Military Review

In the fight for the ships: US Secretary of Defense against Congress

75

Gigantomania is very bad. Proven by the Soviet Union. Huge factories, huge budgets, huge armies devouring these budgets: it would seem that all this remained in the distant past, in a bipolar world.


But no.

US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has revealed new details about extremely ambitious plans to increase the size of the US Navy's fleets to more than 25 ships and submarines, including unmanned types, over the next 500 years.

He also unveiled the mystery of where the money would come from for this, I would say, crazy project. It turns out that work is already underway to justify the increase in the US Navy's budget. There, behind the scenes of the US Congress and Senate. And an increase in the base budget of the US Navy is possible as early as next year.

The Battle Force 2045 program has been developed and is being implemented, and Esper spoke about it. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has been working for months to help shape plans for the structure of the naval fleet for the coming decades. That is, the dominance of the American fleet in the seas and oceans should not only be preserved, but also increased.

This is an interesting program, as it does not cost money, but rather huge sums. But let's all the same in order.

At the beginning of 2020, the US Navy numbered about 290 ships. A development program was approved by Congress, which provides for an increase in the composition of the fleet to 335 ships.

However, Esper has now stated that a total of 2045 ships will be required for the fleet at the turn of 500 to effectively complete its missions. The structure of the fleet should include from 8 to 11 nuclear aircraft carriers, from 60 to 70 small surface combatants, from 70 to 80 attack submarines, from 50 to 60 amphibious warships, and from 70 to 90 logistics ships.

Earlier, the United States considered similar developments in composition from the Hudson Institute, known for its projects and military analytics. But even the Hudson hawks had less appetite than the Secretary of Defense. They operated a fleet of nine aircraft carriers, up from 9-11 Nimitz-class ships and the first Gerald Ford-class ship today.


And anything less means that some of the ships will have to be sent for metal. Meanwhile, Congress believes that the fleet should have at least 12 aircraft carriers.

Esper added (head-to-head) that the Navy "will continue to explore options for light aircraft carriers that will carry short or vertical takeoff and landing aircraft," and that the Navy may eventually acquire up to six such ships.

Considering that in May this year, the leadership of the US Navy publicly made a statement that the study of the concept of using light aircraft carriers would be postponed indefinitely, all of this in Esper's performance looks ... amazing.

But it fully justifies further work on the UDC of the "America" ​​class. Actually, this UDC can be considered precisely as a light aircraft carrier, because if you remove all the helicopter trifles, 22 F-35B aircraft, from its aviation armament, it will turn out to be very similar to a light aircraft carrier.

The defense minister did not explain, unfortunately, what might be included in the "small surface combatants" category, but at present the only naval ships that fit this description are the coastal zone ships (LCS). Here, too, everything is not entirely clear, since statements have been made more than once on the theme that these ships will not be built further.

URO frigates. Everything is clear here. The fleet bought them and will continue to buy them. The class of these ships, which is now called FFG (X), is actually a ship, which is based on the project of a European multi-purpose frigate with Italian roots from Fincantieri, that is, FREMM.

With submarines, it's not that simple either. Esper said there would be an increase in the number, but ... then. When the development of the new submarine, now known as SSN (X), is completed. That is, the US Navy wants Seawolf, but it is considerably cheaper.

In the meantime, the new boat will be developed, built and tested, "maintenance of the pants" will be due to seven "Los Angeles", which will simply extend the service life and recharge the reactors.

In general, it is modest and tasteful, and most importantly - without going beyond the global trends.

In a very optimistic way, the US Secretary of Defense reaffirmed the service's earlier goal of increasing production of Virginia-class multipurpose attack submarines from two boats a year to three. This is, of course, surprising. The main thing is not to overstrain.


In general, thunder of victory, resound. The plans are quite admiral's, but this, by the way, is understandable. Not sergeants play toys.

The fleet will probably be brought up to 335 ships. The goal, as they say, justifies. But the figure 500 in our case looks more than fantastic even for the USA.

The answer is simple: in order to bring the total number of warships to more than 500, it will be necessary to build from 140 to 240 unmanned surface and underwater vehicles.

Now those who understand will say that underwater and surface unmanned vehicles are not built in the United States. Yes it is. They don't build. However, the White House's Office of Budget Implementation has already added them to the official fleet records for future planning purposes.

An interesting situation - there are no drones, but they are in the accounting and plans. This means - and in the budget.

You can take master classes to all other ministries of defense.

But yes, money. Of course, for this to work, several barges of dollars are needed. Esper says the plan is to increase the percentage of the fleet's total shipbuilding budget to 13 percent. In fiscal 2020, money for ships accounted for just over 11,5 percent of the service's congressional budget. For 2021, the figure was 10 percent of the Navy's budget request. Legislators have yet to pass a budget for this fiscal cycle, which began on October 1, but the increase from 10 percent to 13 percent is very serious.

That 13 percent figure first appeared last month in a print speech Esper gave at the Rand think tank. However, the speech itself did not include this figure, which raised questions as to whether it was accurate or not. Esper subsequently voiced her in the comments.

Meticulous Defense News reckoned that a 2021% increase in shipbuilding funds during the fiscal 4 budget request would result in over $ XNUMX billion available to the fleet to buy ships.

And in a recent speech on the topic, Esper also called on Congress to approve the disposal of old ships and give the Pentagon the authority to transfer unused funds directly to shipbuilding accounts without special permission. He also called on lawmakers to urgently pass the FY2021 budget and not rely on short-term spending bills, commonly known as standing resolutions, that make long-term planning difficult.

Without a doubt, if Congress approves such plans, 4 billion is serious. These are 4 Arlie Burke-class destroyers in full complement.

Of course, the statements of the US Secretary of Defense are only half the battle. Everything here depends on the congressmen, and it should be noted that they have always shown restraint in the issue of allocating money for the construction of unmanned platforms. Moreover, it was Congress that has always been a source of resistance on the disposal of old ships, approving the extension of the service lives of ships and vessels of the Navy.

And, I must say, if Esper's idea gets support and his plans receive real funding, the situation may turn out to be more than original.

It's not about the money. The point is how they can be implemented. The fact is that in the USA there are problems in the construction of ships. Remember the sensational case of the UDC “America”, which was handed over 2 years later?

And with the Virginias? The transition to the construction of two submarines instead of one per year greatly strained shipyards and US enterprises. Therefore, a little higher I said: the main thing is not to overstrain. Two nuclear submarines a year is no laughing matter, but three ... With all that not so long ago they built one at a time.

And by the way: if the shipyards are occupied with the construction of the Virginia, then where will the new generation submarines be built? The ones under the Columbia ICBMs?


And then, where will the money come from? It's good if they are printed in a simple and ordinary way. And if by reducing other programs, what is the American Congress also master of?

Esper says at least some of the additional shipbuilding funding could come from savings that the Pentagon has found elsewhere in the budget. But what these savings are is not yet clear. And again, in order to curtail something, leave it without funding, all this also requires the consent of the Congress.

Democracy in action. If the people of the United States, whose representatives are in Congress, approve of Esper's plans, yes, no question. And if not…

I would also remember that it is 2020. Coronavirus, general recession, global recession. And against this background, the statements of the US Secretary of Defense about the construction of new ships look quite fantastic.


In fact, Congress could easily endorse the Esper program. But with the same ease, twisting a finger at the temple, cancel and forget it.

So it's probably too early to talk about the US Navy's 500 ships. Too early.

Source.
Author:
75 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 23 October 2020 06: 06 New
    +5
    The whole thing is going to war with the main opponents of the United States, China and Russia ... otherwise it is impossible to justify such spending on armaments.
    The contradictions in the world are growing, the crisis is economic, political, and all the conditions for a new world war are evident.
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 23 October 2020 07: 20 New
      0
      for what is the war then? they already get what they want from Russia.
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 23 October 2020 07: 22 New
        0
        for what is the war then? they already get what they want from Russia.

        US SP-2 has not yet gained ... control over the Kremlin has not gained ... much more that they have not received. The Kremlin must pay all the US expenses.
        1. Grandfather
          Grandfather 23 October 2020 12: 35 New
          0
          Quote: The same Lech
          for what is the war then? they already get what they want from Russia.

          US SP-2 has not yet gained ... control over the Kremlin has not gained ... much more that they have not received. The Kremlin must pay all the US expenses.

          oh, okay, they are transferring money into securities, a pancake forest that still grows and grows in Transbaikalia is sawn and taken out is good here ... there is not enough space.
          1. max702
            max702 24 October 2020 19: 44 New
            +4
            Quote: Dead Day
            oh, okay, they are transferring money into securities, a pancake forest that still grows and grows in Transbaikalia is sawn and taken out is good here ... there is not enough space.

            According to the US Treasury Department, Russia in April 2020 increased its investments in US government securities by almost 80% - to $ 6,85 billion. Of this amount, $ 2,84 billion are in short-term securities and $ 4,014 billion in long-term securities.
            Experts remind that in 2010 the volume of US Treasuries (UST) in the Russian debt portfolio was $ 170 billion. Since then, it has decreased more than 20 times. There is no talk of returning to those levels, at least in part.
            They don't saw anything in Zabaikail, everything was cut in the 90s .. And yes, most of the timber is supplied by New Zealand, then the United States and only then Cape Canada ..
            Change the training manual for such a hack, even the site owners won't pay ..
      2. Lex_is
        Lex_is 23 October 2020 09: 18 New
        -1
        So they are now more focused on China. But Russia is viewed from the point of view of the struggle for the Arctic plume, the northern sea route clearing of ice and creating problems for China along its border.
        So they won't leave us alone.
    2. Lex_is
      Lex_is 23 October 2020 09: 22 New
      0
      all the conditions for a new world war.

      Now everyone, taking advantage of the situation, is building up arms and trying to snatch something for themselves. So the next decade is unlikely to be peaceful.
    3. g1v2
      g1v2 23 October 2020 10: 23 New
      +5
      The modern navy lacks mattresses for normal control of sea routes. And sea trade routes are the lifeblood of their economies. The United States is extremely dependent on imports. The negative trade balance is constantly at $ 600 to $ 800 billion. Any dangers to trade routes and transportation insurance will skyrocket, plus possible shortages. That is, goods will rise in price, and the standard of living will fall. Plus, they bring in not only consumer goods, but also raw materials. And in case of war, military convoys will go in the opposite direction. Plus, you need to protect not only your own ways, but also your allies - Australia, Canada, Great Britain and New Zealand. All this requires ships. request
      Further, a war for Taiwan with the PRC is quite possible. The Chinese are building up their naval capabilities and marines. They will never recognize Taiwan as independent. The US will either have to surrender an important ally or join the OBD. PM naval war against the PRC is quite possible. request
      In general, the minister is quite realistic about the capabilities of his fleet and sounds the alarm. However, he is unlikely to get what he wants. Within the states, there are severe social upheavals and intense tensions. Therefore, both democrats and respawns will rather extinguish them with money. Plus, the money in the amersky MO is spent so ineffectively that in order for the minister's plan to work, a serious reduction in the heap of programs, the liquidation of bases abroad and a cut in social services are needed. Again, this is unlikely to go. request
    4. vVvAD
      vVvAD 26 October 2020 14: 01 New
      0
      Saw, Shura, saw.
  2. Avior
    Avior 23 October 2020 06: 21 New
    0
    ... URO frigates. Everything is clear here. The fleet bought them and will continue to buy them.

    I haven't bought it for a long time.
    Only now did we realize that frigates are also needed.
    But from what they write about the purchase of new frigates, many questions arise about what goals and objectives are set for them.
    At one time, Tikanderogs were considered too expensive and redundant, and under the slogan "two-thirds of the possibilities for half the price" excellent Berks received.
    But what is now the basis of the new frigates is difficult to understand.
    This is clearly not a simplified and cheaper version of Burke.
    1. barin
      barin 23 October 2020 08: 30 New
      17
      I think that Roman Burkeys did mean.
      But what is now the basis of the new frigates is difficult to understand.
      This is clearly not a simplified and cheaper version of Burke.

      And here it can turn out like with "Virginias" after "Sea Wolves"
      1. Avior
        Avior 23 October 2020 09: 18 New
        -1
        No, he writes directly about the Fremms. With a very strange application concept.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 23 October 2020 08: 40 New
      +1
      Quote: Avior
      a simplified and cheaper version of Burke

      any frigate is a simplified destroyer-cruiser solving the same tasks
      1. Avior
        Avior 23 October 2020 09: 27 New
        +1
        Burkes fit well with this concept.
        Frigates are both universal and in the form of specialized versions - air defense or anti-aircraft defense, for example, due to the fact that the dimensions are limited, it is difficult to accommodate everything, some component is made simpler.
        But the new American frigates are a mystery.
        Air defense simplified - only 16 cells.
        There are no PLO weapons at all, not even torpedoes. Only helicopters.
        The 57 mm gun is not very suitable for supporting the landing.
        The dimensions are rather big.
        The purpose of the new frigate is not clear.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 23 October 2020 11: 29 New
          -3
          Quote: Avior
          Air defense or anti-aircraft defense,

          Well, the task of the air defense and anti-aircraft defense frigates. Guarding the group, not hitting the ground or ships.
          Here is the material about the new FFG (X) program
          https://topwar.ru/173051-programma-razrabotki-i-stroitelstva-fregatov-ffgx-dlja-vms-ssha.html
          Quote: Avior
          The 57 mm gun is not very suitable for supporting the landing.

          This is a temporary solution, these frigates will be equipped with a 150 kW laser
          1. Avior
            Avior 23 October 2020 13: 45 New
            -1
            16 cells in total - the air defense is symbolic, there are no anti-submarine weapons at all, that is, not an anti-aircraft defense.
            There is only the RCC actually.
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 23 October 2020 14: 02 New
              -1
              Confused. This is not a pure framem.
              Before the superstructure is placed the universal vertical launcher Mk 41 with 32 cells. It will be complemented by the Mk 49 launcher with 21 RIM-116 RAM anti-aircraft missiles. On the superstructure, it is proposed to mount one or two NSM anti-ship missile launchers. The frigate’s ammunition will include a variety of missile weapons, but it will be based on missiles.

              + laser
              1. Avior
                Avior 23 October 2020 15: 40 New
                0
                Oh well. Laser. We will see.
                I remember how they laid the Zamvolt, I heard it already.
                Mk41 is really 32, but PLO weapons are not provided. Ram is self-defense.
                1. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 23 October 2020 17: 12 New
                  -1
                  but PLO weapons are not provided

                  Provides a Dual-mode Array Transmitter (DART) Raytheon, which includes:
                  Variable Depth Sonar (VDS)
                  Multi-Function Towed Array (MFTA)
                  Helicopter MH-60R
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 23 October 2020 18: 00 New
                    0
                    Quote: Lex_is
                    Provides a Dual-mode Array Transmitter (DART) Raytheon, which includes:
                    Variable Depth Sonar (VDS)
                    Multi-Function Towed Array (MFTA)
                    Helicopter MH-60R

                    That is, GUS and a helicopter.
                    It can be compared with the original FREMM: in addition to one or two NH-90, there is a pair of 324-mm TA and PLUR (in the PLO version).
                    1. Lex_is
                      Lex_is 23 October 2020 18: 25 New
                      -1
                      So he has 32 Mk 41 cells, into which ASROC RUM-139B is planned to be loaded.
                      1. Avior
                        Avior 23 October 2020 18: 58 New
                        +1
                        Not all MK41 cells can be loaded.
                        For the MK41 frigate, only essm and cm-2 are provided.
                      2. Lex_is
                        Lex_is 23 October 2020 19: 08 New
                        -1
                        Everything.
                        They are standard.
                      3. Avior
                        Avior 23 October 2020 19: 18 New
                        +1
                        They are of three different types - tactical, shock and self-defense.
                        On Spanish frigates, for example, cm-2 is also placed and the asrok, cm-6 or tomahawk is not installed, as well as on this frigate.
                      4. ZEMCH
                        ZEMCH 28 October 2020 20: 25 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Lex_is
                        Everything.
                        They are standard.

                        No, they differ in length and weight restrictions due to the foundation, etc.
                      5. Lex_is
                        Lex_is 29 October 2020 10: 34 New
                        -1
                        I wrote below.
                        Besides SelfDefense, which is more exportable, other modifications allow you to place. Moreover, they have declared this placement in the program.
                        On the head, most likely it will not be, since it will go in a hurry with minimal changes, and for ASROC you need the entire system with SQQ89, and they will put on the rest.
                        Here are its planned anti-submarine weapons:
                        somehow this does not sound like the statement of local sofa experts:
                        There are no PLO weapons at all, not even torpedoes.

                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 23 October 2020 19: 06 New
                  0
                  Quote: Lex_is
                  So he has 32 Mk 41 cells, into which ASROC RUM-139B is planned to be loaded.

                  Not everything is so simple. smile
                  There really is a UVP on the new FR. But the possibility of launching a PLUR from it is currently indicated as "possible in the future." That is, this option is not included in the complete set of ships for ordering by the fleet - it was most likely referred to Block II or even Block III.
                3. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 23 October 2020 19: 16 New
                  -1
                  The latest missile integrations into the MK 41 VLS include the Evolved Sea
                  Sparrow Missile (ESSM), Tactical Tomahawk, Standard Missile 3, Standard
                  Missile 6 and Vertical Launch ASROCLightweight Hybrid Torpedo.
                  Lockheed Martin Corporation


                  It has been launched from Mk 1989 since 41, and it was created for it.
                4. Avior
                  Avior 23 October 2020 19: 25 New
                  +1
                  There are different types of MK41
                  On Berks, Tiki maximum, on frigates, for example Spanish, not all the nomenclature under MK41 is launched.
                5. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 23 October 2020 19: 47 New
                  -1
                  The Spaniards have Mk41 Mod 3 which is exported and only allows you to run ESSM

                  Strike-Length Module and Tactical-Length Module allow ASROC to run, only SelfDefense does not.
                  If the use of SM-2 is declared, then SelfDefense disappears. SM-2 does not fit there.
                6. Avior
                  Avior 23 October 2020 21: 26 New
                  +1
                  The Spaniards, Australians, Canadians have cm-2 in MK41 cells.
                7. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 23 October 2020 22: 03 New
                  -1
                  Once again, especially for you.


                  The SM-2 ASROC has one launcher size.
                8. Avior
                  Avior 24 October 2020 00: 37 New
                  +1
                  Only there are no rods on the indicated frigates, but there are cm-2.
                  I see you have already seen that the MK41 cells are different. But this is not the only difference between modules.
                  hi
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 23 October 2020 19: 36 New
          0
          Quote: Lex_is
          It has been launched from Mk 1989 since 41, and it was created for it.

          So we also put a lot of things in UKSK. In theory. But not all ships can use the entire nomenclature.
          So far, the report to Congress "Navy Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate (Previously FFG [X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress" dated 13.10.2020/7/2019 on page 41 flaunts the same picture of XNUMX, which indicates, that the UVP MkXNUMX supports the vertical launch of the PLUR (in future).
  • Avior
    Avior 23 October 2020 18: 55 New
    +1
    There is nothing to shoot with.
    There was no room for 4-6 small-sized anti-submarine torpedoes
    1. Lex_is
      Lex_is 23 October 2020 19: 00 New
      0
      There is nothing to shoot with.
      There was no room for 4-6 small-sized anti-submarine torpedoes

      Really?
      Doesn't ASROC mean anything to you?
      This is a vertical launch anti-submarine missile with a warhead in the form of an Mk 46 torpedo.
      1. Avior
        Avior 23 October 2020 19: 01 New
        +1
        The installation of which in the cells of the mk41 frigate is not provided.
        In any case, there is not a word about it anywhere.
      2. Lex_is
        Lex_is 23 October 2020 19: 07 New
        0
        The installation of which in the cells of the mk41 frigate is not provided.

        It was built under the Mk 41 and is used from the Mk 41 to the Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke.
    2. Avior
      Avior 23 October 2020 19: 12 New
      +1

      Here's what will happen on the frigate
    3. Avior
      Avior 23 October 2020 19: 16 New
      +1
      And this is how a real multipurpose French-built frigate looks like.

      Two times less and 4 times cheaper.
  • vomag
    vomag 23 October 2020 06: 26 New
    +3
    Gigantomania is very bad. Proven by the Soviet Union.
    You are mistaken in the USSR, this did not exist ..
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 23 October 2020 06: 34 New
    +1
    If you have a debt of 26 trillion of greens and it is obvious that you will NEVER liquidate it, you need to spend a little more (in relation to debt) and build muscle to such an extent that no one in the world dares to utter a word about returning the debt! So I do not really agree with Roman (the author). They will print more money, otherwise, if you are not "the biggest piece of leaven" (D. London. "Sea Wolf") creditors will get together and begin to "describe the property"!
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 23 October 2020 08: 53 New
      +4
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      debt 26 trillion

      it is the debt of the US government to the private office of the Fed. It does not have to be given away, and other countries are paying for it with inflation, more will be published in the world inflation, including in the RF and the PRC. We have already paid the inflationary emission tax, and we will again pay for the wish list of the US Navy, it is just that the prices for everything will rise in the whole world. And the direct debt to the Russian Federation and the PRC is only a small part of the US debts, this is our tribute to the owner in the form of "sovereign" funds and offshore freedom, Russia has no right to spend "its" sovereign funds, but is obliged to increase them, and has no right to prevent the export of capital through offshore ..
      1. Volder
        Volder 23 October 2020 11: 12 New
        -2
        Quote: vladimir1155
        Russia has no right to spend "its" sovereign funds, but it is obliged to increase them, and has no right to prevent the export of capital through offshore companies ..
        Brad.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 23 October 2020 16: 06 New
          +3
          Quote: Volder
          Brad.

          read the central bank law, the fund for future generations law and the WTO requirements for offshore
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 24 October 2020 09: 42 New
            0
            https://kapital-rus.ru/articles/article/gde_dengi_fonda_nacionalnogo_blagosostoyaniya_pochti_chetvert_propala/ русским языком сказано, на нужды народа и государства тратить фонд запрещено, часть можно дать безвозвратно своим олигархам, но народу и бюджеьу запрещено..6. В случае, если на конец очередного финансового года и (или) первого года планового периода и (или) второго года планового периода прогнозируемый объем средств Фонда национального благосостояния, размещенных на депозитах и банковских счетах в Центральном банке Российской Федерации, превышает 5 процентов объема валового внутреннего продукта, ежегодный объем использования средств Фонда национального благосостояния в очередном финансовом году, первом году планового периода и втором году планового периода на покрытие дефицитов федерального бюджета и бюджета Пенсионного фонда Российской Федерации не может превышать абсолютное значение объема недополученных нефтегазовых доходов в соответствующем финансовом году.
            In the event that at the end of the next financial year and (or) the first year of the planning period and (or) the second year of the planning period, the projected amount of the National Wealth Fund placed on deposits and bank accounts with the Central Bank of the Russian Federation does not exceed 5 percent of the gross domestic product, the annual volume of use of the National Welfare Fund in the next financial year, the first year of the planning period and the second year of the planning period to cover the federal budget and the budget of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation cannot exceed the volume equivalent to 1 percent of the gross domestic product indicated on the corresponding financial year in the federal law on the federal budget for the next financial year and planning period, and the absolute value of the amount of lost oil and gas revenues in the corresponding financial year.
            (Clause 6 was introduced by the Federal Law of July 29.07.2017, 262 N XNUMX-FZ) ...
          2. Volder
            Volder 31 October 2020 12: 43 New
            0
            Quote: vladimir1155
            read the central bank law, the fund for future generations law and the WTO requirements for offshore
            You somehow perversely perceive information. It says about restrictions and conditions, but there is NO complete prohibition. Also, there is nothing about the obligation to increase funds.
    2. Kostya Lavinyukov
      Kostya Lavinyukov 23 October 2020 09: 28 New
      0
      The US debt is mainly made up of bonds. These are in fact securities that bring income to the owner. As long as the US can give this interest, it will not have any problems.
      1. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 23 October 2020 09: 36 New
        0
        Quote: Kostya Lavinyukov
        As long as the US can give this interest, it will not have any problems.

        Did "MMM" also seem to have paid good interest at first? They're just excellent ... Doesn't it remind? It's just that the scale is different.
        1. Kostya Lavinyukov
          Kostya Lavinyukov 23 October 2020 13: 03 New
          0
          For over a hundred years they have been paying why should they stop?
          1. Mountain shooter
            Mountain shooter 23 October 2020 13: 14 New
            +3
            Quote: Kostya Lavinyukov
            For over a hundred years they have been paying why should they stop?

            What are 100 years old? Did you pass the history on the EG? When did these securities appear in such volumes and the US national debt began to grow?
      2. Firelake
        Firelake 23 October 2020 22: 10 New
        0
        Dollar inflation is higher than the interest rate. Debt gives itself. So amer on X for this debt ...
  • mark2
    mark2 23 October 2020 06: 44 New
    0
    It is possible that the fleet will be brought up to 335 ships. The goal, as they say, justifies. But the figure 500 in our case looks more than fantastic even for the USA

    Let sailing frigates add or oar galleys,
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 23 October 2020 07: 21 New
      +3
      Quote: mark2
      oaring gallers,

      calm ... this niche is occupied ...
  • Operator
    Operator 23 October 2020 08: 09 New
    -7
    500 American pelvis equals 500 Russian Zircons.

    And so let them build - by saving on super-duper rockets bully
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 23 October 2020 09: 52 New
    +3
    ... Proven by the Soviet Union. Huge factories, huge budgets, huge armies devouring these budgets ..

    An article about the US Navy, and what the USSR was dragged into, and even "kicked" for nothing. The giant plant is profitable even now, as it produces a colossal amount of products with minimal cost.
    The US Navy wants the Seawolf, but at a fraction of the cost.

    This is Virginia. And they have already been fairly built and will continue ..
    ..fiscal 2021 will result in more than $ 4 billion available to the fleet to purchase ships.
    1. Cowbra
      Cowbra 23 October 2020 10: 29 New
      -1
      Quote: Doccor18
      The giant plant is profitable even now, as it produces a colossal amount of products with minimal cost.

      The question is, is it necessary? A textbook example with a plant producing trailers in the USSR. They built, and then it turned out that it was stupid not to put these trailers for cars in such an amount
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 23 October 2020 11: 33 New
        +1
        I talked about big factories
        ..then it turned out that it was stupid not to put these trailers for cars in such quantity

        and not about stupidity and negligence. First you need to understand what to do and why, and only then to do it.
      2. Grandfather
        Grandfather 23 October 2020 12: 09 New
        +3
        Quote: Cowbra
        The question is, is it necessary?

        yes, you see, not a damn thing is necessary. there is a vigorous loaf, and okay, lie down in the bunkers. navy-boat-strategy, from China in space we are lagging behind-HP GDP, and so on ... from the performance in Boltai I understood ... while the muddies and cattails with greasy children rule, forget about "laces and breakthroughs."
      3. Essex62
        Essex62 23 October 2020 16: 40 New
        0
        This is when it became clear that it was not necessary? When the Union began to fall, destroying production chains and intersectoral ties. By introducing bourgeois cost accounting and brigade contracts. And everything went limp at once, the planned system does not tolerate such tricks. It is a clockwork mechanism. According to the idea, it was planned to produce only three trailers for 10 cars.
      4. VladGTN
        VladGTN 23 October 2020 23: 38 New
        0
        In Soviet times, in general, there was more queue for trailers for passenger cars than for passenger cars.
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 23 October 2020 10: 03 New
    +1
    The main problem of mattress mats is that the decision of what the fleet needs (Air Force, Ground Force) is decided not by the military and not by engineers - designers, but by politicians - lobbyists who represent the interests of firms - manufacturers of weapons. And for them, the main criterion is cost. The more expensive the better. Hence the F - 35, and the aircraft carriers of the "Ford" type, the destroyers "Zamvolt" - although the fleet was categorically against it.
  • 1536
    1536 23 October 2020 10: 12 New
    -1
    All the same, the fact that the American state is only just 244 years old affects. A negligible period in the development of civilization. Otherwise, the Americans had to think about introducing galleys - rowing ships, which were used with success in the Ancient World, in their Navy. The Americans today could find rowers, for example, in some countries of Eastern Europe, where they gladly welcome all the initiatives of the American elders in power and their "guardians" who, apparently, rule quietly.
  • Cowbra
    Cowbra 23 October 2020 10: 27 New
    0
    The trick is that about half of the US military budget goes to various kinds of insurance and payments to those who have already served, such as pensions. It cannot be cut back - and so they take just anyone into the army, and that is not enough, without these payments even the bandos from the ghetto will not go. In fact, there is nothing more to cut. The land army is already insufficient even for the current wars. With the Air Force, too, not everything is all right, since Tucano was going to buy instead of the F-35. Raytheon is also eating a lot of money - just because the minister is from Raytheon, they will not cut his money either ...
  • Volder
    Volder 23 October 2020 11: 01 New
    0
    In addition to ships and submarines, they are also going to build icebreakers, as well as a new bomber. I am already silent about helicopters and hypersonic missiles ...
  • Grandfather
    Grandfather 23 October 2020 12: 41 New
    +1
    Quote: TermNachTER
    The main problem of mattress mats is that the decision of what the fleet needs (Air Force, Ground Force) is decided not by the military and not by engineers - designers, but by politicians - lobbyists who represent the interests of firms - manufacturers of weapons. And for them, the main criterion is cost. The more expensive the better. Hence the F - 35, and the aircraft carriers of the "Ford" type, the destroyers "Zamvolt" - although the fleet was categorically against it.

    they can afford to "experiment", because before their
    "Burkov" to us as to "Beijing .." on foot from ... the Urals .. no matter how bitter it is to realize it.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 23 October 2020 14: 08 New
      -3
      Quote: Dead Day
      "Burkov" to us as to "Beijing .." on foot from.

      Yes, I still take your word for it - both about their Burke and about walking on the moon !!! America should bow to the belt when they just open their mouths and expect miracles from them ??? One generation of American politicians-liars gave birth to another generation !!! And computer graphics are already at such a level that it allows you to draw anything and sell it to the ears of simpletons around the world !!!
  • Vsevolod136
    Vsevolod136 23 October 2020 15: 08 New
    0
    Quote: The same Lech
    The whole thing is going to war with the main opponents of the United States, China and Russia ... otherwise it is impossible to justify such spending on armaments.
    The contradictions in the world are growing, the crisis is economic, political, and all the conditions for a new world war are evident.

    The casket opens simply - wider swing, more steal, the "Government Error Study Project" found that the Pentagon spent $ 30 billion "on fixing the audit problem," and the Pentagon's extreme audit set the amount at $ XNUMX trillion !!!! accounting adjustments.
    1. FerrariStradale
      FerrariStradale 23 October 2020 17: 37 New
      -1
      They do not steal anything, there are no criminal cases for such amounts. And if there is no case, then your stories are nothing more than a conspiracy theory. According to your FBI, prosecutors, government conspiracy to cover up the theft ??? But why? Where is the logic?
      In Russia, they like to talk about mass theft at the Pentagon, but there is no evidence.
      1. ZEMCH
        ZEMCH 28 October 2020 20: 36 New
        0
        Quote: FerrariStradale
        They do not steal anything, there are no criminal cases for such amounts. And if there is no case, then your stories are nothing more than a conspiracy theory. According to your FBI, prosecutors, government conspiracy to cover up the theft ??? But why? Where is the logic?
        In Russia, they like to talk about mass theft at the Pentagon, but there is no evidence.

        They won't tell you about the Pentagon, because the courts are military and they are not public, but NASA:
        Meet the Director of NASA's Institute for Advanced Study Robert Kassanov and his ingenious scheme. For 8 years of work, he stole tens of millions of dollars. Mr. Kassanov asked his friends to write pseudo-scientific works containing nothing, except for empty pseudoscientific chatter, then for "brilliant" discoveries in the field of new technologies (discoveries) he wrote out bonuses of up to $ 4 million a third of his protégés listed him.
        The American project of the Freedom orbital station, which was developed in opposition to the USSR and its Mir orbital station, was closed in the early 90s in just 4 years, 9 billion dollars were spent and this is only on a paper project. It didn't come to construction. Where did they spend most of the amount, it was not possible to establish.
  • Simple
    Simple 23 October 2020 16: 24 New
    0
    Quote: from article
    And then, where will the money come from? It's good if they are printed in a simple and ordinary way. And if by cutting other programs ...

    And what about the option "to bend any country to resources"?
    1. FerrariStradale
      FerrariStradale 23 October 2020 17: 18 New
      0
      Automation, robotization will help to reduce the number of personnel of future ships, for example, the Zumvolt has 30% less personnel than similar modern ships. Zumwalt saves tens of millions of dollars annually.
      In the future, ships may generally be unmanned. So the announced 500 ships are not fiction.
      1. ZEMCH
        ZEMCH 28 October 2020 20: 46 New
        +1
        Quote: FerrariStradale
        Automation, robotization will help to reduce the number of personnel of future ships, for example, the Zumvolt has 30% less personnel than similar modern ships. Zumwalt saves tens of millions of dollars annually.
        In the future, ships may generally be unmanned. So the announced 500 ships are not fiction.

        With Zumvolt, they never knew what to do! He returns for modernization, because radars do not work, and missiles fly, but not as they should. Automation did not bring results, because constant equipment breakdowns and the absence of duplicate manual control, could not allow bringing the Zumvolt to a combat-ready state. They refused corrected projectiles, tk. their cost for the budget of the Navy is prohibitive - $ 800 tons. And so in everything under the LCS program, that with Ford. The level of training l / s is low, maintenance and repair of equipment is constantly growing in price, it’s turn to get to the shipyard for routine repairs)))
  • Evgeny Seleznev
    Evgeny Seleznev 23 October 2020 20: 09 New
    +2
    Quote: "The answer is simple: to bring the total number of warships to more than 500, you will need to build from 140 to 240 unmanned surface and underwater vehicles." is an innovation like a UAV. To contain 4 or +/- operators to control a surface or underwater drone is much cheaper than a full-fledged crew, and maintenance for standard products with modular weapons can be put on the assembly line (Henry Ford). We have a complete crap with the UAV, the events in Armenia (the military-industrial complex "Robotblitz" is not in our favor, an adequate article). But the new concepts of warfare after the Cold War and the cost of crew lives, plus the revolution in electronics, are already a reality. And here we need to pay more attention and actually try to revive the killed industry.
  • Koval Sergey
    Koval Sergey 24 October 2020 12: 20 New
    16
    Even such a fleet of 500 ships would only delay the inevitable. There will be no dominance of a planetary scale. These ambitions are reminiscent of the player who, after continued success, begins to lose and make mistakes.