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.”
"Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause."~ Victor Hugo
The Chinese leadership is, at least, rational. They don't really have a desire to start a nuclear war over Taiwan. They could always miscalculate, though.
That being said, if the country goes to hell in a handbag, God only knows which regional warlord(s) ends up with nukes under their control and who they decide to aim them at.
I'm pretty pessimistic. Barring some sort of democratic revolution in China (unlikely) a confrontation between us and them is inevitable in the next decade or so.
Under the pressure of a civil war, rationality may fade.
Rememebr that we routinely need to fight one war, some small skirmishes, and detter other wars. Today we are at war in Iraq, while the Navy attempts to deter Iran, North Korea, and China.
As far as our Navy, one problem we have is people are getting accustomed to thinking in terms of our latest wars, the two Iraq wars and Afghanistan. They were not wars that the Navy had that much of a role in...plus, consider the poor fighting quality of the our opponents. We went through them like a hot butter knife.
We must never lose sight of what it is like to fight a real opponent. In a real war. Never forget WW2.
Our Navy played a tremendous role in both theaters in WW2. The Navy got the troops to the beachead in Europe, plus bombardment, at North Africa, Sicily, Salerno, Anzio, Normandy, and the French Rivera. And the Pacific? Good heavens, the entire campaign was conducted on the backs of the Navy.
Admirals (we speak of Navy here) always fight with the last war mentality. We best not judge future opponents by these camel jockey yahoos.
Incorrect.
We can, and already have made up for the "lack of troops" you suggest.
Should China and North Korea decide to attack Taiwan, our Subs will block their ports and harbors until they can buy or sell nothing. Should either try Nukes, we will turn their countries into smoking holes in the ground.
Our Military has never been more powerful or effective as it is right now. Wars will not be fought man-against-man anymore, they will be fought economy-against-economy. If China cannot ship products, they cannot purchase the means to defend themselves. When the Captains of Chinese shipping vessels refuse to leave port after we blew up the first 20 or so that tried, the war would be effectively over.
We don't have a real opponent anymore. You cant buy gas for your weapons with Monopoly money.
Military defensive superpower YES. World military occupying robo-cop NO.
I saw today the EU is planning sanctions against the United States. I've always thought the EU would end with another war in Europe, but maybe they'll remain united in their hatred for the U.S.
Sorry, I've got to disagree with you. The federal government should exist to fund national defense, lighthouses and the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame!(/s)
Quote: Wars will not be fought man-against-man anymore, they will be fought economy-against-economy.
If your theory is correct(which it is not) then why don't we just get rid of our military and rely soley on nukes???
If we don't like what you are doing we'll nuke ya.
Also china holds the majority of our treasuries. In a sense they US by the balls. Oversmplication of course but bascially true in a nutshell.
heh ... moldova didn't even make that list.
I really can't believe how this author danced around the REAL truth:
Social welfare is swamping the ability of the U.S. to afford to defend the nation.
The entire article gave facts and data but failed to say what the clear reality is--the cost of social welfare has grown so heavily that it eats up 67% of all spending.
The horrendous decline in outlays for the military, as stated in this article, is due to the extreme rise in the social welfare percent of budget.
America is abdicating its sovereignty. Soon, Russia or China will be able to blackmail us into submission and surrender. We no longer have the WILL to defend our nation.
I think the ONLY thing uniting the EU is hatred of the USA.
From my trips abroad, the EUropphiles worship the euro but only as a counter to the US Dollar.
The Europhiles, worship the united states of EU but only as a counter to the United States of America.
Hating the USA is the formula uniter for EU politicians. When french and german politicians got in trouble at the polls, they just wheeled out anti-american sloganeering.
bump
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.