According to the Navy's own website we currently have 114 ships deployed. Another 56 are underway on local ops or at-sea training. Link
BTW not all of the 285 ships are even combat ships.
About 83% are. Of the 285 ships in the navy, 47 are considered auxiliaries.
Maintenance can't be skimped on and disaster be the end result if it is missed.
No argument there. But that is separate from the justification for a 350 ship navy.
We need our submarine count back above 80 and Amphibious ships whch can begin taking up slack on the carrier portion including Vertical Take Off and Drone operations.
Why? We have 53 nuclear powered attack subs and 8 more building, more than all the other navies in the world combined. We have 14 ballistic missile subs and 4 more capable of carrying 150 cruise missiles each. We have 31 amphibious ships easily capable of carrying an entire marine division plus a good part of its air wing. How much more do we need?
We need to relocate assets into other areas. One of the east coast carriers actually two should be relocated back to Mayport, Florida. Five carriers at NOB Norfolk is insane and YES it has happened as I have seen a picture of it.
But not often, since one or two are deployed at any given time. And Romney as said he'll go back to permanently having a carrier on station in the eastern Med so that'll cut back the parking problems even more.
Last but not least we need to be able to go back to strength in numbers.
Or do we need to rethink nationbuilding in sinkholes like Yemen and concentrate on spending our defense budget on defending ourselves?
IOW 60% not in home port. That's approaching two thirds.
Why? We have 53 nuclear powered attack subs and 8 more building, more than all the other navies in the world combined. We have 14 ballistic missile subs and 4 more capable of carrying 150 cruise missiles each. We have 31 amphibious ships easily capable of carrying an entire marine division plus a good part of its air wing. How much more do we need?
We need enough to have enough. Our current configuration is Peace Time Operations of which we have been running two wars. We can't keep this up not in any of the services. A build up must happen soon for all services.
In the event of a major sea war outbreak you can expect to see as a third of the ships gone immediately after onset. Gone meaning either sank or having to return to port for extended overhauls. Amphibs can do several different task depending upon design. A Helo carrier for example has been classified AMPHIB for decades. As for SUBs? The eight being rebuilt will likely replace eight being taken out. One way to win with a lower number of surface ships is to have a large underwater fleet capable of being here, there, everywhere, and still being able to meet their down times.
When nuclear propulsion plants for subs and carriers got put into service so did a myth that those ships could deploy indefinitely. Most shipyard maintenance is for a ship or subs auxiliary equipment that without it the ship can not get underway such as Air Conditioning. We need at least the equivalent to one extra available deployable fleet to cover losses. Extra subs buy time for shipbuilding in time of war.
But not often, since one or two are deployed at any given time. And Romney as said he'll go back to permanently having a carrier on station in the eastern Med so that'll cut back the parking problems even more.
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. That was Cold War Posture. We weren't dependent upon the Suez either. From the Six Day War in 1967 until 1981 no carriers went through SUEZ. 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.
That brings up another issue. No matter how many Drones we build we will always need CVN's with full air-wing. Drones can do a lot of recon and even limited strikes. But if your troops on the ground butt is in a sling? The one flying the manned machine is going to get there much sooner and have a much better assessment for response. They also carry a lot more onboard weapons.
I still also think the Navy has too many assets sitting in NORVA. We have other ports we need to be using. When we were at the height of carriers NOB Norfolk still only had three Berths. Both sides of Pier 12 and Pier 7 were Carrier berths. Pier 10? I think it is called built sometime in the 1980's was a bad idea for several reasons. One is wind protection. Some very nasty straight liners come across Hampton Roads. One afternoon we were at pier 12. In a matter of minutes the LPH across from us was in the channel torn from their pier, our brow was laying on the pier, a utility shed and truck flipped over and several ships between 12 & D&S piers were also out in the channel. Pier 12 had some protection. Enough to where we stayed put. We were also the one more sheltered. We were on the side closer to the point but that allowed more protection.
Realistically though just taking a city map and drawing a 15 mile radius circle from NOB says we have too much resources all sitting in the same place. 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.