Whoa, Bryan...pretty strongly stated against the Biden Administration's budget choices. I'm wondering where all that venom came from? Since, his budget submission did increase DoN ToA above the preestablished budget history curve, then, upon encouragement from the Dem-led SASC, further increased shipbuilding...even though, rather embarrassingly, our shipbuilding has been dismal this century...LCS, Zumwalt Class, BUSH, and others, I rest. Seems even the Dems have faith that we will get it right. More broadly, I'm thinking that Joe Biden has seen Levant turmoil played out before...and we are lucky to have that steady hand on the tiller. Our allies think so to the point that Trump hates them for it.
Very well said. I sent your column to my Congressman, Chuck Edwards (NC-11) and fellow members of his Military Advisory Group. We just had a meeting last Friday and part of my pitch, of course, was for more ships. Which I have been advocating for a long time starting with Mark Meadows and then Trump when I was on Mark's MAG during the period 2016-2020. Here is a small sample of them:
Ignorance of China Is Not Bliss | RealClearDefense
Like it or not, the Navy is supposed to do presence missions; but it doesn't need a carrier group for a lot of them. For a lot of the world, missile boats and Constellations will be more than adequate. 1 CSG and amphibious group off Europe, 1 and 2 Indian Ocean, 2 and 2 Pacific. And dump money into energetics so we can get longer range and more terminal dakka with current weapon bodies. 10% more powered range will come in handy.
More subs some say? Buy the design the Taiwanese are starting to make, put them in the Philippines, Greenland, and the Med.
From my distant observation of events in Ukraine, The US and NATO need a whole shit ton of weapons if we ever engage in a peer on peer war. The only one's that will be capable of engaging us at that level would be China and India. Political events in those countries are as opaque as those in Russia. Russia's adventure in Ukraine seemed insane to me. But, here we are.
Very well expressed. When I tell my students that there is no greater national imperative than a strong and effective US Navy, they just look at me blankly. When I explain the economic, political and military benefits of a strong fleet, some of them actually become believers.
Amen shipmate. The return in investment for battle force capable ships is 10 fold the cost even accounting for the bloating costs associated with the “DOD oversight” activities that provide 0 add.
Nailed it.
(And you didn’t even have to mention the Billions released to Iran to enable this lunacy)
Whoa, Bryan...pretty strongly stated against the Biden Administration's budget choices. I'm wondering where all that venom came from? Since, his budget submission did increase DoN ToA above the preestablished budget history curve, then, upon encouragement from the Dem-led SASC, further increased shipbuilding...even though, rather embarrassingly, our shipbuilding has been dismal this century...LCS, Zumwalt Class, BUSH, and others, I rest. Seems even the Dems have faith that we will get it right. More broadly, I'm thinking that Joe Biden has seen Levant turmoil played out before...and we are lucky to have that steady hand on the tiller. Our allies think so to the point that Trump hates them for it.
"OR this is a shallow, superficial political move designed to show a domestic political audience that we care, that we are “doing something”."
With this cross dressing, gender bending, and ancient non compos mentis administration it is hard to tell which way they are swinging toady.
This seems like a wise use of naval power and very timely in light of Hamas attacks on innocent Israeli citizens.
Very well said. I sent your column to my Congressman, Chuck Edwards (NC-11) and fellow members of his Military Advisory Group. We just had a meeting last Friday and part of my pitch, of course, was for more ships. Which I have been advocating for a long time starting with Mark Meadows and then Trump when I was on Mark's MAG during the period 2016-2020. Here is a small sample of them:
Ignorance of China Is Not Bliss | RealClearDefense
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2020/06/11/
the_middle_kingdom_rises_115372.html
https://www.realcleardefense.com/2020/08/05/
cno_mandate__a_design_for_maintaining_maritime_superiority_314799.html
Regards,
Brent
Like it or not, the Navy is supposed to do presence missions; but it doesn't need a carrier group for a lot of them. For a lot of the world, missile boats and Constellations will be more than adequate. 1 CSG and amphibious group off Europe, 1 and 2 Indian Ocean, 2 and 2 Pacific. And dump money into energetics so we can get longer range and more terminal dakka with current weapon bodies. 10% more powered range will come in handy.
More subs some say? Buy the design the Taiwanese are starting to make, put them in the Philippines, Greenland, and the Med.
From my distant observation of events in Ukraine, The US and NATO need a whole shit ton of weapons if we ever engage in a peer on peer war. The only one's that will be capable of engaging us at that level would be China and India. Political events in those countries are as opaque as those in Russia. Russia's adventure in Ukraine seemed insane to me. But, here we are.
Very well expressed. When I tell my students that there is no greater national imperative than a strong and effective US Navy, they just look at me blankly. When I explain the economic, political and military benefits of a strong fleet, some of them actually become believers.
Reality > Theory
Amen shipmate. The return in investment for battle force capable ships is 10 fold the cost even accounting for the bloating costs associated with the “DOD oversight” activities that provide 0 add.