Skip to comments.Mitt Romney Was Right: U.S. Needs A Bigger Navy - On The Ocean Size Matters
Posted on 10/29/2012 9:16:45 AM PDT by raptor22
Common Defense: The president says it's OK to have fewer ships because today's vessels have much better capabilities. But each ship can be in only one place at a time.
When Mitt Romney noted the shrinking Navy under Barack Obama's budget cuts and the sequestration his Office of Management and Budget director drew up, the president sarcastically replied:
"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 what are our capabilities."
As we've noted, we can have the most capable ships in the world, but they can't be everywhere at once with all of them constantly at sea. Some need to be in port, being refueled and refitted, their crews resting.
The rest have multiple commitments, such as defending the Taiwan Strait, keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, chasing pirates off Somalia, and contesting Beijing in the South and East China Seas.
So it is a game of counting ships, of all types and all capabilities, and under a second Obama term we will wind up with too few of them.
There is a reason China is building up its navy. It is to project Chinese power, guard Chinese supply lines and enforce Chinese territorial claims. It is the reason China has developed an anti-ship ballistic missile, the Dong Feng 21D, to sink our carriers.
A carrier does not sail alone. A carrier battle group can require as many as 10 escort ships, including guided missile cruisers and destroyers, two attack submarines, a frigate and a destroyer equipped for anti-submarine warfare, and a combined oiler, ammunition and supply ship for logistic support.
(Excerpt) Read more at tcotblog.ning.com ...
We have two coasts to defend. A strong navy is important.
“Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee
For those in peril on the sea.”
The United States has enjoyed control of the seas since World War II. Even the Royal Navy at the height of her power could not claim the same. While control does not require constant presence, we must be able to send ships in harm’s way on short notice anywhere in the world. Our fleet is built around the carrier task force and our current establishment limits our ability to put carriers where we need them at any given time. When our ships disappear over the horizon, the bad guys can come out to play.
obama’s comments about the Navy were the rudest and most ignorant of the campaign season. It shows he knows absolutely nothing about the military.
The Navy role in modern warfare has expanded dramatically since 1917. Supporting the Nuclear Triad, Tactical Strike Combat, and air superiority far inland (Afghanistan). All while it had to continue its tradition missions. All these missions require ships, and a lot of them.
Where was the carrier in the Med when Benghazi went down?
Obama’s goal is to disarm us and leave us to the mercies of the terrorists.
Point is, no matter how advanced our current weaponry is, we need to have the ships to provide it at any hot spot at any time. One of the reasons we are the so-called lone superpower is because we have kept the seas free for trade and against aggression. I'd like to keep it that way. MORE SHIPS!
First of all, I am in favor of a strong military. But right now, the Feds are borrowing 40% of the money they spend. They are taxing my unborn grandchildren for the things we want, not need, right now.
What conceivable naval threat requires the USN to have 11 CVNs, 22 Ticonderoga class CGs, 61 Arleigh Burke class DDGs (cruisers by any other name), 19 OHP FFGs, 55 SSNs, 4 SSGNs, ~400 F/A-18A/B/C/D, ~500 F/A-18E/Fs, and ~100 EA-18Gs?
Are we planning on fighting all the navies of the world? At the same time?
I know there is a need to build new ships as the current ones age and wear out, and to upgrade technology, but, for the foreseeable future, we have no rivals on the ocean. We cannot constantly maintain a navy capable of fighting the entire world. Also, we can’t really afford $3.45 billion dollar “destroyers” (in comparison, the current class of CVN costs $9 billion per unit; new Arleigh Burkes cost ~$1.85 billion).
In order to get the fiscal house in order, EVERYBODY has to take a hit. That includes the military.
I’m sure that you know at least as much about our defense requirements as our current Commander in Chief, but that doesn’t mean that either one of you are right about this issue. Every time that we have cashed in a “peace dividend”, we have paid a price in blood and treasure.
The United States currently spends less in GDP on defense since any time since 1940. The bloated growth in our federal budget is almost entirely in the individual entitlement programs which is nothing more than a politician vote buying scheme. Both parties do it and that’s what I am tired of seeing.
What you suggest is what Europe has done. They have disarmed in order to fund their bloated socialist programs. They will pay a very dear price for their folly.
Can’t say I’m better than the current Idiot In Chief, but how many other CVBGs are out there? How many operational SSNs? The USN has 900+ modern combat aircraft available - how many foreign air forces are that big? (Actually, if the USN got into a shooting war, I’d be more worried about the missile stocks; do we have enough missiles and PGMs to sustain combat?)
BTW, in 1940 we were starting a build up for WWII. We were not in it yet, but FDR was getting ready. And, despite those inadequate budgets, we managed to keep a fleet BBs operational, build the CVs that got us through the first part of WWII, and stock them with the latest in the fighters (F4F Wildcats) and dive bombers (SBD Dautlesses); we were a bit behind on torpedo bombers - the Devastator was a death trap, but the Avenger was actually in the works. Personally, I’d be looking at around 1929 for GDP share, but keeping an eye on potential rivals.
Yes, entitlements are bloating the budget. I would LOVE it if someone could tell me how to make them go away, or at least significantly cut them, but I don’t see a way to end or cut them There are too many soft heads and bleeding hearts out there who want to practice charity using somebody else’s time and money.
As I said, everybody will have to take a hit. If it were me, I’d cut ALL budgets by 40% (or whatever it took to balance the budget) and let them sort it out. THEN I’d get out the red pen and start zeroing stuff out (There are entire Bureaus and Departments I think should be zeroed out...). But it isn’t going to happen.
On this date in 1942, we were down to one operational carrier in the South Pacific, the rest were on the bottom. We were hanging on by our teeth in Guadalcanal. We barely controlled the air and sea in the Solomons. That was the price of unpreparedness.
Fortunately, we had gotten lucky in a few places, and had been damned good in others. We had stopped the Japanese and would never turn back. We were learning the hard way that our damned torpedoes didn’t work. The limitations of our radar and the lack of night training had cost us badly against the IJN in night actions. We had already forfeited the Philippines because we weren’t ready.
We saw it again in Korea, after all we won WWII, no need for that pesky military spending. We were firing 1952 era mortar and artillery ammunition in Vietnam. Some of it didn’t work so very good. The price of freedom, the price of freedom. It gets higher every time we get complacent.
If it were up to you, I’d have to start learning Arabic and figuring out the direction to Mecca. I don’t want to do that.
Seriously, the problem with your analysis is that we are the sole truly world power in the world. Other countries have the luxury of being regional forces with only one ocean, a few borders, and a couple of enemies to worry about. We get the whole ball of wax, and if we quit doing it, the whole system will collapse like the Roman Empire.
The IJN started the war with a parity or even superiority with the US and UK Pacific fleets thanks to the Washington Naval Treaties. They had an advantage in CVs because they realized early that they were game-changers. Are we facing any enemies remotely approaching naval parity with us? Is there a “game-changer” technology we’re not exploiting? Our only military rivals right now are the Sov, er, Russians and the PRC and we have them pretty handily outnumbered (on the seas) for now.
Islam is a threat. But it is not a military threat. The Arabs are military incompetents; the same is true of most Moslem militaries, with exceptions for the Turks, and maybe the Persians. Moslem nations can’t even build their aircraft, armor and major naval vessels. They ARE threats diplomatically, demographically, and legally (their greatest victories are ‘Lawfare’). Our open society and their money makes us hideously vulnerable in that fashion.
If we ever cut loose with our full military power, the only thing Moslems can do is die in huge quantities. Their only effective weapons are lawyers, diplomats, “civil rights organizations,” the media, and scads of money. Unfortunately, these are proving very effective, indeed, and no number of CVNs will counter them.
No, we're not. But better to have such resources than not. BTW, where did you get your numbers? Also, at any given time, many of those ships are in overhaul or in stand down from deployments.
"I know there is a need to build new ships as the current ones age and wear out, and to upgrade technology, but, for the foreseeable future, we have no rivals on the ocean. We cannot constantly maintain a navy capable of fighting the entire world. Also, we cant really afford $3.45 billion dollar destroyers (in comparison, the current class of CVN costs $9 billion per unit; new Arleigh Burkes cost ~$1.85 billion). In order to get the fiscal house in order, EVERYBODY has to take a hit. That includes the military. We cannot constantly maintain a navy capable of fighting the entire world."
Our fedgov now runs trillion dollar deficits every year and you're concerned about a few billion here and there for additional ships? However, I will say I don't really see the need for frigates or basic cruisers anymore. I'd prefer to see more Aegis equipped cruisers built. But then I wasn't and admiral, so maybe frigates/destroyers have some worth.
If there is one job of the Fedgov, it is to protect the United States. China is building up its fleet exponentially; Russia is rebuilding its offences; North Korea and Iran are building nuclear arsenals; missle systems are proliferating throughout the world; not to mention US need for power projection.
Don't know how old you are, but if young, there will come a time you will want enough ships to deploy aircraft, troops, and Aegis missle systems into a given hot spot. The nuclear world is expanding. ICBM's and bombers are old news. Navy ships (including subs) are becoming our best strategic defense. I say the more the better. Diplomacy through strength has always worked.
Cut the trillion dollar social programs (including fedgov employees) and protect our Nation. And contrary to apologist Obama, there are still lots of bad guys out there who would like to see the US go away, and they are growing in the Islamist community. The seas are the lifeblood of commerce and freedom. The more US ships out there, the happier I am. And give me more aircraft and missle delivery systems while you're at it.
I would like nothing better than to cut welfare, “social programs” and federal headcount. But I haven't seen any candidates to vote for in this respect. Have you?
Because if they know we can do that, they will not dare attack. You get attacked when the enemy has decided that a surprise attack will bring them to parity.
If they launch a sneak attack like that, why shouldn’t we just respond by emptying our silos and SSBNs at them?
Because as soon as they see our missile launches, they will launch at our cities?
Let's say Iran is secretly supplied with new Chinese or Russian long-range anti-ship missiles. We go into the Persian Gulf with a Carrier Battle Group, with another two CBGs in the Indian Ocean on standby. The Iranians launch a swarm of missiles that sink all three carriers, and most of their support ships, wiping out over a quarter of our carrier assets.
Now, are you going to nuke Tehran and Qom in response, killing millions?
That is a definite YES.
The only issues I’d have would be “How much fallout and where will it end up?”
I am sure as hell not going to risk lives of more American service members to put paid to the savages. They don’t deserve that sort of consideration. (Wish we’d nuked Kabul and Kandahar - that would have quieted the ME down...).
And millions of dead Iranians would be a good balance to thousands (tens of thousands?) of dead Americans murdered in a sneak attack. Read “The Grave of Hundred Head” sometime.