Trump just made a 355-ship Navy national policy

[Peter1469]

Trump just made a 355-ship Navy national policy (https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2017/12/14/trump-just-made-355-ships-national-policy/)

I support this because the US should keep the sea lanes open and free. It benefits our bottom line. [We don't need to occupy nations in the Middle East and South West Asia to stay strong.]


Achieving a 355-ship Navy is now national policy, but the goal is still a long way off.

When U.S. President Donald Trump signed the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act on Tuesday, it included a provision sponsored by Senate Seapower Subcommittee Chairman Roger Wicker and his House counterpart, Rep. Rob Wittman, that calls for the country to build up to 355 ships “as soon as practicable.”

[Tahuyaman]

It's going to be expensive.

[Peter1469]

It's going to be expensive.
Yes. But in the world of US defense spending the Navy and the maintaining of freedom of the sea lanes is the primary purpose of the DoD.

And that is coming from an Army guy.

[Crepitus]

Trump just made a 355-ship Navy national policy (https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2017/12/14/trump-just-made-355-ships-national-policy/)

I support this because the US should keep the sea lanes open and free. It benefits our bottom line. [We don't need to occupy nations in the Middle East and South West Asia to stay strong.]

Maybe we should concentrate on learning to drive and maintain the ones we have first?

[Peter1469]

Maybe we should concentrate on learning to drive and maintain the ones we have first?

They can learn that while we build more. It takes years to build the ships.

[Crepitus]

And apparently more years to train helmsmen.

[donttread]

It's going to be expensive.

Doesn't matter they are selling power and control and that will get enough support from those into such things to see it through.

[Standing Wolf]

In the past, far too much importance has been placed on whose political district or state something is going to be built in, or on what is otherwise politically advantageous or expedient, in making these decisions. Frequently one or more of the Service chiefs or other highly-placed and knowledgeable military leaders will say, "We don't need that!" and the elected hacks and bean counters will give it to them anyway. Whether or not such a ship-building goal is a good idea or a flawed one depends - as far as I'm concerned - entirely on (1) whether the Admirals believe that it makes strategic sense and fulfills a genuine need, and (2) on what, if any, part of the impetus behind the move involves awarding huge government contracts to companies owned or controlled by the friends and family members of Administration officials or their golfing buddies.

[Tahuyaman]

Doesn't matter they are selling power and control and that will get enough support from those into such things to see it through.

power and control?

I understand and the need for this. It's just going to be expensive. The expense is more than likely worth it.

[Tahuyaman]

Yes. But in the world of US defense spending the Navy and the maintaining of freedom of the sea lanes is the primary purpose of the DoD.

And that is coming from an Army guy.


I agree. Coming from another Army guy.