Stark Words About the Navy From a Former Navy Secretary

New York Sun ^ | 27 September 06 | Liz Peek

[LSUfan]

Over lunch at the Four Seasons during a hectic week in New York, a former secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, shared his alarm about America's security.

"We're building only five ships a year; we're on the way to a 150-ship Navy" he says. In his view, that is courting disaster. "That is not enough to cover our security requirements," he says. "Seventy-percent of the world is covered by water. We no longer have basing rights around the world. If you have combat operations going on you need air cover and support 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and that comes from the Navy. To fly one ton of cargo into Iraq takes 14 tons of fuel. That's not cheap. It's got to go by sea, so you have to protect it. The Iranians, for instance, have very good submarines."

[verity]

Put a sock in it, Mr. Lehman.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Webb was the guy who conned Reagan into wasting billions in an attempt to build a 600-ship Navy back in the 80's - when large vessels were already fast becoming obsolete due to advances in anti-ship missile technology. Good to see he's stuck on the same theme - Allen should be able to exploit it. ;)

[LSUfan]

I could not disagree more. Webb is off the reservation, but a 600-ship Navy was exactly what was needed and was one of the things that put pressure on the Sovs in the Cold War, especially having to worry about our carriers. Under Lehman, the Navy developed a new doctrine to take the fight to the enemy in the event of war. A Tomahawk cruise missile is great fired from a cruiser, but fired from an A-6 400 miles out in front of the fleet, it's even better.

When it comes to national security, sadly, Allen cannot hold a candle to Webb in terms of credentials. It is one of the things that has made him vulnerable and is probably a big reason why he won't ever be president.

[SMM48]

Put a sock in it, Mr. Lehman.

I guess it was time for his semi-monthly ego boost.

[LSUfan]

What is particular that Lehmann says do you have a problem with?

[K-oneTexas]

Some figures:  DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER at http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm

 

U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1986-1992

Type	9/30/86	9/30/87	9/30/88	9/30/89	9/30/90	9/30/91	9/30/92
Battleships	3	3	3	4	4	1	-
Carriers	14	14	14	14	13	15	14
Cruisers	32	36	38	40	43	47	49
Destroyers	69	69	69	68	57	47	40
Frigates	113	115	107	100	99	93	67
Submarines	101	102	100	99	93	87	85
SSBNs	39	37	37	36	33	34	30
Command Ships	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
Mine Warfare	21	22	22	23	22	22	16
Patrol	6	6	6	6	6	6	6
Amphibious	58	59	59	61	59	61	58
Auxiliary	23	127	114	137	137	112	102
Surface Warships	217	223^	217	212	203	188	156
Total Active	583	594*	573	592	570	529	471

 

U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1993-1999

Type	9/30/93	9/30/94	9/30/95	9/30/96	9/30/97	9/30/98	8/17/99
Battleships	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Carriers	13	12	12	12	12	12	12
Cruisers	52	35	32	31	30	29	27
Destroyers	37	41	47	51	56	50	52
Frigates	59	51	49	43	42	38	37
Submarines	88	88	83	79	73	65	58
SSBNs	22	18	16	17	18	18	18
Command Ships	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
Mine Warfare	15	16	18	20	24	26	29
Patrol	2	7	12	13	13	13	13
Amphibious	52	38	39	40	41	40	40
Auxiliary	110	94	80	67	52	62	62
Surface Warships	148	127	128	125	128	117*	116*
Total Active	454	404	392	377	365	357^	352^

 

U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 2000 to the present

Dates	9/1/00	11/16/01
Battleships	-	-
Carriers	12	12
Cruisers	27	27
Destroyers	54	54
Frigates	35	35
Submarines	56	54
SSBNs	18	18
Mine Warfare	27	27
Patrol	13	13
Amphibious	39	39
Auxiliary	60	58
Surface Warships	116	116
Total Active	341	337

 More info at site, actuall reflects levels from 1917 - 2001.

 

[Jeff Head]

What Reagabn did in the 80s with the 600 ship Navy helped defeat the Soviet Union. It was no con job, it was a very good offensive, in your face policy that worked. The Soviets tried to keep up, and as with star wars, bankrupted themselves in the process.

We have enemies today, particularly the Red Chinese who are rapidly building a large, modern fleet of very capable surface combatants. I would not discount Lehman's naval message too quickly, however much one does not agree with his politics.

THE RISING SEA DRAGON IN ASIA

[wjcsux]

Consider the source.

[section9]

Lehmann is correct. We need a major shipbuilding program. 5 ships a year simply won't do it. Period. The notion that we can survive with a 150 ship navy is laughable.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Jeff Head]

In the last five years, the PLAN (PRC) has added almost 80 modern, new large surface comabatants to their fleet. We have added 35...but at the same time, we have decommissioned 45, many of which had 10-15 years of service life left and were themselves modern, for a net loss in major surface combatants.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Put a sock in it, Mr. Lehman.


Nope.

Got to agree with him (Lehman) on this one. Just because Bush (his DOD) is correct on fighting the Iraq War (and the Iranians and Koreans in a while I'm sure) doesn't make them correct in all matters.

The Navy, at a stronger level, has to be kept up, or Taiwan AND North Korea AND Japan and Malaysia, etc. are lost to real military threats (from China, for example.) Iran has a limited threat (to the US ports for a while - until their subs are blown up/mines removed - by exploding under merchant and warships!), and to the oil traffic (all the time).

[Wuli]

"Over lunch at the Four Seasons"

Country Club Republican alert.

I do not object to the idea that we should be paying more attention to our declining naval fleet.

However, as a Navy man that concern is not unusual or spectacular coming from Lehman, nor is his view unique to former Navy commanders nor among well informed people in and out of government.

So, yes, I think the interview was somewhat of a "stroking of egos" event for a man who would prefer a more publicly noteworthy life than his present one, centered primarily on his investment fund management company.

Additionally, I had some personal correspondence with his staff during the 9/11 Commission hearings, regarding statements he made about books he had authored. I challenged the accuracy of some the statements wherein he alluded to a certain number of books he had written "on the role of the chief executive in national security matters".

Having known and read all his books, the statment seemed an oversell at best and outright fraud at the worst. I rechecked them all, and came to realize that he counted any book he wrote wherein he made mention of the office of the chief executive and its national security role (even if only a single sentence in a single paragraph) as having written a book on the subject. His staff ended the matter by quoting Lehman's own words as "proof" that he had accomplished what he said he had. I ended my correspondence on the matter by noting to his office that his answers did not inspire confidence in his role on the 9/11 commission.

Of course when I later wrote to his office regarding why he and other commissioners failed to object to the inclusion of Jamie Gorelick; I got no replies.

So, forgive me if I have no praise for Mr. Lehman stating what I and many others think is obvious - we need a larger navy; and we did not need Mr. Lehman's imprimature on that idea, its a totally convinving need without his remarks.

[CharlesWayneCT]

The 600-ship navy, made up of obsolete boats barely capable of fighting the last war and useless for the next, was not a good idea.

Leaders in the Reagan Administration realised the folly of fighting for that goal, and Webb did not. Further, Webb was unable or unwilling to fight for his 600-ship navy, instead quitting his job after only 10 months so he could bad-mouth the administration not only about this, but also about protecting oil tankers in the gulf, which he said would be a failure.

Of course, it was a resounding success. Then Webb claimed that if we used ground troops in Iraq in the 1st gulf war, we would suffer enormous casualties and empower Iran to take over Iraq. He was dead wrong about that one as well, as we were able to liberate Kuwait, and lost but a few hundred soldiers.

He was silent about Somalia, a disaster. But he came back to fight the 2nd Iraq war, claiming NOT that there would be no WMD, but rather that it would take us 50 years to implement a new government and get out. He was wrong about the new government, and while we are taking some time with the troop withdrawal, I hardly think it's going to take another 10 years, much less 50.

[LSUfan]

Okay. I am willing to give you that. Lehman might not be the best guy to speak out on this, but who else IS speaking out on our dwindling fleet?

[LSUfan]

I disagree with your characterization of the 600-ship fleet, however, your thoughts on Webb's stance on Desert Storm are indeed enlightening. I did not know he was in the Sam Nunn camp.

For the record, I am not a Webb fan. I am not sure how his name even got entered into this thread. Webb did not sell Reagan on a 600-ship fleet. He got to the admin late after Lehman left. Reagan was talking 600-ship fleet when he was running in 1980.

[Landru]

An appointee of the Clintigula administration, huh.

Something smells.

...wonder what he wants.

[patton]

Well, this bit is hyperbole:

"The Iranians, for instance, have very good submarines.

[sean327]

Lehman is correct. Naval Power is about projection of that power anywhere, any time. Our power projection capabilities have suffered greatly over the last decade. We are not replacing mothballed ships fast enough. A 150 ship navy will hurt us in the long run. Making the army lighter and faster is a good thing, but making our navy lighter is not.

The Chinese now understand the theory of power projection, and are building ships like there is no tomorrow. If we fail to pull our head out of our a$$ and rebuild and modernize our navy beyond 200 ships, we will lose our supremecy at sea.

[Jeff Head]

Agree with you both. See my posts 8 and 10.