U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti Says the Navy Will Be Ready for Sustained High-End Combat War With China by 2027

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti will publicly issue her “America’s Warfighting Navy,” guidance to the wider fleet this week, more than a year into leading the Navy. The plan outlines her priorities for the service, which include fixing maintenance backlogs and recruiting, according to the final draft reviewed by USNI News.

Dubbed “Project 33,” Franchetti’s service-wide guidance wrestles with preparing for war with China with a short time horizon and problems caused by legacy readiness and recruiting deficits and the ships and aircraft currently in inventory.

“We cannot manifest a bigger traditional Navy in a few short years, nor will we rely on mass without the right capabilities to win the sea control contest,” reads the plan.

“Without those resources, however, we will continue to prioritize readiness, capability, and capacity—in that order. We must recognize that the Navy faces real financial and industrial constraints, including the once-in-a-generation cost of recapitalizing our [sea-based] strategic nuclear deterrent.”

Franchetti identified seven areas to improve – chief of which is fielding mission-capable ships, submarines and aircraft. The goal is to surge up to 80 percent of the surface fleet as part of a so-called “combat-ready surge force” that would be available on short notice for combat operations.

https://news.usni.org/2024/09/18/cno-franchetti-war-plan-preparing-navy-for-pacific-conflict-by-2027-with-flat-budgets-static-fleet-size

https://www.navy.mil/Leadership/Chief-of-Naval-Operations/CNO-NAVPLAN-2024/

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Bumbles · 56-60, M

We already can’t or won’t protect the sea lanes which is the lesser known reason for the post WW2 US Navy.

What China is doing to the US ally, the Philippines, would he inconceivable through just a few years ago. We’ve ignored this and only paid attention to Taiwan. I’m ambivalent about going to war over Taiwan when we can’t even protect the sea lanes in the South China Sea.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@Bumbles

While the atomic bombs and the carrier battles get the most attention re: the War in the Pacific in World War II, it was the U.S. submarine fleet that crippled the Japanese merchant marine. Without oil to fuel the IJN and their war production, Japan was doomed.

But with China we are dealing with a land-based power. We can destroy most of their navy, and especially now with the ANKUS alliance. But they can get oil from Russia to power their economy. What they can't do is get their goods to sale, since that is mostly a sea-faring proposition. In a war, a blockage would cripplie their economy - regardless of whether they successfully get a foothold on Taiwan. It would be a war of sea denial on our part.

However, you can protect shipping lanes with submarines. That's why I favor extending at least the first four Nimitz-class carriers for a nuclear refueling to last another 20-25 years until additional Ford-class carriers get us back up to 15 carrier battlegroups.

The refueling and overhaul cost for USS Theodore Roosevelt took four years to complete in 2013 and cost about $2.5 billion.

The cost of USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) will exceed $11 billion by the time she is delivered to the navy next year.

Since the John F. Kennedy is now taking a ridiculous 14 years to complete instead of the originally planned seven years, it is prudent to have enough carriers in the event of any losing during a war with China.

Bumbles · 56-60, M

@beckyromero We could have protected the sea lanes, but we didn’t. That’s game over. There was no political will when China was weaker. Certainly not in 10 years.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@Bumbles

I disagree in that we are not facing the possibility of a Chinese invasion of the Philippines, only Taiwan. And there is little the U.S. can do to prevent a successful invasion (foothold) of the Taiwan unless we maintain a contant MAJOR naval presence, which just isn't in the cards.

What we CAN do is hurt the Chinese economy by tying their conduct in the South China Sea to whether or not they will continue to receive PTNR. Hurt their economy and they have less to spend on military hardware.

That would, unfortunately, cost American consumers on imported goods. Which is why I favor a policy of increased investment in Central and South American. If transnational companies uproot from China and conduct more manufacturing in the Western Hempisphere that's more jobs and less immigration to our southern border. Which is a win-win.

Bumbles · 56-60, M

@beckyromero They might invade, I just don’t see the US stopping it. I like cheap stuff from China, anyway, what can I say. Taiwan isn’t Ukraine.