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.
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.