US Navy wants to add 32 ships by 2020

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Yes now in what seems to be a change of policy by the new Cheif Of Naval Operations of the USN, Adm. Michael G. Mullen. The USN wants to increase its fleet by 32 ships in the next 15 years. This would be a very ambitious program considering how many ships the USN is planning on decomissioning. All of those ships would be replaced plus even more to build the fleet to 313 ships.

As you read this article the USN is planning on building 55 LCS ships. Only 7 DDX but 19 CGX which is based on the DDX platform. And 31 amphibous ships. And of course several CVN's to replace the aging ones.

Now all the USN has to do is convince the DC politicans that increasing the size of the USN is necessary. That will not be easy.

Question..Is this plan pointed at the PLAN to counter the PLAN massive shipbuilding program?? Is the US playing the same game it did with the USSR during the Cold War??? Basically forcing the PRC into bankruptcy through an arms race??

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Plan would add 32 ships to the Navy
By DAVID S. CLOUD, THE NEW YORK TIMES,
© December 5, 2005

WASHINGTON — The Navy wants to increase its fleet to 313 ships by
2020, reversing years of decline in naval shipbuilding and adding
dozens of warships designed to defeat emerging adversaries, senior
Defense Department officials say.

The plan by Adm. Michael G. Mullen, who took over as chief of naval
operations last summer, envisions a major shipbuilding program that
would increase the 281-ship fleet by 32 vessels and cost more than
$13 billion a year, the officials said Friday. That's $3 billion
more than the current shipbuilding budget and almost $5 billion more
than the Bush administration requested for 2006.

While increasing the fleet size is popular with influential members
of Congress, the plan faces various obstacles, including questions
about whether it is affordable in light of ballooning shipbuilding
costs and whether the mix of vessels is suitable to deal with
emerging threats, like China's expanding navy.

"We are at a crisis in shipbuilding," a senior Navy official
said. "If we don't start building this up next year and the next
year and the next year, we won't have the force we need." The
officials would not agree to be identified because the plan had not
been made public or described to members of Congress.

The Navy's fleet reached its Cold War peak of 568 warships in 1987
and has been steadily shrinking since then. Mullen's proposal would
reverse that, expanding the fleet to as many as 325 ships over the
next decade, with new ships put into service before some older
vessels are retired, and finally settling at 313 between 2015 and
2020.

The new plan appears to be a substantial departure from the course
set by Mullen's predecessor, now-retired Adm. Vern Clark. His five-
year tenure, which ended in July, was marked by cuts in the fleet
and in Navy manpower. Clark hoped to use the money saved by those
reductions to pay for new ship designs that he said would allow a
smaller force to pack a larger punch.

Clark had projected a future fleet of 260 to 325 ships, depending on
the mix of large and small ships.

"The Navy appears to be grappling with the need to balance funding
for supporting its role in the global war on terrorism against those
for meeting a potential challenge from modernized Chinese maritime
military forces," said Ronald O'Rourke, a naval analyst with the
Congressional Research Service, an arm of the Library of Congress.


The plan has not been formally adopted by the Bush administration,
though officials said it had been examined by senior civilians in
the Pentagon as part of a larger strategic review of all military
programs. The proposal is not expected to change much, if at all,
before the review is made public in February, the officials said.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, which is home to major shipyards,
endorsed the Navy proposal when told about it recently and called on
President Bush to finance it in next year's budget.

"Military requirements should drive the budget, not the other way
around," Collins said. "I hope that the Navy's requirement for a
fleet of 313 ships will be matched with adequate funding in the
president's budget to achieve that goal over time."

But Defense Department officials acknowledged that with financial
pressures mounting and the overall Navy budget not likely to
increase, their plans could come apart unless they can trim costs in
other areas.

The Navy is planning to squeeze money from personnel and other
accounts and ask shipyards to hold down costs, even if it means
removing certain capabilities.

The plan calls for building 55 small, fast vessels called littoral
combat ships, which are being designed to allow the Navy to operate
in shallow coastal areas where mines and terrorist bombings are a
growing threat. Costing less than $300 million, the littoral combat
ship is relatively inexpensive.

Navy officials say they have scaled back their goals for a new
destroyer, the DD X , whose primary purpose would be to support
major combat operations ashore. The Navy once wanted 23 to 30 DD X
vessels, but Mullen has decided on only seven, a Navy official said.
The reduction is due in part to the ship's spiraling cost, estimated
at $2 billion to $3 billion per ship.

The plan also calls for building 19 CGX vessels, a new cruiser based
on the DDX design and intended for missile defense, but the first
ship is not due to be completed until 2017, the Navy official said.

The proposal would reduce the fleet's more than 50 attack submarines
to 48, the official said. Some Navy officials have called for
keeping at least 55 of them.

The choices have led some analysts to suggest that the Navy is de-
emphasizing the threat from China, at least in the early stages of
the shipbuilding plan. Beijing's investment in submarines, cruise
missiles and other weapon systems is expected to pose a major threat
to U.S. warships for at least a decade. That gives the Navy time,
some analysts argue, to build capabilities that require less
firepower and more mobility, a priority for Defense Secretary Donald
H. Rumsfeld.

The plan also calls for building 31 amphibious assault ships, which
can be used to ferry Marines ashore or support humanitarian
operations.

"This is not a fleet that is being oriented to the Chinese threat,"
said Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, a policy
research center in Arlington. "It's being oriented around irregular
warfare, stability operations and dealing with rogue states."

But the Navy would keep 11 aircraft carriers, just one fewer than
the dozen it has maintained since the end of the Cold War. Retiring
the 37-year-old John F. Kennedy could save $200 million a year.
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
bd popeye said:
Question..Is this plan pointed at the PLAN to counter the PLAN massive shipbuilding program?? Is the US playing the same game it did with the USSR during the Cold War??? Basically forcing the PRC into bankruptcy through an arms race??

US is building more ships because it feels it needs to, not to run anyone into bancrupcy. Cold war as it was is over. It was very specific time, one that is in no way present today. US maintains an interest in controlling what is going on in the world. Much more so than it did during cold war, even. That requires large forces, as it pitts US against not one big enemy but numerous enemies.

China's economy today is way stronger than russia's at its peak in the cold war, it could build and support several times larger military than it has now. But it is not doing that as it has no world controlling interests like US does. It is building its armed forces at its own pace, for its own internal needs. In 50 years time, sure, it may be at a level of true superpower adversary to US, then we could talk about an arms race. But right now it's not china vs US in any way, if anything its US vs rest of the world, as US seeks to keep the upper hand on all the possible adversaries in the world. And that might end up being a costly game. If anyone is gonna go bancrupt trying to keep up with the enemies (im not saying anyone will) US would be first on that list, for as long as it feels so many contries around the world are a threat to the american way of life.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Totoro said:
US is building more ships because it feels it needs to, not to run anyone into bancrupcy. Cold war as it was is over. It was very specific time, one that is in no way present today. US maintains an interest in controlling what is going on in the world. Much more so than it did during cold war, even. That requires large forces, as it pitts US against not one big enemy but numerous enemies.

China's economy today is way stronger than russia's at its peak in the cold war, it could build and support several times larger military than it has now. But it is not doing that as it has no world controlling interests like US does. It is building its armed forces at its own pace, for its own internal needs. In 50 years time, sure, it may be at a level of true superpower adversary to US, then we could talk about an arms race. But right now it's not china vs US in any way, if anything its US vs rest of the world, as US seeks to keep the upper hand on all the possible adversaries in the world. And that might end up being a costly game. If anyone is gonna go bancrupt trying to keep up with the enemies (im not saying anyone will) US would be first on that list, for as long as it feels so many contries around the world are a threat to the american way of life.

Thanks for your response totoro. Very well thought out.

Personally I don't think the US is in any sort of arms race with anyone. Some Neo-cons seem to think so . It just a case of modernization and different missions. I just asked the questions to provoke thought. I also don't see the US or PRC going bankrupt anytime soon. Despite what many think the US economy is in a great recovery right now. All economic monitors point to that.

I was very intrested to find out that the USN plans to build 55 LCS's. That's an astounding number. The ships are very small,fast and well armed with modular weapons modules that can be changed according to missions.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
even if this is an arms race, america must be more careful than it was in the cold war. thes chinese have much more money than the russians, and the pentagon must be careful not to bankrupt itself first. 32 more ships??? thats going to cost a huge amount of my taxpayer dollarsw when i grow up!!
 

Fairthought

Junior Member
Question..Is this plan pointed at the PLAN to counter the PLAN massive shipbuilding program??


Was the pun intended, Popeye? Or perhaps it was totally unplanned.

For the record, I disagree with the popular conclusion that the PLAN has a massive shipbuilding program. What they are doing is a massive upgrade. The size of their fleet, particularly their sub fleet, is actually being reduced as many obsolete vessels are being decomissioned. This is absolutely necessary and shouldn't be viewed in a threatening light.

This US naval plan was released just days after India released their naval plans to build up their fleet. Add to this the growing fleets of Russia, Spain, Brazil, etal, and you see America really needs to expand it fleet just to keep the same level of control. It is America versus the rest of the world that is the actual arms race and America can't afford to keep this up.
 

darth sidious

Banned Idiot
the new great white fleet a reminder of Americas contral of the ocean and its desier to impose Pax America . its mostly likeyly to matian the contral they already have rather then to battle the plan the americans dont need that many ships for that
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
It does seem very ambitious. I see it's quite possible that the Bush administration will approve this due to the influence from the neocons. However, the question is whether or not this kind of plan would then get reduced once the next administration comes in, especially if it's the democrats. I don't really see someone like Hilary Clinton follow the kind of spending spree that George Bush has been on.

I think it's definitely motivated in some way by the recently expansion of PLAN, but it is also motivated by the advancements in the other navies around the world.
 

In4ser

Junior Member
It would be ironic if the money the USA owes to China goes to it's military... So the more USA tried to use money for a Chinese threat the more money they end up oweing to China.

Already doesn't china hold like 20% of US bonds while the US citizens only only hold like 40%?
 
Top