Comments on: A Shrinking Navy http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/29/a-shrinking-navy/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:29:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Carl http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/29/a-shrinking-navy/#comment-201229 Carl Wed, 15 Sep 2010 00:03:45 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=25039#comment-201229 Why do you openly lie about basic facts. Obama has no plans to cut the military budget, and it will continue to grow 2% a year whilst the nation goes bankrupt. It seems the terror threat will grow by 2% a year. Why do you openly lie about basic facts. Obama has no plans to cut the military budget, and it will continue to grow 2% a year whilst the nation goes bankrupt. It seems the terror threat will grow by 2% a year.

]]> By: Rich Stewart, Carlis http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/29/a-shrinking-navy/#comment-85936 Rich Stewart, Carlis Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:53:14 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=25039#comment-85936 I'm guessing you folks at Heritage have more interesting and vital research topics than you know what to do with in the area of national security. Nonetheless I would like to suggest something you might want to look into as a way to explain the importance of maintaining a U.S. Navy second to none. Do an analysis of post Korean War to the resent situations where the fleet has been called upon to get to the scene of an international incident in the making, or one already in progress, as well as other things such as major relief effort situations. Toss in a little what if analysis about how we are going to respond to these requirements with pre-World War I size Navy. The world remains a very dangerous place. When and the exact nature of the next situation that will cause a President of the U.S. to turn to the Navy and ask how many ships can you have at location A within X number of days/hours may not be known, but that it will happen is something you can take to the bank. Unless Obama takes over the banks; in which case you may not want to take anything to the bank. The point is that some really bad situations likely would have been much worse had we not had the capability and the will to show force or project power on short notice. Nothing gets the attention of two bit dictators, ne'er do wells, and international thugs (or lifts the spirits of their victims) like a U.S. Navy battle group coming into view over the horizon. The next President is going to have to fix this mess. Having crisp, focused analysis to back him or her up on the value of and need to be able to call on the U.S. Navy in these types of situations is going to be of vital importance. It took years for the Reagan initiatives to turn a deteriorating armed forces situation around. This President will only accelerate the decline. The next President will have no time to waste in turning the situation around. Having experienced first hand the demoralizing mess that was the Carter era and the long hard slog back through the Reagan era, I pray that today's Navy has what it takes to do push through a situation painfully reminiscent of what we went through. I'm guessing you folks at Heritage have more interesting and vital research topics than you know what to do with in the area of national security. Nonetheless I would like to suggest something you might want to look into as a way to explain the importance of maintaining a U.S. Navy second to none. Do an analysis of post Korean War to the resent situations where the fleet has been called upon to get to the scene of an international incident in the making, or one already in progress, as well as other things such as major relief effort situations. Toss in a little what if analysis about how we are going to respond to these requirements with pre-World War I size Navy.

The world remains a very dangerous place. When and the exact nature of the next situation that will cause a President of the U.S. to turn to the Navy and ask how many ships can you have at location A within X number of days/hours may not be known, but that it will happen is something you can take to the bank. Unless Obama takes over the banks; in which case you may not want to take anything to the bank. The point is that some really bad situations likely would have been much worse had we not had the capability and the will to show force or project power on short notice. Nothing gets the attention of two bit dictators, ne'er do wells, and international thugs (or lifts the spirits of their victims) like a U.S. Navy battle group coming into view over the horizon.

The next President is going to have to fix this mess. Having crisp, focused analysis to back him or her up on the value of and need to be able to call on the U.S. Navy in these types of situations is going to be of vital importance. It took years for the Reagan initiatives to turn a deteriorating armed forces situation around. This President will only accelerate the decline. The next President will have no time to waste in turning the situation around.

Having experienced first hand the demoralizing mess that was the Carter era and the long hard slog back through the Reagan era, I pray that today's Navy has what it takes to do push through a situation painfully reminiscent of what we went through.

]]> By: Mike Burleson http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/29/a-shrinking-navy/#comment-85694 Mike Burleson Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:58:12 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=25039#comment-85694 Mackenzie, is there any surprise that we are shrinking when in the last several decades, despite there being no peer threat, we have ONLY built multi-billion dollar battleships, like the Burke destroyers? Meanwhile, our primary adversaries have been pirates in speedboats that run rings around our exquisite space age fleet. The LCS is only a nod at the problem since it isn't too far below the billion-dollar price tag, even while possessing a patrol boat armament on a hull the size of a frigate. Money is not the answer but a sea-change in the way the Navy buys and build ships, because we have been awash in funds for decades. Buy patrol ships and corvettes, conventional subs and HSVs, to work alongside our giant battleships, to fill out the numbers. The Big Ships being so much more capable thanks to new weapons, logically we can do more with less of them. But hulls in the water for the Navy are like boots on the ground for the Army. In other words, ships are her life, and they don't all need to be high tech and exquisite, just available when needed. Mackenzie, is there any surprise that we are shrinking when in the last several decades, despite there being no peer threat, we have ONLY built multi-billion dollar battleships, like the Burke destroyers? Meanwhile, our primary adversaries have been pirates in speedboats that run rings around our exquisite space age fleet. The LCS is only a nod at the problem since it isn't too far below the billion-dollar price tag, even while possessing a patrol boat armament on a hull the size of a frigate.

Money is not the answer but a sea-change in the way the Navy buys and build ships, because we have been awash in funds for decades. Buy patrol ships and corvettes, conventional subs and HSVs, to work alongside our giant battleships, to fill out the numbers. The Big Ships being so much more capable thanks to new weapons, logically we can do more with less of them. But hulls in the water for the Navy are like boots on the ground for the Army. In other words, ships are her life, and they don't all need to be high tech and exquisite, just available when needed.

]]>