submarines – USA Gov Policy

This article was written by Daria Novak, a former State Department official in the Reagan Administration.

The United States faces an exceptional threat from the growing strength of the submarine fleets of both China and Russia, as their U.S. counterpart struggles to avoid deterioration from lack of adequate funding.

The Diplomat notes that China now has a larger submarine fleet than that United States, U.S. Vice Admiral Joseph Mulloy said in testimony to] the House Armed Service Committee’s Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee…”China is building some “fairly amazing submarines, both diesel- and nuclear-powered…”

America has 71 commissioned submarines. China counters that with a number estimated to be slightly larger. The number of U.S. attack submarines will shrink from 52 to only 41 within the next decade, even as China’s number expands.

Add that to Russia’s fleet, and the U.S. is significantly outnumbered. Global Firepower estimates that Moscow has 60 submarines at its disposal.
Use Safety Eyewear: If your work place is related to poisonous, hazardous airborne materials then better to wear cialis no prescription usa safety glasses all the time. A number of products on the marketplace that eradicate sexual Difficulties that countless numbers of folks who experience silently. generic tadalafil 5mg It is found especially in summer, the heat from the sun makes the substance, which is browse around for more buy generic viagra mostly made of decomposed plant matter, ooze out of the mountains. Kamagra Tablets with sildenafil citrate has encouraged cheap viagra from uk ED patients across the globe to avail a high quality medication without paying more money.
Asia Times notes that even as the U.S. plans to build some additional subs, older vessels are going out of service faster than new models can replace them. The publication also notes that “the [U.S.] Navy has a standing requirement for 48 attack submarines, but combatant commanders say they are only receiving about 62 percent of the subs they need to meet growing threats in Asia and Europe. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said … that the 48-sub requirement is based off of analysis from 2006.” However, since then, Russia has expanded its fleet. “…we really didn’t have to account for a resurgent Russia…The strategic landscape has changed sufficiently that we have to constantly reassess.”

A standard response to discussions concerning the rising numbers of America’s potential adversaries is that U.S. subs are superior in quality. Unfortunately, that factor is rapidly diminishing. Even if the Chinese don’t precisely match the U.S. in quality, their increased numbers will make up for the difference. The National Interest notes that “The technological edge the U.S. Navy—which is already woefully short on attack boats—is counting on might not be sufficient to counter Chinese numerical superiority.

But China is catching up on quality.The National Interest reports that some analysts believe that Beijing’s new Type 093B nuclear-powered attack submarine is on par with the U.S. Navy’s Improved Los Angeles-class boats. “If the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s newest boats are able to match the capabilities of the U.S. Navy’s shrinking undersea fleet, Washington could be in serious trouble.” The journal also reports that “Back in 2006, a Chinese Song-class attack submarine, created at least partially by Russian and Western technology … tailed the Japan-based U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk in the East China Sea near Okinawa without being identified. While such a shadowing operation is quite normal, the sub “surfaced within five miles of the carrier, in deep waters off Okinawa, and only then was it spotted, by one of the carrier’s planes on a routine surveillance flight.” Such submarines are armed with advanced anti-ship missile and wake-homing torpedoes.

President Obama said he couldn’t find “Shovel Ready Projects” to stimulate the economy and provide jobs for American workers. Defending America by building an adequate number of submarines would certainly solve his quest. Ways could be found to make the project more affordable. New technology allows for the construction of far less expensive conventional submarines that could fill the Navy’s gap for less cost than a nuclear version.

Russia is engaging in an extraordinary buildup of its naval power, at the same time that the U.S. defense budget has been shrinking.

Spacewar reports that “A total of eight Borey-class submarines are planned to join the Russian Navy by 2020 to be the backbone of Russia’s marine nuclear forces. The first three have been launched, and another three are currently under construction. By 2020, the Russian Navy also plans to operate a total of eight Borei-class nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines, which will become the mainstay of the naval component of the country’s strategic nuclear deterrent.” Russia is upgrading other subs with Kalibr cruise missiles.

Moscow’s innovative undersea fleet is getting a further upgrade, Spacewar reveals, through the development of “fifth generation submarines,” unmanned nuclear vessels with advanced stealth, noise-reduction, automated reconnaissance and warning systems.

In the far east, The Associated Press notes, the Kremlin’s military will deploy state-of-the art Bal and Bastion anti-ship missile systems and new drones will be deployed. The Arctic region is also receiving substantial attention.

Moscow has not been shy about the deployment of its growing naval strength. It has engaged in war games with ally China both in the Pacific and in the Mediterranean. It has returned to cold war-era bases in Cuba. Both the invasion of the Ukraine and the recent incursion into the middle east were motivated in large part by Moscow’s desire to hold onto or secure warm-water ports in those regions.

Connecticut’s Senator Chris Murphy told the Washington Examiner “Russian submarines have been pushing out to the very precipice of NATO-ally waters…We have seen Russian boats coming closer to the U.S. and to our European partner ports than ever before, in immensely provocative ways — in ways that were rare even during the days of the Cold War.”
It has now been widely accepted as cialis australia FDA approved medicine for male sexual worries. Many computer training schools allow people to take refresher and supplemental courses even if they are not enrolled as viagra generic discount full-time students. A popular and wide prescribed birth control pill should function not only controls the possibilities of conceiving, it should also reduce the chances of women developing generic viagra mastercard ovarian and endometrial cancer. Here, we discuss levitra online cheap the key psychological issues behind it.
Last year’s budget testimony to Congress by top naval officials demonstrated the U.S. navy’s dilemma.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus stated “It is absolutely true that our fleet shrank dramatically… It takes a long time, measured in years, to produce a deployable ship. As I noted earlier, it is the least reversible thing we might do to deal with budget constraints. If we miss a year, if we cancel a ship, it is almost impossible to recover those ships because of the time involved and the fragile industrial base. To do the job America and our leaders expect and demand of us, we have to have those gray hulls on the horizon…the way some of the budget reductions have been executed in the law, through continuing resolutions and the sequester, have made planning virtually impossible and have not allowed us to approach reductions in a strategic way… We continue to accept some risk to our capacity to complete all ten of the missions, and we have continued reductions to the maintenance funds for our shore infrastructure, elements of our weapons capacity, and selected aviation accounts.”

Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of naval operations, worried: “With each year that the Navy receives less than requested, the loss of force structure, readiness, and future investments cause our options to become increasingly constrained. Navy has already divested 23 ships and 67,000 personnel between 2002 and 2012. And we have been assuming significant risk by delaying critical modernizations of our force to keep pace and maintain technological advantage. Unless naval forces are properly sized, modernized at the right pace, ready to deploy with adequate training and equipment, and able to respond with the capacity and speed required by Combatant Commanders, they will not be able to carry out the defense strategy, as written. Most importantly, when facing major contingencies, our ability to fight and win will not be quick nor as decisive as required. To preclude a significantly diminished global security role for the Nation’s military, we must address the growing mismatch in ends, ways, and means. The world is more complex, uncertain, and turbulent; this trend will likely continue. Our adversaries’ capabilities are modernizing and expanding.”

The U.S. Navy has already been sharply reduced from a high of 600 ships down to its current level of between 254 to 278. President Obama has demonstrated considerable reluctance to use military force. Russia’s alliance with China and Iran provides it with extraordinary security. NATO members in Europe continue to dramatically underfund their armed forces, including their naval forces. In essence, Moscow faces no significant threat. Why is it building and acting so aggressively?

It’s time to become deeply concerned about Russia’s intentions.

Quick Analysis

Russian-Belarus Preparations for an Attack on the West

While Russia is celebrating May Day at home this week, it is also growing closer to breaching the threshold triggering a nuclear event in Western Europe. Military analysts in Washington consider the recent deployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus a political sign designed to unnerve the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) easternmost flank. Alexander Taranov, of the Jamestown Foundation calls it “practical preparation for nuclear escalation.” Last week the Kremlin publicly repeated its threat of nuclear war against the West. It immediately followed the US Congress’ vote to provide $61 billion in military assistance to Ukraine. Up for debate is whether Russia’s storage of nuclear warheads in Belarus is short-term preparation for their operational use. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov openly declared that increasing aid to Ukraine increases the threat of a direct military clash. From Moscow’s perspective, he points out, Ukraine is backed by three nuclear states, including the US, UK, and France. He uses it to justify the Kremlin’s moves in Belarus as Russia considers the situation a serious strategic risk. The nuclear environment in Europe is moving beyond simple rhetoric this spring. Russian-Belarus preparations for an attack on the West include war gaming a simulated nuclear event in Ukraine and Eastern Europe. The operating assumption for the games is that the West is “morally too weak to respond with retaliatory strikes,” according to Taranov. The representative for national defense of the Belarusian opposition-in-exile’s United Transitional Cabinet and former commander of the Belarusian 38th Separate Guards Air Assault Brigade (Brest), Valery Sahashchyk, says that the militaries are war-gaming and preparing for an attack on Lithuania. Last week the publication RIA Novosti suggested that the Kremlin may take matters into its own hands and that Russia is fighting a “long war” against the collective West and Ukraine. Just over a month ago, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) confirmed the establishment of a nuclear warhead storage facility near Asipovichy, Belarus, where, according to Taranov, the 1405th Artillery Ammunition Base is located. The 465th Missile Brigade is almost co-located and supplied with Russian Iskander-M operational-tactical missile (RMB) systems that are also known as TNW carriers. Pre-deploying tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) raises the potential that Russia could choose to use them should the war in Ukraine go badly this summer. Western powers are divided on how to view the Russian nuclear moves. Some military planners are arguing that the West needs to be prepared, despite the possibility that Putin is simply posturing and not preparing for war. Other Western commentators suggest it is only posturing since prior to the recent nuclear deployment in Belarus, Russia already had the capability to launch a strike in Eastern Europe using its modernized nuclear weapons storage facilities in Kaliningrad. Taranov points out that the Belarusian nuclear site is only modernized with added perimeter security and an access point and that “No underground bunker-type fortifications, designed for the long-term storage of TNWs… were built on the Belarusian base’s territory. Instead, the nuclear warheads were placed in one of the arsenals of the ammunition base, which also stores operational-tactical missiles for the Iskander-M system.” He says this co-location with their launch vehicles is an indication that a repair and maintenance base has been organized there to support and prepare the TNWs for operational use. Personnel on the site are likely tasked with fitting the nuclear warheads on the missiles. What makes this more concerning is that during a peacetime environment, the standard Russian practice is to store TNWs in a special bunker-type fortified facility while RMBs typically are located off base. Military procedures in the past called for moving TNWs off base to the TNW carrier and delivery vehicle site only after receiving an order or special command from: 1) the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, 2) the Minister of Defense, and 3) the Chief of the Russian General staff. Co-positioning marks a change in standard operating procedures that indicates the weapons are, essentially, in field-ready conditions. This reduces the time to place the nuclear warheads on the missiles. This “indicates preparation for operational use,” according to Taranov. There are additional signs that Putin is prepping for an escalation in the Ukrainian conflict. The Polish government says Russian Aerospace Forces are using Belarusian-based Kh-55 nuclear-capable cruise missiles with imitators of nuclear warheads against targets in Poland and Ukraine. This points to Russia’s practicing for at minimum of a tactical nuclear strike. The summer months may become very active in Europe if Putin sees it as an opportune time to act while the US is in the middle of a presidential election. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept. Photo: RS-24 Yars (SS-27 Mod 2) ICBM. Photo: Wikimedia Commons / Vitaly V. Kuzmin