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

[Lawman]

9 carriers by 2035.

China plans to field a force of nine aircraft carriers by 2035, according to a Defense Department report on Beijing’s military power released on Tuesday...China currently operates three carriers — second only to the U.S. This expansion would triple Beijing’s ability to deploy carrier strike groups within the next decade…While not dedicated aircraft carriers, the upcoming Type 076 class of amphibious warships come equipped with an electromagnetic catapult and command facilities dedicated to the operation of fixed-wing unmanned aerial systems, marking another boost to the PLAN’s flattop force.

China Wants Nine Aircraft Carriers by 2035, Says New Pentagon Report - USNI News

China plans to field a force of nine aircraft carriers by 2035, according to a Defense Department report on Beijing’s military power released on Tuesday. The U.S. report says that the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) will embark on the largest carrier build-up effort in the Indo-Pacific...

news.usni.org

If only we could predict the likely outcome of a nation putting its self into a war footing means of shipbuilding 18-24 months before a major conflict, and the likely delta in force parity it results in with an opponent country incapable of matching it….

Maybe there is some historic model for comparison.

Anybody read “Red Tide” yet? The basic strategy the Chinese are using in that is to fight to an attritional stalemate in 1 conflict sinking each others critical capabilities and low density assets, keep it short of full nuclear deployment, destroy or degrade the chip fab supply for the worldwide market, and then imply the real plan is “see you in 5 years for round 2.”

 

[Randy Daytona]

Good video from CNBC on the shipbuilding industry.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2025/12/14/how-the-us-lost-its-shipbuilding-industry-and-can-it-get-it-back.html

 

[Gaburieru]

To be honest, this whole affair has me apprehensive to throw in my SWO ISEL application given the fact that this is like the third time in a row the navy decided to scrap a multibillion dollar next-gen ship. I was thinking that perhaps the major force expansions anticipated by the whole 2045 plan, adding another 375 vessels in the water might make the navy a good choice for a career with lots of growth. Assuredly the decision makers involved here don't think we're going to maintain naval superpower status with 60 year old Arleigh-Burkes, some cutters from the coast guard, and a plan for a ship that maybe eventually might exist after it's 6th or 7th redesign, right?

 

[Brett327]

adding another 375 vessels in the water

Im not sure what you’re smoking, but that ain’t happening.

 

[MIDNJAC]

If only we could predict the likely outcome of a nation putting its self into a war footing means of shipbuilding 18-24 months before a major conflict, and the likely delta in force parity it results in with an opponent country incapable of matching it….

Maybe there is some historic model for comparison.

Anybody read “Red Tide” yet? The basic strategy the Chinese are using in that is to fight to an attritional stalemate in 1 conflict sinking each others critical capabilities and low density assets, keep it short of full nuclear deployment, destroy or degrade the chip fab supply for the worldwide market, and then imply the real plan is “see you in 5 years for round 2.”

I think it is wild that anyone thinks a war with China doesn’t go almost immediately nuclear. I know that the conventional thinking is that it won’t. I wonder what reasoning that assumption is based upon? That we wouldn’t respond that way to 1 or 2 CVNs at the bottom of the South China Sea? That they wouldn’t when we begin strategic bombing of their major industrial centers?

 

[Spekkio]

To be honest, this whole affair has me apprehensive to throw in my SWO ISEL application given the fact that this is like the third time in a row the navy decided to scrap a multibillion dollar next-gen ship. I was thinking that perhaps the major force expansions anticipated by the whole 2045 plan, adding another 375 vessels in the water might make the navy a good choice for a career with lots of growth. Assuredly the decision makers involved here don't think we're going to maintain naval superpower status with 60 year old Arleigh-Burkes, some cutters from the coast guard, and a plan for a ship that maybe eventually might exist after it's 6th or 7th redesign, right?

None of this will affect you or your job for like 15-20 years.

 

[Spekkio]

I think it is wild that anyone thinks a war with China doesn’t go almost immediately nuclear. I know that the conventional thinking is that it won’t. I wonder what reasoning that assumption is based upon? That we wouldn’t respond that way to 1 or 2 CVNs at the bottom of the South China Sea? That they wouldn’t when we begin strategic bombing of their major industrial centers?

The entire assumption is that the conflict doesn't spread to mainland China, US, or its allies. Those would be the triggers for employing strategic weapons.

But from a "easiest way to win the war," I'm not sure why we wouldn't just nuke the invasion force before it set to sea. Or nuke it in the Taiwan Strait. The massive concentration of force makes it a juicy strategic target.

Perhaps we're still tied to the "do unto others" strategy to maintain "legitimacy" that worked oh so well in the Middle East as all our allies and partners eventually said "you're on your own."

I would presume that if Xi says "go", the value of the object is sufficiently high that he would strike Guam.

But lucky for us, they're overly reliant on the wrong things AI outputs.

Anyway, the current plan is objectively stupid. Or to use military parlance, assumes an unacceptable level of risk with a lot of best case planning assumptions.

For all Trump's faults, I'm glad he recognized this and defused the "competition" rhetoric that everyone knew was a double entendre for war, and went back to leveraging economic pressure on China.

 

[Brett327]

I think it is wild that anyone thinks a war with China doesn’t go almost immediately nuclear. I know that the conventional thinking is that it won’t. I wonder what reasoning that assumption is based upon? That we wouldn’t respond that way to 1 or 2 CVNs at the bottom of the South China Sea? That they wouldn’t when we begin strategic bombing of their major industrial centers?

If you look at the relevant planning documents, a lot of thought has gone into this topic.

 

[Flash]

So, they're just going to slap an A1B in there and call it good? I can't imagine NR being down with that - especially on a short timeline.

He just said that with all the stuff they want to put on the ship he thought a nuke was a much more realistic option unless you wanted a really short-legged cruiser, he didn't go into details. That said he'll probably get a job out of the project.

The Alaskas (35,000 tons) required 150,000 SHP to hit 33 knots, the Iowas (55,000 tons) required 212,000 SHP to hit 33 knots - so 4 LM-2500 turbines around the 45,000 SHP each simply for propulsion? How much more engine power you would need for everything else, I don’t know.

Someone mentioned earlier to start with conventional weapons systems first and replace them with laser / railguns later. Maybe Phalanx for the lasers and the Mark 71 lightweight 8” auto cannon for the railgun. Still, only 128 VLS is not enough for a ship this size.

The ship is supposed to have a railgun and lasers along with radars and a combat system to manage it all. That is all going to need a lot of power. You can do it with the CODAG powerplant they are proposing but as my friend said it could come with a possible significant range penalty.