Posted on 03/31/2005 12:01:29 PM PST by 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.”
Country / GDP per Head
See USA #3 and China waaaaay down the list.
Luxembourg 55,100
Norway 37,800
United States 37,800
Bermuda 36,000
Cayman Islands 35,000
San Marino 34,600
Switzerland 32,700
Denmark 31,100
Iceland 30,900
Austria 30,000
Canada 29,800
Ireland 29,600
Belgium 29,100
Australia 29,000
Hong Kong 28,800
Netherlands 28,600
Japan 28,200
Aruba 28,000
United Kingdom 27,700
France 27,600
Germany 27,600
Finland 27,400
Monaco 27,000
Sweden 26,800
Italy 26,700
European Union 25,700
Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) 25,000
Liechtenstein 25,000
Jersey 24,800
Singapore 23,700
Taiwan 23,400
United Arab Emirates 23,200
Faroe Islands 22,000
Spain 22,000
New Zealand 21,600
Qatar 21,500
Man, Isle of 21,000
Guam 21,000
Greenland 20,000
Guernsey 20,000
Greece 20,000
Israel 19,800
Macau 19,400
Cyprus 19,200
Andorra 19,000
Slovenia 19,000
Kuwait 19,000
Brunei 18,600
Portugal 18,000
Korea, South 17,800
Malta 17,700
Gibraltar 17,500
French Polynesia 17,500
Virgin Islands 17,200
Bahrain 16,900
Puerto Rico 16,800
Bahamas, The 16,700
British Virgin Islands 16,000
Barbados 15,700
Czech Republic 15,700
New Caledonia 15,000
Martinique 14,400
Hungary 13,900
Slovakia 13,300
Oman 13,100
Uruguay 12,800
Northern Mariana Islands 12,500
Estonia 12,300
Saudi Arabia 11,800
Netherlands Antilles 11,400
Mauritius 11,400
Lithuania 11,400
Argentina 11,200
Poland 11,100
Antigua and Barbuda 11,000
South Africa 10,700
Croatia 10,600
Latvia 10,200
Chile 9,900
Turks and Caicos Islands 9,600
Trinidad and Tobago 9,500
Costa Rica 9,100
Palau 9,000
Botswana 9,000
Malaysia 9,000
Mexico 9,000
Russia 8,900
Saint Kitts and Nevis 8,800
Anguilla 8,600
French Guiana 8,300
World 8,200
Guadeloupe 8,000
American Samoa 8,000
Seychelles 7,800
Bulgaria 7,600
Brazil 7,600
Thailand 7,400
Namibia 7,200
Romania 7,000
Iran 7,000
Saint Pierre and Miquelon 6,900
Tunisia 6,900
Macedonia 6,700
Turkey 6,700
Libya 6,400
Panama 6,300
Kazakhstan 6,300
Colombia 6,300
Bosnia and Herzegovina 6,100
Belarus 6,100
Dominican Republic 6,000
Algeria 6,000
Reunion 5,800
Fiji 5,800
Turkmenistan 5,800
Samoa 5,600
Gabon 5,500
Dominica 5,400
Saint Lucia 5,400
Ukraine 5,400
Peru 5,100
Nauru 5,000
Cook Islands 5,000
Grenada 5,000
China 5,000
Remember the little tricks, like how there were never any homeless people unless a Republican was President? Or how Democrats are now so concerned about the deficit, now that they are not doing the spending?
When Republicans are in charge, everything supposedly goes to hell, while when Democrats are elected, all is peachy. Thats just what we have to deal with when we defeat those bozos.
Our grearest enemies don't have the thousands of miles of coastline on two oceans to defend as we do. Nor is one of their states (not territories) out in the middle of the Pacific ocean.
Who do we have to defend our coastline from?
"... don't think that this nation is going to crash and burn in the near future."
Well .. I don't either .. and I do agree we do have some major problems - because they have been ignored for years and years.
I do know the left likes to dump a multiple of issues all at once to make it appear as though things are a total mess. I suspect Bush being re-elected has been the catalyst.
Did I say we needed to get rid of our Navy? Technologies change, and so do the threats. We must adapt.
Could somebody explain to me why we are selling F-16 fighters to Pakistan, the nation that most likely currently houses Osama bin Laden and is led by a military dictator?
I just don't get it.
If they had found bin Laden for us...fine, F-16s as a reward. If they were a democratic republic, fine--an Islamic ally...but they are neither.
Don't forget about the paleocons too. They also hate Bush.. You are right, his reelection has been the catalyst for these types of articles. Never mind our border has been opened for god knows how long, never mind we can't change 40 plus years of the gimmies overnight, never mind our education has been nothing but crap for a long time also, and never mind that we are in a middle of a war. War costs a lot of money..
Hahahaahahahaa...
Adapt or die..
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.
Most of our enemies don't have the open, free to walk across souther border like we have wide open either.
Is that gonna be a toll bridge?
Touche, my friend :-)
You're just trying to get Willie's goat, ain't ya.
I know you're right .. I just don't like it much.
You have FReepmail!!
Who me???
You must mean the type that still believes in maintaining our national sovereignty, instead of outsourcing our military capabilities to the WTO global police force.
Right. We've got to decide as a nation if we want to use our hard-earned dollars for the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame (true) or for national defense.
No, I meant the type that is much given to hysteria, and is woefully ignorant of what the military is, what it does, and how it does it. Are you developmentally disabled, or is English not your native language?
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.