I was a bit surprised by the "4 No's" articulated by Vietnam. History during their 2nd war of liberation didn't seem to exhibit that same reluctance to alliances. I understand less powerful countries want to straddle the fence at times but unless Vietnam wants the rest of the SE Asian countries to shoulder the burden of resisting Chinese expansionism and see their country forced to knuckle under, it seems their interests align more with the current alliances trying to deter China. As an aside, when I was assigned to the Joint Military Advisory Group in Thailand, (92-95) I had the opportunity to attend a lot of exercises and was heavily involved in competitions for arms sales. The Thai bought a lot of stuff from China even though they would quietly admit it was junk. A huge part of their effort to keep everybody happy (and save some $) was to buy Chinese frigates and put Western fire control and weapons on them. They made playing nice to everyone an art form but they were still part of ASEAN and hosted a lot of training and exercises with US forces.
My Choice would be to use foreign yards to recapitalize sealift. I also think we need a smaller LSD rather than LSM for work in the Americas and choke points. Plus, it would be exportable or more feasible for other countries to license build them.
Lack of amphibs and FD2030 has ruined our Corps MAGTF capabilities and our 24/7 MEUs being forward deployed to the Mediterranean and Western Pacific, as witnessed recently by no single MEU being a short transit from immediate readiness for missions in Trump's Operation EPIC FURY (which I call Operation EPIC FAILURE because of his failures to plan for the current contingencies including Iran 🇮🇷 basically controlling the Strait of Hormuz...)
I agree with many who advocate immediately purchasing ships that can quickly be converted or modified to meet our amphib and MPS shipping needs. Semper Fidelis my fellow Leathernecks!
Also, I don't rightly understand why the US ain't built any nuclear powered naval ships other than aircraft carriers and submarines... such a move would eliminate a huge logistics issue for refueling and would open up space for more munitions and other usage...
The US did build and operate 9 Nuclear Powered Cruisers, the first launching in '61 and the last decommisioning in '98. The point being the USN has some institutional experience with nuclear vessels other than Super Carriers and Subs. At the time they were phased out, the tradeoffs in terms of cost/risk versus capability were seen as upside down in contrast to the sub and carrier fleet.
And raise procurement and sustainment costs, plus adding a repair burden in the exact worse spot. Plus limits on where other countries will allow them to make port.
How so? I don't rightly understand how added sustainability costs can be an issue because of the cost of diesel and the dangers and logistics of conducting refueling especially in a combat zone 🤔 nuclear powered ships only require down time for maintenance on the nuclear power plant every 2 decades or so...
You will be resupplying in combat zone regardless, including gas for aviation assets. It will need a larger crew and thise crew will be paid more for their nuke certifications and those added costs likely extend to a whole career and benefits. Nuke ships dry dock for maintenance just like any other ship say every 4-5 years except their dry dock has to keep water pumping to the reactor and have reliable backup power should the eegukar source gonout. So emergency edgs just like the ship. The cost benefit when last examined would beed a combatant about the size they are looking at to tip the business case in the favor of nuclear.
Repairs to Navy ships is already done in many foreign ports: Japan, Korea, Singapore, Bahrain. Matter of fact, if you have insulation done in Singapore you have to watch out for asbestos and lead paint!
But the fact remains that repairs can be accomplished at many ports. Building ships should be able to as well. You may not want to put in the latest version of a SPY 6 radar in at a foreign shipyard, but the ship can be brought back to the US for outfitting.
I was a bit surprised by the "4 No's" articulated by Vietnam. History during their 2nd war of liberation didn't seem to exhibit that same reluctance to alliances. I understand less powerful countries want to straddle the fence at times but unless Vietnam wants the rest of the SE Asian countries to shoulder the burden of resisting Chinese expansionism and see their country forced to knuckle under, it seems their interests align more with the current alliances trying to deter China. As an aside, when I was assigned to the Joint Military Advisory Group in Thailand, (92-95) I had the opportunity to attend a lot of exercises and was heavily involved in competitions for arms sales. The Thai bought a lot of stuff from China even though they would quietly admit it was junk. A huge part of their effort to keep everybody happy (and save some $) was to buy Chinese frigates and put Western fire control and weapons on them. They made playing nice to everyone an art form but they were still part of ASEAN and hosted a lot of training and exercises with US forces.
My Choice would be to use foreign yards to recapitalize sealift. I also think we need a smaller LSD rather than LSM for work in the Americas and choke points. Plus, it would be exportable or more feasible for other countries to license build them.
Lack of amphibs and FD2030 has ruined our Corps MAGTF capabilities and our 24/7 MEUs being forward deployed to the Mediterranean and Western Pacific, as witnessed recently by no single MEU being a short transit from immediate readiness for missions in Trump's Operation EPIC FURY (which I call Operation EPIC FAILURE because of his failures to plan for the current contingencies including Iran 🇮🇷 basically controlling the Strait of Hormuz...)
I agree with many who advocate immediately purchasing ships that can quickly be converted or modified to meet our amphib and MPS shipping needs. Semper Fidelis my fellow Leathernecks!
A Marine version of an MV Ocean Trader would be pretty good.
Also, I don't rightly understand why the US ain't built any nuclear powered naval ships other than aircraft carriers and submarines... such a move would eliminate a huge logistics issue for refueling and would open up space for more munitions and other usage...
The US did build and operate 9 Nuclear Powered Cruisers, the first launching in '61 and the last decommisioning in '98. The point being the USN has some institutional experience with nuclear vessels other than Super Carriers and Subs. At the time they were phased out, the tradeoffs in terms of cost/risk versus capability were seen as upside down in contrast to the sub and carrier fleet.
And raise procurement and sustainment costs, plus adding a repair burden in the exact worse spot. Plus limits on where other countries will allow them to make port.
How so? I don't rightly understand how added sustainability costs can be an issue because of the cost of diesel and the dangers and logistics of conducting refueling especially in a combat zone 🤔 nuclear powered ships only require down time for maintenance on the nuclear power plant every 2 decades or so...
You will be resupplying in combat zone regardless, including gas for aviation assets. It will need a larger crew and thise crew will be paid more for their nuke certifications and those added costs likely extend to a whole career and benefits. Nuke ships dry dock for maintenance just like any other ship say every 4-5 years except their dry dock has to keep water pumping to the reactor and have reliable backup power should the eegukar source gonout. So emergency edgs just like the ship. The cost benefit when last examined would beed a combatant about the size they are looking at to tip the business case in the favor of nuclear.
Good points 👉... but if the carrier in an ARG/MEU is nuclear then I still don't see it being a big cost issue... Semper Fi sir!
You are under the impression that nuclear power saves money.
Repairs to Navy ships is already done in many foreign ports: Japan, Korea, Singapore, Bahrain. Matter of fact, if you have insulation done in Singapore you have to watch out for asbestos and lead paint!
But the fact remains that repairs can be accomplished at many ports. Building ships should be able to as well. You may not want to put in the latest version of a SPY 6 radar in at a foreign shipyard, but the ship can be brought back to the US for outfitting.