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.”

[RetiredArmy]

You will get no arguments from me friend. I agree with you.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't confuse Paul with the facts. His math skills need a little work.