Check this out from AOL Defense.
But the Navy’s top acquisition official, Sean Stackley, made clear today the service dares not sign that contract until it’s confident that it will eventually get full funding to buy the ship, about $2 billion. Congress already voted “advanced funding” in fiscal year 2014, and House authorizers and Senate appropriators have proposed $800 million in “incremental funding” in fiscal year 2015. “We appreciate your support,” Assistant Secretary Stackleytold the House Seapower subcommittee this morning, but even if the full $800 million is approved, “we are still a billion-plus short.”I don't ever recall the US Navy getting funding from Congress for amphibious ships and stating flat out that they had other priorities.
Especially with the prospect of sequestration cuts looming over budgets for 2016 and beyond, Stackley is far from sure that the missing billion-plus will ever materialize. If the Navy could find that much additional money, he said bluntly, “we have other bills that are frankly higher-priority, [e.g.] the refueling of the carrier” USS George Washington.
In fact, Stackley made clear to reporters after the hearing that the Navy would rather repurpose some of the LPD-28 funding to invest in cost-reduction efforts for future amphibious warships across the board. That would include not only LPDs but the “big-deck” LHA-8, a much larger and more expensive ship, and most importantly the as-yet-undesigned LX(R) series, meant to be less capable but more affordable.
I sense serious funding issues for the Dept of the Navy.
We've talked about the procurement train wreck for the Marine Corps and how it would have to stagger purchases of weapon systems. I've railed about how the F-35 has made a bad situation worse in that respect but I didn't consider how that one program is destroying the entire budget for the department.
Ships before aircraft. Carriers, ballistic subs and destroyers before amphibious ships. Looks like the Marine Corps is about to get frugal again whether it wants to or not.
Having looked at your posts on funding, ship numbers, and aircraft I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the rot set in with the San Antonio's. Why does a ship that big carry only 4 LCAC? Though corrected now why did anybody think the America's should be built without docks? And though the LCAC is formidable how come no real replace for the LCU for a few decades? Amazing. At the moment only a root and branch reform would put the USMC / USN back on track.
ReplyDeleteLPD-17 can only carry 2 LCACs, but it does have a hangar for the Helos.
DeleteThe LSD-41 is he only class that can carry 4 LCACs and they are out of production.
Sorry I was thinking about Whidbey Island class when I was typing my post.I was going to say "when Whidbey Island-class can carry 4". But in the end didn't. Then again Whidbey Island-class can actually carry an additional LCAC. But my point still stands that San Antonio's don't have enough capacity.
DeleteSol what is the link to the article on AOL?
ReplyDeletehttp://breakingdefense.com/2014/07/1-billion-plus-short-hills-amphib-add-on-aint-enough-so-navy-wants-to-repurpose-it/
DeleteIf the USMC gets all of its F-35s on plan, it will cost a minimum of $51B http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/is-this-aircraft-worth-over-51b-of-usmc.html
ReplyDeleteNice way to plug yourself.....
Deletethe information is spot on and its at his blog. whats wrong with linking to the information? i do it at his house all the time.
Deleteits called blogging. if you had one and the information was interestinig to me or my readers then i would link to your house too.