese wanted to negotiate they always demanded the battleships be sent away. When you command that much fear from an enemy there must be a reason

By: Sarls

Sarls — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:14:22 +0000

Gentlemen, bring back the battleships. A couple conventional Capital ships have the presence and armament, plus the ability to recruit Americans, that the Navy is looking for. Admiral Carey explains:
http://www.military.com/Opinions/1,14790,Carey_031505-P2,00.html

By: Valcan

Valcan — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:02:54 +0000

No one has the Nuc Subs we deploy or even have any on the drawing boards.
thats kinda the point. sigh the best a country can do is to become so powerful and make the idea of attacking them so insane that they dont even have to go to war.
doesnt work with terrorist groups but superpowers
think twice
as for the ddg 1k i think its just not the right time for something like that maybe never there to expensive though some of the systems are good ideas. One thing i think the navy needs to do and yes i know ive said it a thousand times is beef up anti missile systems threwout the fleet

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:00:28 +0000

you love life ?100 — — class happy line ?-007 ?

By: ???

??? — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:00:28 +0000

???you love life?????????????100?????????????? -????????-??????????????????????????????????????????class??????????????happy line??????????????????????-007?????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????

By: pfcem

pfcem — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:16:43 +0000

HPC,
Your LACK of undersanding of reality is disturbing.
You can’t even build an Arleigh Burke for less than $1 billion.
There is a term for a “thousand less capable ships” — FODDER.

By: HPC

HPC — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:37:51 +0000

Overall, that is stupidist list I have read yet, mainly for the Sub hysteria. It needs a Gates slap down.
If the USN can’t keep cost under 1 billion dollars per ship/sub, I don’t care what they think they want or need, it will never happen; especially given the economic times, the Pres, and reality that there are no conventional Land, Sea, or Air threats of any consequence whatsoever, now, and most likely in the future. Big bad China, and Global Warming resource wars are the biggest rational proponents push for this pipe dream. Keep wishing for that BS.
I do agree, build more of what we already have, including Carriers, and build dozens of shallow draft ships like the X-Craft, and stop wasting money on DDG1000, and cold war Subs. Something like Sweden’s new Visby-class corvettes stealth ships seem like a good approach.
I would rather have a thousand less capable ships, instead of ten super ships like the DDG whatever. It is after all about presence, since ship/sub to ship/sub (and air to air) warfare is history. I am a big fan in large numbers.
I already know some of you are going to slam me for the hubris of knowing the future, and that everyone is really out to get us. I will respond. Plan and buy for what is the hear and now and likely future. Seems like a better idea to buy things we use regularly, instead of things that may use, if the stars align. Keeping the sea lanes open, is the primary task. That is short version since I don’t feel like writing an essay on world affairs.