Why Romney’s Right: Many Cheap Ships Safer Than Few Expensive Ones

Barack Obama lost the debate in Boca Raton last night. It must have been the altitude.

The president patronized, interrupted, and mocked Republican challenger Mitt Romney throughout the night. In return, Romney acted presidential, and may have put this election away.

A key moment of the night in this final policy debate was a set-piece zinger by the president as the candidates discussed military spending:

Romney: Our Navy is older — excuse me — our Navy is smaller now than any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We’re now down to 285. We’re headed down to the — to the low 200s if we go through with sequestration. That’s unacceptable to me. I want to make sure that we have the ships that are required by our Navy.

Our Air Force is older and smaller than any time since it was founded in 1947. We’ve changed for the first time since FDR. We — since FDR we had the — we’ve always had the strategy of saying we could fight in two conflicts at once. Now we’re changing to one conflict.

Look, this, in my view, is the highest responsibility of the president of the United States, which is to maintain the safety of the American people. And I will not cut our military budget by a trillion dollars, which is the combination of the budget cuts that the president has as well as the sequestration cuts. That, in my view, is — is — is making our future less certain and less secure. I won’t do it.

Obama: Bob, I just need to comment on this. First of all, the sequester is not something that I proposed. It’s something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen. The budget that we’re talking about is not reducing our military spending. It’s maintaining it.

But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You — you mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets — (laughter) — because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

And so the question is not a game of Battleship where we’re counting ships. It’s — it’s what are our capabilities.

Historian Tim Stanley covered the exchange for the UK’s Telegraph, and was not impressed:

The candidates were discussing military spending and Romney had just accused Obama of making harmful cutbacks. The president wheeled out what must have seemed like a great, pre-planned zinger: “I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military’s changed.” The audience laughed, Obama laughed, I laughed. It was funny.

But here’s why it was also a vote loser. For a start, Twitter immediately lit up with examples of how the U.S. Army does still use horses and bayonets (horses were used during the invasion of Afghanistan). More importantly, this was one example of many in which the president insulted, patronized, and mocked his opponent rather than put across a constructive argument.

Stanley’s analysis was similar to post-debate observations by political columnist Charles Krauthammer, who noted: ”Romney went large. Obama went very, very small — shockingly small.” Both men were correct in their observations that Romney won the debate.

But what was most fascinating: the American media, so obviously biased in favor of Obama, looked at this same exchange on “how our military works” and gave the victory to the president. They can only do so from a position of ignorance.

Currently, we field eleven carrier strike groups, consisting of a super-carrier and its air wing, cruiser, a small squadron of destroyers or frigates, and one or two attack submarines lurking under the surface. Various supply ships also weave in an out of the group to keep them fed and (in the case of the non-nuclear-powered ships) fueled.

Carrier strike groups can perform many roles, and can do many things. They have, as the president notes, “capabilities.” These capabilities, however, do not include the ability to be in two or more places at once. Nor can a Navy as heavily invested in capital ships as we are manage to easily recover if a carrier strike group is significantly damaged or crippled.

Technology and firepower is part of a military’s balance, but we know very well that the number of ships and aircraft we are able to field, and field in various roles, is critical. While Obama mocks Romney for his dated military references, he refuses to grasp a military reality made readily apparent in World War II.

In World War II, the German war machine’s technological advantages far outstripped those of any other nation. They created the first cruise missiles (the V1), the first ICBM (the V2), the first assault rifle (STG-44), the first jet- and rocket-powered combat aircraft, and even the first “stealth” fighter-bomber almost 40 years before we could replicate it (though the war ended before the Ho 229 could enter combat).

One of the technological highlights of the German Army was the Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger Ausf.E, or what Allied tankers learned to fear simply as the Tiger tank.

The Tiger was a masterpiece of German engineering. It was complex, heavily armed, and heavily armored. The high velocity 8.8cm main gun could destroy any Allied tank on the Western Front with a single shot, and allied tank crews fielding medium Sherman tanks against the Tiger came to call their vehicles “Ronsons” after the cigarette lighter, because they “lit the first time, every time.” In a one-on-one battle, or even a two- or three-on-one battle, the Tiger almost always came out victorious.

Despite the Tiger’s technological superiority and reliability, our mass-produced, under-armored, under-gunned M4 Shermans simply overwhelmed them with numbers. By war’s end, Germany had manufactured just 1,347 Tigers. We’d built more than 49,000 Shermans.

Our modern Air Force and Navy have not learned anything from World War II. We’ve sunk — pardon the term — literally trillions of dollars into the development of nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered carrier strike groups and ballistic missile submarines, but the loss of a single one would be an overwhelming blow from which it would take years to recover.

We’ve created a Navy that is “too big to fail,” in terms of the importance and capital investment we’ve placed on just eleven ships — an incredibly short-sighted position. We’ve made similarly bad investments in the gee-whiz technology of the F-22 Raptor, where every accident or combat loss costs $150 million each, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which will cost (if they are ever fielded) as much as a quarter-billion dollars each to replace for the Navy and Marine versions. We’re creating planes and ships that are too expensive to risk losing in combat. These technological marvels are backed by systems and support elements that are 50 years old, being used by the grandchildren of the men that built and used them.

What Mitt Romney has proposed is a shift in our way of thinking about the military that a community organizer simply can’t grasp.

Romney has proposed a Navy of lighter, more numerous, less expensive, and more deployable multiple-role ships that can be better geographically dispersed around the globe to more quickly respond to need, instead of having less than a dozen carrier strike groups chasing problems around the world.

Romney’s plan to use COTS (commercial off the shelf) technologies across the entire military may not be as sexy as spending billions to mount futuristic lasers and rail-guns on ships, but what it will do is put more ships and sailors on the water.

It’s a stunning turnaround offered by one of America’s best turnaround artists. Romney proposes to toss the bureaucratic dead-weight out of the military, out of the Pentagon, and replace them with real war-fighters and practical weapons.

IOW 60% not in home port. That's approaching two thirds.

But also an indication that a whole lot more are available than you thought. About 60% deployed or at sea. One has to assume that a percentage of those in port are still available to deploy on short notice if necessary. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 80% are available. If that isn't enough then doesn't it make sense to examine the commitments first? And removing those commitments not directly related to our defense? That would increase our defense posture without spending money we don't have to spend.

We need enough to have enough.

How many is that? That's my question.

Believe it or not we used to keep two on station there 24/7/365 even when we were down to 13 carriers Navy wide.

I know. I did two Med cruises on the JFK back in the 70's. We had two carriers in the Med. But we had none in the Persian Gulf. Now we have two in the Gulf and Romney want's a third one in the Med. He's expanding the commitments not reducing them, and without any real reason why.

Personally I think it's not smart policy to be using it now. Rather than that we should order an extra carrier permanent homeport to the west coast. Our CVN numbers will not increase until the new JFK is built and is commissioned if then.

And I don't necessarily disagree with you. Right now we have our fleet divided just about evenly in the Atlantic and the Pacific. If we agree that our most likely future opponent is China then instead of building more ships and stationing half of them in the Atlantic, where the threat doesn't exist, then wouldn't it make more sense to shift existing ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific?

That brings up another issue. No matter how many Drones we build we will always need CVN's with full air-wing.

I don't disagree with that either. But 11 carriers is still ten more than any other single country has, and more than all the other navies in the world combined.

When we were at the height of carriers NOB Norfolk still only had three Berths.

I'm not sure you're correct on that, or else things have changed since we were there. History was made in 1997 when the Stennis, the Washington, the Roosevelt, the Enterprise, and the Eisenhower were in port at the same time. I remember tying up to Pier 10 or, more commonly, Pier 12 but there apparently also a Pier 14 which I don't remember; either my memory is faulty or it was built after I was there. Someone told me there's a McDonald's at the end of Pier 12 now. It's not like the old Roach Coach days, I'm telling you. In any event they do have at least 5 berths now.

Mayport is good for at least one carrier and can hold two in a pinch as it is a carrier berth. I'd say we should spread ships out as far as even down to Rosie Roads.

I'm assuming it's a size issue; Nimitz class are a bit larger than the old Constellation class that we road on. Though I assume the Enterprise is probably the smallest of the active carriers now and might fit.

Roosevelt Roads closed years ago.

And we currently have over 60 guided missile destroyers with another dozen in the pipeline along with 20 guided missile cruisers to protect those carriers. That averages to almost 8 escorts per carrier. Currently a carrier strike force escort consists of a cruiser, a sub, and two, maybe three destroyers. I'd say the supply is adequate to the requirements.

And if you are only planning on refighting the battle of Midway, that makes sense. But as it was 200 years ago capital ships are neccesary for fighting the war, but in between times what is often needed is simply naval presence, to assert national authority, And in those cases, a single ship, actually where ans when it is needed, is better than a carrier battle group that isn't.

and with half the US Navy's surface combatants neede to escort the carrier battle groups, there are just 40 ships for everything else - about the same as China.

Frigates don't factor in to the Navy's needs - cruisers and destroyers do. So why take funding away from the more capable ships just to buy less capable ones to fill the same job?

Is 200 mile counter air radius and BMD really necessary for the Indian Ocean Piracy Patrol?

Frigates were perhaps the hardest-worked of warship types during the Age of Sail. While smaller than a ship-of-the-line, they were formidable opponents for the large numbers of sloops and gunboats, not to mention privateers or merchantmen. Able to carry six months' stores, they had very long range; and vessels larger than frigates were considered too valuable to operate independently. =(wiki)

We need enough to have enough. How many is that? That's my question.

Enough to where we can maintain an extended war posture and still have the needed rotations. Your sister ship the one I was one had a MMR explosion at Pier 12 upon third Med SEA/PG deployment in as many years for Gulf War One. That's my point. It went Cold Iron up to Portsmouth for a band aid. Now granted it was denied S.L.E.P. but it's still the same principle. I've seen a DFT line rupture and take out an entire main for duration of deployment. We had a DFT line rupture into #5 switchboard. It melted it. With that came a loss of about one forth of the equipment elsewhere. For example if number 5&6 chiller fed off #5 switchboard that meant a sizeable loss of cooling for Operations rooms.

You can't just say OK these ships are going out and coming back in. There has to be sufficient number to rotate so ship and crew still functions. Add to that you can't do major repairs at sea. The Navy frowns on cutting down from Hanger deck to 6th deck to remove and replace machinery at sea.

When we were at the height of carriers NOB Norfolk still only had three Berths.

I'm talking about before the base closures and downsizing. I mean going back several decades before the 1970's when we had more carriers it wasn't there. Other home ports were used. Pier 10 was not there in late 1970's I would take an oath on that one. LOL. It was built sometime in the 1980's like I posted and it's not a good pier really. Before that 5 carriers at NOB was never possible. Actually in 1980 they were fixing to change AMERICA's Homeport for NORVA to Mayport. I was still in when the order came down during overhaul. It got rescinded under Reagan.

While me and you were in the PG wasn't a issue until the Iranian Hostage Crisis happened. I sure won't forget that day. We were at Pier 12 waiting to go to NNSY for Drydock. The elevator doors closed, the brow came down, and about 30 minutes afterward the Old man told us a carrier had to deploy to either the MED or PG that's when the hostages were taken. I think we were finally allowed to leave ship late that night. JFK drew the short straw and we went to Portsmouth for a year for overhaul.. I got out in Oct 80 and left the old gal at the same place I found her in Portsmouth at NNSY.

We made a bunch of blunders uder the 1990's base closures. Rosie Roads came later due in part to politics but we also lost Charelston on the east coast and at least one base on the west. No carrier today last time I checked was homeported in Mayport. We also went from four carrier builders to one. NNSBDD is the only one left. Brooklyn did build one of the KH's I think. That's another reason I say too many things are in too small an area. If we had another builder it might not be as critical. But NNSBDD is critical to the CVN's.

Here we go I found a picture of what I'm talking about

WASHINGTON and STENNIS are berthed at 12. IKE & TEDDY are at the new Pier 10 I was talking about. Built sometime in the 1980's as I understand it. ENTERPRISE is at Pier 7. Only one side of 7 can fit a carrier and I remember a building also used to be maybe two piers up. The building was among the piers and stuck out like a sore thumb.

BTW back in early 2006 there were three carriers in the yards at Portsmouth at once. That is what we need to avoid. Five carriers at NOB is the entire east coast carrier fleet minus one likely deployed. Three in NNSY is half. NNSY is close to NOB. Here is the link on the three carriers in the yards. Portsmouth Shipyard to Have Three Carriers at Once

When people say we have enough ships this proves we actually don't. You have to plan well beyond peace time regular deployment rotations, account for possible loss of ship or extended down time, account for the fact that almost any ship once deployed will need the yards unless you wish to shorten the life of the ship. If you need to change out or rebuild certain equipment below decks or even add anything of size it has to be done in the yards so they can cut down to the deck needed. That even includes replacing the steam Kettles or ovens in the galley.

Reagan's 594 ships was a Cold War stand down posture. Yes I understand the many technology advances since then. I also understand the moment Reagan left office every POTUS since has cut the Navy. Poppy and Clinton did the worse damage. W did even more. No help ever came.

Programs and ships were planned even promised for accepting cuts in programs and then were not funded which is the fault of congress. The sad part about the Clinton downsizing is he did it while the GOP had a two house majority for six of his eight years.

The GOP nor the DEMs have done right by our military since Jan 1989. If Romney picks Rummy as Sec of Defense I'll scream. He's had two tries at it and both times he left things in a huge mess. Rummy is not one to take on congress nor a POTUS for that matter. He's a Yes Man. He was the one who started us into the Carter military. But to be honest about it many things were turning back around by 1980.

There's an old saying if you want sailors to act like sailors then treat them like it. 1977 most Navy tradition was gone at least in NORVA. Morale was the pits, no discipline, AWOLs and desertion was high, no Bosuns whistles, uniforms were an officers variant and hard to stow, a whole slew of things much of it began under Rummy's tenure as Sec of Def under Ford. 1980 we had the old carackerjacks back, Bosuns Pipes blared from every ship, the 31 day UA and get out issue was stopped, {Rummy wanted it again under Bush} Captains were cracking down, retention was seriously being addressed {I turned down $15K & MM2}and Lifers were brought in from Fleet Reserve to straighten things out. My last chief came out of retirement. The Navy as least some of it was on the mend by early 80 but had a long ways to go.

In 1982 I had been out two years and the economy tanked in my state. I tried to go back in. The Navy was fully manned. Carter was the second worst POTUS with Obama taking the honor of first place. But even people in Carter's Cabinet saw things had to change. Right now neither POTUS or congress is interested in addressing readiness issues.

My late uncle {dads brother} was WW2 enlisted - full Commander at retirement and a gator Freighter Captain toward the end of his career. A few years before he died we were talking about the readiness fiasco following 9/11. He said "How can a ship fail INSURV? The Navy won't let you fail INSURV". He understood something that many both in the Pentagon and congress today do not. As bad as it got with parts shortages and sometime manpower shortages the screws still turned when ordered. I hope our next Sec of Defense has a spine and is blunt and to the point with both POTUS and congress. The JAG and Investigative services need a good wholesale firing also. When we send Sailors, Soldiers, Marines, and Airmen to war we need to support them more and judge them less.

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.