Is America Too Poor To Remain A Military Superpower ?

AmericanEconomicAlert.org ^ | Wednesday, March 30, 2005 | William R. Hawkins

[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.”

[1rudeboy]

Smug b-tard. Don't you know that pointing-out that someone is wrong belittles them? Show some humility.

[superiorslots]

I don't mind having somone point out if I am wrong.

You and toddsterpatriot just have a habit of adding a snide remark along with the message. Many other posters have pointed this out.

[1rudeboy]

Tough luck. Maybe another website would be more suitable for someone of your delicate sensitivities.

[Toddsterpatriot]

You and toddsterpatriot just have a habit of adding a snide remark along with the message.

Well, if your weren't so sure of yourself, and if your error wasn't so egregious. I mean, come on, you said majority which most people would take to mean over 50% and the truth was less than 5%.

And then you added this " Is that better you pompeous a**??" I'm not sure, does that mean I'm an ass from Pompeii?

And this "You and I will never agree on free traitors anyway" So, really, who's being snide?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe there is a Girl Scout website where they won't make him cry?

[unkus]

Our greatest enemies come from within. Those outside will just be patient.

[superiorslots]

Quote: Maybe there is a Girl Scout website where they won't make him cry?


Comments like the one above show your true character. You and 1rudeboy are nothin but immature cyberspace bullies who have a habit of ganging up on other freepers you disagree with and belittle with snide comments. Anyone can look at your past replies on this site and judge for themselves.

I have met many people in my lifetime and have become a good judge of character or the lack of in people.
I would venture to say other other than the internet you probably have no friends in real life or to be more specific true friends. People do not like to hang around with your types in real life. Of course, you will make a snide comment about this but we know the truth don't we??

Feel free to make your childless comments to my post on future threads but sorry I have no need to respond to any more.

[Toddsterpatriot]

who have a habit of ganging up on other freepers you disagree with and belittle with snide comments who don't know the difference between 5% and 50%.

Guilty. Now why don't you go make up some more facts before you cry yourself to sleep?

[A CA Guy]

The government will confiscate at least a third of all private wealth in the country through the death tax in the next 20 or so years.

No worries!

[1rudeboy]

You and 1rudeboy are nothin but immature cyberspace bullies who have a habit of ganging up on other freepers you disagree with and belittle with snide comments.

Without us, these trade/economic threads would be a bundle of inaccuracies, statistical sleight-of-hand, scientific error, deliberate misinformation, and outright falsehoods.

How else can you explain the difference between 5% and 50%? Even if we take your error and view in the light most positive to your position, it is still well outside the margin. In these cases, I suggest that the person in error has the following options: claim that he or she mis-spoke, or spoke figuratively, or exaggerated, or admit he or she pulled the number out of their arse. You have done nothing but claim "injury." Small wonder, when being wrong becomes a simple "disagreement" (your description). You should expect to be bullied.

[1rudeboy]

The rule-of-thumb I follow (most times) on these sort of threads is to wait until the word "traitor" is used, and after it is, all weapons are free. Imagine my surprise that it occurred on this thread. I hadn't thought so.

I am astounded that folks presume they can use that word, yet run-away whimpering when insulted.

[Paul Ross]

Splintering of Chinese communist control? Won't happen. They control the guns, as Mao said. And their propaganda, which pushes a strident Chinese triumphalism and global hegemony is lapped up by the impoverished masses. There are ZERO signs of their imminent crack up, despite the delusional beliefs of the psuedo-free-traders. They want to believe it will happen...but that doesn't make it so.

Meanwhile, there is clear evidence right here of GWB's defense budget crack up. Betraying all the promises he made in the campaign in 2000. Too much being squandered on domestic 'priorities',...so much so that it is sucking the life-blood out of maintaining our ability to maintain a legitimate strategic defense structure into the 21st century.

[FierceKulak]

bump

[Paul Ross]

JFK Overhaul Work Stopped
By WILLIAM H. MCMICHAEL

The Navy has canceled a scheduled $335 million overhaul of the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy, a move that likely cements plans to inactivate or decommission the flattop and reduce the Navy's formidable carrier fleet from 12 to 11.

The Navy emphasized it has not firmed up its ultimate plans for the Mayport, Fla.-based Kennedy, to the disappointment of Florida’s congressional delegation and proponents of a 12-carrier Navy. "The final decision on the ship's decommissioning and inactivation status is still pending," said Lt. Chris Servello, a Navy spokesman.

The Navy, however, had long planned the overhaul, saying it was necessary to extend the aged carrier's service life to 2018.

"This was expected, and it won't change my approach," said Rep. Anders Crenshaw, R-Fla., whose district includes Mayport, in a statement supplied by his office. "I will continue to work through the process to make certain we maintain a sound carrier strategy that benefits our national security. The Navy still hasn't made a convincing argument for reducing the carrier force. As the Navy has repeatedly stated, quantity has a quality all its own."

The decision, announced Friday, also officially halts the home port shift associated with the overhaul. Work was to begin pierside at Kennedy's Mayport, Fla., home port this spring and then continue at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Va., with final work to be done back in Mayport, Servello said.

In an effort to forestall the economic blow Mayport would suffer if Kennedy were mothballed, the Florida delegation also has lobbied the Navy to upgrade the base to handle a nuclear carrier.

In March, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vern Clark told a House Appropriations subcommittee that the Navy intends to have two nuclear carrier home ports on the East Coast, and that he supports moving a nuclear carrier to Mayport.

In addition, Florida's delegation introduced legislation earlier this year to require the Navy to maintain a 12-carrier fleet. That legislation has not yet been taken up by the respective House and Senate committees.

Two years ago, the Navy spent $300 million on the first phase of an overhaul on the carrier that Navy officials admitted in 2002 had been long neglected. After a 2004 deployment completed in December, the Navy planned to finish the job for an estimated $335 million. The bulk of the work was to be done at Norfolk Naval Shipyard.

A Navy official said that money would be spent on other maintenance projects to lessen the blow to industry.

ROOOOOIGGGHT!!!! When Pigs Fly!!!

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am astounded that folks presume they can use that word, yet run-away whimpering when insulted.

He used that word, but we're the snide and immature ones?

[Paul Ross]

How could have our economy in real terms doubled in the last 20 years?

Clearly, it hasn't since we are losing the ability to sustain real, industrial-strength muscles. The country is wasting away. And you get a little sense of what is happening with inflation, just looking at the numbers from above, just using "2000" dollars. Think what the real comparison would be using 1986 dollars.

[Paul Ross]

Overstretch is a legitimate concern for our military, even if the situation is nowhere near as dire as liberals and the MSM make it out to be.

Actually, it is the liberals and the MSM who are the ones constantly trying to cover up the issue (along with pseudo-free-traders), and push for ever-more cuts. GWB and Rummy are playing right into their script. More cuts will make everything more expensive on a per unit basis, hence more political pressure for cuts to counter the "overruns." 15 years ago GHWB could have given the go-ahead and deployed Brilliant Pebbles for a measley $18 billion. Now look where we are at today, continuing to go down Xlinton's phony-and wasteful-- NMD architecture:

Missile Defense Beset By Budget Shortfalls: Audit
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

U.S. missile defense programs are beset by rising costs and budget shortfalls that are likely to grow worse in the coming years, an audit by a congressional agency warned March 31.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said Missile Defense Agency was $370 million over budget last year, which resulted in work being deferred until new funding could be raised this year, the audit said.

"In the future, MDA (Missile Defense Agency) will likely face increased funding risks," it said.

Although MDA plans to request $10 billion a year to develop defenses against ballistic missiles, Pentagon weapons programs will likely be competing for a shrinking share of the total federal budget, the audit said.

Moreover, MDA is burdened by unanticipated growth in costs, citing plans this year to spend an additional $1.5 billion to develop a prototype aircraft for its Airborne Laser program.

Funding requirements will grow even more as components of the missile defense system are fielded, the report said.

The GAO said MDA accomplished what needed to be done to put in place an initial missile defense capability last year.

But the system remains "uncertain and unverified" because a number of flight tests were postponed until 2005, and the MDA has not successfully tested the system fully, it said.

[Always Right]

The country is wasting away. And you get a little sense of what is happening with inflation, just looking at the numbers from above, just using "2000" dollars. Think what the real comparison would be using 1986 dollars.

Ummm, the purpose of using '2000 dollars' is to account for inflation. The numbers would be different if you used '1986 dollars', but relative terms it would show identical results.

[Paul_Denton]

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. I also might ad CUT THE F**KING FUNDING TO THE UN! GET THE UN OUT OF THE US AND OUR OUT OF THE UN.

[Paul_Denton]

We could rebuild the Navy much like our wonderful new commissar in charge of the socialist state here in the People's Republic of Washington state and her communist friends in the THE STATE have just suggested. They want to raise the gasoline tax by 15 cents over the next few years to raise billions to build a new floating bridge across Lake Washington to carry traffic from Seattle to Bellevue and back. To replace the one there now, the 520 bridge. Nothing like throwing more tax dollars around.

I utterly despise this state's government, especially that OLD UGLY WHORE GOVERNOR GREG-GORE. They always waste money. Stadiums, schools, other SOCIALIST PIECES OF SH!T and the fact that an Al Queda Terrorist almost snuck through here to blow up LAX does not get to their sh!tty heads!