Comments on: CSIS Says Navy Rudderless

By: Joel

Joel — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:06:35 +0000

Everything being said about the Navy here is utterly true about every other part of the military. Our military’s acquisitions and procurement have been run by dabbling politicians and their contractor lobbyists along with some starry eyed dreamers with pet ideas at the top for the last 30 years and it’s beginning to show.

By: Cortland

Cortland — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:43:59 +0000

“Qood, Quick, Cheap; you get two.”

It’s possible to get what one needs even if he starts with no precise idea what that is, but this means changing plans as one goes along.
Requirements creep and changes expand programs, add costs, and delay delivery.

Politics further confuse things. No wonder we have delay and ovverrun.

By: Joseph B. Cryer

Joseph B. Cryer — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:20:32 +0000

I have not seen the Strategic Plan for the Navy so I am sort of uniformed on the subject.

Even though I have not read the Plan, I would initially suggest a balance within the Fleet makeup.

Similar to what we (Navy) accomplished during the Reagan Administration.

By: ME

ME — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:20:07 +0000

I agree the mission of thee new boats remain the same and they should reduce costs becuase of reduced manning and better gear. However the prgram managment side of building the boat is having issues. Not saying people or contractors are doing a bad job, but people have to be held accountable for thier actions.

By: LC

LC — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:27:20 +0000

The Air Force gets blasted for hanging on to manned stealth fighters but the Navy has these big floating targets that cost billions and no one raises an eye.

Yeah, I know we devote an entire fleet to protecting them but how many times have we read about a near-peer flyover of a carrier or a sub penetrating the defensive ring in the past five years?

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:44:59 +0000

Lol! there was a jarhead on a few months back posting “atleast the Marines and Navy know how to spent their money, Glad we don’t have the air force’s problems”. Yeah the Marines really got the EFV going on the right track right? and the Osprey came in on time and budget correct? and they through all their eggs in with the STOVL JSF and now they may have to buy some super hornets because the ageing F-18 C/Ds are starting to fall apart. Way to go boys.

By: LC

LC — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:39:22 +0000

What???

No Air Force bashing? You mean the other services aren’t perfect either? I’m shocked.

By: Zach

Zach — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:38:39 +0000

According to the navy…

“Carriers of the Ford class (CVN-78) will incorporate many new design features including a new nuclear reactor design (the A1B reactor), stealthier features to help reduce radar profile, electromagnetic catapults, advanced arresting gear, and reduced crewing requirements.[2] The U.S. Navy believes that with the addition of the most modern equipment and extensive use of automation they will be able to reduce the crew requirement and the total cost of future aircraft carriers.[3] The primary recognition feature compared to earlier supercarriers will be the more aft location of the navigation “island”.”

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:15:51 +0000

Well on the bright side atleast it’s not just the Air Force right? But really, why do we need a new class of aircraft carriers??? The Nimitz class seems to be doing just fine.