US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


gosh "... to put as many ships under contract as possible to plus up the Navy’s numbers quickly. That would likely mean a reversal of Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s decision to cap the Littoral Combat Ship and frigate buy at 40 ships back to at least 52 ..."
Randy Forbes is the Favorite for Trump’s Secretary of the Navy
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
gosh "... to put as many ships under contract as possible to plus up the Navy’s numbers quickly. That would likely mean a reversal of Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s decision to cap the Littoral Combat Ship and frigate buy at 40 ships back to at least 52 ..."
Randy Forbes is the Favorite for Trump’s Secretary of the Navy
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Or it could possibly mean further budget cuts on defense spending, therefore them while they're still hot before Congress takes those money away.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
From a French Blogger specialized for naval matters, very interesting and i am going for use it with my precedent.

NB : planned an increase of 100 fighters only for active seems in fact now 1250 fighter and ANG + Reserve have 700, total 1950.

Make US Navy Great Again ?

This November 9th, 2016 American voters elect Donald J. Trump (1946 - ...) as the 45th President of the United States of America. The new Commander has the necessary powers to decide on the format and use of the US armed forces. There is every reason to be interested in his proposals about the US Navy. The naval force of Ronald Reagan is cited as a reference point. Make US Navy Great Again?

Building a broad military effort remains to fund its proposal concerning the national security safeguard response capabilities. They do not appear to strengthen the projection of power at the expense of projection forces, much less an administration to the detriment of others. The general format would be raised with the transition from 470 to 540 000 men for the US Army and 182,000 (24 battalions) to 240 000 men (36) for the US Marine Corps. The US Air Force dates back to 1100-1200 hunters. The US Navy date back to 276-340 ships. Without extensive financial analysis, it turns out, in this reading, that the military effort announced does not seem to reverse the current logic.

Make US Navy Great Again? Not exaggerate because even halved since the Reagan era (peak to 590 ships for a declared goal of 600 cases), the Navy of the United States remains, with 276 combat ships this year (lowest since 1915) both qualitatively and quantitatively, the world's naval force. And the US Navy is even the second air force in the world.

A profound change occurs because Reagan was to be measured in the Red Fleet of the Soviet Union while the other important marine were allied to Washington. Today, the global shipbuilding situation is much more mixed and diluted American naval power. The MAPL (Navy of the People's Liberation Army) is the world's second navy in volume and asserts, program after program, mission after mission, as a force of military credibility without constantly reinforced. India tends to reach third place, spurred by rivalry with Beijing. Japan and South Korea competing with European marine and exceed in many areas, mainly the surface fleet. The situation was better bed for carrier battle groups as the goal of 15 aircraft carrier is lowered to 11 "only" while India and China aspire to maintain each in 4 of 2030, England 2, France 1.

The current programming retains a target of 308 boats by the decade 2020. The naval plan proposed by Trump carries the objective to 340 ships. The threshold of 300 warships would be taken before 2020. It is not the 600 ships Reagan. The use of the surface is preferred in proposals to counter the missile threat.

How Donald J. Trump he manage to support the goal during his first presidential term?

Indicatively, the model of 308 ships to perform during the 2020s included in a congressional report:

• 12 SSBN (X) or Columbia class;
• SSN 48 (Los Angeles and merged classes Virginia);
• 11 aircraft carriers;
• 88 cruisers and destroyers (Zumwalt class, Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke);
• 52 frigates (LCS and its potential developments);
• 34 amphibious units;
• 29 logistic units;
• 34 support vessels.

The administrative and industrial inertia consume time and energy. The difficulty is reinforced by the inability to translate NAVSEA Naval needs in successful programs for the surface fleet and even submarine fleet (financial difference between a Seawolf and Virginia is not particularly bright). The setbacks DD (X) (Zumwalt class) and LCS (Littoral Combat Ship Freedom of classes and Independence) limited the opportunities for power recovery.

The number of SNA Virginia produced each year could only be observed, again in phase lead with two units ordered each year before the initial deadline of 2021. Decision potentially save the extension of Los Angeles Flight I and II, even 688I. And why not three controlled units each year? Scale effects induced with the reconstruction of a sub-marinade around a class of attack submarine in the context of a naval force invited to consider this hypothesis pending SSN (X) 2030s .

The acceleration of the aircraft carrier program with the command by one every year or two virtually in phase advance (this had already occurred in the 1980s), optimize the industrial chain. Except that Trump has not (yet) committed to a return to the target of 15 aircraft carriers. And visibility of such an investment would only affect a possible second term of Trump. Especially since it would involve Carrier Air Wing (CVW) extra (ten in operation today) while the current constitution CVW already consume appropriations even amputating the construction of other boats.

Is it possible to run even more Arleigh Burke? Trump has pledged to increase the number in all cases. This would increase as the number of escorts that provide for the replacement of older units. As for "frigates", the target of the LCS program stopped 40 units after a set of decisions rather confused. Alternative fault, the program could be continued serenely at great structural decisions, such as a final specialization of units due to the failure of mission modules and especially stopping a choice in favor of one of the two hulls.

The modernization of Ticonderoga cruisers (22 units), another commitment of the new US President, compete or be added to the proposal of Huntington Ingalls build new cruisers. The proposed model is developed from the hull of the San Antonio (LPD-17). With 25 000 tonnes, they would become the greatest American cruisers from the Des Moines class (around 19 000 tonnes) and no longer find the battleships as comparator.

The objective seems attainable at the price of energetic and balanced decisions. It should be noted that the number (with or without robots?) Is considered one of the factors of military superiority rather than the only quality materials and power systems

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Evolution during Obama administration :

US Army
Pers from 570000 now 470000 about 10 Brigades in less difficult to be excact with the re organization : less but more big, in more light Brigades have now 3 Inf Btn before 2 so low.

USAF
250 fighters F-15/16 retired in 2010 and about 50 Trp Aircrafts but huge fleet ! no changes for the rest

USN
1 CVN retired temporarly
MSC 75 to 84, + 9 Burke
SSC 20 -30 now 8, about 20 - 30 Perry retired + 7 LCS
SSN/SSGN about 58 before now 55 very stable
Very stable aslo for AA ships, Repl Ships and Naval Aviation

USMC
Pers from about 200000 the more big number since Vietnam in 1989 180000 now 182000 no combats units stand down at less Bat level.

Nuclear Forces
Same

Actual situation, Main Weakness to fix
In relation for strategy, politic... with China ofc, Pacifivis the main Theater especialy naval now, Russia have now more powerful forces but less importants except nuclears.

US Army
The branch which needs increase especialy heavy units about 500000 pers can be good don' t need 570000 with Irak, Afghanistan war and much troops deployed.
Necessary stand up severals Heavy/Armored Brigades and deploy minimum 1 in Europe with in more about 2 others actualy only 2 light/medium so low.
In the Pacific about 2 light/medium in additions definitely usefull.
And the 101th Air Assault have again 2 helos brigades for have a suffucuient number for a unit of this type.
For equipment to consider a new MBT and mainly replace M109 very old few capable in comparison with last SPGs the more big weakness of Army.
Eventually do a new light attack helo for replaced OH-58D retired.

USAF
In the future replaced all the 140 B-1/52 Bombers in service.
Eventually re put in service Trp aircrafts retired especialy 2 Sqns of C-17.
For new F-22 very expensive and if they are build decrease much the number of F-35 or others funds but seems very very difficult but to modernized with an IRST and eventualy a designator pod for he can use alone LGB and get more versatile, seems too expensive adapted new A2G missiles in more almost all on' t fit in the int weap bay and not usefull he is mainly a air sup fighter and USAF have several types for all missions.
To consider a A-10 successor and a COIN aicraft cheaper for terrorits war for save money or a UAV more powerful.

USN
11 CVN very fast...
MSC/SSC target 88 + 40 good but with a true Frigate and reliable... ! planned a true Cg successor for Ticonderoga at less 1 by CVN.
SSN extremely important in more Virginia are very good invrease the number planned build 2 - 3 by year for get a fleet from 48 to 52 evnetualy 55 - 60 replace also 4 SSGN.
For the rest actual number planned good but build a new class for replaced fast Repl Ships Supply a capacity important for CVN TF can move more fast especialy in the Pacific the more big ocean.

To consider and i can' t say betterand i have in more always say it :
should be noted that the number (with or without robots?) Is considered one of the factors of military superiority rather than the only quality materials and power systems
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Increase the number if possible but for each type never decrease...


Next time looking more in détails, not too, by Branch and also by Theater
 
Last edited:
Or it could possibly mean further budget cuts on defense spending, therefore them while they're still hot before Congress takes those money away.
in general, it'll be very interesting to watch if the expectations of weapons manufacturers AND THEIR SHAREHOLDERS are fulfilled: Today at 8:06 AM
what I'm seeing is
Defense Stocks Soar on News of Trump Victory
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


time will tell
as I've read as much as one trillion (it's dollar to the power of twelve LOL) is needed pretty soon to replace "legacy" (forty or so years old) gear, just off top of my head it's four hundred for F-35s, like one hundred for boomers, one hundred for the bomber, two hundred for missiles with nukes, ..., heck I'm no pacifist or something but just look at that:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

EDIT hope you noticed I talked in billions above LOL

Specifically I was appalled
(in the article I quoted in https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us-military-news-reports-data-etc.t1547/page-634#post-424021)
by the prospect of "boosting" Littoral Combat Ships
(it's a flawed concept, actually several flawed concepts in one ship, actually in two ships ... I've been saying this for some time (together with Senator McCain hahaha) as in
Jul 25, 2015 https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/littoral-combat-ships-lcs.t3993/page-83#post-353949
but anyway had been following that project until recently (when six out of seven commissioned LCSs became, ehm, unavailable, not kidding you:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)).
Then I got fed up and left the thread https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/littoral-combat-ships-lcs.t3993/
but perhaps I'll need to come back if they start to pour money into LCSs to build even more than previously planned ... this would be tragicomic
 
Last edited:

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
I have mentionned for the ramp up necessary 55 billions seems up to 85 billions in fact a base budget of ~ 610 billions, 3.5% of GDP more but not than during Reagan' s year 6 % different with Cold War but now the situation is different than during about last 25 years so necessary changes, Clinton also had considered a more big budget also big ?
No surprising Republicans are always more favorable to military things and Democrat less.

So i add on my list 4 Columbia SSGN hehe :)

So look link and the rest ... first things removed sequestration, Budget Control Act.

For LCS completely useless have more and USN need going for ships " specialized " modules are a failure Denmark with Stanflex systems about 10 years ago also had waived.

Aircraft Carriers, Submarines and More: 5 U.S. Weapons of War Donald Trump Will Make Great Again
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Yesterday at 8:02 PM
in general, it'll be very interesting to watch if the expectations of weapons manufacturers AND THEIR SHAREHOLDERS are fulfilled: ...
... as Defense Firms See Bonanza Under Trump Administration
The big defense firms already had predicted good times ahead no matter who won the election, and the expectations of a bonanza of defense spending soared on Donald Trump’s first day as president-elect.

Even as the market initially tanked Wednesday on word that Trump had won, stocks for Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp., General Dynamics Corp., Boeing Co., Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. and others bucked the trend and were posting major gains.

The market then rallied and the Dow Jones industrial average closed at a record high of 18,807.88.

In late October, when polls showed that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton was likely to win, Northrop was touting solid third-quarter earnings as a sign of more profits ahead for the defense industry.

“It is an interesting time in that it’s clear that there’s a significant re-capitalization wave that’s underway across a number of our customer communities,” Northrop Chief Executive Officer Wes Bush said. “Quite frankly, it’s one that’s been deferred for quite a long time.” The company last year won the contract to build the new B-21 Raider stealth bomber for the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Since the Trump victory, defense industry analysts have predicted defense spending would surge as the new White House administration and the Republican-controlled House and Senate move to end the sending caps known as sequestration under the Budget Control Act of 2013.

In a post for Forbes, analyst and Pentagon consultant Loren Thompson said “it appears the Obama-era drought in Pentagon demand for new weapons is over.”

“Combined with Republican retention of majorities in both chambers of Congress, Trump’s win signals that the gridlock restraining increases in defense outlays will soon disappear,” said Thompson, chief operating officer for the non-profit Lexington Institute.

Thompson and other analysts pointed to Trump’s campaign pledges to boost the size of the Army and the Marine Corps, add 1,200 fighter aircraft to the Air Force and increase the size of the Navy to 350 ships.

In addition, Trump has argued to speed up the modernization of the nation’s nuclear force to include replacements for the aging Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and a new class of ballistic-missile submarines.

In a September campaign speech, Trump said, “We currently have the smallest Army since 1940. The Navy is among the smallest it has been since 1915, and the Air Force is the smallest it has been since 1947.”

Trump vowed a turnaround, but how he would pay for it was unclear beyond general pledges of “common sense reforms that eliminate government waste and budget gimmicks.” Whether the spigot of defense funding opens and becomes a bonanza remains to be seen.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Top