Pentagon intends to reduce the number of surface ships of the US Navy

Pentagon intends to reduce the number of surface ships of the US Navy

The Pentagon announced its intention to reduce the number of surface ships from the US Navy. This decision is due to restrictions under the new defense budget allocated to the US the fleet. This is stated in the documents of the administrative and budgetary administration under the President of the United States.


As part of the proposed program, the US Department of Defense proposes to withdraw from the fleet’s combat personnel up to 20 warships, as well as reduce the construction program for Arleigh Burke-class missile destroyers by 40%. The program is designed for 5 years.

According to available data, it is proposed to withdraw from the fleet 8-14 years ahead of schedule three landing ships of the Whidbey Island type at the end of the 80s, four ships of the coastal zone of the Freedom and Independence type, as well as 13 of 22 Ticonderoga missile cruisers . The program for the construction of new missile destroyers Arleigh Burke is proposed to be reduced from 12 to 7 ships.

At the Pentagon, this step is explained by the lack of real growth in allocations for the maintenance and development of the US Navy.

In the event that this program is implemented, the number of ships of the US Navy will be reduced from 293 to 287 units (including ships under construction).

In the White House, this initiative did not find support, the Pentagon was asked to review the program and adhere to the strategy previously announced by US President Donald Trump, which included 355 ships in the Navy.

According to American military experts, while maintaining the existing level of funding, to create a 355-ship fleet, the U.S. Navy will have to abandon the construction of large warships such as an aircraft carrier, cruiser and destroyer, proceeding to the construction of frigates and other small ships.

Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

57 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lexus 25 December 2019 16: 15 New
    • 13
    • 9
    +4
    Well, they have such an opportunity, unlike us. For those who want to call me another Sumerian, I specially remind you that I am Russian. In case the first time does not reach. wink
    1. maidan.izrailovich 25 December 2019 16: 23 New
      • 11
      • 9
      +2
      .. remember that I am Russian .....

      Vlasov was also Russian. crying
      1. Lexus 25 December 2019 16: 32 New
        • 10
        • 5
        +5
        Every family has its black sheep. His followers are still enough ... It is doubly regrettable that they are in chic posts, with "portfolios" and mandates.
      2. prior 25 December 2019 16: 33 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        It is important not how it started, but how it ended. Vlasov is a traitor, all the rest is immaterial.
      3. Proton 25 December 2019 17: 06 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Not every Russian Sumerian-Vlasov, so don’t worry wassat
      4. Sapsan136 26 December 2019 04: 53 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Judging by the face of Vlasov and his Russian deeds, he only had a surname ... The ROA was formed from Russophobia-infected Soviet nationals, such as the Volga German Baron von Lampe, the Ukrainian Shkuro and the like, but that is not the point ... The withdrawal of these ships from the composition The US Navy is a delicate matter ... The USA usually sells ships decommissioned from its fleet ... It is entirely possible that this action is directed against China and Russia and the cruisers decommissioned from the US fleet will raise the flags of the Taiwan Navy, Poland ... and possibly even such frankly fascist countries like Latvia and Ukraine ...
        1. DRM
          DRM 26 December 2019 11: 39 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Sapsan136
          Ukrainian Shkuro and the like

          Shkuro Andrey Grigoryevich, was born on January 7 (January 19 according to a new style) in 1887 in the village of Pashkovskaya near Ekaterinodar in the family of a Cossack Podesaul. Do you think that the Kuban Cossacks are Ukrainians? Then you have a place in the Ukrainian Ministry of Education laughing
          1. Sapsan136 26 December 2019 11: 41 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            stop Ukraine considers the Kuban a part of Ukraine, the Shkuro family apparently considered the same and did not identify with Russia ... based on the actions of this Hitlerite figure ...
            1. DRM
              DRM 26 December 2019 11: 44 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Sapsan136
              Ukraine considers Kuban a part of Ukraine

              It doesn’t matter what Ukrainians think. It is important that in fact you wrote so.
              1. Sapsan136 26 December 2019 11: 45 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                In fact, Khrushchev was born on the territory of Russia, which does not make either him or his family Russian, just as he does not live in Moscow as a Russian Bandera Yavlinsky, a native of the city of Lviv, Polish Oriental Kres
      5. The comment was deleted.
    2. Cowbra 25 December 2019 16: 26 New
      • 3
      • 4
      -1
      I remind you that we are talking about fucked afghani-ishilo-and CANCER winked
      "a good head. I just got a fool"
    3. TermNachTer 25 December 2019 18: 33 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      There is an opportunity. Only here are the possibilities, less and less correspond to mattress appetites. But there are other guys with great appetite and their opportunities are growing very quickly.
    4. Mavrikiy 26 December 2019 04: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Pentagon intends to reduce the number of surface ships of the US Navy

      Quote: lexus
      Well, they have such an opportunity, unlike us.
      there is such an opportunity to reduce the Navy for everyone, even the Navy. repeat
  2. Lord of the Sith 25 December 2019 16: 19 New
    • 5
    • 6
    -1
    It is heard that the Yankees have problems with the shipyards, in particular, almost all aircraft carriers in the docks are under repair.
    1. Horace the Philosopher 25 December 2019 16: 28 New
      • 3
      • 8
      -5
      Not really! Aircraft carriers have repair plans such that if one is under repair then the other is on duty! Usually a part is on maintenance, the second is on duty, the third is on alert!
      1. Lord of the Sith 25 December 2019 16: 30 New
        • 5
        • 8
        -3
        it’s worth it, the second is on duty, the third is on alert!


        And the fourth in the wet dock of the fish feeds laughing
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Alex777 25 December 2019 17: 27 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Aircraft carriers have repair plans such that if one is under repair then the other is on duty!

        You take an interest in the facts. This year, 2 aircraft carriers on the go.
        USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Harry Truman.
        And then the second was barely assembled to replace the first.

        https://www.interfax.ru/world/685989
        https://rg.ru/2019/09/02/u-ssha-zakonchilis-avianoscy-v-atlantike.html

        And the latest Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) can’t be put into operation due to many years of problems with arms elevators, the system of sending and receiving aircraft. Recently discovered defects of the nuclear power plant were added to the ship’s many “diseases”.
        1. Horace the Philosopher 25 December 2019 18: 39 New
          • 3
          • 11
          -8
          Read less propaganda newspapers before breakfast! At least half of the aircraft carriers on the move out of 14! If Kuzya is worth 99% of the repair time, why not get the Americans to repair! Their ships are constantly on duty, pilots take off and land, perform tasks!
          1. seregin-s1 25 December 2019 19: 30 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Aircraft carriers in the USA 11!
            1. Horace the Philosopher 25 December 2019 19: 42 New
              • 1
              • 7
              -6
              you are right I added 2 more under construction winked
              1. WILL 25 December 2019 20: 25 New
                • 10
                • 0
                +10
                Quote: Horace the Philosopher
                you are right I added 2 more under construction winked

                Something you made yourself small laughing plus Five! It makes no difference to us, but to you - it will be accepted! bully
      3. TermNachTer 25 December 2019 18: 35 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Something mattress planning is very lame. Those that should be in service are still being tested, others have not yet gone out of repair. Here are the mattress admirals howling, seeing another gift from Trump.
        1. Horace the Philosopher 25 December 2019 18: 41 New
          • 3
          • 8
          -5
          Of course, everything is bad with them! Can’t give 14 aircraft carriers a mind! Is it the case of the Russian Navy! Either they will set Kuzya on fire, or they will drown the Flooddock, and the crane about Kizi's take-off will be slapped! Beauty! Where the Americans are up to you!
          1. TermNachTer 25 December 2019 19: 15 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            I do not live in Russia, unfortunately. Although we are so far from Russia that we should not even talk about this. What 14 aircraft carriers are you talking about? You still count those that suck, then the digital camera will be even worse. Only tsifirki will not go to sea, that’s the problem.
            1. Horace the Philosopher 25 December 2019 19: 37 New
              • 0
              • 8
              -8
              I also do not live in the Russian Federation! I’ll spit it well ...
              1. Alex777 25 December 2019 23: 29 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                The fact that you do not live in Russia is obvious. bully
          2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Rurikovich 25 December 2019 16: 19 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    In the event that this program is implemented, the number of ships of the US Navy will be reduced from 293 to 287 units (including ships under construction).

    In the White House, this initiative did not find support, the Pentagon was asked to review the program and adhere to the strategy previously announced by US President Donald Trump, which included 355 ships in the Navy.

    The number of pennants can be increased if you go to countries with a much lower budget - planing boats wassat So with the American industry, you can reach up to 1000 units in a couple of years repeat laughing laughing laughing Nothing cheap and cheerful, nothing that the combat value will be in the area of ​​the plinus ... But the amount .... wassat
    1. Alex777 25 December 2019 17: 36 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      They are unlikely to touch boats, but the fact that their belly button is untied is already beginning to be seen.
      I came across stories by local specialists that Trump drew money in the military budget, but in fact they don’t get it on hand.
      Moreover, they have several stages in projects, and earlier money could be stuck at the 3rd stage (mass production), but now they don’t even get to the 1st (preparatory) stage. hi
      1. Sergey39 25 December 2019 17: 50 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Yes, trump well done. Trying to ruin the US armed forces.
  4. Star Destroyer 25 December 2019 16: 22 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    four ships of the coastal zone such as Freedom and Independence
    They are almost new, 10 years the oldest ...
    Apparently the aluminum case is not very friendly with seawater.
    1. Alexey RA 25 December 2019 18: 44 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Star Destroyer
      They are almost new, 10 years the oldest ...
      Apparently the aluminum case is not very friendly with seawater.

      Freedom has a steel case, only a light alloy superstructure.
      But on the first Independence buildings, General Dynamics Design Bureau pulled out to the full, combining a light-alloy body and stainless steel water cannons and throwing out the cathodic protection to reduce the cost. smile Then I had to return the protection back - and the money for it was demanded from the customer.
  5. NF68 25 December 2019 16: 23 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    And the ships are becoming more expensive and the maintenance of these ships is also becoming more and more expensive. On the other hand, new ships are becoming more efficient and the US Navy will not suffer from this.
    1. sir.jonn 25 December 2019 20: 25 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: NF68
      On the other hand, new ships are becoming more efficient.

      What new American ships are becoming more effective than the previous ones? Most of the projects for the U.S. Navy are disastrous and perhaps, after the completion of the program to reduce funding for the fleet, they will never become combat units.
      1. Alex777 25 December 2019 23: 35 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Arly Burke III Series. Not inferior to the Ticonderoga cruisers, or even superior. hi
        1. sir.jonn 26 December 2019 07: 40 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Arly Burke is a product from the last century, despite the updated series and is forced to rivet it since nothing new is expected in the near future.
          1. Alex777 26 December 2019 13: 48 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Why is there something newer?
            RLC on the III series is fundamentally new.
            There are no equal in the world to this destroyer yet.
            China is building Type 055, but I would only compare them by VI.
            Air defense / missile defense is incomparably stronger in AB. hi
          2. NF68 26 December 2019 15: 42 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: sir.jonn
            Arly Burke is a product from the last century, despite the updated series and is forced to rivet it since nothing new is expected in the near future.


            The filling of this product of the last century was developed in the 21st century and is much more perfect than what was originally developed in the last century.
      2. NF68 26 December 2019 15: 40 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: sir.jonn
        Quote: NF68
        On the other hand, new ships are becoming more efficient.

        What new American ships are becoming more effective than the previous ones? Most of the projects for the U.S. Navy are disastrous and perhaps, after the completion of the program to reduce funding for the fleet, they will never become combat units.


        For example, the submarine "Virginia Block III"
  6. Ratmir_Ryazan 25 December 2019 16: 27 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    Kerosene dear, cruisers eat it a lot are not pulled.

    That's why I think it is right that our cruiser, project 23560, will be nuclear.
    1. Good_Anonymous 25 December 2019 16: 34 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      Kerosene dear

      .

      Our cruiser, project 23560 will be nuclear.


      It's sarcasm?
      1. Ratmir_Ryazan 25 December 2019 16: 44 New
        • 4
        • 5
        -1
        What did you decide? No sarcasm, but we will have a cruiser, project 23560 with a nuclear power plant.

        And his prototypes for weapons systems are modernized TARKs, etc. 1144.

        And for updating the fleet, while we are building and stuffing our hands on frigates of pr. 22350, which will eventually be replaced by pr 22350M and corvettes 20380/20385.

        Everything goes on as usual. Tear the veins and the budget we do not need.
        1. Good_Anonymous 25 December 2019 16: 46 New
          • 2
          • 5
          -3
          Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
          What did you decide?


          With "kerosene dear."

          Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
          Yes, we will have a cruiser, project 23560 with a nuclear power plant.


          Clear.
  7. prior 25 December 2019 16: 29 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    For color revolutions, the fleet is not the main thing.
    And the effect of color revolutions is much greater than the cost of the fleet.
    So, we are expecting from the USA next sanctions and regular interventions in internal affairs.
    Maybe someone doubts that they will?
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. cniza 25 December 2019 16: 39 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Pentagon intends to reduce the number of surface ships of the US Navy


    Trump was going to increase, the Pentagon was going to reduce ...
    1. Mouse 25 December 2019 18: 20 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: cniza
      Trump was going to increase, the Pentagon was going to reduce ...

      pattern .... yes hi
      1. cniza 25 December 2019 18: 22 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Linear mismatch, went in parallel in different directions. hi
        1. Mouse 25 December 2019 18: 30 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: cniza
          walked in parallel in different directions.

          my brain refuses to digest it ...
          or in parallel or perpendicular ... no third is given ... wassat
          1. cniza 25 December 2019 21: 06 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            But everything works for our partners without embarrassment, though they don’t know the result, but they spend the joules regularly.
  10. nikolas 83 25 December 2019 16: 49 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Not really the printing press is overheating.
  11. Pavel57 25 December 2019 16: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It is necessary to build boats.
    1. Mouse 25 December 2019 18: 21 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Pavel57
      It is necessary to build boats.

      mosquito fleet?? recourse
  12. Sayan 25 December 2019 16: 57 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Dogo in the maintenance of junk get rid
  13. Mytholog 25 December 2019 17: 39 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The “headcount optimization" for some reason immediately suggests the German "front line straightening."
  14. knn54 25 December 2019 17: 45 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The Russian Federation and China are not going to compete with the Yankees in the vast expanses of the ocean. Therefore, they ensure dominance in their own coastal zones with the help of submarines, cruise and ballistic missiles, naval aviation and air defense systems. Accordingly, the effectiveness of aviation AUG falls.
    BUT, now cruisers and destroyers are equipped with the Aegis multifunctional combat information control system (MBIUS), which allows carrying a large number of cruise missiles: -Arleigh Burke destroyers can carry up to 90 cruise missiles, Ticonderoga cruisers - up to 122, which is equivalent to aircraft strike from an aircraft carrier.
    Toffee suggest the following:
    The number of white people is declining in the United States, and the replacement in the person of Afro and Latin / Americans is not equivalent. That is, there are simply not enough specialists. Therefore, they will build marine "drones" (including underwater ones) with a small size, but with a maximum number of missiles.
  15. Vladimir1155 25 December 2019 19: 20 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Americans are not fools, they abandon large ships in favor of small frigates, in other matters it’s just common sense and all the countries of the world go this way, only in the USC saws dream of monsters, completely unnecessary UDC battleship destroyers, destroyers, ..... better would pipelayers do instead of UDC
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. awdrgy 25 December 2019 19: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Oh, they don’t want to kill their economy, it's a pity they need to scare them Remember the phrase "do you want to ruin the state, give the aircraft carrier"
  18. Avior 25 December 2019 23: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Intellectually, the leadership of the United States should give the noble kicks to the naval ones who have forgotten how to count money for their Zamvolty ships of the littoral zone and other super expensive experiments that they invented, having forgotten how to rationally calculate money and spend it.
    They should get separate kicks for their manic idea, to carry out all developments separately from the ground army and the Air Force, as well as for the absurd in some cases inclination towards unification, which instead of saving sometimes leads to the fact that they are forced to shoot very expensive tomahawks at targets for which it would have been possible to shoot much cheaper Harpoons if the fleet had bothered to create a version for MK41 capable of firing along the coast including, especially since Harpoons along the coast had long been capable of firing.
    Admirals should get a separate kick for the fact that under the long-standing ESSM they did not bother to put a short version of µ41 cells on Farley Burke, as they say, for self-defense under 32 ESSM.
    But their admirals should get a particularly strong kick for the complete absence of an inexpensive frigate from the US Navy, instead of which it occurred to them to replicate expensive high-speed littoral ships, and even two projects
    In the world, enough frigates have been created at a price of $ 400 million, no one has prevented the Americans from creating two dozen frigates instead of 4 Arly Berkov, who are quite capable in most real cases of applying them or in addition to them.
    In the meantime, they won’t learn how to count money, so there will be problems, even if they have excellent destroyers in service