Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Can the Middle Ages Teach Us About US Naval Strategy?
The Diplomat ^ | March 12, 2015 | Franz-Stefan Gady

Posted on 03/12/2015 11:35:30 AM PDT by C19fan

“To wage war, you need first of all money; second, you need money, and third, you also need money,” goes the famous saying of Raimondo Graf Montecúccoli, an Italian who served in the armies of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations.

Consequently, with the debate on the U.S. Navy’s budget for the next fiscal year raging on (see here and here), it is perhaps time to assess not how much money is spent on the American navy, but whether it is spent wisely. The discussion surrounding China’s anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities and the costs that these capabilities impose on the U.S. Navy are especially worth examining in that regard.

(Excerpt) Read more at thediplomat.com ...


TOPICS: History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: carrier; godsgravesglyphs; holyromanempire; middleages; montecuccoli; navy; renaissance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last
To: StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; decimon; 1010RD; 21twelve; 24Karet; 2ndDivisionVet; ...

21 posted on 02/14/2016 6:15:00 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Here's to the day the forensics people scrape what's left of Putin off the ceiling of his limo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: C19fan

I came across that first quote two weeks ago when I was reading “Makers Of Modern Strategy From Machiavelli To The Nuclear Age.” It immediately rang a bell.


22 posted on 02/14/2016 7:27:19 PM PST by Sawdring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy; All

So do these Chinese and Iranian students run home and try to destroy the US, or do they try hard to just stay here enjoying living in the US?


23 posted on 02/14/2016 8:54:17 PM PST by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Greek fire works well against Moslems.


24 posted on 02/14/2016 8:57:07 PM PST by MUDDOG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin

Not really. They try hard to stay. Iranian students love it in the US. No religious police.

China is more capitalist than the US so Chinese students don’t mind going home. They are very proud of the progress in China, as they should be.


25 posted on 02/15/2016 4:55:47 AM PST by AppyPappy (If you really want to irritate someone, point out something obvious they are trying hard to ignore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ; Mariner; C19fan; Marko413
TalonDJ: "And sometimes that risk was realized.
Carriers have ALWAYS been vulnerable."

By 1945, Kamikazes were the greatest threat to US carriers, which were then defended by a ring of much less expensive destroyer picket ships.
The result was, though sometimes damaged, none of the big Essex class carriers were sunk.

That concept remains today in the Carrier Strike Group:

WWII era destroyer picket ship:

Today's carrier strike groups, in review:


And let us not forget the US Marines' capabilities of dealing with Pacific islands, real or artificial:

26 posted on 02/15/2016 5:34:38 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ

Just to keep things “apples for apples” the cost of a ww2 CV and it’s air group are a fraction of what they cost today. Lose 1 CVN and that’s a very significant loss, and 1 that won’t be made good for many years.

What we need to do is disperse our aviation assets on multiple, lower cost platforms mounting unmanned aircraft.


27 posted on 02/15/2016 5:44:54 AM PST by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy; TalonDJ
Tallguy: "Just to keep things 'apples for apples' the cost of a ww2 CV and it's air group are a fraction of what they cost today."

Actually, no.
The new Essex class carriers in 1942 cost circa $80 million which, in today's money, can be calculated (depending on methodology) as anywhere from one to eight billion dollars.

That's roughly the cost of today's Nimitz class carriers, maybe 20% less than the new Fords, ten of which planned for completion over the next circa 25 years.

The difference, of course, is that in 1942 the US was ramping up to spend about 40% of our GDP on defense, whereas today that number is more like 3%.
40% of GDP can buy dozens of carriers with over 1,000 major combat ships.
3% of GDP buys... not so much.

28 posted on 02/15/2016 6:52:02 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
>>>>1942 cost circa $80 million.

Reference?

29 posted on 02/15/2016 6:59:07 AM PST by central_va
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: central_va
central_va: "Reference? "

Sorry, here it is.
It says the Essex class carriers cost $68 to $78 million in 1942, which was supposedly equal to $1 billion today.

However, today's economy & money are vastly different from 1942, and a more accurate evaluation can be found here.

It shows several different methods for calculating today's worth, but I think only the largest number ($8 billion) really measures the relative economic impact of building such ships.

For Nimitz class carriers, the price is listed here as $4.5 billion.
For the new Ford class, the price is listed here as $10.4 billion.

Therefore, I argue that today's carriers are roughly the same economic burden as were the big Essex class of WWII.
Again: the big difference is not so much the unit cost, but the fact that compared to 40% of GDP in WWII, today's defense budget is closer to 3%, for actual military spending, as opposed to related expenses like intelligence.

Essex class:

Ford class:

30 posted on 02/15/2016 7:49:14 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: central_va
central_va: "Reference?"

By the way, I should mention than military spending as a percent of gdp can be calculated any number of ways, and different methods produce different results.
So, some results for today's & projected spending approach 5%, which in overall terms sounds like a lot.
True spending of 5%, in today's world represents every general & admiral's wet dream for the future.
It would definitely solve many excruciating choices they have to make as things now stand.

But the real number, I've argued, is closer to 3%, and that can be verified here.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies puts US military spending at 3%.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute puts US military spending at 3.5%.

I think the 3% estimate is closer to reality, especially because it uses the same methodology as used for historical numbers such as those in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

31 posted on 02/16/2016 5:05:41 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

The USA is basically an island nation, a huge one but with no real land threat. A serious argument could be made that the USA doesn’t need much of an Army at all. All defense spending should be on the Navy and the Marines. The Navy could take over the Air Forces functions also.


32 posted on 02/16/2016 5:21:02 AM PST by central_va
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: central_va
central_va: "A serious argument could be made that the USA doesn't need much of an Army at all."

And indeed, that was exactly US strategy in the years before, say, 1940.
Presidents like the two Roosevelts loved the Navy, and did what they could to support it, even at the expense of Army men & equipment.
One result was that while the Navy was fighting & winning great battles in 1942, the Army was still struggling to figure itself out well into 1943.

My Dad's WWII division, for example, spent years in training for Pacific beach landings before their trials by fire in 1944 & '45.
As a result, Army strength has been maintained at much higher levels... until quite recently.
Still, Army and Air Force combined are budgeted double that of Navy & Marines, perhaps reflecting requirements of the War on Terror.
However, I also note that of the top 15 military development programs listed here, only one relates directly to the Army.

Historical military spending to gdp (lower blue line), since Korea:
>

33 posted on 02/16/2016 8:16:17 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

“Thirdly, everyone seems to forget: The Price of a Nuclear Aircraft Carrier is Total War. Nukes and all.

And, who wants to go there against the USA? “


Who is the President?


34 posted on 02/16/2016 7:32:55 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

This topic was posted 03/12/2015, thanks again C19fan.

35 posted on 11/21/2022 10:21:25 AM PST by SunkenCiv (Imagine an imaginary menagerie manager imagining managing an imaginary menagerie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson