Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Stars and Stripes)   The Navy is over extended and military budget cuts are coming, how should we prepare? I know, let's create an entirely new Fleet   (stripes.com) divider line
    More: Awkward  
•       •       •

1121 clicks; posted to STEM » and Politics » on 21 Nov 2020 at 5:05 PM (11 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



59 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-11-21 1:25:12 PM  
Hey bankrupting the Soviets thru military expansion is what made us so great.  Guess they and the Chinese want to return the favor.
 
2020-11-21 1:28:45 PM  
Yeah, our shipbuilding can't maintain what we have NOW. Where are the ships going to come from?
 
2020-11-21 1:29:01 PM  
How is the Navy "over extended" when we could just... reduce their mission slightly?
 
2020-11-21 1:29:32 PM  
Probably should have based a fleet in Singapore before we lost global hegemony.  Now it's like trying to install a sprinkler system inside a burning building.
 
2020-11-21 1:35:40 PM  

ShavedOrangutan: Probably should have based a fleet in Singapore before we lost global hegemony.  Now it's like trying to install a sprinkler system inside a burning building.


Oh man, Friday night drunken squids and strict Singaporean rules would not be a good combo. I could see base security "You know what? Just go ahead and cane 'em all. Send them back when you're done and we'll get them in trouble too."
 
2020-11-21 1:37:27 PM  

weddingsinger: How is the Navy "over extended" when we could just... reduce their mission slightly?


Everyone seems to be ignoring the realities we're facing in the next 30 years and rather than reëvaluating our global engagement policies we just keep shrinking manning and hoping that something will change so that we won't have to. At some point, we simply won't have the capability to execute our naval posture and we'll end up executing an obsolete plan poorly rather than a new plan well. And that kind of situation is not usually resolved luckily. Catastrophe tends to be inevitably if you're unwilling to change.
 
2020-11-21 1:52:20 PM  
A couple quick hits:
- Move that tarp over there and, whaddaya know, the USS John McCain
- If we act sooner, we won't have to take carriers offline due to COVID
- Some more focus on drivers' ed for captains should keep a bunch out of shipyards for repairs

Pretty soon, you've got yourself a fleet!
 
2020-11-21 1:53:14 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-21 2:37:24 PM  

weddingsinger: How is the Navy "over extended" when we could just... reduce their mission slightly?


Well, see you have to reduce the missions first before they can not be overextended.
 
2020-11-21 2:55:59 PM  
I think they should start by not crashing their ships into things.
 
2020-11-21 3:00:29 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: I think they should start by not crashing their ships into things.


I think they started that already!  When was the last collision?

/not starting fires would be helpful too
 
2020-11-21 3:04:25 PM  

Combustion: ShavedOrangutan: Probably should have based a fleet in Singapore before we lost global hegemony.  Now it's like trying to install a sprinkler system inside a burning building.

Oh man, Friday night drunken squids and strict Singaporean rules would not be a good combo. I could see base security "You know what? Just go ahead and cane 'em all. Send them back when you're done and we'll get them in trouble too."


Singapore is a nice liberty port. It's easy enough to stay out of trouble there. It's not as much fun as Thailand....
 
2020-11-21 3:54:09 PM  

johnny_vegas: Marcus Aurelius: I think they should start by not crashing their ships into things.

I think they started that already!  When was the last collision?

/not starting fires would be helpful too


Maybe I should be President!
 
2020-11-21 4:21:04 PM  

dj_bigbird: Combustion: ShavedOrangutan: Probably should have based a fleet in Singapore before we lost global hegemony.  Now it's like trying to install a sprinkler system inside a burning building.

Oh man, Friday night drunken squids and strict Singaporean rules would not be a good combo. I could see base security "You know what? Just go ahead and cane 'em all. Send them back when you're done and we'll get them in trouble too."

Singapore is a nice liberty port. It's easy enough to stay out of trouble there. It's not as much fun as Thailand....


Ahhh see, I never got to go there. All I know is the fierce reputation of Singapore; and I know how drunken sailors act. I would have had no trouble there, as me and my friends weren't obnoxious. Well, comparatively.
 
2020-11-21 4:53:14 PM  

weddingsinger: How is the Navy "over extended" when we could just... reduce their mission slightly?


We don't have total naval supremacy in every ocean on Earth.....even though we have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the Earth. PANIC!
 
2020-11-21 5:12:54 PM  

ShavedOrangutan: Probably should have based a fleet in Singapore before we lost global hegemony.  Now it's like trying to install a sprinkler system inside a burning building.


Seeing that Australia is seriously rethinking their policies , albeit rather late, towards China, I have a good feeling we could lease a rather large base from them. Plus we have had rather close ties for a long time now. Plus, it is safer than any other place mentioned from an intel standpoint ( among many other factors ) .
Or we could expand Guam.
 
2020-11-21 5:14:42 PM  

alienated: Or we could expand Guam.


You can't just keep sticking more stuff on Guam!  Do you have any idea how close it is to tipping over already?
 
2020-11-21 5:16:26 PM  

vygramul: Yeah, our shipbuilding can't maintain what we have NOW. Where are the ships going to come from?


Maybe we could get China to build us some.
 
2020-11-21 5:21:27 PM  
"In September, Beijing sent both of its aircraft carriers"

Lol, they only have two? WE HAVE ELEVEN. Stop giving your citizens healthcare and get on our level, China.
 
2020-11-21 5:22:23 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-21 5:25:27 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: [Fark user image 720x720]


I regret that I have but one Smart to give.  We cannot be reminded of Eisenhower enough.
 
2020-11-21 5:28:33 PM  
A new fleet doesn't require more ships, you silly people.

It does require several new flag officers with staff, and office buildings for housing same, and the entire managerial structure that comes with it. In other words, it's the perfect vehicle for rewarding faithful and connected officers.

Parkinson (of Parkinson's Law fame) predicted this ages ago. As the tonnage of a navy dwindles, the administrative branch expands. In fact, a navy could have no ships at all, and the administrative branch would still expand.
 
2020-11-21 5:35:08 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: [Fark user image image 720x720]


Couple things...  how did that work out for him?  Do as I say not as I do kind of thing right?  Further his speech was directed towards the Soviet Union and how the US was forced to arm up because of the USSRs actions. You should've referenced his farewell address, it would've been more relevant
 
2020-11-21 5:36:29 PM  

kyleaugustus: vygramul: Yeah, our shipbuilding can't maintain what we have NOW. Where are the ships going to come from?

Maybe we could get China to build us some.


They're busy building lift capacity so that the invasion of Taiwan isn't the Million Man Swim.
 
2020-11-21 5:39:21 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: [Fark user image 720x720]


Saved for future use, titled as "The last decent Republican".
 
2020-11-21 5:50:08 PM  

Al Tsheimers: Bith Set Me Up: [Fark user image 720x720]

Saved for future use, titled as "The last decent Republican".


You may want to do a little research before trotting that one out
 
2020-11-21 6:52:37 PM  

johnny_vegas: Al Tsheimers: Bith Set Me Up: [Fark user image 720x720]

Saved for future use, titled as "The last decent Republican".

You may want to do a little research before trotting that one out


It's relative. Have you seen what they have served up to us since then?
 
2020-11-21 6:54:25 PM  
What cuts? Nothing in TFA about cuts.
 
2020-11-21 7:03:56 PM  
I play war games.  Things like the Civ series, amongst others.  I always want more war shiat, but that means I can't build food sources, education, entertainment, infrastructure, trade, etc.

In a perfect world I could build all the war stuff I wanted, kick everybody's ass, and win.  But in the real world that means I starve my citizens, deprive them of entertainment, the infrastructure falls apart, etc etc.

The one thing none of my games gets correct is the siphoning off of resources the 1% do.  That never seems to get modeled correctly
 
2020-11-21 7:09:17 PM  

weddingsinger: How is the Navy "over extended" when we could just... reduce their mission slightly?


The fleet carriers are well past their required maintenance periodicity, and they're starting to be forced to operate at reduced capacity (or not get underway at all). More than half of the rest of the surface combatants are falling apart from deferred/delayed maintenance, with several DDGs unable to go to sea because the SPY-1 radar isn't functioning (for the non-sailors, SPY-1 is the radar which makes Aegis work). Almost all the remaining cruisers have major structural problems which result from putting an ALUMINUM 4-story rectangular structure atop the steel hull of a Spruance-class destroyer. Most of the amphibious assault craft are far past their expected service lives, and they're also far overdue on critical maintenance. Support vessels (the ones who provide supplies to the ships at sea) are in even worse shape, because they're USNS vessels- operated by civilian crews with a few Navy sailors aboard. These ships get serviced after the combatants, so they're even further behind on critical maintenance.

Because of the pandemic, Navy vessels on deployment rarely pull into port- not even for supplies. This means conducting Underway Replenishment (UNREP), where multiple ships sail within a few meters of each other while cables haul supplies and fuel between the ships, and remember all these ships are falling apart in various critical ways. Fewer port visits mean UNREPs every week or so for EVERY SHIP AT SEA.

Deployments used to be for six months (180 days), followed by down time for maintenance, followed by work-ups for the next deployment, followed by another deployment a couple of years later. With so many ships deadlined because of critical equipment failures, the Navy has extended the deployment periods for each vessel to 270 days- and shortened the maintenance and work-up periods between deployments, further sending the ships' material condition into a death-spiral.

Then there are the ships' crews. These people are being over-worked for longer periods and with less down-time between deployments. They're also being forced to deploy with critical equipment off-line or non-functional because of the "deferred" maintenance. So they're sent into harm's way on ships which are falling apart, and every cycle between deployments gets shorter and shorter, and the crews are beginning to break down as well from over-work and COVID.

So yeah- the Navy is over-extended.

Creating a new Fleet is still technically possible (by raping 7th Fleet for ships, personnel, and critical support), but is much more likely to just be a new appointee trying desperately to come up with justification for his existence. He dredged up some older records and made a few minor edits to bring it up to date, then presented it as his "brilliant idea". There are loads of logistical and administrative hurdles for this cunning plan, not least of which would be a Status of Forces agreement with the host country. For the uninitiated, "Status of Forces" agreements define the legal jurisdictions between the host country and US forces assigned there (among many other details). Wouldn't want to have off-duty sailors getting arrested and jailed for saying something unkind about the local government- which is a real possibility on some of proposed "1st Fleet" homeports.
 
2020-11-21 7:21:38 PM  

Wenchmaster: weddingsinger: How is the Navy "over extended" when we could just... reduce their mission slightly?

The fleet carriers are well past their required maintenance periodicity,


( snipped only due to length that would cut off the quote. )

Ah, well now. I would give you all the smarts I have for green links if I could, because you spoke the truth.
I hope that you are DOD and have an ear of a few of influence, because you really got to the important points, imho.
I thank you for that post .
 
2020-11-21 7:27:41 PM  

Snotnose: I play war games.  Things like the Civ series, amongst others.  I always want more war shiat, but that means I can't build food sources, education, entertainment, infrastructure, trade, etc.

In a perfect world I could build all the war stuff I wanted, kick everybody's ass, and win.  But in the real world that means I starve my citizens, deprive them of entertainment, the infrastructure falls apart, etc etc.

The one thing none of my games gets correct is the siphoning off of resources the 1% do.  That never seems to get modeled correctly


In that instance, YOU are the 1% controlling everything
 
2020-11-21 7:41:24 PM  

Wenchmaster: weddingsinger: How is the Navy "over extended" when we could just... reduce their mission slightly?

The fleet carriers are well past their required maintenance periodicity, and they're starting to be forced to operate at reduced capacity (or not get underway at all). More than half of the rest of the surface combatants are falling apart from deferred/delayed maintenance,


Here's a thought.  Instead of building a new ship that will have some congresscritter's name on it, how about doing the maintenance on existing ships instead?

Oh yeah, I forgot.  If you spend the $$$ to maintain a bridge then they won't rename that bridge in your honor.  But if you spend 100x$$$ to build a new bridge then it can be named after you.

The whole system is farked and I have no idea how to fix it.
 
2020-11-21 7:42:17 PM  

Snotnose: I play war games.  Things like the Civ series, amongst others.  I always want more war shiat, but that means I can't build food sources, education, entertainment, infrastructure, trade, etc.

In a perfect world I could build all the war stuff I wanted, kick everybody's ass, and win.  But in the real world that means I starve my citizens, deprive them of entertainment, the infrastructure falls apart, etc etc.

The one thing none of my games gets correct is the siphoning off of resources the 1% do.  That never seems to get modeled correctly


"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
 
2020-11-21 7:44:39 PM  
Obscure?

Fark user imageView Full Size


You know who else thought Singapore would make a great naval base?
 
2020-11-21 7:47:03 PM  

weddingsinger: How is the Navy "over extended" when we could just... reduce their mission slightly?


God forbid we aren't Team America World Police.

China has a middle class larger than the total US population. The writing is on the wall. How about letting them police their sealanes?

How about a few less super carriers? What're we running? 11?
 
2020-11-21 8:00:45 PM  
Singapore is certainly a possibility and a better strategic position but I am not sure about the facilities for basing US assets.  Vietnam is also a potential port as they upgraded Cam Ranh Bay facilities in the 2010s to be able to handle aircraft carriers.  They are eager to have a US presence to counterweight China and their continued efforts to dominate the South China Sea.  However, that is awfully close to the the facilities in Japan and not really positioned as well to project power into the Indian ocean.
 
2020-11-21 8:21:02 PM  
As if the United States is relevant anymore!
Ha!
 
2020-11-21 8:44:33 PM  
I know that monkeys will fly from my butt before this will happen, but it really would be in our nation's best interest if we stopped buying all the crap from China that we currently do and instead made it here. Pay the defense corporations to make the abandoned products (the things we can't or won't make here due to economic reasons) that we consume instead of the military hardware. Or subsidize that production in Mexico and Central America as long as it promotes a middle class there (because keeping them stable helps us). Denying China the revenue that sustains them is the best way to keep them in check because if we let them continue as is, they'll ruin us.
 
DVD
2020-11-21 8:53:33 PM  

Medic Zero: weddingsinger: How is the Navy "over extended" when we could just... reduce their mission slightly?

God forbid we aren't Team America World Police.

China has a middle class larger than the total US population. The writing is on the wall. How about letting them police their sealanes?

How about a few less super carriers? What're we running? 11?


The problem with the Chinese Communist Party is the definition of "policing the sea lanes".  It's basically become "we own the ocean and if you want to use it, bow to us and give into our financial and political demands.", one region at a time

The only reason that Vietnam, the Philippines and a number of other nations near China aren't essentially landlocked by force is because of the U.S. presence.
 
2020-11-21 9:01:26 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: As if the United States is relevant anymore!
Ha!


US exceptionalism ladies and gentlemen!
 
2020-11-21 9:04:10 PM  

Al Tsheimers: johnny_vegas: Al Tsheimers: Bith Set Me Up: [Fark user image 720x720]

Saved for future use, titled as "The last decent Republican".

You may want to do a little research before trotting that one out

It's relative. Have you seen what they have served up to us since then?


Fair enough
 
2020-11-21 9:08:20 PM  

Medic Zero: weddingsinger: How is the Navy "over extended" when we could just... reduce their mission slightly?

God forbid we aren't Team America World Police.

China has a middle class larger than the total US population. The writing is on the wall. How about letting them police their sealanes?

How about a few less super carriers? What're we running? 11?


Just make sure to pull us out of those mutual defense treaties and other international obligations and modify the war plans accordingly before cutting the force.
 
2020-11-21 9:22:11 PM  
Hey now, won't this compete with building our first space fleet?
 
2020-11-22 2:23:33 AM  
So, the Navy is getting a Twitter account?
 
2020-11-22 3:37:08 AM  
not sure he knows the size of singapore, a entire fleet base there would require leveling half the city.
 
2020-11-22 11:14:01 AM  

bluewave69: not sure he knows the size of singapore, a entire fleet base there would require leveling half the city.


Not really, it'd just be a few piers and LOTS AND LOTS of buildings for all of the admirals, staff and so on. The whole point of this base would be to have more admirals, as was mentioned upthread.
 
2020-11-22 11:38:59 AM  

dj_bigbird: The whole point of this base would be to have more admirals, as was mentioned upthread.


Probably not. The number of admirals is statutorily set.  More likely it would require a reshuffling of admirals throughout the Navy.
 
2020-11-22 11:57:56 AM  

johnny_vegas: dj_bigbird: The whole point of this base would be to have more admirals, as was mentioned upthread.

Probably not. The number of admirals is statutorily set.  More likely it would require a reshuffling of admirals throughout the Navy.


But the number of staffers isn't. Just an expansion of the M-I complex.
 
2020-11-22 12:07:19 PM  

dj_bigbird: johnny_vegas: dj_bigbird: The whole point of this base would be to have more admirals, as was mentioned upthread.

Probably not. The number of admirals is statutorily set.  More likely it would require a reshuffling of admirals throughout the Navy.

But the number of staffers isn't. Just an expansion of the M-I complex.


No, end strength is dictated by Congress and limited by budget.  I doubt the Navy will get any more money for this, again they'll just have to reprogram funding and personnel from within to support it.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.