Navy under fire for the size of its fleet
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2024
- The Navy is coming under fire from lawmakers over a shrinking fleet. Current budget plans call for the Navy to end up next year with seven fewer warships than it has today. On Capitol Hill, lawmakers made clear they're not happy. Mike Gooding has details.
Subscribe: www.youtube.co...
Download the 13News Now App: bit.ly/13NewsNo...
Check out our website: www.13newsnow....
Like us on Facebook: / 13newsnow
Follow us on Twitter: / 13newsnow
Follow us on Instagram: / 13newsnow
That is not the Navy’s fault. It is Congress that decides the budget for the fleet, and the President approves or rejects that budget. All the Navy can do is state their needs for training, repairs, and procurement.
The NAVY has it's share of blame, from ineffectual leadership that was unwilling to stand up for their men when they embarrassed the Trump administration by announcing that they had a COVID-19 outbreak and the ship was headed for shore to get it's sailors to medical facilities. To continuing a failed ship program when it should have canceled it, t. For not purchasing new legacy aircraft and spare parts for existing aircraft when the development schedule for the new plane got delayed.
Actually it is the navy's fault because they waste a lot of money that Congress gives them on dumb projects like the zumwalt class and the ford class ships,both are over priced floating hotels that will never see combat
Yeah . . . Then FAIL at the attempt. NAVSEA has had so little success in introducing new (capable) platforms into the fleet. They GET paid, but they do not earn their pay, and our nation is less safe for there lack of effort and success.
The Navy is the responsible service for all matters Surface Combatant. We are hurting in that regard With No Relief In Sight.
@@MultiCconway This is an issue that has been decades in the making, going back to the F-14 days and earlier
I remember when the Secretary of the Navy stated that the US Navy needed at least 500 ships to do its job. Now were under 300 and retiring nuclear carriers at a time when China is trying to increase its carrier force.
Well there is a huge capability difference from back then and now, and even what will be available in the next several years. And bonus points is the fact that the US has a lot of allies across the globe, so while directly China may have a bigger navy, it is practically surrounded by US allies and countries that just don't like China..
Then US military has also been known as a liar, always angling for more money.
we must be comparing our Navy to N.KOREAN's NAVY Threat, so we DownSize?!!!......lmao
I think Navy ships in general are becoming obsolete to technology. Not completely obsolete but I mean you should be able to think and entire naval fleet in no time listen to 24-Hour period easily
China's carrier fleet doesn't compare to the U.S. USS General Ford was just commissioned too. If a carrier was retired that may be because it came to the end of its service.
How is this the Navy's fault? Congress needs to put a mirror in front of their faces and realize where the problems are coming from.
👍👍👍👍
Did the Congress decide to develop and build the LSC? No that was the navy. Who know wants to decomission the ships.
The failed LCS (littoral combat ship) program and Zumwalt from the early 2000s cost the navy tens of billions. They tried to go for revolutionary designs and ended up with duds. While we learned a lot from the failures, it was a very expensive lesson. So our navy is resorting to buying already tested and upgradeable hull designs like the constellation class cruiser. But ships take a long time to build and the labor force isn't there due to the low pay of the work. And the navy started late because it had to finally accept that the LCS designs couldn't be fixed to meet our needs. So yeah, it is the Navy's fault. But to be fair to the Navy and military in general, they're always attracted to do-it-all miracle weapons/platforms due to budget constraints from congress coupled with how much we ask our military to do.
@@that1guy_248 Constellation Class Frigate*
We have no money we’re in massive debt
The circus continues, they don’t have enough staff to operate the ships
And won't. Population demographics don't support having eh size military they want. Half US population is over the age of 40. OF the military age population 77% are unfit fore military service (too fat, too dumb, too criminal). Of that 77% 40% have 2 or more disqualifiers. We should take that money being wasted on the Ford class an invest more in UUVs, USVs and UAV. Require less manpower and cheaper, faster to build.
@@carlanderson7618 Or...or....we invest in the American people and get them on the right track so that decades down the line we don't have politicians and generals with the mental capacity of 13 year olds.
@@MrSpy13011 I don't think honest people go into modern American politics and Generals and Admirals are just politicians in uniform.
@@carlanderson7618 "77% are unfit fore military service (too fat, too dumb, too criminal)."
Fat can be fixed. Two or three months of a pre-basic fitness camp would do it.
@@MrVenona True, same with some academic training to make up for failures of the public school system but there are problems. First of course is cost, you have effectively double the cost of basic training. Second is service length, does time in fat camp count toward VA benefits? You have to figure there fat kids are gong to be more prone toward injury so are looking at more service connect injuries. Does that time in fat camp count toward their 4year/48month enlistment. 48 months minus 3 months in fat camp , 3months in basic, 2 months (or more) MOS training,4 months accrued leave, leaves 36 months deployable not counting the prospect of maternity /paternity leave, 9 months light duty due to pregnancy or other light duty due to illness injury etc. On top of that remember that 44% of that 77% have two or more disqualifiers. So they could be too fat AND too dumb or too dumb AND too criminal etc. Then there are those not qualified but not among the 77%, like those with to many dependents.
.
Do not reduce our Navy...No!
If it is about manpower, maybe it is time to put way more money into low manpower projects, or even outright drones with no one on board lol
@@GraceCole-qy6ul recruitment numbers are down, nobody wants to join woke military
Stop sending our money to other countries lets build our military not there's. And get this woke DEI out.!!!!!!
Reduce the Navy, put that money back in Americans' pockets
@@cyber8000 Reducing the navy will make us weaker. We have tons of money, we're not at all efficient at spending them. Look at the boards of education: a joke. HUD: a joke, Healthcare? a joke. Insurance? a joke.
Before putting the money back, we need to fix the system first.
Those $500 bolts and $350 hammers are expensive. What does Congress expect with those prices?
I am a Navy Veteran 1982 to 1988 AZ2 VS=41 and VS-33 two west pacs and if you want more sailors then make their pay higher is the way to do it because E-1 to E-4 if they are married, they are using EBD card to help with getting food for the family and that should never happen. All they need is a wage that's a livable one..I speak the truth because I lived it.
If the military wanted you to have food, they would issue it.
Everybody wants a bigger navy but nobody wants to pay for it…
If they paid they servicemen a living wage, they wouldn't be able to siphon money into money pits like the F35 and also they need this money to give to the Ukraine so they can protect their border while we neglect our own. It's all about making the defense industry rich and not really about protecting the country.
Yeah our oligarchs don't understand this on top of it being more difficult for a spouse to find a stable career since orders are up every 3 to 4 years and don't even get me started when you start having children
@@jb_19
They would still make you pay for it.
there is war in europe, middle east and heating tensions in asia..
How can you say nothing about that being a female? You simps are pathetic
@@gbafongbafonbecause no one cares
The only true threat in Asia is North Korea. China attacking Taiwan would tank their own economy and ours. Middle east almost always has a war so that's nothing new. As for Europe... Well, NATO won't get directly involved until a member country is threatened. Russia will go after non NATO states before anyone else. So Georgia, Moldova, etc.
Thanks to the usa 😂😂😂
So? It's not our business, according to the Constitution.
Every sailor: “with this extra money will we see an increase in quality of life?”
Top brass: 🤣🤣🤣
Dawg, these guys aren't going to get suites especially on a warship.
No sweat, brand new 1" mattress for everybody!!!
Only women join the Navy and expect an increase in quality of life.
@@liamspencer4941 Then I guess it's nice that people are not joining up for the Navy anymore. They didn't meet their recruitment goals, and we can guess why. Nobody wants to live in subpar living arrangements in the middle of the ocean when they can have a cozy place at home and get paid way more money in a job versus getting yelled at for something they didn't even do by an old man that should really be in a nursing home.
Shoulda joined the Air Force.
You can’t expect to build dozens of ships and then decommission them decades early and still maintain your fleet size. Who has been court marshaled for the Navy’s failures in buy the right ships?
If you're talking about the LCS , those ships were a failure. They have mechanical and structural problems as well as severe technical limitations.
They came out of the Bush Administration, Another one a Donald Rumsfeld's mistakes.
The Navy believes it's better not to have them in the fleet and use the money to build the new Constellation class.
Congress and the military industrial complex.
Guess who orders the ships and makes the budget. Hint: it's not the navy.
@@PaulGuy It is the Navy who recommends what ships and mix they need. All Congress does is approve of disapprove their requests. I guarantee it wasn’t Congress who came up with the idea for the LCSs.
It is the government, so no one was held accountable.
Not just small but soo technically complicated it's hard to keep them functional.
Navy wasted the money the past 10 years with those stupid small ships that don’t even work.
😂😂😂😂😂
If you are referring to Littoral Combat ships, the Navy stopped wanting them but congress made them keep building them because it was Pork for several congressional districts.
I remember, they cancelled various other projects to build more stupid frigates I think
And zimmwault and our carriers. Too many eggs in one basket. But the Americans know best, right… right?
How much money was wasted on those useless Diversity Hires?
Its not that the Navy is old or run down its that no one is joining. Because the navy can't recruit no one they can't maintain their large fleet. Not enough people to man those ships which means decommissioning some before the end of their expected service life. You know how we fix the problem? Make people want to join. Give better benefits and make it appealing to more people.
its small, its old, its run down. There is no getting around that. As a vet of the USN go to Norfolk and take a little boat cruise past the base. Its tiny, few ships. We have lost sooo many
I’m still getting out
The UK, Australia and Canada are also having troubles finding enough recruits.
t's a generational culture thing, not a political thing.
@@abrahamdozer6273Same same.
The Navy’s last group,of advance destroyers don’t work and can’t go,past the coast and already being scraped not mothballed
You can not increase Fleet size unless you increase the Yards to build vessels.
Yards are Civilian commercial enterprises with Share Holders who want to make money on their investments.
The Military (All branches) wants everything today and nothing tomorrow. Civilian contractors cant work that way
I guess HiStory didn't happen. I guess all the maintenance activities WE USED TO HAVE that were all dissolved, sold off, given away NEVER EXISTED. The decisions to eliminate those maintenance activities was because of the Peace Dividend for everyone was now our friend and there was no peer to worry about. Times change and now the excuses start. STOP MAKING EXCUSES and step up Civilian Shipyards and DO WHAT IT WAS PROMISED YOU WOULD DO . . . AND build back our organic maintenance activities/capabilities.
WE HAD a WORKING SYSTEM . . . and it was demolished for THIS?!
they do in china.... we have 7 shipyards. China has 19.....and one of Chinas shipyards is larger than all of ours combined
Well, I've got some ideas for flying aircraft carriers that could help the military.
It was a huge mistake closing yards like Fall River and new york to name a few. Those yards were navy controlled and played a huge part in world war 2.
These are ALL Excuses that can be seen ahead of time . . . unless you do not want to see them!
Need more ships? Have to increase that budget. Something only Congress can do.
Or...decrease the military budget so Americans at home can actually have some better healthcare and services, rather than paying for a bloated military that isn't needed.
@@Red-Check-Mark Or, in a country with an average salary of $63k and an average of $1500 spent on frivolous purchases per person per month, people could actually learn to save some of it for that one time every decade when they do need a hospital.
The only other option is to have a tax pressure of over 100% to make government clinics and hospitals "free" and you don't want that.
@@WolfHeathen No. They are so many other available options to explore, but you think this problem can only be solved with A or B.
@@Red-Check-Mark Sure. Explore those "options" while ignoring the most reasonable one. Smart.
@@WolfHeathen Yours is not the reasonable one. It's the out of touch with reality one
This should be one of the most important USA issues.
While china keep increasing their naval like crazy
@@Kingss0105 No matter how many ships we build they will always have more and the men and women to crew them. It's we our navy invests heavily in making our ships the most advanced so that a single destroyer could equal 2 or even 3 of there's.
@@Kingss0105 You can always borrow more money from the Chinese to build a bigger fleet. You can even ask them to build the ships for you, they can build them faster and cheaper.
@@MetaView7 quality though with Chinese made ships?
@@em34ev3r your computer is made in china.
your phone is made in china
your microwave is made in china
your drone is made in china
your camera is made in china
the container ships that deliver those items to you are made in china
according to published reports, 50% of new ocean-going ships are made in china
75% of the new LNG tankers are made in china.
wait til you try a Chinese-made EV car. Porsche performance at Camry price.
Any Admirals fired for the terrible decision to purchase ships that were docked one year after commissioning. Hold the Navy Bureaucracy responsible and sack those individuals and we could afford to grow again
The reason they are being decommissioned is because they have fundamental design flaws in their design. The Navy didn't vet the shipbuilding properly and they got ships that had problems that prevented them from being able to deploy without them breaking down repeatedly.
No one, including those in Congress, ever gets sacked for doing, or not doing, anything. That clear enough for you?
The Senators should look in the mirror to see where the problem is.
It should be expected when you continued to reduce the annual budget allocation for this service branch of arms forces. With limited budget and super high cost, you can either have fewer 'Advance Warship' or more outdated one. You can't have them all.
Although typically that would true, the reason the Navy is currently in the situation they are in is the result of the decisions made about 20 years ago by Navy leadership when they budgeted to build the LCS and the ZUMWALT DDG-1000. The LCS was a design disaster, although the builders made a ton of taxpayer money. The ZUMWALT was an equal disaster as it was designed at a cost that is over $8 Billion for a total of just three ships. None of which have a primary weapon system or a real mission after it was found that the much hyped rail guns won't work, so they have all been removed. Some genius decided that they could put hypersonic missiles onboard so that is what they will be spending billions on modifications to them for. Point is that all this poor decision making led to a lost decade of shipbuilding and the Navy is going to pay to it for the next two decades. Just in time to lose the next war at sea.
@@spydude38 a unit= 7.5 billion , builder make many tons of us$.profit.
@@spydude38 1 Z=7.5 B. US$.
Stop building the LCS’s and speed up the frigates!
The LCSs are severely needed to add numbers to the fleet and to free up bigger ships to counter china and russia though.
This is what we got and we can't wait till 2030... Use them if they are really smart...looks like they are dum...or inept.
@@cameronspence4977lcs can't fight
@@cameronspence4977 Realy is that why the navy is retiring LCS because they need? Or is because they worthless tax payer waster for which no one was in navy was punished for.
@@cameronspence4977They really aren't. You could do the same job with a modernized destroyer or frigate, while also having extended duties with it. Plus the LCS design is proving to be...lacking in structural integrity. It's not a bad concept, but the ships they got aren't the right fit.
Comparing forces by numbers alone is insane
Yeah the US Navy dwarfs almost every other navy on the planet combined when you bring tonnage into the picture. I’m not sure why it matters if our rivals want to build hundreds of pointless, small ships.
China's navy is not a worldwide blue water navy. You're comparing apples to oranges.
@@eddarby469heard the us worldwide navy just got wrecked and whacked by some missiles of the houthis... Very simple tech
@@kimchiba4570 I have seen claims of strikes against US warships but nothing confirming damage.
@@eddarby469China’s navy is a blue water navy.
From a UK perspective. reducing the size of the US fleet will have bad implications. just look at the UK. cut ship after ship. now uk royal Navy is in a bad way. but yes its down to the politicians trying to save money. but cutting back on military assets has shown its a bad thing to do.
The Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) was burned in San Diego. The Navy refused to repair it because of the cost. Navy lost a good ship and now the United States complains about having a short fleet. Give me a break!!!!
The hull lost its temper
Be cheaper to build new then fix
@@tomhenry897 Yet we spend more on giving money to other countries than refitting and upgrading ships or subs. I can honestly say that the ship was scrapped and recycled but a great loss.
@@tomhenry897 and that was because of gross incompetence of the CO, XO and the higher ups but the navy only punished an lowly sailor and the rest got off with slaps on the wrist for losing an expensive ship.
We need a larger commercial shipping industry and larger shipping industry in general. Look at south korea, they can make ships really quick, why? they modernize theyre industry. Congress doesn't seem to understand how that works. Also promoting more STEM degrees would also help in the long run...
Should have set some of that Ukrain money aside dont ya think? Worst administration in United States history
Yeah it's infuriating, how anti American and anti decency this administration has been. Straight actual villains,
Our navy and air power is what keeps America strongest and safest, our two oceans and controlling the skies is what makes us so safe
Send hundreds of billions over seas while shrinking our military and our enemy’s military grows bigger, and letting our enemy though the boarders without hesitation. FJB
We could just send nothing overseas and fight the wars ourselves, that sounds better to you?
@@ZHLtheclan or we can mind our business, does that sound better to you.
Its spelled "border". If you literally don't even know how to spell this word you have zero justification to be expressing an opinion on any of this.
@@cameronspence4977 leave it to a liberal to hyper focus on a miss spelled word to justify their disregard for a statement, it just shows your ignorance and lack of intelligence.
@@cameronspence4977 leave it to a liberal to hyper focus on a miss spelled word to justify their disregard for a statement, it just shows your ignorance and lack of intelligence.
All the money wasted throughout the decades is coming back to haunt them. If it wasn't needed why pay for it. There is over 800 bases overseas and the contractors get the brunt of it. Bottom line mismanagement and abuse is the problem and no one wants to fix it like the other problems this country. We might be rich but the management is poor.
Who is the DEI Man/woman admiral.... Bet " it " checks all of the boxes except for smarts and ability...
1. In terms of tonnage, our navy is still the biggest.
2. I think the problem relies in our lack of shipyards. We might have to start relying in Japan and South Korea if we don’t put the resources to rebuild domestic shipbuilding.
3. If Congress controls the budget, why are we blaming the Navy?
4. We also need more sailors and officers. There’s only so much we can do about that, but low crew solutions can ease the problem.
In terms of tonnage yes but they are catching up drastically a lot faster.
One of her advisors was seen on video saying that current ships and aircraft are being repaired with bubble gum and duct tape…..,
Duct Tape (Gorilla brand) works wonders....used alot on SUBs.....lmao
The US navy has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. Ship numbers, as defined by congress on their posterboards, doesn't seem to show a difference between supercarriers and much smaller vessels. Supercarriers do much more and require more support operations. It's expensive.
The United States is in need of a war time President and a war time Congress.
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
--George Washington 1790
"If you want peace prepare for war"
There is no one on the horizon that is a potential "wartime President" ... not running now or even in the pipe.
It is basically 1939-1941 all over again with an Asian threat.
No country benefits from prolonged state of war - Sun tzu
We aren't at war so we don't have need of a warmonger president. China is more of an economic threat than the Soviet Union was. The opposite is also true as a military threat. When the Soviet Union fell the policies of the cold war died as well.
Maybe if congress would stop sending money to Ukraine there would be enough money to build newer ships?
Those good old tradesmen were long gone which is coincidently happened in Russia too and they could only build 5000T with small outdated shipyards.....China has 250 shipyards with 10 mega size and employed 30000 men each.
The 'Magically Shrinking Fleet' has been a foregone conclusion of every Battle Force Analysis for over a decade. The U.S. Navy is derelict of their duty. They make excuses and talk about Climate Change. NAVSEA specifically has been asleep and not doing their job as the USS Constellation (FFG-62) Class Aegis Guided Missile Frigate will take an EXTRA THREE years to construct as has been announced over the last months. The Technical Data Package (shepherded and supposedly ram-rodded by NAVSEA) is NOT COMPLETE . . . as they exceeded the congressional mandate to keep a high commonality with the PARENT FREMM Design so as to facilitate rapid introduction into the fleet. BUT NOOOO . . . NAVSEA Knew Better so the new frigate will basically be ALL NEW with about 15% commonality . . . reaping all the NEGATIVES that DO NOT FACILITATE RAPID INTRODUCTION INTO THE FLEET. One wonders if some of the NAVSEA People are on the Chinese payroll with this kind of activity/performance. They cannot follow the law, and they do everything DELIBERATELY to delay our newest small surface combatant into the fleet that we DESPERATELY NEED IN NUMBERS (two/yr coming out of two shipyards) with which to grow the fleet . . . and THIS OUR NAVY just cannot make it happen!
This is all while they park some of our Aegis Guided Missile Cruisers some of which just completed extensive upgrades to get their combat systems up to speed, and the entire class has had it's engineering support spaces INGORED for maintenance basically since their adoption into the fleet. How can we respect and trust a Navy Leadership that does NOT MAINTAIN THE FLEET? Have you visited a U.S. Navy Surface Combatant lately. Some look like a rust bucket though there does seem to be at least a little emphasis on putting more paint on topside spaces. The true cancer is contained within. Our organic U.S. Navy capability to do our own maintenance is mostly GONE! Sold off or given away . . . AND the precious billets and Engineering Job Descriptions for those who manned our Destroyer Tenders, and Floating Drydocks . . . GONE! ONE drydock is on contract today (Not Ten(10))! The Navy has FINALLY decided to replace our ancient Submarine Tenders (we have two) . . . but will not even discuss replacing our long gone Destroyer Tenders! These people must not even change the oil in their cars and just buy a new one when the "CHECK ENGINE" light comes on. They have NOT taken care of our Fleet, and they put forth NO PLANS to improve it that ACTUALLY MEETS THE NEED! Something Must Be Done!!!
thats true, remember when about 15yrs ago they were paying about $400 a gallong for 'biofuel' for ships...... going woke made them go broke
I like how you blame everyone but the people with the bank account.
@@PaulGuy their bank accounts are only getting BIGGER! Everything cost more today hampering fleet growth.
Thanks for this excellent and in depth analysis of the issue.
Was a 600 ship Navy when I served!
I’m a US Navy Veteran (1983-1989). It hurts my soul to see the state of today’s military, it’s unprepared, woke, and un-sat.
Un-sat?
Dereliction of duty
@rich_828 Un sat is unsatisfactory
Pretty sure my cousin who was in the army would disagree with you. Don't think my dad would agree with you either and he was in the navy long before you were.
Just got out of the navy January after 8 years. Its in fine hands, we still have the best navy in the world.
I bet they don't shrink the number of Admirals in the Navy.
Increase the ship count!
Why?
So you want Taxes to go up? Because we pay for those NAVY ships.
These idiots are gonna find out real quick if there is a real war having fewer high tech ships is a mistake.
@@martrecechildress5551 how about this: what about taxing high foreign companies and investors?
Like, we are already paying enough for taxes as US citizens, but we can tax more foreign companies sending their products and services to America and use that tax money they pay for our fleets
No need to man, they may have more but we have much better ships and the ones they have aren't carriers. look at tonnage not number of vessels. Our Navy is actually larger in tonnage than china's. They count their little tiny ships and say they have more. We don't count our little ones.
Thing is, we are reaping what we have sowed (or not sowed) 30 years ago. The Navy today only has 4 shipyards for ship maintenance. That's down from 9 in 1990. BRAC emasculated our ability to construct and overhaul ships and led to the loss of 70,000 ship workers The Navy isn't entirely at fault here. Its doing what it can given the constraints of resources imposed by Congress through shortsighted policies put into effect 30 years ago.
Where the Navy bears some responsibility is the procurement process. It botched the LCS program and now a similar fate could be in store for the Constellation class of frigates. 6 billion dollars spent and little to show for it (the design hasn't even been completed). The failures of the LCS program and delays in the Constellation frigates, plus the scaling back of funding for ship construction in general is why we are in this mess.
Look at all the Litoral ships built with beer can metal 😂 And have to retire in a few years.
Didn't we only actually end up making one or two of those things anyways? And the ammo for their one weapon was too expensive for production anyways?
The Navy already has an exact plan on how many combat ships they should and must have, it's like 350 ships+, yet Congress is always dragging their feet on funding and giving the Navy the resources they need, they also blamed the Navy for not building enough ships, since these Congress members voted for either closing down or not rescuing bankrupt shipyards, even if there's enough shipyards, these yards still lacking skilled and qualified workers like welders, plankholders, electricians etc.
For Congress It's easy to blame the Navy
But the draft back in women selections are first, unknowns second, males third.
The United States should have abandoned the American World Empire when the Warsaw Pact dissolved and brought our military forces home then.
Let the world solve it's own problems.
It will, you know.
The United States is not the policeman of the world.
Thank you CNO Admiral Woke!
Woke has nothing to do with this. Congress defunded the navy an then turned around a blamed them for having to reduce their fleet.
@@Flackvest Well CNO Woke has not had enough time to bear the blame for this debacle. But, she is a symptom of the disease that is currently working its way through the entire DOD.
Military recruitment is down 30% due to obesity, drug use, & high school dropouts! Yet US military is constantly upgrading its technology. Something has got to give!
They youth are tired of endless wars.
@@user-nc2qj2jc5q In today's generation, they are too weak to be considered. We have a huge mental illness problem in the country.
Why are we decommissioning 10 ships before there time anyhow?
Because the LCS (littoral combat ship) design was an engineering failure. It was sold to the navy as a do-it-all modular ship that turned out to have too many problems that couldn't be remedied. They're so bad that they've been relegated to minesweeping duties. But even in it's reduced role, it's still too expensive to operate and maintain. So the navy is trying to chuck them out the window and off the books so the can afford some decent ships.
That same US Navy, God bless em all, is not free. Do you know how much it costs to operate a navy surface ship per day? About $300,000 to $500,000. That's just for destroyers, like the Arleigh Burke class. Per day, per ship. Costs will scale according to the ship operating. For example, a Nimitz class nuclear powered aircraft carrier will burn through $6,000,000 to $7,000,000 a day. Everyday, in dock or underway. Cost overruns are baked into military contracts, and they still go over that budget. The contracts are then spread across as many states and congressional districts as possible, making them nearly impossible to kill funding for. Take the A-10 Warthog. Flies slow and low. It's got no stealth, and can't fly fast enough to dodge a missile. It's a tank buster that's been obsolete for so long... and it's the poster child for operational redundancy. Yet, how many times has congress tried to kill it, and failed? What's my point? That out of control defense spending is unsustainable. With $30 trillion in national debt and rising, that should be apparent. Congressional oversight clearly has failed. So what do we do? Spend ourselves until the treasury is bankrupted? We already have the best military in the world. We're not in a competition with China in terms of building ships. Their ships are nowhere near as capable, or their crews as well trained, as American warships and crews are.
China's economy can only support the military expansionists ambitions of its political leaders for so long. The soviets went bankrupt trying to keep pace with American military might. That was the lesson. You can't outspend America when it comes to defense. Yet, we have this problem that needs to be solved to take the American military into the future. What that entails is for another comment, but for now, sufficed to say we're wasting more money on defense than we're actually putting to good use. If China wants to invade Taiwan there is nothing we can do to stop them. Just like when Russia invaded Ukraine. Three years later, and are the Russians defeated yet? No. Capabilities have been worn down, but they're still in the fight. We've given Ukraine billions in military aid, and they're just incapable of being able to utilize the equipment we're giving them as effectively as trained US combat personnel would. So would we be using the same playbook for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan? War is the enemy. Diplomacy, our only way out of it. No matter how much we spend on the weapon system it never ends war. War is expensive. Diplomacy is much cheaper.
“Their ships are nowhere near as capable, or their crews as well trained, as American warships and crews are.”
And you’re basing this off…what exactly? lmao
Beware the military industrial complex 🤔
Can’t believe I’m saying this, but STOP TOUCHING THE BOATS!!!
The failed LCS experiment set them back.
At least the military industrial complex got there money 🤔
The littoral ships looked like they were made for a Bond movie.
How does a naval officer who has never been in combat get so many ribbons?
Size don't matter...
It's how you sail the waves!!!😏
Have you seen what happened to Japan during WW2?
Give people with criminal records a chance...Russia's doing it
FFGX Constellation class frigates were supposed to be new, highly afforable existing ships with an establish history, production line, etc.
And we STILL managed to over complicate it. Its 3 years behind schedule. Billions over budget.
It would have been cheaper to just buy the ships from Italy and South Korea, and maybe a AIP submarine or 10 from our allies in france or germany.
The long lead time on these items would allow us to build new bases in the Phillipines, Australia and south china sea while giving us time to focus on increasing recruitment.
Instead, Congress is forcing the Navy to by more LCS it doesnt want and then having them mod, at the cost of a Billion dollars each, to make them serviceable.
This reminds me of when the navy forced the air force to by more c17 it couldnt afford and more M1 Abrams the army didnt need.
1:17 One discretionary spending should be to fire her and hire somebody more competent
Yes, yes, yes! High production! Give it all we can. Amen!
The fleet is too large for our national defense and too small for our evil world empire
You have no money, printing is making it worse.
Can we also point out that most of China's Navy are mostly Coastal ships, I think I recall reading that China combines their Coastal fleet with their Military naval Blue Water Fleet. While the US separates them to their Coast Guard and US Navy respectfully.
if you look at the number of comparable surface combatants. Size for size, destroyers frigates corvettes with advanced weapons onboard.....China is almost double the size of the USN, and our navy is split in 2 protecting 2 coasts. Our coast guard ships are a red herring when comparing the two navies, they do not carry advanced weapons and they don't change the equation.
Chinese Coast Guard ships are not counted with PLAN ships which is what you’re saying.
I served from 1981 to 1985 and back then there were plans for a 600 ship navy.
America warship fleet smaller by quantity comapred to TAE-na(China) Because USA focus on big and expensive warship Destroyer, and Cruiser unlike China they have plenty of Cheap Corvette and frigate.
But America still have more tonnage than (China province of TAIWAN)
This is cope.
How asinine….congress is constraining their budgets and then putting them on blast for a shrinking Navy. Our government is a total clown show
Stop letting the richest people on Earth pay 10% in taxes while I pry 34% and we could have a thousand more ships. How about a 30% flat tax so very body pays the same percentage which would make it fair and equal.
Your envy is eating you alive. Look up that IRS pie chart of who actually pays the income taxes in the U.S.
I dont see why the warships cant be controlled by AI
I think we don’t need ships. We need submarines stuffed with hypersonic missiles.
How about more carriers and longer range fighters?
@@WolfeSaber9933 China has something we don’t: An array of operational hypersonic / hyper-accurate missiles. We have but a single flying prototype. Sino hypersonic’s can take out our carriers at will. It was politics: while we were doing our F-35 jive, we should’ve been developing hypersonic missile systems. Now we are at a frightening disadvantage to Russia, China, and India.
@@Glen.Danielsen Didn't I also say longer range fighters? Also, India isn't a real ally for China or Russia.
We need more planes. Navy used to be the strategic arm of America back then but ever since aviation has developed so much and so massive, it has become the primary strategic arm. There are other pros where planes can be better used to launch offensive strike against enemy naval forces than using a large naval force of your own. Ships cost more, require more maintenance, require more manpower to operate, require more training for all those manpower, ships are slower, have to return to a port in order to reload its ammo (it can't rearm while underway) which is very time consuming. As for Air Force planes (especially strategic bombers), they cost less, require lesser maintenance, require significantly lesser manpower to operate, require lesser training for all the crew, they're faster, they can carry quite a huge punch of power, they can R2B to rearm and reload and launch another sortie rapidly which is less time consuming. Even Air Force bombers are currently trained and equipped to conduct maritime missions in support of Navy and joint efforts.
You cant have a big navy if you cant recruit sailors
The Navy needs to be told to fix their ships and decommissioning ship early is unacceptable.
It’s the LCS class ships they were a failure
@@lucashoffman6187 Well then modify them so they are no longer failures.
-> gave less money
-> obtain smaller product
-> WHY THE PRODUCT IS SO SMALL!
help the homeless in the USA streets first!
What, they spoon feeding them? We need to stop babying them.
@@WolfeSaber9933 So, the families that lost their homes to nonsense during the pandemic can just go kick rocks??
@@davidwood2205 Well, the government wanted them indoors to begin with. Beside, I wasn't talking about those people when it came to the homeless. I was talking about the ones to lazy to work. There was an incident where homeless were given spots in a hotel thanks to some charity and they wrecked the place, even stealing stuff. Like, the homeless percentage was very low, single digits, when people like Trump were in office.
Put the so-called homeless in surplus Army tents out in the farm fields so they can WORK to help with the nation's food harvest. There is an ag labor shortage, right?
@@davidb2206 Which would then reveal who are actually homeless and who is lazy.
The real number of ships in the US Navy total including the coast guard and every single ships is a lot more than just what's being mentioned
Don't worry, they'll decommision some more! 🤠 Seriously, there was a huge disconnect between finance and technical capability. Plus, aluminum alloys are not the best thing for dynamic appications. The reason they use them for airplanes is because they're lightweight, but that severely curtails the service life of the frame. That's why ships should be made of steel. The Navy spent all its money in one place, and now we are reaping the consequences.
We need to rebuild all are Armed services , use are tax monies to accomplish this ! Stop giving are hard earned money to others !
They are looking at numbers of ships and they shouldn't be. Our Tonnage is what they should look at, and the two main classes of vessel they need to worry about are aircraft carriers and submarines and we have way more of them than china will for at least two decades so this isn't a good way to measure the strength of the Navy. Our Navy is still far superior to Russia's and China's combined. The quality is also more important than the quantity and our stuff is much better and battle tested. - Navy Vet.
The Navy is not “far superior” to China. While yes, they have a lot of tonnage, that isn’t surprising when they’ve been in the game for far longer and those carriers do a lot of heavy lifting for that number. China is catching up and they are rapidly. Also this whole “quantity vs quality” stuff is just stereotyping. China’s ships are just as advanced and they aren’t “cheap” ships. It’s only said because they can build them far faster and in more numbers. And “battle tested” is a stretch when it’s just bombing insurgents with cruise missiles and shooting down slow subsonic drones and cruise missiles.
Who needs ships when you have DEI.
The empire is too big to maintain, that is the fact.
Comparing China's fleet to the US fleet is a joke, most of their ships are tiny not blue water ships.
Most of US naval ships are ageing old and obsolete. Look at the Ticonderoga class cruisers and arleigh b class destroyers
@@wingng4331 It's still not even close the US has much much greater blue water capabilities than China. The US Navy would wipe the floor with Chinas navy ship couny is a terrible metric to measure our capability. China has 3 aircraft carriers none are nuclear powered, China has less than 10 nuclear submarines the US has like 40 something. They're still a long ways away from comparing to the US Navy.
If congress wants the navy to have more ships, cutting it’s budget won’t do them any favors.
Navy completely deserves this.
They don't check over their budgets which causes basic items and materials to be 1000% the cost, and for the last 2 decades they tried to focus on small high tech ships that cost 5 bigger ones. Now we're behind because of them.
They have money for war but can't feed there poor or fix there roads or bridges ☮️☮️
Budget aside, one of the biggest areas of concern is not necessarily the money, but the production capacity. At Patriot's Point in the Charleston SC area, the destroyer USS Laffey sits docked. The Laffey was built in 4 months during World War II, and in combat several months later. With a reduced Navy, if we were engaged in a war of attrition for any length of time, could our ship yards pump out a high volume of vessels? Look at how long it currently takes for a ship to be built. Given the proliferation of anti-ship weapons, hypersonic missiles, kamikaze drones, and our diminutive Navy, the US is at a big disadvantage. China has become a potential threat. If Russia modernizes its' naval forces, we could be in trouble. The other issue is the theft of secret plans. Not only do we see plans being stolen, but we see repeated attempts to pass on secret information for money. Do any of these treasonous traitors ever get a significant punishment? Scary things could happen fast.
It is not just the Navy that will have problems. Look at how long it takes for the any weapon system to be designed, tested, produced, and deemed combat-worthy. Yeah, we have all of this high technology, but once the enemy forces negate the technology, will we have enough weaponry to defend ourselves? Food for thought.
See what happens when your priorities aren't in order? These politicians don't care.
Yea China has more ships than us, but in terms of tonnage it’s a disparaging gap in our favor of like 4 million us and maybe 2 million them and a lot of that comes from our aircraft carriers
Yes, but the US has been in this game for obviously far longer. They are catching up and are catching up fast.
@@Flightman453 not nearly as long as the British yet we outclass them in every single way. Also “catching up” is a funny way of saying they build on quantity while our sheer quality can have us take on every nation on earth at once and still win
@@samuelgann1298 What does the British have to do with my previous comment? Irrelevant. And my comment is factual; not a “funny way” of saying anything. In the last decade (2013-2024), China has outbuilt the US by tonnage by about *50%*. Even if you do the US and their allies combined, China still outbuilt them in the last decade by 50%. This is just cope.
If you can’t accept the facts that isn’t my problem. All of China’s newer ships are all quality. You’re only saying this “quantity” nonsense because they can build it far faster. These ships aren’t cheap. I’d rather have two Type 052’s for the price of one Burke. Not China’s fault the US military loves to pay $90K for a less than $50 dollars bag of screws 💀. Also what a cringe nationalistic statement at the end. You need to wake up.
Fun fact!!!
Actually it's not the Navy's fault It's actually Congress.
I have my degree in political science with my focus on military studies. For years military studies experts have been saying that the US Navy is way too small.
The reason the Navy can't just add new ships when it wants is because adding a new ship essentially requires hundreds or thousands of new sailors every year.
In addition to the 12 to 24 months it takes to train those individuals, military branches are not allowed just to higher new people without weapons systems for them to be stationed on.
The current laws says that Congress has to approve any new weapons platforms.
As we just saw with the politicians in Washington fighting over building new weapons platforms to rebuild what we're sending to Ukraine.
If every 2 years the political winds could change then it's very difficult to properly scale up services.
Also one of the reasons it's so hard to audit the DOD in the military, is that they cannot be audited by anyone else but Congress.
If you can imagine that every 2 years a different political party can take power, they can audit or stop any programs they want for political reasons, or the fact that they could request or demand any alterations to the existing proposals means that it drives up bills and delays build time.
Many military scientists and experts for years have been saying that once Congress approves a budget for the procurement of new weapons systems, Congress should not be allowed to alter or to request changes to the military programs until the platforms are delivered. Then auditing should be done on a consistent period of every 4 years, Rather than whenever Congress wants to make a political statement.
This is why programs like the b-2 bomber, the zimwalt, or the f-35/f22 raptor became so expensive.
We actually also saw this recently with Air Force One when ex-president Donald Trump wanted alterations to the airplane and it cost tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars.
Not to mention it severely hurts combat effectiveness, if politicians want slight changes to let's say an aircraft carrier, even though they might think they're helping that delay of weeks or months could significantly hurt combat readiness.
Because we insist on a nuclear powered fleet for carriers and submarines. The Chinese have zero nuclear carriers and 6 nuclear subs. The US has 11 nuclear carriers and 72 nuclear subs. The US navy has plans for 10 nuclear super carriers in its fleet, the Ford being the first.
The US has 4 naval shipyards, the Chinese have 13. The US has only one yard capable of building super carriers, the Chinese have two. The US can build 2 subs at a time, the Chinese 6. In 2023, China built 30 new naval ships, the US built 9.
So who is to blame for the difference? Try Congress and US debt. Obviously we don't have the capacity for new builds like China and we don't have the budget for expensive nuclear ships as we have demanded.
You put people under some of the most stressful workloads possible, put them out at sea for most of the year, and then also make them live aboard the same ships until they reach a certain rank, what do you expect?
Bro the LCS And USS Zumwalt fumbled hard💀💀
Maybe we should spend our money on this instead on Ukraine....
China is playing the long game and it's starting to pay off for them...
The US plays Checkers meanwhile China plays Chess....you're correct !
Maybe it’s time to downsize? We failed in Iraq, failed in Afghanistan, can’t protect the Beb-le-Mandeb trade routes and completely failed at a seaborn relief effort in Gaza. For spending all this money we are getting almost nothing in return. Start retiring old ships and cut the carrier strike forces at sea at any one point in time in half. We don’t need a carrier task force present in all major theaters, especially with a plethora of land bases present on our allies soil. It’s time to end Regan’s grand plans for US power projection, the Soviet Union is gone and we have lost every conflict we have engaged in since Vietnam.
Allow private defense companies to have monopolies over specific weapons
Afford the upkeep of a large navy
Keep taxes low
^Choose two of the three above.
Before Billy Clinton we had a 14 Carrier Group Navy. First year under Billy Clinton, the Navy was reduced 45%.
Size doesn't matter, it's the performance that counts.
Size very much does matter
Reminds me of another former union and it's constant station keeping with another superpower....
It seems like they're wasting a lot of Electrical Tape, don't blame me when there's a shortage !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I read that the navy has more admirals than they have ships. Is this true?
That's why Admiral Kirk wishes to go back to the Enterprise.
We don't even have enough trucks in vehicles plush drivers to do logistics if we went to war.
The navy needs to reopen and modernize some public shipyards. There are only 4 left out of 30 still in operation it would help with maintenance and operation of existing fleet vessels and open up dry docks for building new ships in my opinion that would be the way to go
Spend millions on ship repair at civilian ship yards while Navy personnel who are trained to do the same work sit on their hands. Shut down all of the Government and Navy owned shipyard and ship repair facilities and you are dependent on civilian facilities who will priorities contracts that pay better. Make all shipboard repairs have to be done by contractors, and not allow Navy personnel to do any unless it is critical to get the ship back to port and you end up with a major backlog of repair/maintenance issues can soaring costs. Allow the design of ships that are only made to last 15-20 years before replacement and cost will also go up for sustainment. When ships are designed to be deployed for six months then in maintenance for 6 months cost are going to be high. The whole system from concept, to design, to construction, to sustainment, to maintenance, to refurbishment to extend service life at end of designed service life the entire Navy ship fleet maintenance system is broken.
It's not the amount of ships but the quality. They should build some air independent submarines. Smaller aircraft carriers for the f-35 and harriers.
Our do nothing Congress/Senate is at fault here. You want a bigger Navy, then pay for it.