Limit our sea power and have to spread it out… or keep our selves safe and buy the necessary subs to get the job done.

No, defense spending is not a big part of it of our financial ilness.

***

Cole,

It is not China, or Russia, or Iran, or Venezuela or anybody else that is the ‘problem’. It is ALL OF THEM & MANY, MANY MORE! The NONSENSE that you are ‘prescribing’ is equivalent to trying to keep wild animals out of your yard but only putting a fence up on one or two sides and IGNORING the other sides since ‘the animals only appear to come from one or two directions’.

There are just two threats driving large numbers of subs…China and Russia and the latter is no longer a sea threat. Plus the Brits have great subs, as I’m sure France, Holland, and Italy may have to serve NATO needs.

Against China, Australia has 6 subs, South Korea 9, India 16, Taiwan 2, Japan 10.…and since Russia is no longer a threat we could have more than a 50/50 Pacific/Atlanta split. Never forget our allies or alternative solutions.

You also ingnored the bigger Ohio-class tube doors that expedite resupply and speed up return to station with dual crews to effectively simulate 1.4 subs for each actual sub. Kind of identical to what would work for the F-22.…
————————————–
pfcem goes on” “And since you have an OBVIOUS comprehension problem….the link I provided shows that 47 LA class subs will be decommissioned between 2009 & 2029 with NONE LEFT IN 2030.“
————————
Man I hate it when you are right…but fortunately that’s a rare occurence. ;) When I originally looked at the link I was thinking 2020…when in fact there will be plenty of LA class subs left.
——————————————
pfcem said: “That means that in order to maintain the same number of subs you NEED to commission 47 NEW subs from 2009–2029. That is MORE THAN TWO SUBS A YEAR“
——————————————
That raises the interesting question of what comes after 30 VA class subs since the Tactical Tridents and Sea Wolfs are also getting old.

You completely ignore less expensive alternative mechanisms to accomplish the same missions…while reaching more than just the coasts. But don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against the Navy or subs…like I mentioned, my nephew is/was/will be a VA class nuke chief petty officer.

A new 6th VA sub was just commissioned, and if as the Admiral said, there are secret reasons for these subs…so be it. Still seems like an incredibly expensive way to do things.

STOP THE NONSENSE! We are NOT overspending on defense & defense spending IS NOT the cause of our financial problems.

So in 2020 the ONLY thing we will need subs for is to counter a Chinese sub fleet. LOL

And since you have an OBVIOUS comprehension problem.…the link I provided shows that 47 LA class subs will be decommissioned between 2009 & 2029 with NONE LEFT IN 2030. That means that in order to maintain the same number of subs you NEED to commission 47 NEW subs from 2009–2029. That is MORE THAN TWO SUBS A YEAR.

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/03/chinese-submarines-vs-soviet-submarines.html

Make sure you read REM’s rebuttal in the comments…and then address how few Russian subs require a hefty Atlantic fleet these days.

Then consider technology quality of the respective Chinese vs. American subs and their munitions.

Then recall quality/quantity of other surface and airborne counter-submarine assets that we already have and that are coming: P8, LCS, UUV.

Don’t ignore the disparity in respective military budgets of both countries…and realize that when our economy is suffering, theirs and their defense budget is depleted even more so.

Note Mr. Grant’s reference that all newer VA-class subs will have the two larger tubes…these expedite resupply and allow dual-crewing to get VA-class back on station sooner ala our nuke boomers.

I know diddly about subs but basic research rapidly refutes alarmist propaganda. Any research reveals that adding Army and Marine servicemembers will cost the DoD an enormous amount. Some force structure trade-offs would save the DoD money bringing greater parity in servicemember sacrifice while still addressing all real world projectable air-land-sea threats.

However, submariners deploy more than all other Sailors and carrier battle groups have the most force structure and largest advantage over other countries, making it obvious where trade-offs should start.

BTW, pfcem, your link illustrates that if we bought single VA class subs through the end of 2029 there would still be ample LA-class subs on line then and for some years to come. If you want a never ending cycle, continued purchase of a single VA-class per year would be more than adequate beyond 2030 allowing the Navy to spend nearly $2 billion annually on other same-mission surface and airborne systems to relieve the burden on submariners. LCS and P8 are a great start.

If you built subs that lasted 40 years (already at 33 years) you could have 40 on line at all times with one large sub purchase per year, and far more smaller UUV built with some of the annual $2 billion savings.

Yes, it is a never ending cycle. You need a given minimum number of whatever (be it subs, surface combatants, carriers, fighers, bombers, tanks, APC, et ceterta). THE main reason why we are ramping up F-35 production so quickly is because we HAVE to in order to maintain the minimum number of required fighters becasue outr legacy fighters are reaching the end of their useful lives. Procuring less is like trying to save money buy only filling your vehicle’s tank half way when you go to the gas station. You DON’T save any money really because you end up having to back to the gas station sooner than if you filled it completely.

This is what you are REPLACING, we are not building any ADDITIONAL subs, but rather REPLACING existing subs…
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ssn-688-unit.htm

You have absoluelty NO clus what the threat will be in 2020 or 2030 (when we will have NO LA class SSNs left).

Stop the nonsense, a CVBG does not suck up ANY service members from ANY other unit.

Now what? It’s 2023 so some antsy Congressman/Senator in Mississippi and Connecticut will start applying pressure to keep building them to keep the assembly line open or the Navy will want to start building some follow-on all new sub. The cycle never ends and is sped up by trying to be too efficient in building two a year when one would suffice given the threat.

If they built one a year after 2013, the last replacement would be started in 2025 and complete at the end of 2029. That’s 6 more years that the production line is open and 6 more years those subs will be in the fleet so that future replacements are also commissioned 6 years later decades from now.

If the threat doesn’t dictate enough subs to produce economies of scale, why seek them? Instead seek to retain continuous production. Note that these would share the same larger tubes with the Ohio class Tactical Tridents. So we have those 4 boats and the 3 Seawolf plus 30 VA class…plus all the UUS that they and surface ships like the littoral combat ships can launch.

Call me unpatriotic, but that just seems more than sufficient for any conceivable threat…especially since surface and airborne assets can perform many similar ISR, countermine, countersub, special ops, and cruise missile missions.

Meanwhile, Army SFC Snuffy will be sucking down his 5th year-long combat tour in Iraq/Afghanistan (a year apart) because 2 too many carrier battle groups suck up 14,000 servicemembers that would field four 3,500-man brigade combat teams to relieve the Army’s rotation requirements.

No, it is about maintaining adequite force size & manufacturing capability.

Quite frankly less than two boats a year is pathetic. Some day in the not too distant future the existing LA class boats will become FAR too old & worn out to fool ABYBODY into thinking there are adequitely operational…

(1) Reducing the production rate
(2) Eliminating the co-production

Where have I EVER said we should “waste money on defense spending by buying the wrong weapons systems”?

What $900 billion in overruns and other unnecessary costs, the DOD yearly budget isn’t $900 billion, not even including all the supplimental war spending.

Sorry but England cutting the F-22 procurement had NOTHING whatsoever to do with saving money. That MAY be the ‘excuse’ you have fallen for but it is NOT the truth.

Look what happened when DSec England decided we didn’t need 250 F-22s. Look at the hub bub and over what? He was only trying to save money (maybe for use elsewhere) and reduce defense spending.

Bottom line is that if defense acquisition doesn’t promise and then demonstrate better execution, Obama should make across the board cuts. Since there’s no reason to believe it can be improved, he should make those cuts early on.

Giving the services less money isn’t a foolproof answer but it has forced economies of scale and more intelligent thinking about what’s needed.

GDP = Consumption © + Investment (I) + forms of Government spending (G) + (Exports — Inports)

2008 consumers spend far more than inflation would justify since the Carter era on:

- rent and health care © (how much are drug/ health care expenses surpassing inflation,10%?)

- mortgages (I) (my mom’s house in Silicon Valley was worth about $150K in the late 70s and today is worth $900K even with the housing downturn)

- new products/services like computers/video games/DVDs/cell phones/HDTV/I-Pods often bought using overextended credit cards ©

- government earmarks and handouts (G)

You look at the above and assume that GDP growth actually means something? Heck when you spend more on defense and give more money to banks and GM/Chrysler, you increase GDP and thus increase that 4% dramatically!!;)

In addition, sounds like you advocate spending for the sake of spending…kind of like that annual September exercise where government monies not yet spent, suddenly are, so the same money won’t disappear from next year’s budget.

Spend money on true defense needs for the actual threat and most prevalent form of conflict…not because some artificial formula and imagined scenario tells you to spend.

BTW, how big is that life cycle differential in fuel expense for Boeing’s KC vs. Northrup/EADS’s KC looking these days there buddy?? Think that 5.5% oil inflation rate is still valid?

And just lookee how well it has worked out cowtowing to unions in the auto and steel biz…and you wanna follow suit for the KC buy?

It is not defense spending that is causing us to have to borrow money!

And, as I said before, ALL of the potential/expected savings from defense cuts is samll potatos compared to the spending increases that have occured & are expeced elsewhere.

DEFENSE SPENING ISN’T THE CAUSE OF THE ACCUMULATED DEBT EITHER!