• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

US Navy’s Shipbuilding Plan Doesn’t Meet Congress’ Needs, Lawmakers Say

Rogue Valley

Exordium and Terminus
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
64,182
Reaction score
48,416
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

7/21/21
The U.S. Navy’s shipbuilding plan doesn’t tell Congress what the service needs, nor does it provide certainty for long-term planning, two House lawmakers say. “It just didn't start with this 30-year shipbuilding plan,” said Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va. Tuesday during a panel ahead of the 2021 Sea Air Space conference. “It's been in previous other ones, where they've essentially had a check-the-box mentality…kind of a multiple-choice test. You know this is not multiple choice, this is about making the tough decisions and charting a path to get us to 355” ships. Wittman is the ranking member on the House Armed Services’ subcommittee on sea power and projection forces. Wittman said the past three shipbuilding plans have not met the needs of Congress, including the most recent one, submitted to Congress in June along with the 2022 budget proposal. It only provided ranges for each ships, such as nine to 11 aircraft carriers, and stated that a complete plan would not be available until the 2023 budget. The 2022 plan does include the eight ships the Navy wants to buy in 2022 but no other details on how total ship numbers change in the decades to come.

That means it lacks the details Congress needs to see into the future for shipbuilding, said Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., the chairman of the sea power and projection forces subcommittee. “In all honesty, I see it really as the one-year budget plus sort of ranges of ships in the future, which is not, in my opinion, really what the law contemplated,” Courtney said. He was referring to Title 10 U.S. Code 231 which requires a “detailed program” for the construction of combat, support and auxiliary Navy ships over the next 30 years. The Navy’s plan does not show Congress how it intends to get to 355 ships, as required by law, nor what the makeup of the fleet will be, the lawmakers said. Nor does it help lawmakers make sure the 355-ship goal stays on track and it causes material purchasing and workforce issues with the shipyards, Wittman said. Wittman said he wanted to see naval strategy drive the budget, and not the other way around, which would mean a complete shipbuilding plan on how to fund at least 355 ships and which ships to build for that fleet.


As with the shipbuilders, Congress is also far less than pleased with the Navy's ambiguity regarding the composition of a 355 ship US Navy and the timetable for attaining that goal.
 

DataPoint

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2021
Messages
1,957
Reaction score
922
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Need a 30yr plan
Need to reach 355 active ships
Need to protect jobs and bases, etc., already in place if at all possible
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
21,180
Reaction score
9,272
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
To hit 355 ships will require a large increase in spending, especially as quite a few ships are entering retirement age. So the navy has to build ships to replace retiring ships and about the same number of ships in order to hit the 355 target by the date desired
 

Monica33

Suspended
Joined
Feb 10, 2021
Messages
1,577
Reaction score
241
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A handful of ships for coastguards and rescue vessels is ample . 30- 40 is enough .

The US Navy never does anything constructive and when it occasionally provokes conflict it never wins .

The key military nations -- China and Russia --can blow ships out of the water with DEW or fry them , and long range hyper speed missiles make them a very old fashioned and quaint way of posturing .

What is the point of having more than 30- 40 if you do not know what to do with them save sail round in circles wasting mega amounts of money ?

What proportion of Navy time is spent on exercises and doing nothing to Russia or China other than to make soppy headlines for a couple of days ? 99.0% ?
 

DataPoint

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2021
Messages
1,957
Reaction score
922
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Monica33, please.
 

Questerr

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2019
Messages
8,555
Reaction score
3,272
Location
San Antonio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
A handful of ships for coastguards and rescue vessels is ample . 30- 40 is enough .

The US Navy never does anything constructive and when it occasionally provokes conflict it never wins .

The key military nations -- China and Russia --can blow ships out of the water with DEW or fry them , and long range hyper speed missiles make them a very old fashioned and quaint way of posturing .

What is the point of having more than 30- 40 if you do not know what to do with them save sail round in circles wasting mega amounts of money ?

What proportion of Navy time is spent on exercises and doing nothing to Russia or China other than to make soppy headlines for a couple of days ? 99.0% ?

Let's just examine your first sentence before falling down the rabbit hole of batshit crazy lies that follow it:

The US Coast Guard currently operates more than 240 ships, and they are considered overstretched with that number. Where did you pull this "30-40" number from besides your ass?
 

fortune

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2020
Messages
221
Reaction score
65
Location
earth
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other




As with the shipbuilders, Congress is also far less than pleased with the Navy's ambiguity regarding the composition of a 355 ship US Navy and the timetable for attaining that goal.
"Us Navy's Shipbuilding Plan Doesn't meet congress's Needs" What a moronic thing to put to print. Congress "wants", does not need.
I have worked with military for decades on many projects but this is always the same shit. A congressman in a shipbuilding state like Connecticut or Virginia speaks out for the whole of congress just to get jobs in his state.
The Navy is changing, as it must, to fight differently and they do it the same way all services do by applying at bit of the future sooner than later.
 

Rogue Valley

Exordium and Terminus
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
64,182
Reaction score
48,416
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"Us Navy's Shipbuilding Plan Doesn't meet congress's Needs" What a moronic thing to put to print. Congress "wants", does not need.

Take it up with the copy editor. The point stands.
 

gino

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
954
Reaction score
374
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The problem is, the military has become both very political and intertwined with the military-industrial complex to the degree that our military leadership now makes decisions based not on what we need, but what is best for them politically. Add to that Congress being the same, and it makes a spaghetti mess of things. Such large amounts of money involved, and everyone is looking for their share...
 

fortune

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2020
Messages
221
Reaction score
65
Location
earth
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Take it up with the copy editor. The point stands.
Naw... it is simply piss poor journalism at best or an imbecilic command of English at worst.

Subject of article said:

US Navy’s Shipbuilding Plan Doesn’t Meet Congress’ Needs, Lawmakers Say​

and then the first sentence said
"The U.S. Navy’s shipbuilding plan doesn’t tell Congress what the service needs, nor does it provide certainty for long-term planning, two House lawmakers say.

You dont get.. I'm ok with that but if you continue quoting articles from another of these bone head sites it may make it harder for me to forgive your shortcomings.
 

fortune

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2020
Messages
221
Reaction score
65
Location
earth
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The problem is, the military has become both very political and intertwined with the military-industrial complex to the degree that our military leadership now makes decisions based not on what we need, but what is best for them politically. Add to that Congress being the same, and it makes a spaghetti mess of things. Such large amounts of money involved, and everyone is looking for their share...
well said but can you place blame on either side here. The Military at the highest level is pledged to uphold the constitution primarily and to defend our country secondarily. Think about it.
 

Monica33

Suspended
Joined
Feb 10, 2021
Messages
1,577
Reaction score
241
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let's just examine your first sentence before falling down the rabbit hole of batshit crazy lies that follow it:

The US Coast Guard currently operates more than 240 ships, and they are considered overstretched with that number. Where did you pull this "30-40" number from besides your ass?

Gather you would go for fewer .

Risky , but give it a try .


Another poster deflects by arguing that the old fashioned navy should become the means for distributing aid , relief , expertise etc.

In that case , get rid of the weapons etc and let the Red Cross take over the US Mercy Fleet --- half a dozen ships perhaps .

Just think also of the accruing good PR . No more stories about the US wanting to run the world , interfering everywhere to their own advantage and dragging others down to their level .

Very win / win .
 

Rogue Valley

Exordium and Terminus
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
64,182
Reaction score
48,416
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Naw... it is simply piss poor journalism at best or an imbecilic command of English at worst.


Or, you are simply clutching at minutia to bitch about.
 

Questerr

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2019
Messages
8,555
Reaction score
3,272
Location
San Antonio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Gather you would go for fewer .

Risky , but give it a try .


Another poster deflects by arguing that the old fashioned navy should become the means for distributing aid , relief , expertise etc.

In that case , get rid of the weapons etc and let the Red Cross take over the US Mercy Fleet --- half a dozen ships perhaps .

Just think also of the accruing good PR . No more stories about the US wanting to run the world , interfering everywhere to their own advantage and dragging others down to their level .

Very win / win .

I notice you didn’t at all address my post. I’ll ask again: where did you get your 30-40 number from besides just pulling out of your ass?

Where are you getting this new “half a dozen” number from if not pulling it from your ass? You know that the US only has *two* Mercy class ships yes?
 

Dayton3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
9,706
Reaction score
1,366
Location
Smackover, AR.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
A handful of ships for coastguards and rescue vessels is ample . 30- 40 is enough .

The US Navy never does anything constructive and when it occasionally provokes conflict it never wins .

The key military nations -- China and Russia --can blow ships out of the water with DEW or fry them , and long range hyper speed missiles make them a very old fashioned and quaint way of posturing .

What is the point of having more than 30- 40 if you do not know what to do with them save sail round in circles wasting mega amounts of money ?

What proportion of Navy time is spent on exercises and doing nothing to Russia or China other than to make soppy headlines for a couple of days ? 99.0% ?
One of the absolutely stupidest posts I've seen on this board ever.

If ships were so easy to "blow out of the water" why have so few been blown out of the water since World War Two? Because it isn't that damned easy. American carriers can survive and return to combat even if at minimum 6 missiles hit them. This has been proven by explosions and fires aboard carriers over the years. Smaller U.S. ships can withstand one or two missiles.
 

Dayton3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
9,706
Reaction score
1,366
Location
Smackover, AR.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
A handful of ships for coastguards and rescue vessels is ample . 30- 40 is enough .
You don't know it is obvious that 40 ships (which would mean 15 able to deploy overseas) isn't even enough to stop pirates from stealing everything in sight.
 

gino

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
954
Reaction score
374
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'd just like to state that the Coast Guard is the biggest bunch of bad-asses around. If I am in trouble in a boat, they are the ones to save my sorry butt. I vote we give them all the boats they need to keep my butt safe!
 

Luce

Weaponized Funk
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Messages
15,578
Reaction score
8,290
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
One of the absolutely stupidest posts I've seen on this board ever.
I find myself in the position of cheering for a Dayton post.

This disturbs me, but it is what it is.
 

BahamaBob

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 1, 2019
Messages
3,778
Reaction score
1,336
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The US Navy has a budget of $211.7 billion for 2022. This includes $22.6 billion for ship building procurement with plans to build 8 new ships.

"PB22 asks for eight ships: two SSN-774 Block V Virginia-class fast attack submarines; one DDG-51 Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (a drop from last year’s plan to ask for two DDGs in 2022); one-FFG 62 Constellation-class frigate; one T-AO-205 John Lewis-class fleet oiler; two T-ATS 6 Navajo-class towing, salvage and rescue ships; and one new-design T-AGOS(X) ocean surveillance ship."

First of all, $22.6 billion for eight ships works out to about $3 billion per ship, that should be more than ample. But as typical for the military, the costs will be much more. For example, the navy pegs SSN(X) costs at $3.4 billion per boat while CBO estimates $5.5 billion apiece. The military is famous for outrageous cost overruns.

The point being, when if the Navy is so inept they can not stay anywhere close to budget how can anyone expect to produce a 30 year shipbuilding plan.
 

jbi

Active member
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
407
Reaction score
47
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
One of the absolutely stupidest posts I've seen on this board ever.

If ships were so easy to "blow out of the water" why have so few been blown out of the water since World War Two? Because it isn't that damned easy. American carriers can survive and return to combat even if at minimum 6 missiles hit them. This has been proven by explosions and fires aboard carriers over the years. Smaller U.S. ships can withstand one or two missiles.

While I agree with the majority of you post, there is no way of knowing how a carrier would survive a missile strike.

I single ballistic missile may well send a carrier to the bottom.
 

eohrnberger

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
44,132
Reaction score
28,777
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
"US Navy’s Shipbuilding Plan Doesn’t Meet Congress’ Needs, Lawmakers Say"
Wouldn't the Navy leaders be more knowledgeable about what's needed?
 
Top Bottom