Posted on 02/19/2005 9:01:30 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's plan for the Navy calls for buying fewer ships, while China, a potential security hot spot, is increasing and repositioning its fleet. It's a prospect that concerns some lawmakers.
The plan is contained in Bush's 2006 budget proposal, which Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Thursday defended, saying the military was closely watching China's moves but that the U.S. Navy remains the pre-eminent fleet.
"The United States Navy ... is the Navy on the face of the Earth that is a true blue water navy," Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "On the other hand, when one looks at trend lines, it is something that we have to think about."
The Pentagon says buying fewer ships than previously planned won't affect combat ability. Previous budgets envisioned purchasing six Virginia-class attack submarines, seven DD(X) destroyers and 10 San Antonio-class amphibious landing ships through 2011.
The 2006 budget calls for three submarines, five destroyers and nine landing ships. It also proposes eliminating one of the Navy's 12 aircraft carriers. Overall, Bush is proposing to increase the Pentagon's budget by $19 billion, to $419 billion next year. The budget calls for buying fewer planes, ships and submarines in favor of spending more on counterterrorism.
Republicans and Democrats argued that cutting back now could jeopardize the Navy's long-term domination of the seas, particularly in light of China's military improvements.
Lawmakers also worry that any reductions would cost them work and jobs at the nation's shipyards.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins, whose state of Maine is home to the Bath Iron Works, one of the Navy's largest ship builders, expressed her reservations to Rumsfeld.
"I recognize that our naval fleet still remains the most technologically advanced in the world. But the decreasing number of ships being procured, particularly in the light of the Chinese buildup, really concerns me," she said.
"Are you concerned about projections that the Chinese fleet may well surpass the American fleet in terms of numbers in just a decade's time?"
"Senator," Rumsfeld replied, "it is an issue that the department thinks about and is concerned about and is attentive to."
One of Rumsfeld's top aides, Douglas Feith, echoed the secretary's views in an appearance later Thursday before the Council on Foreign Relations, a private think tank.
Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, singled out China as among "important powers in the world," whose strategic choices will influence U.S. national security.
"Of the new powers that are rising ... the country that can be expected to have the greatest effect on international relations is China," Feith said.
China has invested heavily in its own defense in the past few years. Prohibited from buying U.S. and European arms under an embargo, Beijing purchased at least $13 billion worth of weapons from Russia between 1993 and 2003, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. China's arsenals now are stocked with Russian-made submarines, destroyers, supersonic fighters and anti-ship missiles, as well as weapons it increasingly is making on its own.
CIA Director Porter Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee this week that China last year increased its ballistic missile forces and rolled out several new submarines.
"Improved Chinese capabilities threaten U.S. forces in the region," Goss said.
© 2005 The Associated Press
PING!
Id suggest investing in advanced supersonic anti-ship missiles(like the ones Russian designed ships & aircraft have).New Aegis equipped destroyers being built by the USN don't even carry the Harpoon.
We'd better listen- not only because China is a growing threat, but also because it's Rumsfeld who's telling us so.
With a population five times that of the United States, this is a game we cannot win with an economicly sound China. I and others have tried to piont that out for a decade or more, but it was to no avail.
Even if China only sparks 50% of it's population's enterprise spirit, that will wind up with it having 750 million people involved. Our economy will will be lucky to see 175 million people involved.
Helping to finance China's revival, jump start it's production capabilities and transfer our technology to them across the board, was the single most suicidal act of any nation at any time in all of recorded history.
I don't have enough expertise to tell, but I doubt it. Building ships takes a long time, so you have to plan many years ahead. And there's always a need to replace or upgrade older ships. But I imagine we are keeping a close eye on Chinese shipbuilding.
Our fleet is virtually the only blue water navy left, as Rumsfeld almost says--but he doesn't want to insult our allies. We need to keep the size manageable, because maintenance and upgrading are important issues too, perhaps more important than the total number of ships.
Susan Collins can suck rocks, as far as I'm concerned. In the past she has been a reasonable team player, but in recent years she has been a PITA. If she wants something from Bush, then she and Olympia Snowe need to return the favor.
A BIG THANKS TO THAT LOSER NIXON
I'd say so. If the Prez wants to slash ten of billions off the budget, I've got a long list for him to consider. .....and none of it involves the military.
China is pre-WW2 Japan.
Opening the lines of communication with China during the cold war was not the problem. The problem occurred around 1992, when the United States decided to move every manufacturing job it could to China.
Along with the manufacturing went technological transfers industrial, missile and nuclear as well as the cash for China to modernize it's economy, and the seeds of our own doom.
Nixon has plenty to be held accountable for. Trade policies that were enacted 20 years after he left office, are not part of it. At least they aren't IMO.
I think Ronald Reagan had the right idea.
If Rummy cuts back the Navy, it will be more of his stupidity. The Navy is our future to stand offshore with missle capability. That can control any country. No more invasion ground troops - that's 'old warfare'. Besides Rummy thinks that car bombs and IEDs threaten us more. Maybe 'free elections' in China will be the next cause to invade.
No, we need to rethink using our navy for humanitarian missions instead of pure defense or power projection.
Let China send their aircraft carriers and frigates for tsunami relief.
Why are only the nations like Australia and the US worried about being everything to the world ?
I agree with a previous poster - we don't need to win, we just need an appropriate amount of power to protect our stance in the world.
Sounds like maybe we should encourage India and Japan to step up to the plate and take over some of the Pacific security demands and increase their fleets.
Both nations are doing just that.India in the Indian Ocean/Arabian Sea/Malacca straits. & Japan in the Pacific/South China sea.The IN plans on having 2 new aircraft carriers ,close to 10 new warships & upto 3 N-subs among other systems by 2015,while the JMSDF is working on amphibious assault ships(which could be modified to carry JSFs) & new Aegis equipped destroyers.The problem is China is expanding it's presence in all these regions-for eg,it's building new naval bases & port facilities in Pakistan & Burma.
What, pray tell, are you on about?
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.