Replacement program for Ohio class ballistic missile subs in FY10

[Onkel Neal]

Gates Unveils Overhaul of Weapons Priorities: Replacement program for Ohio class ballistic missile subs in FY10

1. To sustain U.S. air superiority, I am committed to building a fifth generation tactical fighter capability that can be produced in quantity at sustainable cost. Therefore, I will recommend increasing the buy of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from the 14 aircraft bought in FY09 to 30 in FY10, with corresponding funding increases from $6.8 billion to $11.2 billion. We would plan to buy 513 F-35s over the five-year defense plan, and, ultimately, plan to buy 2,443. For naval aviation, we will buy 31 FA-18s in FY10.
2. We will retire 250 of the oldest Air Force tactical fighter aircraft in FY10.
3. We will end production of the F-22 fighter at 187 – representing 183 planes plus four recommended for inclusion in the FY 2009 supplemental.
4. To better protect our forces and those of our allies in theater from ballistic missile attack, we will add $700 million to field more of our most capable theater missile defense systems, specifically the terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) System and Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) programs.
5. We will also add $200 million to fund conversion of six additional Aegis ships to provide ballistic missile defense capabilities.
6. To improve cyberspace capabilities, we will increase the number of cyber experts this department can train from 80 students per year to 250 per year by FY11.
7. To replace the Air Force's aging tanker fleet, we will maintain the KC-X aerial re-fueling tanker schedule and funding, with the intent to solicit bids this summer.
8. With regard to our nuclear and strategic forces:

• In FY10, we will begin the replacement program for the Ohio class ballistic missile submarine program.
• We will not pursue a development program for a follow-on Air Force bomber until we have a better understanding of the need, the requirement, and the technology.
• We will examine all of our strategic requirements during the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Nuclear Posture Review, and in light of Post-START arms control negotiations.

9. The healthy margin of dominance at sea provided by America's existing battle fleet makes it possible and prudent to slow production of several major surface combatants and other maritime programs.

• We will shift the Navy Aircraft Carrier program to a five-year build cycle placing it on a more fiscally sustainable path. This will result in 10 carriers after 2040.
  
• We will delay the Navy CG-X next generation cruiser program to revisit both the requirements and acquisition strategy.
• We will delay amphibious ship and sea-basing programs such as the 11th Landing Platform Dock (LPD) ship and the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) SHIP to FY11 in order to assess costs and analyze the amount of these capabilities the nation needs.

10. With regard to air lift, we will complete production of the C-17 airlifter program this fiscal year. Our analysis concludes that we have enough C-17s with the 205 already in the force and currently in production.

[Max2147]

Probably a good idea, since the Ohios aren't exactly new.

Will this open up more Ohios for SSGN conversion? As far as I'm concerned, that program is the only big thing the Navy's gotten right in recent years. Everything else (DDG-1000, CG(X), LCS, Gerald Ford class) has either been unecessary or has turned into a major clusterf*ck.

On that note, I'm glad to see that DDG-1000 looks like it'll finally be put out of its misery.

[JALU3]

10 carrier navy, that means with dry dock time, retraining time, and post deployment, we'll be lucky to have 2 carriers out at any given time after 2040. Maybe we'll move to smaller CVLs/LHAs, to compensate?
Hold of on LHA-X? But what about the retiring of the Tarawa's? What'll take up their numbers in the fleet? Nevermind, I see they aren't talking about the Americas. Disregard.
Stop production of the F-22 line? We are already well below the 1 to 3 ratio of F-22s to F-15C/D/Es ... I can understand the high cost per unit, but are we really moving to the Thunderchief 2s, I mean F-35s.
I can understand the thinking on the DD-1000s and proposed CG(X) line. But here's hoping the remaining Ticos will have a longer hull life.
Here's hoping the C-5M program works, otherwise, with all the C-141s long since retired, and only 200+ C-17s replacing at a 1 to 3 scenario. I guess no one is worried about future need to move whole divisions in a timely manor any more, not that that requirement hasn't been needed since the beginning of the 1990s (that makes me feel so much older).
Any chance that in the next 10 years we'll see a move towards initiating a program for an air superiority/dogfighter for naval aviation, with legs?
Anyone up for a KC-777?
Extension of the Burkes, or a Burke + Plug line to replacing aging CGs?

As for the new planned SSBNs ... are we looking at smaller, better, more numerous? Say Virginia + plug?

[Max2147]

The F-22 production stop makes me nervous. It puts more responsibility on the F-35, which is a hugely overrated plane in my opinion.

The Navy does need new ships to replace the Ticos and eventually the older Burkes. But DDG-1000 and CG(X) were not the answers. They may have been when they were first drawn up, but both have morphed beyond recognition into a lousy, useless, and overly expensive mess. At this point I think it's best to just rip up the old designs and start over.

Some more C-17's would be nice, but our cargo fleet doesn't need to cover the worst case scenario. If the worst case scenario hits, we always have CRAF. I personally think the Air Force should do what the Russians do so well - build the heavy lifters, then contract them out for private use.