US Navy presented a plan for its development

March 22 2013 27

US Navy Unveils 5-Year Naval Shipbuilding Plan Adjusted for Development Program fleet.

These data are presented in a new report by the Congressional Research Service.

In January 2013, the Navy submitted to Congress a plan for bringing the fleet numbers up to the 306 ships specifying their types and numbers.

According to the 5-year shipbuilding plan in 2013-2017 f.yy. Funding requested for 41 ship instead of previously planned 57 ships (28 percent. Reduced 16 units).

According to the plans of the US military shipbuilding in 2013-2017 f.yy. In the near 5 anniversary, the following ships will be built and delivered to the fleet: one heavy nuclear aircraft carrier (AVT) Gerald Ford (CVN-78), 9 nuclear submarines with missile-torpedo armament (PLAT) of the Virginia type (SSN-774 ), 9 destroyers of the type “Arly Burke (DDG-51), 16 coastal warships such as LCS (Littoral Combat Ship), one universal landing ship (UDC)“ America ”LHA-6, 2 tug, one landing platform MLP (Mobile Landing Platform), one high-speed transport catamaran JHSV (Joint High Speed Vessel), one tanker. In total, the ship will be handed over to the 41 fleet, including in FN 2013. - 10 units, in 2014 f.d. -7 units, in 2015 f.d. - 8 units, in 2016 FG - 9 units, in 2017 FG - 7 units

On average, the US Navy will receive annually from the shipbuilding industry over the next 5 anniversary of the 8,2 combat ships, whereas earlier fleet development plans provided for transferring to the fleet annually on 10 and more combat ships.

The rate of replacement of the ship composition for the fleet numbering 306 ships with an average duration of operation in 35 years will be 8,7 ship annually.

In the future, shipbuilding and related programs will experience new financial difficulties due to lack of funding and possible sequestering of the defense budget, which will affect priority programs such as the construction of the nuclear aircraft carrier CVN-78, the construction of the nuclear aircraft carrier loading complex, and the destroyers program. DDW-type DDG-51, and a program for the construction of landing ships, funded in previous years.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

evgenii67

+12

22 March 2013 10: 28

Hello everyone! Despite the alleged reduction in military spending, the pace is impressive, I wish the American comrades a lot of marriage, constant postponements, well, the classic cut of budget funds
1. Arberes
  
  +4
  
  22 March 2013 10: 40
  
  Quote: evgenii67
  Well, the classic budget cut
  
  I appreciated!
  You plus Friend
  And the Anglo-Saxons
  Serdyukov’s
  
  P.S
  Together with the Babskii battalion, of course.
  1. evgenii67
    
    +1
    
    22 March 2013 10: 50
    
    Quote: Arberes
    Serdyukov’s
    
    it would be great if the United States began to buy serious weapons abroad For example, I would not mind that the MiG-29 (without any frills) be sold to America (so to speak, replacing the F-16 and, accordingly, instead of the F-35), otherwise it’s a kind of stagnation with the MiGs, it’s breaking the soul, and the enterprise works , and the F-35 would go down in history without becoming a replacement for the legendary F-16 Apaches to hell, let our Mi-35 take here such Serdyukovs need to go to the States and it’s good for them and it will turn out cheaper and better
    1. Arberes
      
      +2
      
      22 March 2013 11: 25
      
      evgenii67 Hello again
      Do you know what unites us?
      
      Rich fantasy!
      1. evgenii67
        
        0
        
        22 March 2013 11: 32
        
        Quote: Arberes
        Do you know what unites us?
        
        Rich fantasy!
        
        Apparently yes, but much more, for example: we live in one country, we love our Motherland ......
        
        Arberes
        
        +4
        
        22 March 2013 11: 50
        
        Quote: evgenii67
        we love our homeland .....
        
        And the Navy !!!
2. ShturmKGB
  
  +4
  
  22 March 2013 10: 55
  
  While the fat dries, the thin dies ...
3. say
  
  -7
  
  22 March 2013 17: 51
  
  Well, what about * shiver trembling with fear?
4. ixsus
  
  +1
  
  22 March 2013 21: 35
  
  Greetings evgenii67
  I also support it, otherwise they speak of corruption, even if they also have it.
Snegovok

+1

22 March 2013 10: 32

Nothing and ours will soon begin to build large ships, everything has its own time, but I want it now)))
1. igor.borov775
  
  +2
  
  22 March 2013 11: 27
  
  You read poorly that they plan to cover your coast with no ships of the ocean zone and that is not enough, There are no enterprises for such a scale, And to be honest, there is no money
Arberes

+4

22 March 2013 10: 37

Although the US and rot ??? but somehow sad to me from their program!
The only thing that comforted me was a reduction of 16 units, otherwise it was completely unbuckled in a sausage!
1. Lord of the Sith
  
  +2
  
  22 March 2013 14: 56
  
  Well, since the 30s the country has not experienced shocks - not military, not economic. She kept all the gold during the war, but now where is the gold? Well done.
Nayhas

+1

22 March 2013 10: 37

Yes, "reduction", in 5 years 41 ships will only be handed over, but how many are under construction, with a delivery date later than 2017? And why do they need 9 more new destroyers, and so at least eat them with your ass?
1. Vladimirets
  
  0
  
  22 March 2013 10: 45
  
  Quote: Nayhas
  And why do they need 9 more new destroyers, do you eat them with your ass anyway?
  
  A good multipurpose ship will always come in handy.
Vladimirets

+1

22 March 2013 10: 44

It would be interesting to know what types of ships and how many they threw out of the plan?
1. Nayhas
  
  0
  
  22 March 2013 11: 49
  
  HZ, Zumwalt can? Although they laid the three and will obviously complete them, they didn’t plan anymore. Probably LCS reduced.
Arberes

+2

22 March 2013 10: 46

Quote: Nayhas
Yes, "reduction", in 5 years 41 ships will only be handed over, but how many are under construction, with a delivery date later than 2017? And why do they need 9 more new destroyers, and so at least eat them with your ass?

Well, obsolete will be steadily written off.
And the Fleet is ALL of them and they will keep it in excellent condition!
1. Nayhas
  
  -2
  
  22 March 2013 11: 34
  
  Yeah, they are back in 2010. launched a program to upgrade 11 Orly Burke class ships, so they won’t write anything off. For example, the lead will extend the life of up to 40 years, and it was launched in 1989., and adopt in 1991.
  1. Don
    
    +2
    
    22 March 2013 12: 32
    
    Quote: Nayhas
    Yeah, they are back in 2010. launched a program to upgrade 11 Orly Burke class ships, so they won’t write anything off. For example, the lead will extend the life of up to 40 years, and it was launched in 1989., and adopt in 1991.
    
    This is where you read this, DDG-51 Arleigh Burke, 1991, extend the life of up to 40 years?
    1. Nayhas
      
      0
      
      22 March 2013 14: 02
      
      Wikipedia writes, but I read about an upgrade program in an article, they’re not going to write them off, and what's the point, the oldest of 20 years, is not a deadline for a ship.
2. igor.borov775
  
  +1
  
  22 March 2013 11: 37
  
  You see, a submarine came in handy that there was no roofing felts near the US coast, but the result of everything ,,, this action is obvious, They should receive the initiative from Europe, the tone is set, Now they must take care,
queen

+1

22 March 2013 10: 52

Quote: Arberes
over the next 5 years 8,2 warships

I am not a mathematician, but still.
1. Arberes
  
  +3
  
  22 March 2013 11: 28
  
  Quote: regin
  I am not a mathematician, but still.
  
  Eight write, two in mind!
  But actually, this is not my quote?
Dangerous

+2

22 March 2013 12: 00

We read, licked, sighed sadly and went to work on, for the good of our country
zao74

+1

22 March 2013 14: 47

I hope this is only the beginning of the reduction of weapons in the states ...
1. evgenii67
  
  +3
  
  22 March 2013 15: 25
  
  Quote: zao74
  I hope this is only the beginning of the reduction of weapons in the states ...
  
  And I hope to reduce staff in the States
  1. Kaa
    
    +4
    
    22 March 2013 18: 29
    
    Quote: evgenii67
    And I hope to reduce staff in the States
    
    Yes, God be with them, there is no need to reduce them ... even better if there are more of them ... One proposal is to change the name - not the United States, but NSA - the independent (from each other) States of America, in return for the collapse of the USSR ... let them cope, and then integrate again ... it will not be up to the fleet, which is newer, "for scrap and casinos" we will buy ...
    1. ixsus
      
      0
      
      22 March 2013 22: 02
      
      Greetings to Kaa.
      HA! HA! HA! 5 points.
    2. evgenii67
      
      0
      
      22 March 2013 22: 18
      
      Quote: Kaa
      Yes, God be with them, there is no need to reduce it ... even better if there are more of them ... One suggestion is to change the name - not the USA, but the NSA - independent (from each other) States of America
      
      This is 5 !!!!!!!!
2. ixsus
  
  0
  
  22 March 2013 22: 01
  
  Greetings zao74
  How many candy wrappers do not print, anyway you will have to finish someday. They have a lot of expenses on the fleet and bases around the world. After the collapse of the USSR, they developed not badly, but the navel is already torn to contain all this.
3. ixsus
  
  0
  
  22 March 2013 22: 05
  
  Greetings zao74
  How many candy wrappers do not print, anyway you will have to finish someday. They have a lot of expenses on the fleet and bases around the world. After the collapse of the USSR, they developed not badly, but the navel is already torn to contain it all.
povkonavt

0

22 March 2013 23: 29

Quote: Kaa
NSA - independent (from each other)

+100