What's new

‘We need more money’: US Navy needs more of the DoD budget

Dante80

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Apr 1, 2018
Messages
996
Reaction score
5
Country
Greece
Location
Greece
‘We need more money’: US Navy’s top officer says the service needs more of the DoD budget
By: David B. Larter - DefenseNews - 15.1.2020

kFs313Th.jpg

If the Navy is to grow much beyond its current size, the service should get a larger slice of the budget than the Air Force and Army, the CNO says. (MC1 Ashley Berumen/U.S. Navy)

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Navy’s top officer said his service must have a larger percentage of the Defense Department’s budget if it’s going to grow the force and execute the strategy laid out by the Trump administration.

Adm. Michael Gilday, the chief of naval operations, said in a speech at the annual Surface Navy Association symposium that the cost of the new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine was eating a disproportionate share of the shipbuilding budget, and that even a minor single percentage realignment would make a difference.

To compare, Gilday said the Navy’s budget in the 1980s — when it was building the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine — was much higher than today’s budget. “One percent of the DoD budget would be $7 billion per year in the shipbuilding accounts,” the CNO explained. “If I make some comparison from today and I go back to the 1980s, there are some similarities there."

“Right now we are building the Columbia class submarine. That is my highest priority," he added. "By the time we sundown the Ohio class, we’ll have 42 years in those hulls. We need to get Columbia out there.

“Now, let’s go back to when we were building Ohio in the 1980s: It was about 20 percent of the shipbuilding budget. Right now, Columbia is about 20-25 percent. In FY26-30 it’s going to be about 32 percent. That’s a lot of dough. In the 1980s, the Navy’s percentage of the DoD budget was 38 percent. Right now, it’s 34. So I think historically I have a case to make.”

The Pentagon has in recent decades, with a few exceptions, distributed a third of the aggregate budget appropriation (or top line) for each department: Army, Air Force and Navy.

TZKo4kch.jpg

The Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine Pennsylvania transits the Hood Canal on Dec. 27, 2017. Replacing the Ohio class will hamper the Navy's ability to grow unless it gets more of the budget, according to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday. (Petty Officer 1st Class Amanda Gray/U.S. Navy)

But to pursue a strategy that keeps pace with China’s fast-growing Navy, and execute the Navy’s Distributed Maritime Operations strategy — distributing ships across a large area instead of aggregated around a carrier to spread out and confuse Chinese targeting and surveillance assets — then the department must pony up, Gilday said.

“Here’s the deal, we need more money,” he said. “We need more top line.
“If you believe that we require overmatch in the maritime domain, if you believe that in order to execute distributed maritime operations and to operate forward in numbers now that we need more iron, then, yes, we need more top line.”

Gilday’s comments come in the wake of similar remarks by the acting secretary of the Navy, who told Defense News that flat budgets mean that to grow the force, the Navy needs a higher top line.

“We definitely want to have a bigger Navy, but we definitely don’t want to have a hollow Navy either,” Modly told Defense News. “These are difficult choices, but the requirement to get to a bigger fleet, whether that’s 355 ships or 355-plus, as I like to talk about, it is going to require a bigger top line for the Navy.

“If you are growing the force by 25 to 30 percent, that includes people that have to man them. It requires maintenance. It requires operational costs. And you can’t do that if your top line is basically flat."

Source:. https://www.defensenews.com/digital...ays-the-service-needs-more-of-the-dod-budget/
 
USN shall cut down CVN to total of 6 only.. The remaining 4 carrier funds can be injected into more R&D for more cutting edge naval weapon and future drone warship.
 
USN shall cut down CVN to total of 6 only.. The remaining 4 carrier funds can be injected into more R&D for more cutting edge naval weapon and future drone warship.

Numerical Superiority is the only thing giving an edge to US Military right now. Once that edge is over then Russia and China will bitch slap them into submission all over the world. US will never decrease number of carriers but rather expect an increase due to massive buildup of Chinese Naval Capability.
 
Numerical Superiority is the only thing giving an edge to US Military right now. Once that edge is over then Russia and China will bitch slap them into submission all over the world. US will never decrease number of carriers but rather expect an increase due to massive buildup of Chinese Naval Capability.
It's easy to talk about increase but where will the money come from?
 
Numerical Superiority is the only thing giving an edge to US Military right now. Once that edge is over then Russia and China will bitch slap them into submission all over the world. US will never decrease number of carriers but rather expect an increase due to massive buildup of Chinese Naval Capability.

Ironic an Aussie wants the USN to be "bitch slapped". Wasn't it the same navy that saved Australia from sharing China's fate all those years ago? Regardless, your fantasy will remain a fantasy the USN has not lost its technological or numerical superiority to China and is unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future.

And you better hope that is the case unless you enjoy Moo Shu with a side order of bitch slap from a Chinese overlord.
 
Ironic an Aussie wants the USN to be "bitch slapped". Wasn't it the same navy that saved Australia from sharing China's fate all those years ago? Regardless, your fantasy will remain a fantasy the USN has not lost its technological or numerical superiority to China and is unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future.

And you better hope that is the case unless you enjoy Moo Shu with a side order of bitch slap from a Chinese overlord.

China doesnt have imperial ambitions unlike the US, they have no interest in invading Australia.

If anything the world need another military competitor in order to counter US sponsored regime changes and invasions.
 
China doesnt have imperial ambitions unlike the US, they have no interest in invading Australia.

If anything the world need another military competitor in order to counter US sponsored regime changes and invasions.
Really? The Japanese did not have imperial ambitions either - the quest for resources changed everything.
 
Ironic an Aussie wants the USN to be "bitch slapped". Wasn't it the same navy that saved Australia from sharing China's fate all those years ago? Regardless, your fantasy will remain a fantasy the USN has not lost its technological or numerical superiority to China and is unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future.

And you better hope that is the case unless you enjoy Moo Shu with a side order of bitch slap from a Chinese overlord.

I am a strong believer of fighting ones fights in your own backyard so please dont $hit around and drag other into it.

BTW China did not invade a single country up until now same can't be said for you war hungry Americans.

It's easy to talk about increase but where will the money come from?

By invading other countries and plundering their wealth seems to work every time for Americans.
 
I am a strong believer of fighting ones fights in your own backyard so please dont $hit around and drag other into it.

BTW China did not invade a single country up until now same can't be said for you war hungry Americans.

You obviously don’t read much, look up Tibet on the internet - the most successful invasion and occupation in modern history. A Chinese invasion is a real concern for the Australian military especially after China invested in building massive ports in Vanuatu an island nation that exports and imports next to nothing. Hmmm....why does China need massive ports on the island chains in Australia’s backyard?
 
You obviously don’t read much, look up Tibet on the internet - the most successful invasion and occupation in modern history. A Chinese invasion is a real concern for the Australian military especially after China invested in building massive ports in Vanuatu an island nation that exports and imports next to nothing. Hmmm....why does China need massive ports on the island chains in Australia’s backyard?

Why Americans need a base in Australia these are all good questions. I read enough to know how you people drag other nations in your private wars. Your conquests that have left millions dead are all there to see for humanity.

As for Tibet read entire history not just the one that serves your agenda.
 
After reading this head line "Congress just passed a near trillion dollar military budget" This comes to mind↓↓↓

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.”

General Dwight D Eisenhower
Farewell address 1961
 
Why Americans need a base in Australia these are all good questions. I read enough to know how you people drag other nations in your private wars. Your conquests that have left millions dead are all there to see for humanity.

As for Tibet read entire history not just the one that serves your agenda.

Correction our wars and our invasions. Australia was a willing participant in the invasion of Iraq ...remember :azn:
 
Back
Top Bottom