US media released a message saying that the US Navy not only plans to stop maintaining and upgrading some old amphibious ships in service, but also plans to gradually retire them and stop purchasing similar new ships at the same time. At the same time, Marine Corps , which belongs to the U.S. Navy department, has objected to this. They believe that once the U.S. Navy's plan is implemented, it will greatly affect its training and deployment capabilities.
Objectively speaking, if you are a person who doesn’t know much about the organization and scale of the US Navy, you will definitely be confused after seeing this news. Since US Marine Corps is affiliated with the US Navy, what qualifications does it have to oppose the US Navy’s plans and arrangements? In addition, aren’t it just retired some old amphibious ships? What does this mean for the U.S. Navy, which has the largest number of amphibious ships in the world?
In fact, those who understand the US military organization should know that although the US Marine Corps is affiliated with the US Navy, it is actually not only an independent branch of troops, but also has its own combat commander, namely the Marine Corps Commander (CMC). However, if the latter wants to perform some tasks, the former must cooperate. That is, the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps are not superior-level relationships, but a partnership.
In this case, it is reasonable that the former plans to retire some old amphibious ships and use this to convert these saved military expenditures into their own use. Similarly, the US Marine Corps, as an independent armed force, cannot watch the US Navy use its own military expenditure for its own use. It is not only qualified to raise objections, but also plays a decisive role.
Besides, although the US Navy currently has more than 30 active amphibious ships, most of them have been in service for a period of nearly 30 years. For example, the famous Blue Ridge amphibious command ship (the flagship of the Seventh Fleet), which has a full load displacement of 19,000 tons and was in service in 1970; the whitney Mount Whitney (the flagship of the Sixth Fleet), which is also a Blue Ridge class, which was in service in 1971; and the Hornet-class amphibious assault ship , a Harperth Ferry-class and Whidby Island-class dock landing ship, etc., currently nearly half of them are about to be retired.
According to the U.S. Navy, they will retire 12 amphibious ships by 2025. While eliminating these ships, the U.S. Navy only plans to receive three new San Antonio-class amphibious dock landing ships, and then terminates its procurement plan.
The result is obvious. If you replace 12 with 3 ships, there will naturally be vacancies of 9 ships. While the U.S. Navy can use this money to purchase its coveted Columbia-class strategic missile nuclear submarine, what should the U.S. Marine Corps do? Some people may think that even if there are 9 amphibious landing ships , the US Navy still has at least 24 amphibious ships. Not only does it still have the largest amphibious fleet in the world, but in theory they should be enough for the US Marine Corps to use. Is this true?
In fact, the reason why the US Navy chose to retire so many amphibious ships in the short term is mainly to reduce maintenance costs. For example, under the same frequency of use, if the US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class destroyer has a proper rate of 100%, then the proper rate of these amphibious ships is only about 50%.
In other words, even if the US Navy still has 24 amphibious ships in its hands, for safety reasons, the number of them can fight or perform missions at any time can only be maintained at about 12. In this case, let alone the training, just look at the routine deployment of the US Marine Corps in Asia-Pacific, Europe, , Middle East, and Africa, these 12 amphibious landing ships are obviously not enough.
What's more, if you choose to extend your life without retirement, these amphibious ships docked in military port will not only have maintenance time of more than 400 days, but each ship will also cost nearly $1 billion in military spending of the US Navy every year.I guess many people have started to have a headache for the US Navy after seeing this. It’s not like retiring, and it’s not right not to retire. So what should I do? Or retire first, and then continue to receive the American-class amphibious assault ship used to replace " Hornet-class ".
However, in addition to the American-class amphibious assault ship, there are also San Antonio-class amphibious transport ships that replace the "Harperth Ferry class" and "Whidby Island class", as well as the new generation of the Montford Point-class and Lewis B.Pole-class maneuver landing platform ships of the US Navy. Retirement while receiving, it seems to be a solution, but in fact, the US Navy can only obtain so much military expenditure every year. In addition to purchasing more new amphibious ships, the US Navy also wants to replace the new aircraft carrier and serve the new nuclear submarine , new supply ships, patrol boat and support ships.
In short, money will never be enough. When one new ship after another is obtained, a large number of old ships should be retired. This cycle will continue, and the demand for funds will only increase day by day. Where can I have free time to consider the training and deployment of the Marine Corps?
To sum up, this is also the main reason why the US Marine Corps is strongly opposing the US Navy's plan at present. Since the U.S. Navy's plan has been opposed by the Marine Corps, what did the U.S. Congress and the Department of Defense consider it? In fact, as of now, the opposition of the US Marine Corps is still very effective, because the plan has not only been rejected by , the US Senate and House of Representatives, and they also insist on allowing the US Navy to implement the replacement plan in the way of retiring one, that is, serving an amphibious ship.
However, if this is the case, it is estimated that the US Navy will not eliminate the old warships in its hands after another ten years. At the same time, other similar warships that had been in service for more than 20 years were facing retirement, otherwise they would continue to increase maintenance costs. There may be only two consequences for such a cycle. Either the US military spending doubles, or the navy's decline is discounted!
Objectively speaking, since WWII , the strength of the US Navy has always existed like a god, and its scale has long reached a level beyond the reach of many countries. However, there is a saying that goes, "There is no cold at a high place." Since you are standing at the top of the world, you will naturally have to bear the misery and cold that others cannot experience. This is the dilemma facing the US Navy. When its economy is advancing by leaps and bounds, the development of the US Navy is as easy to let go and difficult to stop. In other words, the steps are big and the stalls are also big. Therefore, in order to make your life easier, the US Navy can only force Congress to "transfusion" with the excuse of demolishing the east wall and repairing the west wall! But as some people say, the only one who defeats the United States is the United States itself. This method will only make the US economy continue to be "anemia". In the end, I may not be able to wait for others to push it, and I will fall down with a bang!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-