Jump to content


Photo

Us Navy Ship Number Increase Goal Announced

Carrier Destroyer Attack Submarine LHD

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 December 2016 - 0522 AM

Giving follies regarding the development of some new US Navy warships, budget constraints, and concerns about overwork, is such an increase in size possible?

 

Associated article and type-by-type breakdown:

Spoiler

 

And the text of the requirement itself:

Spoiler

 

http://www.defensene...-goal-355-ships



#2 Corinthian

Corinthian

    Stone Age Bitter Delusional Retard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,057 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peek-a-boo, I'm behind you.
  • Interests:Wholesome stuff.

Posted 18 December 2016 - 0600 AM

No BBs? I is a disappoint.

 

:lol:



#3 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 December 2016 - 0622 AM

Why don't they want some BBs with 3 triple-railgun turrets? :)

#4 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,939 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 18 December 2016 - 0624 AM

52 LCS?
fifty two ships that cannot. or how many do they want to buy?


more super bugs. is the production line still open?

#5 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,022 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 18 December 2016 - 0916 AM

"...Aegis-equipped cruisers and destroyers..."

More Ticonderogas and Burkes, or are there new designs in the works?



#6 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,161 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 18 December 2016 - 1947 PM

What are the chances of the new administration follows with that expansion?

 

Especially after the less-than-stellar performance of the LCSs.



#7 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 December 2016 - 0111 AM

What are the chances of the new administration follows with that expansion?
 
Especially after the less-than-stellar performance of the LCSs.


Probably fairly good as Trump has said after the election that he wants a 350 ship navy. If the pentagon can reduce waste spending, chances improve.

#8 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,952 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 19 December 2016 - 0302 AM

Why don't they want some BBs with 3 triple-railgun turrets? :)

 

Stargate Command has first dibs on railguns.



#9 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 December 2016 - 0308 AM

Why don't they want some BBs with 3 triple-railgun turrets? :)

 
Stargate Command has first dibs on railguns.

For a certain Prometheus?

#10 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,952 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 19 December 2016 - 0313 AM

Atlantis, actually



#11 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 December 2016 - 0408 AM

:)

#12 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,939 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 19 December 2016 - 0753 AM

But that is spaceship is run by USAF. So the USN won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

#13 Halidon

Halidon

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 December 2016 - 1022 AM

"...Aegis-equipped cruisers and destroyers..."
More Ticonderogas and Burkes, or are there new designs in the works?

These would be a new design, if approved. Pretty good chance it would use an existing hull for cost reasons, but only one which is in production right now or at the time the greenlight is given.

#14 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,028 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 20 December 2016 - 1251 PM

I thought that several Ticonderogas were placed out of service pending the funding of a modernization program. Anyone remember such a thing?



#15 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,028 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 20 December 2016 - 1255 PM

Of course when a politician announces a nice round ship number as a military necessity, we can be almost certain there is no military justification for such a figure, as war plans generally exceed them. The best example was the Reagan/Lehman 600 Ship Navy, and the only justification I could find was...wait for it...25 per time zone. So a 350 Ship Navy can't even speak to that, being uneven in such distribution.



#16 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 December 2016 - 0700 AM

Of course when a politician announces a nice round ship number as a military necessity, we can be almost certain there is no military justification for such a figure, as war plans generally exceed them. The best example was the Reagan/Lehman 600 Ship Navy, and the only justification I could find was...wait for it...25 per time zone. So a 350 Ship Navy can't even speak to that, being uneven in such distribution.

 

To that, still a meaningful thing about Trump's 350 is that it implies a policy that turns around from reduction to increase. I'm pretty sure Obama would not say something to imply increasing ships as he thinks the US military is already more than big enough.


Edited by JasonJ, 21 December 2016 - 0700 AM.


#17 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,140 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 December 2016 - 2214 PM

Why not burkes / ticos forever?

I could see pushing for reduction in manning requirements and systems improvements, but is there any realistic threat on the horizon they wouldn't be able to handle?

Edited by Burncycle360, 22 December 2016 - 2220 PM.


#18 Corinthian

Corinthian

    Stone Age Bitter Delusional Retard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,057 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peek-a-boo, I'm behind you.
  • Interests:Wholesome stuff.

Posted 22 December 2016 - 2243 PM

I like how the Japanese and Worst Koreans have somewot improved on the Arleigh Burke design, thought it makes the design top heavy. I've wondered why the US didn't do a similar evolution thing for the Arleigh Burkes.



#19 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 December 2016 - 1434 PM

I like how the Japanese and Worst Koreans have somewot improved on the Arleigh Burke design, thought it makes the design top heavy. I've wondered why the US didn't do a similar evolution thing for the Arleigh Burkes.

 

The US seemed to have put most of their destroyer-class development eggs into the revolutionary basket with the Zumwalt and LCS rather than evolutionary. With the reduction of the Zumwalt, it looks like the Burke-class will reach flight III, whatever upgrades that includes.



#20 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 25 December 2016 - 2221 PM

I suppose this is the first play for a post-Obama budget. I suppose we'll see similar wishlists from the AF and Army soon enough.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users