“The most daunting challenge” facing the Navy’s newly released shipbuilding plan is paying for the Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine replacement when it is expected to take $100 billion—over 12 to 15 years—from that account, the service’s top acquisition official said. Read More
The Chief of Naval Operations said the Ohio-class replacement is his “number one program of concern,” although it remains “on track with all the R&D” to begin construction in 2021, with delivery expected in 2029.
Testifying before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee on 24 April, Adm. Jonathan Greenert and Navy Secretary Ray Mabus expressed concern about its cost, the impact of sequestration on the program and the impact of building it on the rest of the shipbuilding program.
Mabus said, “Sequestration holds the potential to impact this in a significant way.” Read More
The following is the Department of the Navy submitted testimony before a April, 24 2013 hearing before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces. Read More
Testimony from U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Robert Papp at the April, 23 USCG budget hearing before the U.S. Senate. Read More
The U.S. Navy has placed an emphasis on ballistic missile defense and a commitment to a next-generation Littoral Combat Ship in its Fiscal Year 2014 draft 30-year shipbuilding plan obtained by USNI News on Tuesday. Read More
The following is a draft of the 2014 U.S. Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan, obtained by USNI News The plan, presented to Congress, outlines construction and retirement schedules for the service until Fiscal Year 2043. Read More
From the document’s forward by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert:
The U.S. Navy is the world’s most lethal, flexible, and capable maritime force. As they have throughout our Nation’s history, every day our Sailors operate forward to provide American leaders with timely options to deter aggression, assure allies, and re- spond to crises with a minimal footprint ashore. Read More
In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the U.S. Navy had no formal procedure for naming ships. It wasn’t until 1819 that Congress passed an act stating “all of the ships, of the Navy of the United States, now building, or hereafter to be built, shall be named by the Secretary of the Navy.” The secretary has fulfilled this role ever since, even though the passage expressly assigning authority for designating ship names was omitted when the U.S. Code was revised in 1925.
In addition to recommendations from Congress and the president, the secretary traditionally has been guided by a rather loose set of naming conventions—cruisers were to be named for battles, attack submarines for U.S. cities, destroyers for Navy and Marine heroes, and so forth. Controversy has erupted whenever the choice of a name strayed too far from those conventions, was seemingly swayed by politics, or deemed inappropriate for various reasons. Read More
When the U.S. Navy’s new SSBN (X) conducts its first patrol in 2031 it will be an entirely new vessel, but the boat will initially rely on life-extended 1990s vintage Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) to perform its nuclear deterrence mission. The Navy currently expects to keep the D5 in service into the 2040s, after which it may replace the long-serving weapon with a new missile. Read More
Marines are building on decades of experience in fielding responsive Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs)—embarked on board Navy Amphibious Ready Groups, (ARGs)—to deliver an even faster first punch.
The new Marine Air Ground Task Force-Crisis Response (MAGTF-CR), will operate in the Mediterranean to give the United States quicker response times to trouble in Africa and the Middle East. Instead of a ship-deployed force, the unit will be based around a company of infantry Marines, six MV-22 Ospreys, and two KC-130J Hercules fixed-wing aircraft. This is a surprising move for a Marine Corps that wants to return to amphibious roots. Read More