The Last Question is the Most Important Question

Senator Tim Sheehy emphasized rebuilding America’s shipbuilding industry as vital to countering China’s growing naval power during Pete Hegseth’s confirmation hearing.

This past week, the U.S. Senator from Montana, Senator Tim Sheehy, asked the very last, but the single most important question of the day during Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth’s confirmation hearing: “How are you going to lead the reinvigoration of our national shipbuilding industry and restore our Navy?” While much of the rest of the hearing was a spectacle of hysterical accusations and a cavalcade of calumnies, Senator Sheehy’s last question of the day brought up the most important issue facing America’s national defense. Pete Hegseth was well prepared for this question and responded by quoting President Trump, who has said that “shipbuilding will be one of his absolute top priorities” and that Mr. Hegseth, once confirmed, will be pulling this issue up into the Office of the Secretary of Defense so that “the bureaucracy does not strangle important initiatives that need to happen.” Mr. Hegseth went on to say that America “needed to reinvigorate our capacity” by making “rapid investment, rapid fielding,” and then “to incentivize outside entities to fill the gap” as we make historic investment into our defense industrial base.

This may seem like a new challenge for most Americans who are tired of endless wars in the Middle East, so it is worth setting the stage as to why such an effort is urgently needed. It is for three major reasons.

First, the focus of the Pentagon for the last 35 years has been land wars in the Middle East and support of the land war in Ukraine; however, the fight that is brewing from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) will not be a land war. It will be a contest of war at sea across the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean. This struggle will be one where the U.S. will face the great challenge, not seen since WWII, of taking the fight to the PRC and sustaining the sea lines of communication to allies and partners in the region. The Pentagon is in a difficult process of rethinking and recapitalizing its forces as it confronts the intense security threat from the PRC. This burden falls on the totality of the U.S. military, but the U.S. Navy has pride of place in the current cold war with the PRC.

Second, the Indo-Pacific’s geography is tyrannical and poses a major problem for the U.S. military. The distances are so vast that they are difficult to comprehend. For instance, the area of responsibility for the Indo-Pacific, the most likely area of conflict, is one-half of the earth’s surface. From Hollywood to Bollywood, American naval forces would have to travel nearly 10,000 miles and 12 time zones. Forces flowing from San Diego into the First Island Chain, from Japan through Taiwan to Luzon, would need two weeks to transit, while naval forces forward deployed to Guam would need just four days. Time and distance matter for deterrence. To deter the PRC, or in the worst-case scenarios, defeat the PLA Navy, the U.S. needs a naval force that is large enough to allow for forces to be present consistently in the region and for reinforcements to be able to flow forward rapidly to the theater. These critical components, a muscular presence backed by even more muscle, are elements for deterrence and warfighting that the U.S. is desperately short of today.

Third, for the past two decades, the world has watched as the naval balance of power has shifted in the Indo-Pacific from the U.S. to the PRC. This fact has brought into the open the debate about the future of the U.S. Navy, which has been exacerbated by the poor state of the U.S. shipbuilding industry. For example, in April 2024, the U.S. Navy announced significant delays in its shipbuilding schedule. The new Constellation-class frigate may be up to three years late, the aircraft carrier Enterprise (CVN-80) is expected to be 16 to 18 months behind schedule, and the lead boat for the Columbia-class ballistic missile nuclear submarine could be delayed by 12 to 16 months.

Additionally, the Virginia-class Block IV and V fast-attack nuclear submarines are facing delays of two to three years. Furthermore, the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships, the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, and the John Lewis-class fleet replenishment oilers are all “late to contract,” affecting their delivery times. Building vessels is never easy. But U.S. national security depends upon it. The U.S. must possess a shipbuilding industry that is broad, deep, and flexible and can meet the great demands U.S. national security requires.

The balance of naval power in the Western Pacific has undeniably shifted in favor of the PRC, which now maintains an advantage over the U.S. Navy in terms of total warships. The PRC’s overall naval battle force is expected to grow to 395 ships by 2025 and 435 ships by 2030, with most of this growth occurring in major surface combatants, including at least six aircraft carriers. By comparison, the U.S. Navy, which stands at 292 naval combatants as of January 29, 2024, is projected under the Biden administration’s last budget submission for 2024 to include only 290 battle force ships by the end of the fiscal year in 2030.

The issue of reinvigorating our national shipbuilding industry is not limited to the U.S. Navy; the PRC also has the biggest coast guard in the world, standing at 500 ships, some of which are larger (over 10,000 tons) than the U.S. Navy’s largest destroyers. In addition, the PRC has a very large maritime militia of vessels that protect and assist the PRC’s fishing fleet, the largest in the world, as it expands Beijing’s economic interests around the globe. Thus, the U.S. Navy faces not only the PRC’s Navy but also its coast guard, maritime militia, and fishing and merchant fleets, which add formidable capabilities.

Numbers matter for deterrence and warfighting—and that means numbers today, not tomorrow. As it relates to the Constellation-class frigate deal that President Trump negotiated during his first administration, he expressed his frustration in a radio interview on 6 January. He stated that “they were going and really doing a good job, and the generals, you know, the Biden admirals and generals and all of the people that are involved, they started playing around and tinkering and changing the design,” and “when you start making it wider, you start making it slower.” Thus, Trump identified that we have fewer warships than we need for being able to deter the PLA Navy, or in the worst case, to win a war at sea that would be launched by Beijing.

In this context, it is useful to recall U.S. Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger’s remarks in the early 1980s about the new Army M1 Abrams main battle tank. The 120mm main armament was not yet ready, and rather than delaying production, Weinberger recognized that an M1 with a 105mm gun was a significant improvement today—that is, right now—over the Army’s M60A3 to meet the formidable threat from the Warsaw Pact. An improvement in capabilities today on the Central Front was critical, while future improvements would come along in due course.

With the election of Donald Trump and his “America First” agenda, the ongoing debate in Washington about the future of the U.S. Navy may soon find resolution. The outcome will not only affect America’s national defense but will likely also alter the naval forces and security postures of both Asia and Europe. These changes will determine the future of global naval supremacy, whether “freedom of the seas” remains available to all nations or is crushed by the PRC, and a hyper-aggressive PRC remains undeterred to achieve its goal of destroying America.

It is not so clear that a surface fleet is the key to winning naval wars anymore.

Ukraine showed the vulnerability of surface ships to drones of various kinds. Consider the Moskva.

It may be more important to have a robust space force and orbital lift ability than to have numerous and vulnerable surface ships.

“How are you going to lead the reinvigoration of our national shipbuilding industry and restore our Navy?”

Easy first step: Destroy the labor unions.
Other first steps: End everything that interferes with the mission (something Pete clearly understands), starting with DEI (which, these days, has to mean legal protections against lawsuits, etc.), but also unreasonable environmental and job safety rules. The list is probably next to endless.

Plan to train the people you hire: You’ll need a contract for that, so something like paying them $40/hr, but half of that only shows up after working 5 years at the job, so they don’t run-off easily - so $200k. Make it tax free also.

Do the same for commercial ships. Have them built here and flagged here, and that also means loosening up all the crap that we now have.

There is NO WAY that a country with our population and two huge oceans on each side should have to buy nearly all of its vessels from abroad.

“It is not so clear that a surface fleet is the key to winning naval wars anymore.“

_________

We are developing, and have to some extent, defense against and offense with drones and it is vital that we have ships to transport many drones and supporting equipment. I have participated in a few of the truly awesome concepts to win multi-company contracts. The country is of course further advanced than we let on, but our support structure has been deliberately stifled. I participated in contributions to the massive and versatile phased array antennas that can control countless drones, both ours and theirs. Ships play a vital role in the drone technology around the world.

We let the genie out of the lamp and there’s no stuffing him back in.

That was “us” that set China up to be the industrial power it is today by moving much of our industry and manufacturing, even in high tech areas there in the 70s, 80s... It was “us” that gave them most favored trade status for decades even if there were severe unfair trade practices by them. It was “us” that pushed for their admittance to the WTO.

American greed.

In the meantime, China has become the manufacturing hub for the world (Europe too), not just us.

China has already left us in the dust, as in completely crushed us, in terms of being a manufacturing and industrial base.

https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/20858.jpeg

China today is now crawling on our back regards key industries in defense and they are catching up in the R&D, sciences, engineering, etc.

https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/STEM-Graphic-1-HD-1536x1159.png

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Patent-Grants-by-Country-of-Origin.html

This is a macro level trend that can’t be stopped. They have already passed us in terms of PPP, and they will pass us in the next 5 years in terms of GDP.

https://cdn.howmuch.net/articles/PPP-GDP-2018-ff5e.png

1.2 billion people with a government that has growth oriented policies vs. 320 million people in an nation where we worry about BLM, LGBT, climate change and creating a matriarchy...

To deter the PRC, or in the worst-case scenarios, defeat the PLA Navy, the U.S. needs a naval force that is large enough to allow for forces to be present consistently in the region and for reinforcements to be able to flow forward rapidly to the theater.

Ships powered by small nukes are the only reasonable answer to the demands of distance as is laser defense against drones such that a supply of anti-aircraft (anti-drone) weapons is no longer needed. I can't see justifying a massive shipbuilding effort without both capabilities perfected.

In the next 20 years, you’re going to see major changes regards a shift of power on the global stage from the US to China.

China will become the worlds dominant power, even militarily.

We will try to cling to power through alliances regards security, trade etc. We will try to leverage the Euros, good luck with that one.

The question is if the US will attempt to go to war over this (Tawion for example) while we still have a military advantage, or if we accept this and assume second place peacefully as they displace us more and more.

Don’t leave off the current microwave capability to drop drones.

If it works, great. The point is that a massive effort to build ship hulls, while economically needed, is militarily futile against scads of hypersonic drones without the ability to remain on station for a year while taking them ALL down. That is a new kind of marine warfare, where detection and jamming technologies become prominent in addition to nuclear powered beam weapons. Then there's defense against underwater drones. I don't mind at all industrial R&D in shipbuilding, but dedicating a material capability and our young people to those ends demands that such delivery systems be survivable.

“First, the focus of the Pentagon for the last 35 years has been land wars in the Middle East and support of the land war in Ukraine; however, the fight that is brewing from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) will not be a land war. It will be a contest of war at sea across the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean. This struggle will be one where the U.S. will face the great challenge, not seen since WWII, of taking the fight to the PRC and sustaining the sea lines of communication to allies and partners in the region.”

As Vizzini (Wallace Shawn) famously said in “The Princess Bride”, “You fell victim to one of the classic blunders... the most famous [of which] is ‘never get involved in a land war in Asia’.”

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.