Questions Needing Answers
More apt comments from Congress, this time from Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md. This is via Scoop Deck and the unstoppable Phil Ewing:
“Admiral, I guess what you see depends on where you sit. My understanding is that the Navy is able to respond to little more than 40 percent of the requests of the combatant commanders for submarines. So I guess critical depends upon where you sit. I think that the new Chinese anti ship missile may be a huge game-changer. I see little recognition of that in the QDR, in the budget, or in your testimony today.
Admiral, you mentioned that you were aggressively pursuing unmanned aircraft in the Navy. And yet we’re not aggressively pursuing unmanned ships in the Navy. I know why. It’s because we have too few ships. They are too valuable. We have people on ships not because we need them there to sail the ships, but because we need them there for damage control.
We need to be moving to a very much larger Navy with very much smaller platforms so that we can move away from manned platforms. Half the cost of keeping the ships at sea as you know, sir, is the personnel. Which means if you get rid of half the personnel, you can have 50 percent more ships. If you get rid of all the personnel, you have 100 percent more ships.
We’re going to be attacked where we are the weakest. I know that during the Clinton years we largely waived EMP hardening on most of our new platforms. To what extent are you EMP hardened? How much fighting capability would remain if you had an EMP lay down of 100 kilovolts per meter, which is but half of what the Russian generals told the EMP Commission the Soviets had developed, and the Russians had available?”