Republican lawmakers set to introduce legislation calling for a 355-ship Navy*update*

A larger USN would be desirable to help keep pace with the Chinese (who are pumping out new boats at an absurd rate) but I think you'll find most experts on the matter would rather see the money spent on improving/consolidating on the operation of the existing fleet.

The Chinese will be unstoppable in their turf once they consolidate their economic dominance over SEA nations, which is a given considering the US withdrawal our of the TPP.

You can have as many boats as you want it wont do much when the Chinese litter the entire area with missiles and artillery.
 
Which leads to invading more third world shit countries and being embroiled in endless wars to keep the war machine moving.

Indeed. Let's not pretend both parties aren't in favor of this BS though. The only candidate who appeared to be against it got cheated by his own party.

I'm well aware of Eisenhower's famous words.
 
Last edited:
The Chinese will be unstoppable in their turf once they consolidate their economic dominance over SEA nations, which is a given considering the US withdrawal our of the TPP.

You can have as many boats as you want it wont do much when the Chinese litter the entire area with missiles and artillery.
The only solution I can see is to go to war right now, before the chicoms get too powerful.
I suggest a decapitation strike with as many nukes as possible.
 
The Chinese will be unstoppable in their turf once they consolidate their economic dominance over SEA nations, which is a given considering the US withdrawal our of the TPP.

You can have as many boats as you want it wont do much when the Chinese litter the entire area with missiles and artillery.


actually china is having some economic and internal issues right now....



i dont think they wont be that powerful
 
On wow only 276? Gotta build more. Wouldn't want China catching up...

4A8078449E794DFB8CC33ADD00A6F1AF.gif
 
The Chinese will be unstoppable in their turf once they consolidate their economic dominance over SEA nations, which is a given considering the US withdrawal our of the TPP.

You can have as many boats as you want it wont do much when the Chinese litter the entire area with missiles and artillery.

It's going to be a while before they can litter SEA with missiles and artillery. Nobody is hosting Chinese boots on their soil just yet so we will see.

That said, I do agree that if current trends continue, a bigger USN won't count for much in the long term. Time shall tell.
 
It's going to be a while before they can litter SEA with missiles and artillery. Nobody is hosting Chinese boots on their soil just yet so we will see.

That said, I do agree that if current trends continue, a bigger USN won't count for much in the long term. Time shall tell.


i tihnk newer ships to replace other models is more important, more doesnt mean shit. i think quality is better
 
Influential members of Congress have now introduced bipartisan legislation that would make it the policy of the United States to achieve the Navy’s requirement of 355 ships.
Under the “Securing the Homeland by Increasing our Power on the Seas (SHIPS) Act,” the fleet would be comprised of the optimal mix of platforms, with funding levels subject to annual appropriations.
The SHIPS Act, introduced by Congressman Rob Wittman, R-Va., and U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., lends substantial Congressional support to a recently completed Navy "Force Structure Assessment" which found that the current fleet size is insufficient to meet global demands from combatant commanders.
“My objective as Seapower chairman in this year’s NDAA is to send a strong signal that we intend to grow our Fleet to 355 ships,” Wittman said in a written statement. “I believe industry is ready to ramp up production to get us there and Congress must do its part and provide the necessary funding for shipbuilding accounts so we get on the proper glide path to 355."

Discussions and plans for a larger fleet have long been the subject of Navy deliberations; the service is now vigorously advancing findings of a completed “Force Structure Assessment” which underscores what Navy leaders have been saying for quite some time - - that the current fleet size is insufficient to meet global demands from combatant commanders.

Should the SHIPS Act, upholding the Navy's assessment findings, become law - the service will more carriers, submarines, destroyers and amphibious assault ships, among other things. The proposed legislation does not specify a time frame with which to meet the benchmark, but does identify the larger fleet size as a requirement.

The Navy assessment for 2018 calls for a sizeable jump up to 355 ships, including 12 carriers, 104 large surface combatants and 66 attack submarines. In the meantime, the services’ near term 2017 proposed fleet size seeks to increase the current 274-ship fleet up to 308.

On the heels of the completion of this assessment, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations has also called for a much larger fleet, while specifying that the exact number should depend upon global service activities, threats and the needs of combatant commanders.

"355, 350, mid-300's: I think we all run the risk of identifying a number and saying that's the number, when it could change up or down over time. What's more important is that you have sufficient numbers to do what you're being asked to do today, and then you continue to modernize and build out capability so you're a better force in the future," Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Bill Moran told ABC 7 news in recent months.

The CNO's comments lend further emphasis to a recently determined plan to increase the Navy fleet size by adding more new attack submarines, carriers and destroyers is. Navy leaders have said the new plan is “executable” – and that early conceptual work toward this end is already underway.

Although various benchmarks will need to be reached in order for this new plan to come to fruition, such as Congressional budget allocations, Navy officials do tell Scout Warrior that the service is already working – at least in concept – on plans to vastly enlarge the fleet. Findings from this study are expected to inform an upcoming 2018 Navy Shipbuilding Plan, service officials said.


The Reagan-Era Navy & Fleet Size History





During the Regan years, the Navy grew to more than 500 ships, nearly double the services’ current fleet size which is approximately 285 ships.
A close look at the Navy’s previous shipbuilding plan showed the service will decommission more ships in the next five years than it will commission. This is happening, in part, because some of the many ships added during the Reagan build-up, such as the Los Angeles-class submarines and Aegis cruisers, are slated to retire, analysts have said.
Many lawmakers and analysts have consistently called for a signifcantly larger Navy, citing the Cold War naval posture.

However, proponents of a smaller Navy consistently made the point that today's ships are far more capable and technologically advanced compared to those of decades ago, precluding the need to match the Reagan-era in terms of sheer size.

Nonetheless, service officials do say the current threat environment, as determined by combatant commanders, service analysts and senior leaders, is such that the service will likely seek an increase above the current plan to hit 355 ships.

The Navy’s long-term fleet plan, articulated in the most recent 2016 Navy 30-Year Shipbuilding plan, called for the service to have 309 ships by 2022 to include: 12 Aircraft Carriers, 97 Large Surface Combatants, 37 Small Surface Combatants, 48 Attack Submarines, 4 Ohio Missile Submarines, 14 Ballistic Missile Submarines, 34 Amphibious Assault Ships, 29 Logistics Force Ships and 34 Support Vessels – bringing the total to 309.

Some of these concerns were also address as far back as 2010, when an independent panel of experts examined the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review and told the Senate Armed Services Committee that, given the range of anticipated threats, a 346-ship Navy was their recommendation.

“We think the challenge is going to get greater, and we don’t see how you can meet a greater challenge with a diminishing number of ships,” Steven Hadley, co-chair of the QDR review independent panel, told the committee in 2010.

Interestingly, today’s future fleet size Navy plan of 355 ships seems entirely consistent with this prior assessment.
Indeed, challenges cited in 2010 indeed continued to get greater as Navy combatant Commanders consistently report an inability to meet request due to a limited amount of assets.

The Force Structure Assessment also calls for an increase in the amphib fleet from 34 up to 38. Navy and Marine Corps officials explain that the greater use of amphibious assault ships is likely as the Marine Corps continues to shift toward more sea-based operations from its land-based focus during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. At one point, the previous Marine Corp Commandant told Congress that it would likely take as many as 50 amphibious assault ships to fully accommodate commanders’ worldwide need for amphibs.

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1748802-congress-new-ships-act-requires-355-ship-navy


i dont think more is better, i think getting new platfourms and next generation weapons on our ships is more important then having numbers. american miliary is about quality over quantity
 
The only solution I can see is to go to war right now, before the chicoms get too powerful.
I suggest a decapitation strike with as many nukes as possible.
I assume you're heading to the enlistment office as you are posting this nonsense?
 
well we were that big before during the cold war. And our allies werent total pussies and the soviets where around
Yup that was the Reagan Admin's 500 Ship Navy Plan.

In a few years your Government might go for that again to put presure on the Chinese more.
 
Yup that was the Reagan Admin's 500 Ship Navy Plan.

In a few years your Government might go for that again to put presure on the Chinese more.



like i said, if the soviets where around id full support this idea if it means we could one up them. But this isnt the cold war..
 
Back
Top