Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

[Randy Daytona]

Good article from USNI on the cost of industrial warfare:

https://www.usni.org/IndustrialWarfareAtSea

Replacing the Navy’s expenditure of 220 Standard Missile-2s, SM-3s, and SM-6s in the Red Sea between October 2023 and January 2025 is estimated to cost more than $500 million. The Navy fired these missiles to intercept drones that cost the Houthis an estimated $2,000-$20,000 each, with their most valuable munitions being the $40,000-$52,000 Shahed 136 one-way attack drones. The Navy’s cheapest interceptor, the SM-2, costs approximately $2.1 million.

 

[hscs]

But learning how to shoot down threats in an environment that we have not been in a long time……..priceless.

 

[ChuckMK23]

U.S. Plan Is Said to Pull a Third of Fighter Jets It Provides NATO for Europe

The plan, outlined by officials and in a written document, provides rare clarity about the extent to which the Trump administration intends to reduce its commitment to NATO.

www.nytimes.com

The planned drawdowns include:

• Reducing the number of F-16 and F-15E fighter jets from roughly 150 to 100
• Reducing maritime reconnaissance aircraft from 26 to 15 and cutting all eight aerial refueling tanker jets previously available to Europe
• Reallocating a missile-launching submarine and an aircraft carrier, along with several warships and scores of jets that join the carrier’s missions
• Reallocating one of two groups of bombers previously assigned for Europe’s defense

 

[sevenhelmet]

U.S. Plan Is Said to Pull a Third of Fighter Jets It Provides NATO for Europe

The plan, outlined by officials and in a written document, provides rare clarity about the extent to which the Trump administration intends to reduce its commitment to NATO.

www.nytimes.com

The planned drawdowns include:

• Reducing the number of F-16 and F-15E fighter jets from roughly 150 to 100
• Reducing maritime reconnaissance aircraft from 26 to 15 and cutting all eight aerial refueling tanker jets previously available to Europe
• Reallocating a missile-launching submarine and an aircraft carrier, along with several warships and scores of jets that join the carrier’s missions
• Reallocating one of two groups of bombers previously assigned for Europe’s defense

And the Kremlin rejoiced.

 

[Randy Daytona]

And the Kremlin rejoiced.

The Russian-Ukrainian War has lasted longer than WW1 while the front lines have moved less.

As Polish Prime Minister Tusk remarked, “Why are 500 million Europeans asking 300 million Americans to defend them from 140 million Russians.”

I would rather those easily deployable aircraft be stateside rather than lined up on a European tarmac without shelters just waiting for a surprise drone attack.

 

[sevenhelmet]

The Russian-Ukrainian War has lasted longer than WW1 while the front lines have moved less.

As Polish Prime Minister Tusk remarked, “Why are 500 million Europeans asking 300 million Americans to defend them from 140 million Russians.”

I would rather those easily deployable aircraft be stateside rather than lined up on a European tarmac without shelters just waiting for a surprise drone attack.

I don’t dispute that Europe has perennially underspent on its own militaries.

However, one of the strengths of the US military since WWII has been its ability to work with allies in theater security cooperation. Far from being an extractive effort by the Europeans, our military work in NATO has made all parties stronger and better trained.

Aircraft might be easily deployed, but that doesn’t account for their logistical support. Putting those units at home places them- at best- several days further from the fight. Realistically, that’s several weeks of spool-up that wouldn’t be needed by units in theater.

 

[robav8r]

Putting those units at home places them- at best- several days further from the fight. Realistically, that’s several weeks of spool-up that wouldn’t be needed by units in theater.

Yeah, no shit, maybe EU and NATO leadership should have considered that when they denied overflight and basing rights to U.S. A/C supporting Op EF.

 

[Randy Daytona]

I don’t dispute that Europe has perennially underspent on its own militaries.

However, one of the strengths of the US military since WWII has been its ability to work with allies in theater security cooperation. Far from being an extractive effort by the Europeans, our military work in NATO has made all parties stronger and better trained.

Aircraft might be easily deployed, but that doesn’t account for their logistical support. Putting those units at home places them- at best- several days further from the fight. Realistically, that’s several weeks of spool-up that wouldn’t be needed by units in theater.

I agree with most of that, however watching the Ukrainian surprise drone attack deep within Russia changes the paradigm. Keep the logistics and support over there, but we might be reaching the stage where high value assets have to be kept at a distance and flown in when warranted. The delay of a several days will be the price of security.

 

[Brett327]

Yeah, no shit, maybe EU and NATO leadership should have considered that when they denied overflight and basing rights to U.S. A/C supporting Op EF.

Neither EU nor NATO has jurisdiction over national airspace or basing rights. Those limitations were imposed by individual member states.