US Navy’s New Fleet Goal: 355 Ships

GhostZ06

GhostZ06

Steel Belt
@Steel
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
32,730
Reaction score
9,865
WASHINGTON – Tossing overboard the budget constraints that have weighed down the US Navy’s attempts to grow its fleet, the world’s most powerful sea service is embarking on the biggest proposed expansion since the early 1980s, upping its goals from today’s 308 ships to a whopping 355 ships – beyond even the incoming Trump administration’s stated 350-ship goal.

The new Force Structure Assessment (FSA) provides one more aircraft carrier, 16 more large surface combatants and 18 more attack submarines over the current FSA. The plan also calls for 4 more amphibious warfare ships, 3 more expeditionary support bases and five more support ships.

The FSA also restores the Navy’s goal of 52 small surface combatants – littoral combat ships (LCS) and their follow-on frigate design – beating back outgoing Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s attempts to limit the total to 40 ships.

The new plan does not address increased numbers of aircraft or personnel. Senior Navy leaders are on record as calling for increases in strike fighters – particularly Boeing F/A-18 E and F Super Hornets – and the 2018 budget is expected to request a significant number.

The expansion of the carrier force from 11 to 12 ships would also likely mean the need for an additional air wing. Each wing generally includes 48 strike fighters plus electronic warfare and early warning aircraft.

Other Navy sources have indicated the need for more sailors, citing total figures between 340,000 and 350,000. The Navy today has nearly 324,000 uniformed personnel.

A Navy spokesman, in a statement Friday to Navy Times, noted that, “additional studies will be needed to address the number of personnel needed for the increased force size.”



Among the biggest industrial beneficiaries to the new fleet would be shipbuilders Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), General Dynamics (GD), and one or both of the smaller Fincantieri Marinette Marine and Austal USA yards, along with Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, L3 and power suppliers General Electric and Babcock and Wilcox.

But it could be some time before major increases are realized – it takes years to build a ship, beginning with long-lead items such as nuclear reactors and major propulsion items, before real construction can begin. Even then, the Navy generally needs one or more years of final fitting out and training before a new ship becomes operationally effective.

The Navy did not release any timelines for the 355-ship FSA, nor did it indicate any new ship types are planned.

Here is a type-by-type breakdown of the new plan:

Aircraft carriers: Grow the fleet from 11 to 12 ships. “A minimum of 12 aircraft carriers [is] required to meet the increased warfighting response requirements of the Defense Planning Guidance Defeat/Deny force sizing direction,” the Navy said in Friday’s statement.

Large Surface Combatants: jumps from a total of 88 ships to 104. All ships in this category today, with the exception of the 3-ship Zumwalt class, are Aegis-equipped cruisers and destroyers performing a variety of tasks, including air defense of aircraft carriers and ballistic missile defense. The Navy is in the early stages of developing a new surface combatant that could appear in the 2030s.

Small Surface Combatants: The total holds stable at 52 ships, consisting of LCSs and frigates. The Navy has never lowered its requirement for 52 ships in this category despite the efforts in recent years by the Office of the Secretary of Defense to cap the total at 40 or even fewer ships. The ships, the Navy said, “are required to meet Defeat/Deny challenges and support ongoing Counter Terrorism, Counter Illicit Trafficking, and Theater Security Cooperation/Building Partnerships efforts.”

Amphibious Warfare Ships: Grows from 34 ships to 38. These ships – big-deck LHD and LHA amphibious assault ships, LPD amphibious transport docks and LSD dock landing ships, and LXR amphibious ship replacements – meet a lift requirement for the US Marine Corps and are valuable in a wide variety of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief situations.
Click to expand...



http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-navys-new-fleet-goal-355-ships


Jesus fucking Christ...



do we really need that many ships? i know we need a large navy since we border 2 oceans, but shit.
 
The Navy is the most logical place to splurge, as this century will be defined by the power struggle between the US and China, most notably in East Asia. The world's next superpower sits across the Pacific Ocean from us, it makes sense to respond accordingly. Especially as China becomes more assertive and the potential for conflict rises.
 
We need to double it. Hell we should triple it.
 
What a waste of money from the "conservatives"

One area I agreed with the Libertarian party is that our defense spending is out of control. Are we really going to be weak and helpless spending 550 billion vs 600 billion? And that 50 billion can do a lot of good inside our own borders
 
That's not a bad number and down from what it once was.

And no where the 600 Reagan wanted.

This would include everything the Navy has including the support ships.
 
HockeyBjj said:
What a waste of money from the "conservatives"

One area I agreed with the Libertarian party is that our defense spending is out of control. Are we really going to be weak and helpless spending 550 billion vs 600 billion? And that 50 billion can do a lot of good inside our own borders
Click to expand...

Defense spending should be doubled. Hell we should triple it.
 
Selukrid612 said:
The Navy is the most logical place to splurge, as this century will be defined by the power struggle between the US and China, most notably in East Asia. The world's next superpower sits across the Pacific Ocean from us, it makes sense to respond accordingly. Especially as China becomes more assertive and the potential for conflict rises.
Click to expand...


they will never be a super power. Regional power yes, super no...
 
oldshadow said:
That's not a bad number and down from what it once was.

And no where the 600 Reagan wanted.

This would include everything the Navy has including the support ships.
Click to expand...


that was during glory days of the Cold war.
 
I just hope we build a star destroyed
 
Selukrid612 said:
Why do you say that?
Click to expand...


They got a lot of internal issues to work out which probably will never get fixed. Just not a country ill be overly worried about right now. Besides they're economy is slowing down very hard
 
Need more!!

Cant argue the last bastion of murican jobs tech and manufacturing.

FOr shits and giggles has anyone ever did the math just how many jobs would be lost if lets say the defense budget was cut in half ? How much would it take out of the economy ? id guess it be catastrophic.
 
By the way this proposed so I'm not sure what they will actually get.
 
oldshadow said:
By the way this proposed so I'm not sure what they will actually get.
Click to expand...


it takes a long time to build a ship and a sub. The complexity of nuclear submarine is pretty intense
 
GhostZ06 said:
it takes a long time to build a ship and a sub. The complexity of nuclear submarine is pretty intense
Click to expand...

Yea I know I worked on them for a long time.

I'm not sure how may are now funded for new construction.

It would take some time to bump up to that number even if we do.
 
oldshadow said:
Yea I know I worked on them for a long time.

I'm not sure how may are now funded for new construction.

It would take some time to bump up to that number even if we do.
Click to expand...


i think currently we are making the new next-generation ballistic missile submarine. i think it's called the USS Columbia class?


heh i didnt know you did that. i thought you were in the navy ?
 
Within the next 30 years there will be a global conflict. Shit from the 1980's just won't do it.
 
GhostZ06 said:
i think currently we are making the new next-generation ballistic missile submarine. i think it's called the USS Columbia class?


heh i didnt know you did that. i thought you were in the navy ?
Click to expand...

Yea they are going to replace the Ohio class.

I was in the Navy for 4 years then worked for about 38 years on Navy ships in repair of them. About 34 years of that in nuclear repair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,053
Messages
55,463,768
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top