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.”
Yet. China is going full-speed ahead with development of a greatly-expanded navy.
Plus, the Navy is still our only way to get large numbers of troops and supplies to a war zone.
Agreed. Gotta keep our eyes squarely on China.
And they're cutting their ground forces to pay for it.
Problem is, those ground forces have a significant domestic security (read: "busting dissident heads") mission. And that requires numbers.
China could well find itself in an embarrassing position of fighting a war at sea to a draw...
...and collapsing into civil war at home...
Canada is a good example of where this is desired to go.
The left is looking to disarm the USA so the french can push us around.
A while back they kicked that around that it would be. But, I have not seen anything about that lately. They are building another new Tacoma Narrows bridge next to the one that is down at the south end of the Sound crosses from Tacoma to Gig Harbor and Kitsap County. We are going to have to pay $5 a trip to cross it. But, they want a gas tax to pay for the floating bridge.
Absolutely. However, I think China's attempt to "reunite" with Taiwan will happen when the Chinese leadership needs a foreign adventure to quiet dissent at home. It's the oldest trick in the book for dictators.
Whatever the longer-term consequences of such a situation, we still need to be able to squarely defeat any Chinese attempt to conquer Taiwan and/or challenge our naval supremacy in the Western Pacific.
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.
Our Military is still too small. We can't make up for a lack of troops with improved weapon technology alone. I agree that we don't need the same amount of troops that we once did but we need to have a better balance of new weapons tech and actual troops. We don't have as many troops as we need if China and North Korea decide to attack Taiwan and South Korea.
The recent history of such endeavours is not promising for the dictator.
Dang good point. Military power has no real meaning except in comparison with possible opponents.
No country that the US could realistically expect to get into a war with has a navy capable of providing realistic opposition.
If you think the US navy got downsized during the 90s, compare what happened to the Russian Navy!
Agreed. However, a desperate, nuclear-armed dictatorship intent on foreign adventurism is a nightmare scenario.
Since when is speaking English high on your priority list?
I really think that the endstate for China is a civil war (not a revolution--think more along the lines of our own civil war).
I do so constantly, so it's pretty high. You, conversely, seem to have a hard time understanding it.
Quote: Our greatest enemies don't have (significant) navies.
Not yet by one country in particular is working on it 24/365
It certainly wouldn't be the first time in Chinese history. The Chinese leadership has done a very good propaganda job of glossing over the fact that China has had a lot of historic problems when it comes to actually keeping the country in one piece.
It would be ironic if an attempt to unify with Taiwan (a territory that has only ever been under direct Chinese rule for something like two decades) leads to a massive civil war and fracturing of the current incarnation of the Chinese Empire.
Wait... A government agency is saying it needs more money? You dont say!
Here's the nasty thought, though:
Suppose that both sides in our Civil War had possessed (or had access to) nuclear weapons.
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.