| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Defense Review Calls For Navy Buildup |
| 2010-07-30 |
| A bipartisan, congressionally mandated defense panel on Thursday challenged the Pentagon to broaden its focus beyond counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq and expand the Navy to deal with threats from rising powers in Asia. The panel report also said U.S. maritime power should be increased to deal with "the rise of new global great powers in Asia," an indirect reference to China's growing military and political power. It said the U.S. military must prepare for the "continued struggle for power in the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East" and "persistent problems from failed and failing states." To beef up U.S. maritime power in Asia, the report calls for expanding the Navy from its current fleet of 282 ships to 346 ships. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #6 Originally, destroyers were "torpedo boat destroyers", designed to thwart torpedo boats attempting to sink larger ships. As such, even today in the Persian Gulf, such ships would be very handy. Not just against small boats, but against threats like Skvall torpedoes. If nothing else, they could just drag torpedo nets. Why elections are a bad thing. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2010-07-30 19:39 |
| #5 RAISE THE YAMATO! RAISE THE MUSASHI! BANZAI! |
| Posted by: borgboy 2010-07-30 16:30 |
| #4 Even the Navy admits that its shipbuilding program is broken, and for several reasons. 1) There is no design "end date", so countless individuals insert novel changes during construction, resulting in massive cost and timetable overruns, and diminished interoperability. Likewise, those systems that could anticipate upgrades, like computers, are not as modular as they should be. 2) Proven functionality is seen as less important than speculative engineering. Design R&D should be for the ONR, not ships of the line. 3) The quality vs. quantity balance is way too far on the side of quality as far as shipbuilding goes. When even an Arleigh Burke destroyer costs $1.1B for the basic ship, and another $750m for its weaponry, it violates the old naval rule that destroyers are expendable. Originally, destroyers were "torpedo boat destroyers", designed to thwart torpedo boats attempting to sink larger ships. As such, even today in the Persian Gulf, such ships would be very handy. Not just against small boats, but against threats like Skvall torpedoes. If nothing else, they could just drag torpedo nets. And such ships can be very cheap and quick to build, as long as they are remembered to be expendable. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-07-30 14:18 |
| #3 Tehy all want the shot at getting a boat named after them; after all Murtha did. Granted that is only an increase of 64 and doesn't cover all 535 Congessional positions, but it's a start. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2010-07-30 14:02 |
| #2 Just picture Congress as a Chicken Coop Overflowing with Cackling Chickens and you'll get the "What Gives" pretty accurately. No chicken talks to any other, just squawks as loud as he/she can(So they are seen as IMPORTAINT, and TEH ONE to talk to). When they get near a microphone the squawking increases tenfold, and any one is constantly trying to outsquawk the other. That explains WHY the info is Garbled, and also WHY it's never accurate. Clear now? |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2010-07-30 12:06 |
| #1 didn't we just have a story here earlier this month about how the navy was pretty much abandoning ship building (cutting WAY back)? what gives |
| Posted by: abu do you love 2010-07-30 11:32 |