Posted on 03/31/2005 12:01:29 PM PST by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
In response to Congressional concern that the U.S. Navy’s shipbuilding schedule is inadequate to sustain a fleet large enough to assure continued American global preeminence, the Navy sent to Capitol Hill on March 23 a 30-year ship plan. The plan offers two options for the fleet of 2035: one with only 260 ships, including 10 aircraft carriers, the second with 325 ships, including 11 aircraft carriers. The second, larger fleet would require a rate of shipbuilding greater than the Navy had previously envisioned. Yet, when Defense News reported this story, it concluded the first paragraph with the line “analysts worry that neither option may really be affordable.”
But is this true as an economic fact, or is it only a lack of political will disguised as poverty? Most of the decline in Navy strength took place in the 1990s, and future plans revolve around whether or by how much to rebuild. Is America expected to become so dreadfully impoverished that it cannot afford its former glory? Consider the following table, using data from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
(All dollar figures are in trillions.)
|
|
1986 |
2006 (estimate) |
| GDP |
$4.4 trillion |
$12.9 trillion |
| GDP constant 2000 $s |
$6.3 trillion |
$11.4 trillion |
| Federal Outlays (in constant 2000 dollars) |
$1.4 trillion |
$2.2 trillion |
| Federal budget as % GDP |
22.4 |
19.8 |
| Defense Spending as % GDP |
6.2 |
3.5 |
| Defense Spending as % Federal Budget |
26.8 |
16.6 |
| Fleet Size (number of warships) |
594 |
289 |
| Aircraft carriers |
15 |
11 |
In real terms, the American economy has nearly doubled in the twenty year period 1986-2006 (and tripled in nominal terms). And while it is impossible to predict economic growth out to 2035 with precision, the assumption is that growth will continue. So why cannot the United States maintain the military force levels it deployed twenty years ago? Or, in the small-fleet scenario favored by the administration, can it not even maintain current strength?
While it is true that weapon systems have increased in cost as they push the technological frontier, the real cause of fiscal distress in Pentagon planning is that defense spending’s share of that economy has been cut in half. And even in a time of war on several fronts, and with the prospect for continued strife over the coming decades as new powers rise to jostle for position, the Bush Administration has refused to do anything to rebuild the Navy from the deep and imprudent cuts inflicted on it during the of the 1990s.
The warship classes most affected by future cuts in fleet strength are aircraft carriers, amphibious ships, and submarines. These are the very ships which define the U.S. Navy and give it the unique power projection capabilities which no other navy can match. The Navy recently announced that it would decommission the carrier John F. Kennedy rather than refurbish it for another 10-20 years of service. This takes the fleet down to 11 carriers. Today’s fleet has 35 amphibious vessels, enough for 12 Marine amphibious ready groups (ARGs). The plan foresees 17 to 24 amphibs in service in 2035. The big-fleet option calls for enough amphibs to maintain only eight ARGs, while the small-fleet option sees enough assault ships for only five or six ARGs – half the current force level. Whenever there is a crisis, the first questions are always; where are the carriers and where are the Marines? Future presidents are not going to like the answers.
The Navy plan calls for either 37 or 41 submarines in 2035, down from 52 today. The ultimate in stealth warships, nuclear submarines have been considered the new capital ship. With increased capabilities due to their ability to launch cruise missiles against either land or naval targets, submarines should be a higher priority in Navy strategy – but again, the argument is heard that the United States can no longer afford such a grand fleet.
Senators Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Representative Ander Crenshaw (R-FL) have introduced Aircraft Carrier End Strength legislation (Senate bill S 145 and House bill HR 304) to address one aspect of this decline. The legislation would require that “the naval combat forces of the Navy shall include not less than 12 operational aircraft carriers…” Both bills have been referred to the respective Armed Services Committees.
As to other classes of warships, almost all new construction will be concentrated in the new Littoral Combat Ship. The LCS will be the smallest unit in the fleet with limited firepower, protection, and endurance. Indeed, the class was designed to be cheap. Production plans for the much more capable DD(X) destroyer have been cut in half, with the start of production delayed. So severe has been the cut back in warship construction rates that the financial viability of the American shipbuilding industry and its supplier base have been put at risk.
As the carrier which bears his name faces early retirement, it might be wise to remember the words of President John F. Kennedy, “Control of the sea means security. Control of the sea means peace. Control of the sea can mean victory. The United States must control the sea to protect our security.”
ping
Same crap I heard in the 80's and the answer is no.
All the talk about the smaller size of our military does not take into account the fact that our current military could wipe the floor with our own military of 10 years ago. It would not even be a fair fight.
As long as we can keep the liberals (read socialists) at bay, we'll be in good shape.
Now, let's force some reform to our F-U'd judicary.....
There are two legitimate purposes for the federal government: national defense and lighthouses. Yet we shift dollars from national defense to pay for all kinds of outrageous "gimme programs." We need meaningful and deep spending cuts combined with increases in defense spending and cuts (or better yet, significant reforms) in taxes.
I think we should pay whatever price is needed to keep our preeminence as the world's superpower. And I would fund it by eliminating the Department of Education (a nice $60-70 billion contribution), and our funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, public broadcasting, and a host of other socialist programs that would only do good for our country if they were eliminated this afternoon.
I agree...
You can say that again!
Getting rid of Amtrack would help..
Is it just me .. or have the hounds of hell been unleashed upon this country - I'm just stunned by all these attacks.
How could have our economy in real terms doubled in the last 20 years? I thought the WTO and NAFTA ruined our economy.
These articles happen all of the time. Usually happen more everytime there is a Republican in office. I remember hearing this stuff when Reagan was President.
The US governments number one job is to protect its citizens. So cuts can come from other areas of government.
By quadrupling our National Debt?
Our greatest enemies don't have (significant) navies.
Yeah, I've picked up on the fact that a repub is in office - but this seems to be slightly different - more desperate to poison public opinion - an over saturation so to speak. It's very disconcerting to me.
I think it has to do with the internet mostly. You are right I have noticed more of these articles lately. We do have problems, however, I don't think that this nation is going to crash and burn in the near future..
We'll end up a lot poorer if we don't!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.