Posted on 08/24/2015 7:40:07 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
The GOP presidential field may not agree on everything, but it’s quickly coalescing around one big idea: vastly increasing the size of the Navy.
But the Republican vow — to go from 273 ships today to as many as 350 — is likely to run aground due to the enormous price tag for a military buildup that could cost hundreds of billions of dollars and a series of other political obstacles.
Story Continued Below
.
.
The ambitious plan would put the GOP presidential wing on a potential collision course with its own congressional budget hawks, along with key constituencies who would likely see their prized programs slashed to reach the goal.
Yet that isn’t stopped a growing roster of Republican hopefuls from going full steam ahead, with John Kasich the latest to join Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker and others in making the case for dozens of new warships.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
If we stopped sending foreign aid money to people who hate us we could afford a boatload of new ships!
The sea routes that need protecting are still the same as they were before. The USSR may be history but Russia still has a Navy and China has a growing Navy now and they did not have a deepwater Navy in the last century. The ships may be more capable now but neither the crews or the ships are capable of 24/7/365 deployment. You have to account for a certain number being unavailable due to maintenance, crew training, etc. A certain number of ships is needed to protect all our trade routes around the world. Than agreed number used to be 600, not sure what it is now but it probably is higher than 270. There are periods now where we do not have a significant presence in critical areas due to a shortage of assets.
Because we can 'afford' 0bamacare.
Except that we can't. We also can't afford a dozen or so welfare programs for parasites foreign and domestic, a ponzi scheme masquerading as a retirement program, regulatory agencies galore, bailouts for failed industries and poorly considered loans ...
Get rid of all that unconstitutional crap, and we'll have no trouble affording a decent Navy. And a decent Army. And a decent Air Force. And decent border protection.
Maybe I should have put in a “/S”?
Good post. Former destroyer sailor here. Regardless to how (allegedly) more capable our ships are today, all one has to do is take a look at a global map, most of the world is ocean, for heaven’s sake, to see what the Navy is responsible for. Big oceans require a big Navy.
In this increasingly volatile world, threats are everywhere - thanks to Obama policies. A Naval threat by China or the Norks in Westpac, another in the Med, another by the Ruskys in the Persian gulf, could happen at the same time.
The Desert Storm highway of death is a bad example because it’s well known that the images scared Colin Powell so badly that he convinced Bush to end the ground war, incomplete, at 100 hours. Giving the remaining Iraqi Army in Kuwait an open door to heading home unmolested.
No, it's better that you didn't. You were being sarcastic, but out there in the rest of the world are folks who ask that same question in all seriousness and sincerity. They deserve an answer; which I gave. At least, I gave part of it. I think it's important to understand that Fed.gov "can't afford" to do some things it should be doing, because it's wasting money doing things it has no business even thinking about.
With the advent of smart, unmanned weapons & sophisticated surveillance systems, warships are becoming easy targets. Just as manned air power was the decisive factor in WWII, unmanned air power will dominate WWIII, whether it be MIRV ballistic missiles, smart bombs, high speed torpedoes, or supersonic cruise missiles. Manned ships & vehicles will become increasingly dangerous places to be.
I believe a determined enemy of sufficient means could cripple a carrier task force with land & undersea based, non-nuclear weapons before the carrier could get within striking distance of the enemy. This is certainly true of mainland China & Russia, & perhaps NK & Iran, too. The loss of a carrier would devastate US morale & effectively neutralize a significant weapon of our arsenal.
Our money is better spent on air power & missile defense than expensive, hard to replace ships & crews that may not survive their first substantial encounter with a powerful enemy. Especially so when our missiles can flatten any area on the globe with a few mouse clicks.
I don’t disagree, not saying those fewer ships need to be large.
You must be a zoomie, or former zoomie. The Air Force has argued against ships and for planes - theirs of course, not Navy - since WW2 days.
How do you know what we need. You are admittedly ignorant on the subject.
That you do not even know the capabilities of other navies is indicative of your ignorance.
How do you?
Because I have knowledge/training of/in Anti-submarine warfare, surface warfare, mine warfare, and air warfare projected by naval forces. I also have historical and technical knowledge on the subjects.
In addition to those knowledge sets I have insight into the capabilities of other country’s navies and the regions upon which they can project those capabilities.
So explain to me if we have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world’s navies combined, more guided missile destroyers than the rest of the world’s navies combined, more nuclear submarines than the rest of the world’s navies combined, more amphibious helicopter ships, more landing ships, more auxiliary ships, more of just about anything else you can name, and taking into consideration that most of the rest of the world’s navies are on our side, then why do we need 350 ships? Are we expecting all the other navies except China and Russia to go out of business?
Retrofitting the railguns isn’t going to happen, you’d need to rebuild the ship completely to fit the power generation systems required to fire it. Or go back to nuclear fission powered cruisers, destroyers and frigates, which we haven’t had in the inventory for a few decades now.
Drones and cruise missiles cannot hold a seaway, nor can they effectively escort merchant shipping or rescue convoy sailors whose ship has been sunk.
I agree that innovative new approaches are the way to go. I also agree that other nations are expanding their Navy. I view this two ways. One, they see us as withdrawing from the world stage, so they can’t count on us anymore. And two, these other nations are potential allies of our enemies.
We can’t look at one nation and say, “Oh, they’re not really a threat.” On their own I agree. In a five to seven nation axis against us, it’s a big deal.”
If we want a shot at remaining a global player, we need to be able to project at any given time and enforce our right of free passage.
IMO, that’s exactly what the Spratley mess is all about. China is looking to expand a chokehold on the Western Pacific. Our allies are in jeopardy once that base is complete.
I agree with your emphasis on a more rational deployment of ships necessary for the tasks we’re going to need them for.
The Navy probably needs a top to bottom reassessment.
I also think that it’s vitally important that we give consideration to a situation where our carriers have suffered a devastating attack, and what your solid fall back position would be.
History has proven that we cannot rely on other nations. I do not rely on my neighbor for my defense.
Why only count nuke subs? Diesel/electric subs sink ships quite easily.
We do not have more than the world combined, except in carriers and large warships. One reason for that is the need for PROJECTION of force. We have to be able to keep sea lanes open for our economy. Small warships, missile boats, subs, etc. are quite good at closing strategic waterways.
You know nothing of the requirements to keep sea lanes open, or the consequences of regional control by bad actors.
This.
One of the catalysts for my interest in military history was a 1980s PBS Frontline show (I can hear the eyerolls and ughs on that as I type) called “The Battle for the Norweigan Sea.”
One of the interviewees, I think it was John Lehman actually, said that in order to win we had to keep the sea lanes open, while the Soviets had to keep them closed. And to guess which side had the easier task ...
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.