‘Aid’ to Israel threatens America’s survival

“…the Pentagon is considering delaying deliveries of the proposed next-generation Ford-class carriers – or even more severe options such as canceling one of the carriers and reducing the overall carrier fleet size…(and) the Pentagon is mulling whether to cancel the proposed SSBN(X) ballistic missile submarine replacement and instead use a more “evolutionary” approach by elongating SSN Virginia-class attack subs.”

Why does America keep lavishing such vast amounts of economic and military ‘aid’ on Israel?

The time when the lines of China’s ascent and America’s descent will cross is getting closer and closer… America needs to ditch Israel and start looking after ‘Number 1’ before it’s too late.

The power of the ‘Israel Lobby’ must be broken before America ends up on history’s trash heap.

Jeff Goodall.

Pentagon May Change Carrier, SSBN(X) Plans

Aviation Week

Mike Fabey: July 14th, 2011

The U.S. Defense Department is considering delaying, cutting back or canceling planned future aircraft carriers and ballistic missile submarines to meet its budget-reduction mandates, says U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“We’re looking at all the options,” Cartwright said July 14 following a Defense Writers Group breakfast interview session.

Cartwright acknowledges the Pentagon is considering delaying deliveries of the proposed next-generation Ford-class carriers — or even more severe options such as canceling one of the carriers and reducing the overall carrier fleet size.

Further, he acknowledges, the Pentagon is mulling whether to cancel the proposed SSBN(X) ballistic missile submarine replacement and instead use a more “evolutionary” approach by elongating SSN Virginia-class attack subs.

“It’s certainly something that’s being considered,” he says. “Nothing is off the table.”

The Pentagon is “relooking” at its overall strategy to determine not only how carriers, for example, can be used, but what types of other ships or assets could be employed or deployed with what kind of capability and at what cost, Cartwright says.

Referring to Cartwright’s comments, Navy spokesman Cmdr. Danny Hernandez said, “Specific details and discussions are pre-decisional and part of program objective memorandum (POM) 13.”

While none of these ideas are particularly new, they seem to be getting much greater traction as Defense Department officials struggle to make deeper budget cuts than they had thought they would have to.

Some analysts started to question whether the Pentagon should more seriously consider cutting the aircraft carrier fleet when the Defense Department started to rely more on large-deck amphibious ships in recent conflicts and disaster-relief missions that normally would have been tasked to carriers (Aerospace DAILY, July 14).

Plans to use Virginia-class subs for ballistic missile missions date back nearly to the sub’s inception, but the idea seemed to be more or less abandoned as the nation decided to use larger D5 missiles that essentially are incompatible with the vessel’s design, analysts say.

However, as naval analyst and author Norman Polmar notes in a July article for the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings magazine, the Virginia could be redesigned for a missile compartment and related fire-control and berthing spaces to carry 12 or more Trident C4-sized missiles.

The redesigned Virginia would cost about $3.5 billion, Polmar says, compared with the SSBN(X) vessel slated to cost between $5 billion and $7 billion per vessel — provided the design and building of the new class plays out as planned.

“Most important,” Polmar writes, “the actual cost of building a Virginia-class SSN is a known factor, while the current SSBN(X) cost estimate is ephemeral, at best.”

Further, Polmar contends, it would be better to supplement the boomer fleet now with the redesigned Virginias while working a truly modern ballistic missile sub design that would be much more survivable given the threats likely to exist in the latter part of this century.

Northrop Grumman concept

See original here.

Comments are closed.