One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Expeditionary or Carrier Strike Groups? America Needs Both!
Mar 10, 2017 08:49:11   #
Rivers
 
As we contemplate what the next five, 10, and 25 years will look like for our US Naval Forces, we need to keep in mind why we have a naval force and what we ask of it. The true power of our naval capability is derived from a synergistic combination of Carrier and Expeditionary Groups. We should not rob Peter to pay Paul here. We need them both.

While we certainly need to protect our homeland from foreign enemies, our more likely engagement is away from our homeland. We have to be able to project force when required. We want to walk softly, but be able to credibly carry a big stick.

Being able to rapidly and decisively project combat power anywhere in the world is never more important than now, and in the future.

Controlling the sea lanes of communication is a traditional US Navy mission dating back to the Barbary pirates off the coast of Tripoli in the late 1700s and the early 1800s. The decisive action finally came when a naval expeditionary force entered the harbor in Tripoli and, under the protection of naval gunfire, landed a contingent of Marines to confront the sponsors of the pirates and let them know, at sword-point, that this will no longer be tolerated.

Today, the uniforms and ships look different, but the fundamentals are similar. Protecting the seas to guarantee safe passage of commerce is still a top priority of the US Navy and its allies. The various maritime chokepoints (Hormuz, Malacca, Panama, Suez) are still teeming with profiteers, and governments around those chokepoints continuously jockey for control / influence. We have to be able to project power and influence.

Maintaining what we currently have will not be good enough for the future. While many naval strategists are dreaming of building more carriers, destroyers, submarines, frigates and guided missile cruisers, the realists are thinking expeditionary…and logistics. And neither camp is wrong. Just like you can never truly say you control by only dropping bombs from the sky, you cannot truly control from the sea. If you want decisive control (or, intelligence) you are going to have to get boots on the ground.

We have a good capability, but we need a great capability…and one that is tailored to meet / defeat the next threat. Our current expeditionary strike group concept is potent, adaptable and responsive…if it is fully resourced and outfitted.

We have 9 Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESGs) on the books right now. Based on the increasing number of hot spots popping up around the world, and the speed at which they heat up, you can easily make an argument to double the quantity. Whether we double or not, how do we make our expeditionary capability great again?

The first thing we need to do is invest in an adequate Military Prepositioning Force to provide continuous support to the three maritime focus areas (Atlantic / Mediterranean, Persian Gulf / Indian Ocean, Pacific). We have two Military Prepositioning Ship (MPS) squadrons located in the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and Guam / Saipan. We need six squadrons: two for each focus area. And these squadrons need to have the latest equipment and material required to support today’s fight.

Next, our current amphibious shipping needs to be updated and adequately resourced. We need the capability to deploy three Amphibious Ready Groups at all times (Atlantic / Mediterranean, Persian Gulf / Indian Ocean, and Pacific). Each of the current amphibious task forces consists of two Dock Landing Ships (LSD), one Landing Helicopter Dock Ship (LHD), and a Dock Platform Landing Ship (LPD). In addition to these each group should have a separate command and control ship with latest equipment, and the ability to protect its networks. We don’t have enough amphibious ships to train, rest & refit, and maintain an adequate presence around the globe.

And most importantly, we need to increase our baseline investment in people. Our selection process should reflect the type of people we need to fill out these ranks: intelligence, initiative, patriotism, morals, tech-savvy and hard-working. Expeditionary warfare is getting harder and more demanding. The future of expeditionary warfare requires more responsiveness, judgement, agility, lethality and decentralized decision-making. These are skills and traits that must be learned and practiced within the team environment.

Equally as important to the investment in capital ships and equipment, we need a motivated, compensated and highly trained naval force. They should be exercising regularly as a combined team, working with allies and off-loading / rotating their prepositioned equipment. When they are not exercising, they should be training with realistic scenarios and material to hone and increase their skills.

Modern warfare requires an effective and powerful naval force with complementing / synergizing Carrier and Expeditionary Strike Groups. Idealists can hope that our current and projected naval force is adequate, but realists understand the value of proactively ensuring stability through power-projection, international cooperation and preparedness.

https://townhall.com/columnists/raymcfall/2017/03/09/expeditionary-or-carrier-strike-groups--america-needs-both-n2296478?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

Reply
Mar 10, 2017 09:12:02   #
robmull Loc: florida
 
Rivers wrote:
As we contemplate what the next five, 10, and 25 years will look like for our US Naval Forces, we need to keep in mind why we have a naval force and what we ask of it. The true power of our naval capability is derived from a synergistic combination of Carrier and Expeditionary Groups. We should not rob Peter to pay Paul here. We need them both.

While we certainly need to protect our homeland from foreign enemies, our more likely engagement is away from our homeland. We have to be able to project force when required. We want to walk softly, but be able to credibly carry a big stick.

Being able to rapidly and decisively project combat power anywhere in the world is never more important than now, and in the future.

Controlling the sea lanes of communication is a traditional US Navy mission dating back to the Barbary pirates off the coast of Tripoli in the late 1700s and the early 1800s. The decisive action finally came when a naval expeditionary force entered the harbor in Tripoli and, under the protection of naval gunfire, landed a contingent of Marines to confront the sponsors of the pirates and let them know, at sword-point, that this will no longer be tolerated.

Today, the uniforms and ships look different, but the fundamentals are similar. Protecting the seas to guarantee safe passage of commerce is still a top priority of the US Navy and its allies. The various maritime chokepoints (Hormuz, Malacca, Panama, Suez) are still teeming with profiteers, and governments around those chokepoints continuously jockey for control / influence. We have to be able to project power and influence.

Maintaining what we currently have will not be good enough for the future. While many naval strategists are dreaming of building more carriers, destroyers, submarines, frigates and guided missile cruisers, the realists are thinking expeditionary…and logistics. And neither camp is wrong. Just like you can never truly say you control by only dropping bombs from the sky, you cannot truly control from the sea. If you want decisive control (or, intelligence) you are going to have to get boots on the ground.

We have a good capability, but we need a great capability…and one that is tailored to meet / defeat the next threat. Our current expeditionary strike group concept is potent, adaptable and responsive…if it is fully resourced and outfitted.

We have 9 Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESGs) on the books right now. Based on the increasing number of hot spots popping up around the world, and the speed at which they heat up, you can easily make an argument to double the quantity. Whether we double or not, how do we make our expeditionary capability great again?

The first thing we need to do is invest in an adequate Military Prepositioning Force to provide continuous support to the three maritime focus areas (Atlantic / Mediterranean, Persian Gulf / Indian Ocean, Pacific). We have two Military Prepositioning Ship (MPS) squadrons located in the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and Guam / Saipan. We need six squadrons: two for each focus area. And these squadrons need to have the latest equipment and material required to support today’s fight.

Next, our current amphibious shipping needs to be updated and adequately resourced. We need the capability to deploy three Amphibious Ready Groups at all times (Atlantic / Mediterranean, Persian Gulf / Indian Ocean, and Pacific). Each of the current amphibious task forces consists of two Dock Landing Ships (LSD), one Landing Helicopter Dock Ship (LHD), and a Dock Platform Landing Ship (LPD). In addition to these each group should have a separate command and control ship with latest equipment, and the ability to protect its networks. We don’t have enough amphibious ships to train, rest & refit, and maintain an adequate presence around the globe.

And most importantly, we need to increase our baseline investment in people. Our selection process should reflect the type of people we need to fill out these ranks: intelligence, initiative, patriotism, morals, tech-savvy and hard-working. Expeditionary warfare is getting harder and more demanding. The future of expeditionary warfare requires more responsiveness, judgement, agility, lethality and decentralized decision-making. These are skills and traits that must be learned and practiced within the team environment.

Equally as important to the investment in capital ships and equipment, we need a motivated, compensated and highly trained naval force. They should be exercising regularly as a combined team, working with allies and off-loading / rotating their prepositioned equipment. When they are not exercising, they should be training with realistic scenarios and material to hone and increase their skills.

Modern warfare requires an effective and powerful naval force with complementing / synergizing Carrier and Expeditionary Strike Groups. Idealists can hope that our current and projected naval force is adequate, but realists understand the value of proactively ensuring stability through power-projection, international cooperation and preparedness.

https://townhall.com/columnists/raymcfall/2017/03/09/expeditionary-or-carrier-strike-groups--america-needs-both-n2296478?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
As we contemplate what the next five, 10, and 25 y... (show quote)







Great, down-to-the nitty-gritty evaluation of what the free-world {America} has been (D)eprived-of for nearly the past (D)ecade, Rivers. No WONDER "lefty" tries to (D)ismiss and "ignore" you so much!!! Now that our military is not being (D)ecimated by the "enemy within," and our new "Commander," has had 4 years of basic military school and up-to-date military strategy training, for-sure our military will be "re-stocked," re-evaluated, and {quickly} again be made to be at-the-ready. Our last controlled "crash-test" was a real (D)oozy, and although "fundamental transformation" and eventual collapse of America in the last administration was the aggressive, rather (D)epleating agenda, "WE" ARE BACK; and currently rather quietly, correcting the slight imperfections "WE" found in the overall body politics and carefully tested passenger "restrain" systems. Hummmmmmm. President Trump (R), doesn't sleep much, and is just like the weather. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PRESIDENT "45" DONALD J. {BORN AGAIN} TRUMP (R)!!! "(D)RAIN THAT SWAMP!!!":

Reply
Mar 10, 2017 09:24:40   #
saltwind78
 
Rivers, As a former Navy man, I agree that we could use additional Navy ships. The problem is that we now spend far, far more than any other country on our armed forces. Where is the money going to come from? With the Donald wanting more and more tax breaks for the wealthy, and lots more expensive programs on the way, we just don't have the cash. What other programs would you cut? How would you raise additional revenue to pay for all this?
Rivers wrote:
As we contemplate what the next five, 10, and 25 years will look like for our US Naval Forces, we need to keep in mind why we have a naval force and what we ask of it. The true power of our naval capability is derived from a synergistic combination of Carrier and Expeditionary Groups. We should not rob Peter to pay Paul here. We need them both.

While we certainly need to protect our homeland from foreign enemies, our more likely engagement is away from our homeland. We have to be able to project force when required. We want to walk softly, but be able to credibly carry a big stick.

Being able to rapidly and decisively project combat power anywhere in the world is never more important than now, and in the future.

Controlling the sea lanes of communication is a traditional US Navy mission dating back to the Barbary pirates off the coast of Tripoli in the late 1700s and the early 1800s. The decisive action finally came when a naval expeditionary force entered the harbor in Tripoli and, under the protection of naval gunfire, landed a contingent of Marines to confront the sponsors of the pirates and let them know, at sword-point, that this will no longer be tolerated.

Today, the uniforms and ships look different, but the fundamentals are similar. Protecting the seas to guarantee safe passage of commerce is still a top priority of the US Navy and its allies. The various maritime chokepoints (Hormuz, Malacca, Panama, Suez) are still teeming with profiteers, and governments around those chokepoints continuously jockey for control / influence. We have to be able to project power and influence.

Maintaining what we currently have will not be good enough for the future. While many naval strategists are dreaming of building more carriers, destroyers, submarines, frigates and guided missile cruisers, the realists are thinking expeditionary…and logistics. And neither camp is wrong. Just like you can never truly say you control by only dropping bombs from the sky, you cannot truly control from the sea. If you want decisive control (or, intelligence) you are going to have to get boots on the ground.

We have a good capability, but we need a great capability…and one that is tailored to meet / defeat the next threat. Our current expeditionary strike group concept is potent, adaptable and responsive…if it is fully resourced and outfitted.

We have 9 Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESGs) on the books right now. Based on the increasing number of hot spots popping up around the world, and the speed at which they heat up, you can easily make an argument to double the quantity. Whether we double or not, how do we make our expeditionary capability great again?

The first thing we need to do is invest in an adequate Military Prepositioning Force to provide continuous support to the three maritime focus areas (Atlantic / Mediterranean, Persian Gulf / Indian Ocean, Pacific). We have two Military Prepositioning Ship (MPS) squadrons located in the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and Guam / Saipan. We need six squadrons: two for each focus area. And these squadrons need to have the latest equipment and material required to support today’s fight.

Next, our current amphibious shipping needs to be updated and adequately resourced. We need the capability to deploy three Amphibious Ready Groups at all times (Atlantic / Mediterranean, Persian Gulf / Indian Ocean, and Pacific). Each of the current amphibious task forces consists of two Dock Landing Ships (LSD), one Landing Helicopter Dock Ship (LHD), and a Dock Platform Landing Ship (LPD). In addition to these each group should have a separate command and control ship with latest equipment, and the ability to protect its networks. We don’t have enough amphibious ships to train, rest & refit, and maintain an adequate presence around the globe.

And most importantly, we need to increase our baseline investment in people. Our selection process should reflect the type of people we need to fill out these ranks: intelligence, initiative, patriotism, morals, tech-savvy and hard-working. Expeditionary warfare is getting harder and more demanding. The future of expeditionary warfare requires more responsiveness, judgement, agility, lethality and decentralized decision-making. These are skills and traits that must be learned and practiced within the team environment.

Equally as important to the investment in capital ships and equipment, we need a motivated, compensated and highly trained naval force. They should be exercising regularly as a combined team, working with allies and off-loading / rotating their prepositioned equipment. When they are not exercising, they should be training with realistic scenarios and material to hone and increase their skills.

Modern warfare requires an effective and powerful naval force with complementing / synergizing Carrier and Expeditionary Strike Groups. Idealists can hope that our current and projected naval force is adequate, but realists understand the value of proactively ensuring stability through power-projection, international cooperation and preparedness.

https://townhall.com/columnists/raymcfall/2017/03/09/expeditionary-or-carrier-strike-groups--america-needs-both-n2296478?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
As we contemplate what the next five, 10, and 25 y... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Mar 10, 2017 09:38:40   #
robmull Loc: florida
 
saltwind78 wrote:
Rivers, As a former Navy man, I agree that we could use additional Navy ships. The problem is that we now spend far, far more than any other country on our armed forces. Where is the money going to come from? With the Donald wanting more and more tax breaks for the wealthy, and lots more expensive programs on the way, we just don't have the cash. What other programs would you cut? How would you raise additional revenue to pay for all this?








As a former Navy man myself, 78, allow me {or don't} to point-out that the zillion$ of dollar$ that have been supporting all the "strangers" being allowed {and American taxpayer financed - some for LIFE}, and "imported" into our "Shining Light on the Hill," is being halted at unprecedented speed. "Tax breaks for the wealthy???" You sound just like an "anti-Trumpster!!!" And the "How would you raise additional revenue?" crap, is being generated by all the business' coming {flooding} back to America, that had been purposely and usually unconstitutionally (D)eported FROM America, by about 30,000 "obamanations," in the form of business-stopping rules and regulations for the intended "fundamental transformation," of our "Shining Light on the Hill, From Sea to Shining Sea." And "lefty," CAN'T STAND IT!!! Hummmmmmmmmmmmmm. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PRESIDENT "45" DONALD J. {BORN AGAIN} TRUMP (R); just like the weather!!!

Reply
Mar 10, 2017 11:41:01   #
reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.
 
saltwind78 wrote:
Rivers, As a former Navy man, I agree that we could use additional Navy ships. The problem is that we now spend far, far more than any other country on our armed forces. Where is the money going to come from? With the Donald wanting more and more tax breaks for the wealthy, and lots more expensive programs on the way, we just don't have the cash. What other programs would you cut? How would you raise additional revenue to pay for all this?


Cut the fed. gov. to only it authority under Constitution , Tax cut's are targeted to all , but the left refuses to understand that the poor only prosper when those with wealth create commerce and in turn the poor create commerce and business's and prosper to become wealthy if they put in the work and sacrifice ...

Reply
Mar 10, 2017 14:05:04   #
Rivers
 
saltwind78 wrote:
Rivers, As a former Navy man, I agree that we could use additional Navy ships. The problem is that we now spend far, far more than any other country on our armed forces. Where is the money going to come from? With the Donald wanting more and more tax breaks for the wealthy, and lots more expensive programs on the way, we just don't have the cash. What other programs would you cut? How would you raise additional revenue to pay for all this?


What the hell are you talking about? "Donald wanting more and more tax breaks for the wealthy"???? Where do you get that? He has NOT said that, in fact he has said he wants a tax cut for the middle class, small businesses, and to reduce the Corporation tax which is the highest in the world. You get the money by cutting the government, especially the EPA, Energy, Education, etc....cut them all 10-20%, all but the military. You also get the tax revenue when you unleash the economy, and you do that by elimination of burdening regulations and taxes on business...just what Trump wants to do. The military is in bad shape right now, and if you try and do some research you will see how bad it really is.

Reply
Mar 11, 2017 11:58:26   #
boatbob2
 
Im all for building up a LARGE Naval Force..HOWEVER, A suggestion,I have been kicking around for quite awhile, is,Build a large semi submersible boat,the bottom could drop down,til there were 10 feet of water in the well deck,,with 2 large decks,on eack deck,is about 30 each,ALUMINUM,,twin turbo diesel engined, 35 to 45 foot fast attack patrol boats,armed like the PT Boats of WW2, with 50 cal machine guns,BUT,instead of torpedoes,have 6 missles,shrikes,or predator drones on each boat,maximun # of sailors would be about 12, the rear of the second deck,would tilt down,so that the 30 boats on the second deck,could enter the water,NOW,WE have 60 fast patrol boats ready for the fight, IF,each boat cost 1 million dollars,not counting missle cost,Theres NOT another Navy that would be a contender in a fight. BUT,outfit these boats to resemble cargo boats,NOT,US Naval boats. with 60 boats in the fight,some would definately get thru, the total cost,of the mother ship,plus attack boats, could never exceed 600 million dollars. OR,even IF,the cost was 1 billion dollars,thats still much cheaper than an Aircraft Carrier.

Reply
 
 
Mar 11, 2017 18:08:45   #
Red Onion Rip Loc: Oklahoma
 
Where to get the money? How about cutting two-thirds of the intelligence agencies? Why do we need 17 intelligence agencies? Keep the CIA(foreign), NSA(national), DIA(military), and DHS(homeland).

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.