Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: If The Money Is Not There, Neither Are The Ships
SYSOP    9/11/2014 5:13:46 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
shep854A1       9/11/2014 7:25:36 AM
Wow.  I remember when $1 billion for the Kennedy was shocking.
 
Quote    Reply

HR       9/11/2014 9:39:38 AM
I sincerely hope no one comes out in defense of the Navy's procurement practices. They might not be the worst, that distinction goes to the Air Force and the Marines in that order, but they are not great. The article is a little bit bias. The Spruance where optimized for submarine warfare and the Burkes where impossible to up-grade economically so there was some logic to both of those decisions. They are also having problems with both budgets and how they will operate the amphibs for the Marines. So they do have a few things that complicate their decision making.
 
Quote    Reply

Tamerlane       9/11/2014 9:44:49 AM
Concur with HR.  If you have the specs for a flying armored submarine, call the MC.  Don't worry bout no stinking requirements, they will eventually be rewritten to match the specs.
 
Quote    Reply

faster_blue       9/11/2014 8:25:09 PM
Need to auction off the Fleet carriers.  They are just big slow targets anyway.
 
Free up lots of budget plus reduce the need for escorts.  A win win.  The politics of America here in the early years of the 21st century will not support force projection, which is what carriers do. Look at all the hassle over bombing a few goat herders.  
Get 500,000 American voters surrounding the Pentagon, demanding health care instead of Nuclear Carriers and see how quickly the politicians respond.   High Command is living in their own little world.  Defence will be cut 90% by 2025.
 
Quote    Reply

HeavyD       9/11/2014 10:43:57 PM

 
Why Zumwalt anyway?  For shore bombardment?!?  When have we ever really needed that in the last 30 years?  Hell, what are all of those fleet carriers for - or is the Navy or the Marine's own pilots as dismissive of CAS as the Air Force is?  
 
The US does not need to be 10x stronger or more capable than the next country - we need to fund the promises we've already made to the millions who have already served more than we need to spend billions every year defending Japan against China, for example.
 
Quote    Reply

HR    LCS   9/16/2014 1:32:40 PM
Since we are talking about the Navy why not bring in some news about the LCS, http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140724/DEFREG02/307240028/LCS-Conduct-Test-Norwegian-Missile
 
Quote    Reply

HR    LCS part deux   9/16/2014 1:38:08 PM
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    HR   9/16/2014 3:05:14 PM
"To date, only the first LCS, Freedom, has launched a missile. "
 
Can this really be correct?  Some of the LCS's are operational - are they not?   One missile live fire?  Really?
 
Quote    Reply

HR    joe6   9/16/2014 3:18:03 PM
They all have fired missiles. And are equipped with Hell Fires. The short history is that they where supposed to have shared a beyond line of sight missile that the Army was developing. The Army cancelled it. So they defaulted to Hell Fire which is OK for fast boats, et al but not for larger ships. This missile that they testing is 500 Lbs one and it has more range than they need. But it is available with out any risky development cost. Right now they are just firing it... they still need to tie it to sensors and see what they can do about detecting targets further out. The article says all that.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    HR   9/16/2014 3:21:08 PM
So to be clear..
 
 They put to sea - having tested hellfires ?
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics