• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

MASSIVE US NAVY Drydock Capacity Failures

H

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,746
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
WASHINGTON: A massive maintenance backlog has idled 15 nuclear-powered attack submarines for a total of 177 months, and the Navy’s plan to mitigate the problem is jeopardized by budget gridlock, two House Armed Services Committee staffers told Breaking Defense.

That is almost 15 submarine-years, the equivalent of taking a boat from the 2018 budget and not adding it back until 2033.

While only Congress can pass a budget and lift caps on spending, the staffers said, part of the solution is in the Navy’s hands: outsource more work to private-sector shipyards, something the Navy does not like to do.
Click to expand...
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/10/15-subs-kept-out-of-service-177-months-of-drydock-backups/

More of the same but getting worse, and it will get worse still, because we suck now at even the basics of running a country.

Our navy is too small, too reliant on carriers, too short good officers, and too often not available to sail.

Lord help us the next time we need them.

SAD
 
Hawkeye10 said:
too reliant on carriers,
Click to expand...

Our carrier groups are the centerpiece of our naval doctrine. Are you suggesting we adopt a more Soviet-style approach and put the Navy's focus on nuclear submarines?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Our carrier groups are the centerpiece of our naval doctrine. Are you suggesting we adopt a more Soviet-style approach and put the Navy's focus on nuclear submarines?
Click to expand...

I am suggesting that it is a very high risk very high cost plan, with little to no evidence that it was the right call.

We well might turn out well ****ed the next time we try to do a real war.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I am suggesting that it is a very high risk very high cost plan, with little to no evidence that it was the right call.

We well might turn out well ****ed the next time we try to do a real war.
Click to expand...

Our carrier battle groups are actually very well suited towards a conventional naval conflict with our most likely adversaries in that regard, China and Russia.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I am suggesting that it is a very high risk very high cost plan, with little to no evidence that it was the right call.

We well might turn out well ****ed the next time we try to do a real war.
Click to expand...

What country would you say is in better shape militarily than the United States?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Our carrier battle groups are actually very well suited towards a conventional naval conflict with our most likely adversaries in that regard, China and Russia.
Click to expand...

That may or may not be actually true.

The last time they were seriously useful in reality was 75 years ago, the only time actually, maybe the technology of war has based them by.








Like BattleShips.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
That may or may not be actually true.

The last time they were seriously useful in reality was 75 years ago, the only time actually, maybe the technology of war has based them by.








Like BattleShips.
Click to expand...

Are aircraft obsolete?

If the answer to that question is no, then aircraft carriers still have a use.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Are aircraft obsolete?

If the answer to that question is no, then aircraft carriers still have a use.
Click to expand...

We dont know, most likely not yet, though I have heard that the Chinese and the Russians think that they are close using extensive surveillance linked to computers....that they will know as soon as anything is in the air and then will hunt them down.....that is a big reason they have built islands out far from the mainland.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Are aircraft obsolete?

If the answer to that question is no, then aircraft carriers still have a use.
Click to expand...

Carriers are excellent for forward projection against 3rd world countries , but with the rapid advancement of long range missile systems, mine laying torpedoes, and advanced submarine technologies of China and Russia, they will be a burden just by the amount of protection they would need. They would have to be surrounded by many more ships and submarines than we generally see in a Carrier task force. Even the best anti missile systems fail, and this can be verified by looking at the statistics of the THAAD failure rate, and other recent failures of missile defense conducted by the Navy.

Sending out 3 carriers off each coast in a modern war with China or Russia, would commit about 1/2 of our navy's combatant ships.

With GPS, integrated mapping, homing, radar, and a dozen other systems out there today............. carriers are almost obsolete against Russia and China.
 
RetiredUSN said:
............ carriers are almost obsolete against Russia and China.
Click to expand...

Seems like we've been here before. I like your posts, but I'll disagree with this.

We need them to escort convoys, at least. Protect the seaways more generally.
 
CletusWilbury said:
Seems like we've been here before. I like your posts, but I'll disagree with this.

We need them to escort convoys, at least. Protect the seaways more generally.
Click to expand...

It really depends on the arena, and what type of opposing combatants they are facing in immediate and long range geographical area.

Nothing is static when it comes to positioning the best available fire power for gaining a geographical advantage.

I wouldn't send any carrier within a 1500 miles of China or Russia if SHTF. Not until I was sure that their satellites and anti aircraft radars were out of the equation.

When it comes to routine duties such as protecting shipping lanes.......... a couple of frigates can rain down holy hell over quite an area.
 
RetiredUSN said:
It really depends on the arena, and what type of opposing combatants they are facing in immediate and long range geographical area.

Nothing is static when it comes to positioning the best available fire power for gaining a geographical advantage.

I wouldn't send any carrier within a 1500 miles of China or Russia if SHTF. Not until I was sure that their satellites and anti aircraft radars were out of the equation.

When it comes to routine duties such as protecting shipping lanes.......... a couple of frigates can rain down holy hell over quite an area.
Click to expand...

I would think Admirals would want to have air superiority over the convoy fleets.
 
Last edited:
RetiredUSN said:
Absolutely, but frigates & DDG's are designed and equipped to handle things pretty well without air support.
Click to expand...

True, and with technology advancements will be able to carry drone fighters. That's when we won't need such large carriers for air superiority.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/10/15-subs-kept-out-of-service-177-months-of-drydock-backups/

More of the same but getting worse, and it will get worse still, because we suck now at even the basics of running a country.

Our navy is too small, too reliant on carriers, too short good officers, and too often not available to sail.

Lord help us the next time we need them.

SAD
Click to expand...

Well, we can't spend money maintaining our subs properly because we're enjoying spending money on the Global War On Terror, going on 16 years now. Can't have everything.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/10/15-subs-kept-out-of-service-177-months-of-drydock-backups/

More of the same but getting worse, and it will get worse still, because we suck now at even the basics of running a country.

Our navy is too small, too reliant on carriers, too short good officers, and too often not available to sail.

Lord help us the next time we need them.

SAD
Click to expand...

Doesn't help that over a third of their flag officers are under corruption investigation.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Yes, they are. The ability to rapidly deploy squadrons of aircraft across the world is a capability not many other nations have.
Click to expand...

Carriers are large slow moving targets as a result of today's missile technology of China and Russia, but will make fine artificial reefs for the fishies.....

Fighting smaller less developed countries with forces like the Taliban or ISIS is what they are better suited for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom