Home » Budget Industry » Document: Navy’s 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan to Congress for Fiscal Year 2016

Document: Navy’s 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan to Congress for Fiscal Year 2016

The following is the U.S. Navy’s Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year 2016 issued on April, 3 2015.

  • AKO

    The financialization of the American economy

    The United States must stop deindustrialization

    The United States should develop the real economy rather than the financial innovation.

  • Secundius

    Well no new Cruiser’s until 2035, must be the Rep. of WI. Paul Ryan plan…

  • Rob C.

    Budget is reflection of many things. Politics of the nation funding it, economic reality which nation is facing, and state of affairs of Warship evolution and design.

    This isn’t world war II era, where you just mass produce ships after you get your math correct, it’s about what arms race’s latest weapons/threats a boat in the sea has to deal with and how willing someone going pay to be able it survive it.

    A balance fleet with straight forward types of ships, Frigates, Destroyers, Cruisers, Carriers, Troop Transports etc is blurred right now. Technology to allow a ship project firepower across water into enemy held space via expensive missiles and aircraft. There small combatants and large combatants and there specialists, like the Aircraft Carrier.

    Right now, with tight budget and insane state of affairs with politics in the United States, getting a simple task of approval of new design take years and decades. Take’s political wrangling for Department of Defense to over come hurtles.

    In end unless there some wake up call, the US Navy will be behind times, with barely adequate fleet to handle world affairs for the US.

  • Tellenthetruth

    As a past Carrier sailor, I am astounded that the Navy holds on to the belief that Carriers can survive in a real war environment. We have not been tested in this area since WW11, and even then they did not perform as expected.
    If we should go to war with a country that has one of any of six missles, our carriers would not last long at all. All carrier sailors could do is to watch missles skim over blue water from four directions, and watch their own demise.
    The future of the Navy should be under the waves, and if the refueling of drone goes well this month, the Navy fighter pilot will become the past.

    • Curtis Conway

      This is one the the strongest arguments for the fact that the US Navy NEEDS a multi-warfare Aegis Guided Missile Frigate. Design should begin TODAY! Every FFG-7 should have been replaced with an Aegis FFG. The non-rotating 3D 9-module AMDR Lite will fit on a frigate. Few missiles but lots of electrical power. this will not be a Strike, or long range AAW platform, yet be excellent at ASW, medium to short range AAW, and ASuW. Those last two mission sets is what the VLS is primarily servicing.

      Sponsor a competition to build 10 Megawatt Gas Turbine Generator(s) to provide the power, and gain as much experience as we can from power distribution and storage from DDG-1000, and DDG-51 Flt III when it comes out, so we can glean the best, and most capable battle worthy power distribution configuration. The GTGs should be near/between Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) installations for reducing the distance to power storage, and facilitate easy damage control re-configurations.

      Passive surveillance and weapons direction suite should be the emphasis. Coordination in real time through a point-to-point communication system between platforms that enables efficient and reliable engagement scheduling, engagement, BDA assessment, and re-engagement, is the
      order of the day. The Directed Energy Weapons actually make a great sensor, director, and solution to any problem under observation. What we need is more capable broad band area surveillance of the EM Spectrum (particularly IR) for detection, tracking and target designation.

      • Secundius

        @ Curtis Conway.

        You don’t need a New Engine Design, the Least Powerful of the GE LM2500/CF-6 Turbojet Gas-Turbines will produce ~24MW of power. More than enough for the BAE 32-MJ Rail-Gun system or LaWS Laser system…

        • old guy

          PLEASE, stop with the “RAILGUN” nonsense.

    • Secundius

      @ Tellenthetruth.

      The problem with the VLS or ESSM is that you can’t AIM the missile in the Launch Phase. Unlike RAM which you can actually aim at the target. Both VLS and ESSM have to launch out of the Vertical Launchers, Clear the ship, and Than Acquire the Target in order to Destroy It. In the mean time the Enemy Missile is steadily getting closer to the ship. The only Value the VLS or ESSM has is it doesn’t require an Independent Multidirectional Launching System that take up Valuable Spacing on a ship…

  • Pingback: An Epic Congressional Failure on Defense()

  • Pingback: Avoiding Conditions for an Asia-Pacific Cold War()

  • Pingback: The Navy Hasn't Been This Small Since the 1930s()

  • Pingback: The Navy Hasn’t Been This Small Since the 1930s | Whiskey Tango Foxtrot()

  • Pingback: US Military Power: Navy - Right Side News()