Originally Posted by
Lonewolf_50
Esper's idea on larger and smaller carriers is a good idea, and I think with an increas in unmanned flying vehicles it may be achievable. But that build rate requires serious plus ups to the infrastructure. (as you noted).
It's not just that, it's also the manpower bill to be paid that will probably make this dream of 545 ships fall short. You have to recruit them and then keep them sailors and junior officers, so that they become mid grade petty officers and officers and finally chief petty officers and senior officers to fill all of those currently non-existent billets.
One of the little known details in a previous Sec Nav (James Webb) initiative to pursue the Cold War objective of a 600 ship navy, was that the Manpower people never came up with a number that said "this is how we can support this" at a time when President Reagan was throwing money at the DoD and we dreamed of a 15 CVN Navy (from which the 600 ship number was derived)
That 600 ships never happened.
Ships have gotten significantly more expensive and we should note the 15 year time horizon. That's two or three presidents worth, with varying motivations to increase, flatline, or decrease Defense Spending.
I recall that the F-22 had a number ... that got cut.
The C-17 had a number .. that got cut.
The B-2 had a number ... that got cut.
IIRC the Zumwalt class had a number ... that got cut.
One of our recent submarine programs fared similarly. (I'd need to check back on some old newes, the name of the class escapes me)
Though I tend to favor things "pilot" I agree with plussing up the submarine force (though those manpower billets are some of the most expensive), and pushing for an increase. .
To expect that the political and funding momentum to achieve that 15 year build plan will be sustained?
I'll have some of what Secretary Esper is smoking.
Politics isn't that easy, and the House of Representatives hold the purse strings.
That's where funding comes from for ship building programs (and the associated aircraft building programs) like this (proposed) one.
Reading the text, what leaps out apart from the 500 ship hopium number, is the first indication of a formal reduction in large carriers to 8. Sure it is couched as 8-11 plus 6 smaller new carriers,but
afaik this is the real message.
Maintaining a forward presence with 8 carriers means leaving one or more theaters, perhaps starting with the Med.