They have begun. In 2006 the decision was made to start closures. It is called BRAC. Base Realignment and Closure. I have been involved in a few. We moved Naval Station Willow Grove ME262A.

Here she is:

https://s-hphotos-ash2.fbcdn.net/611..._4255660_n.jpg


She is in Pensacola now. Check the link:

http://www.allcoastaircraftrecovery....hmitt-me-262b/


Fort Meade is growing. Aberdeen's tank museum is heading to VA. We were asked to quote moving a rail gun (German). BRAC is on going.

We work with:

http://www.allcoastaircraftrecovery.com/

He disassembles and we transport. :DL

this may be heresy around here...


...but does the US really need 70 nuclear subs, including 40+ LA class attack subs?

seems to me you could scrap 20 LA class subs without having any effect on US defence capability.

Yes. Because I think they are cool. :D

Door's over there :D

If you combined the number of submarines are potential enemies have they have about 100-120 subs combined. We have about 50 SSNs so we are only outnumbered about 2-1. Between the US and the PRC we have nearly parity in submarine numbers although our subs generally better.

no doubt, but the only credible threat would be from the Russian or Chinese navy.

The Russians have 78 subs, 61 nuclear and 17 diesel. However, 74 of the 78 were built before 1991 and have been rotting at dockside for 20 years.

The Chinese have 63 subs, 11 nuclear and 52 diesel, but 1/2 of the diesel boats are obsolete.

So the question still comes up: How many nuclear attack subs does the US need?

In 1982, just the presence of 3 UK subs (and one sinking) caused the entire Argentine Navy to stay bottled up in port. The UK subs could have laid waste to coastal traffic up and down the Argentine coast if they had wished.

You just had to mention the Falklands right? Well just one modern Argentine diesel made three or four attacks and British surface ships and submarines with out being directly attacked. All the attacks missed or were decoyed. So three British SSNs and one SSK failed to stop one SSK.

But if you just want to go by numbers...

Potenital Enemies:
74 Decrepit Russian Boats (4 for 1)
4 modern Russian SSNs (1 for 1)
11 PLAN Nucs (1 for 1)
26 PLAN modern Diesels (2 for 1)
26 PLAN old Diesels (3 for 1)
North Korea 70 old or short ranged diesels (4 for 1)
Iran 3 Diesels (2 for 1)
Iran 11 Short ranged Diesels (3 for 1)
Venezuela 2 diesels (2 for 1)
Cuba 1 short ranged diesel (3 for 1)

Nations with Subs that are a revolution away from becoming enemies.
Pakistan 5 Diesels (2 for 1)
Algeria 2 Diesels (2 for 1)
Egypt 4 upgraded old diesels (2 for 1)

Now if you add them up to my ratios I figure we need 75 attack submarines to be equal to our enemies or potential enemies. We have 58(+2) SSNs/SSGNs in the USN.

I think so, if it proves neccessary. Every branch has combat engineers, and their all self contained units, trained, and equiped to work independantly, "outside the wire". Air Force combat engineers, have even gone so far as to have an airborne detachment. Yeah thats right, Air Force engineers that went through army jump school. Makes me wonder what the world is coming to.

Enought to dominate the worlds oceans! :DL

My point is are they going to be able to build an airbase with underground aircraft shelters/fuel tanks while taking BM fire and enemy air strikes?

I guess they are going to need air cover from carrier planes to do it until they finish and the air force can fly in. So the Navy would have to divert its carriers from locating and sinking enemy warships and striking targets on land to cover the Air Force Engineers as they build the air force and airbase. If the place where they are trying to build an airbase is contested by enemy ground troops than its becomes even more difficult.

It's my understanding that everything's a joint task force in this day and age.
Each branch supporting the other in some capacity. (As an AF engineer, ive built up ammo and patriot missle battery emplacements for the Army, we've borrowed Army medics, etc etc. )

One thing i know for certain though. If the engineers don't work, nothing works.

Try thinking operationally.

50 boats.

25% in overhaul, intermediate upkeep (that's in drydock).
25% in standdown and train up for deployment. This also includes weekly training operations or quickie "missions"
25% transiting to or from deployment.
25% on active deployment. (That's peace time war patrol for you nubs.)

That leaves effective 12 boats on mission, with another 12 for possible re-tasking.

Ships sensors allow coverage of about 2,600 to 7,000 square miles.

With 12 boats, thats 31,200 to 84,000 square miles.

The oceans cover how many square miles?:hmmm:

There are 40% less boats than 20 years ago, but the current mission tasking is the same or even greater.

The Chinese are spending more money and resources on submarines than they are on surface combatants.

India is leasing Soviet Akula class boats. And I think we can expect more "leasing" by the Russians.

Iran has 4 Kilo class diesel boats.

Dollar for dollar, capability for capability, the submarine is the most effective ocean platform for interdiction (or denial) at sea than any surface "target". (And nations that desire a blue water navy realize this.)
But they are not as glamorus as the BIG surface weanies, like carriers.:rock:

Iran has Three project 877 Kilo submarines
10 Ghadir midgets submarines
1 Nahong class small submarine.

You're quibbling!