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. Navys 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 spendings 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. Todays 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.
3 - "Same crap I heard in the 80's and the answer is no."
Really - and did you see this in the 80's too?
Bell Labs has moved its labs to China and India for research, and to
Ireland for manufacturing.
What is BLRC?
Founded on Mar. 23, 2000, Bell Labs Research China (BLRC) is the first
research laboratory Bell Labs established outside the United States.
BLRC is a center of technical excellence and innovation to strengthen
the support to Lucent business units and customers in the China and Asia
Pacific region. It primarily concentrates its efforts on applications.
It develops innovative ideas, implements them by prototypes, and
transfers these results to Lucent product houses and Lucent Worldwide
Services (LWS). BLRC also do fundamental research in the fields of
Internet technologies, software, wireless communications, optical
networks, computer science, and applied mathematic
Bell Labs Research, India, launched in October 2004, is located in
Bangalore, India's silicon city. The research center is an integral part
of Bell Labs, Lucent's world-renowned research and development arm. More
than any other institution, Bell Labs has helped weave the technological
fabric of modern society. Its scientists and engineers have made seminal
scientific discoveries, and have launched technological revolutions that
have reshaped the way people live, work and play.
Technologies originating at Bell Labs have largely defined the modern
era: transistors, lasers, communications satellites, digital
transmission, touch-tone phones, cellular telephony, fiber-optic
communications, digital encryption of data, fax machines, modems, the
UNIX operating system, the C language, and many more. Bell Labs has
produced 11 Nobel laureates, and Bell Labs scientists receive more than
2 patents a day.
The research program at the Bell Labs center in India will continue the
tradition of innovation and scientific excellence that is synonymous
with the Bell Labs name. Our focus will be on developing
state-of-the-art software systems for enabling the world's leading
wireline and wireless service providers to deploy and manage high-speed,
highly reliable networks.
We intend to work with the best and brightest minds produced by India's
world-class educational institutions to deliver a continuous stream of
software innovations to Lucent' products and services portfolio. Due to
the explosive growth that the communications industry has witnessed in
the past few years, our customers in the region face unique challenges.
We will partner closely with Lucent's customers as they deploy new
technologies (e.g., cellular data), and devise innovative solutions to
their most challenging problems.
Bell Labs Research in Ireland
Bell Labs has opened a new central research centre in Ireland in 2004.
The centre will serve as a global focal point for research in the
telecommunications and supply chain fields.
Seeded in part by the Industrial Development Agency in Ireland, the new
research centre is expected to bring significant benefits to both Lucent
and Ireland. For Lucent, it will help deliver even quicker
time-to-market cycles for new technologies and streamline our platforms,
ensuring our products are the most cost-efficient to manufacture and
support and for our customers to deploy and maintain.
Bell Labs Ireland will focus on research in the field of engineering,
manufacturing and supply chain technologies. These research areas will
encompass emerging network technologies, RF circuits and systems,
photonics, test and reliability technologies and value chain optimisations.
The Bell Labs Centre is located in the Lucent Technologies facility in
the Blanchardstown Industrial estate. See the directions below for more
information.
How to Get to Blanchardstown
Thanks for the ping.
Welcome back, PD!
PD
I'm confused by your original line that "wars will not be fought man to man no more but economy to economy". I agree wrecking some enemies economy will be part of the plan but no more fighting man to man??? Is that what you really meant?
If so then why are we building tanks airplanes etc??
ping for later
Ping
You have a strange definition of majority. Let me guess, public school math?
That's sad.
O.k. they are the second largest US bond holder. Is that better you pompeous a**?? I've noticed you have a way with belittling posters.
You and I will never agree on free traitors anyway.
Great, now what percentage do they own?
I've noticed you have a way with belittling posters.
Only posters that make stupid mistakes. Have I belittled you before?
Quiote: Only posters that make stupid mistakes. Have I belittled you before?
Oh you are so so funny and smug. A perfect example.
As a consequence, foreign ownership of the U.S. national debt has risen to $1.8 trillion or half of the privately held debt. A decade ago, foreigners owned just over 20 percent of the debt.
The Japanese are the largest foreign holders of U.S. Treasury securities, with a total $720 billion in September, up from $317 billion just four years earlier. The Chinese have become the second largest holders, with $174 billion worth, a sharp increase from $62 billion in Sept. 2000.
Let's see, if $1.8 trillion is half the privately owned debt, total privately owned debt must be $3.6 trillion. Going slowly enough for you to follow slots? If the Chinese own $174 billion, that would be less than 5%. Just a little less than your statement that they hold the majority.
They have us by the balls? If you say so. Oversimplification? Yes. Basically true? Not even close.
Hope I wasn't too funny and smug. Try not to be so wrong in the future. You know how I hate belittling posters.
We don't have a real opponent anymore.
True, but things change. Your analysis is based on the present status, the political regime presently in power (just barely). Let the left get back in power and we conservatives are not going to be so all-confident.
Imagine if the Vietnam anti-war appeaser and his party had gotten back in power. Clinton's dismantling of our military and nuclear capability would be minor compared to Skerry and the dims had they gotten in power.
In the days after WW1, Britain smug and confident, who could have foreseen the appeaser Chamberlain and the rise of Hitler in just a few years?
When you owe the bank $100, the bank owns you.
When you owe the bank $3,000,000,000,000, you own the bank.
The cash flow from those securities is the only thing allowing China to refinance its nonperforming loans. If we're not paying them, then the ChiComs go broke in a matter of months.
The Reagan build-up of our military was actually reversed by Papa Bush under the delusion that global marxism was dead. Yeah, Klintoon was certainly an abomination, but neocons aren't true conservatives either.
Good point. The utter lack of foresight and/or imagination on the part of our representatives is truly frightening. Here we are, just waking up to the threat posed by China, and still downsizing the military! Amazing.
FWIW - I agree we have cut too much, given our objectives. From the USAF side, our projected buy of Raptors is down to a laughable amount. Yes, it will be a great plane - but we're buying so few! The C-17 is another example. It was supposed to provide strat/tactical airlift - but we haven't bought very many & the C-141 has gone away, so plan on strat lift only for the C-17.
As for the 'quality vs quantity' arguement - I prefer both. And if our percentage of federal spending remained the same, we could afford both.
I do not believe the world is a much safer place than 20 years ago. The Chinese worry me. Russia is trending bad after I thought we had a chance to make it a solid ally. And the GWOT may become more critical as nukes proliferate.
Bottom line - I don't like cutting the Navy back so far. I don't like the limited buys the USAF has made. I worry about the numbers of boots on the ground that the Army can deliver. If these were cuts of necessity, I would accept them & hope we get lucky - but these are cuts made so politicians can fully fund the DoE, PBS and pay entitlement programs that always expand.
Chamberlain reasoned from a position of weakness. While you are correct that an extended dose of liberal leadership could weaken this nation, it would not be to the degree that would allow our opponents to gain advantage before they would again be replaced. Clinton is a great example. All he did was weaken our military to the point where it would be hard-pressed for us to kick two nation's asses at the same time, where it was then(and about to be again) a piece of cake.
It would take 20 years of liberal leadership in America for our potential opponents to gain parity with America. That is not going to happen.
Aegis, baby!
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.