(Flashback) Peacetime Budgets in Wartime: The Coming Decline of the U.S. Military

U.S. Business & Industry Council ^ | March 14, 2003 | William R. Hawkins

[Paul Ross]

Peacetime Budgets in Wartime: The Coming Decline of the U.S. Military

By William R. Hawkins
Friday, March 14, 2003

At the February 26 House Armed Services Committee hearing on the FY 2004 Defense budget, chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) questioned the wisdom of further reducing America's military strength as forces mass for war in Iraq.  He noted that the proposed integration of Navy and Marine tactical aircraft squadrons would mean a cut of 497 fighter aircraft, ten percent of the force, and the disbanding of five squadrons. The planes taken out of service will be the oldest, but production of  F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, the Navy's most advanced tactical fighter, will be cut by 88 instead of being increased to bring the force back up to strength.

By 2006 the Navy will decline to 290 warships, 20 less than the minimum fleet size set in the Bush Administration's 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review.  The aircraft carrier USS Constellation, which is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf for action against Iraq, is slated to be decommissioned this fall. There is a new carrier under construction, the USS Ronald Reagan, but it is not expected to be ready for deployment until 2005. The Navy believes that 15 carriers are needed to fulfill its missions around the world, but if the Constellation is taken out of service, the fleet will be down to only 11.

The Navy and Marines are the first responders in a crisis. The Navy had nearly 600 ships in the mid-1980s, including 15 carriers. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark has stated that 375 ships are the minimum needed to meet current threats. A 375-ship fleet would require a build-rate of 12-14 ships per year. Even simply maintaining a 300-ship fleet would require 10 new ships a year. The current plan outlined in the FY 2004 budget averages only 7.6 ships per year for the next five years (2004-2008), a clearly inadequate number.

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) the ranking Democrat on the HASC recently asked the Navy for a list of "unfunded priorities" for the new budget. The reply totaled $6.5 billion. The list included keeping the Constellation and the nuclear attack submarine Jacksonville in service; upgrading Marine tactical fighters and buying six more Super Hornets for the Navy; and improving a number of amphibious warfare ships, fleet oilers and replenishment ships. But the administration is resisting any increases in the defense budge, even though the Pentagon accounts for less than 17 percent of the total FY 2004 budget of $2.2 trillion.

The Bush Administration claims that rather than expand, or even maintain, existing military force levels, funds are being allocated to develop a new generation of weapons that could enter production by the end of the decade. Even if true, the world is moving too fast to indulge in such a strategic pause. The 1990s were a relatively calm decade in the aftermath of the Cold War and could have been used for this kind of modernization and transformation. Instead, the decade was wasted in a "procurement holiday" that saw military force levels drop and the industrial base that sustains them shrink dramatically. Hundreds of thousands of skilled production workers, engineers and managers left the industry, and the opportunities to attract a new generation into the field were limited. In addition, hundreds of American defense subcontractors and high-tech companies were bought up by foreign firms, who moved their research and technology offshore. Another wasted decade would be hard for the industry to endure.

The 21st century has opened with a bang, as the reality of global geopolitics has reasserted itself, as it always does. But the trend in future procurement is also one of falling production rates. The Navy and Marines are planning to cut their purchase of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by 38 percent to a total of only 680, down from an original target of 1,089 aircraft.

Undersecretary of Defense Dov Zakheim has called the 2004 proposal a "peacetime budget." Even though Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld plans to offer supplemental requests to fund combat operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the global war on terrorism, the Pentagon budget does not redress the nearly 40 percent decline in conventional force levels that took place in the 1990s when the country relaxed in a false sense of peace and security. With U.S. forces stretched thin, adversaries are looking for weak points to exploit, tempted by the belief that at some point Washington will run out of ships, troops, or money with which to respond to aggression.

In his recent worldwide threat briefing, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet outlined the perilous evolution of a divided and dangerous world. Following his presentation on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Director Tenet concluded, "We have entered a new world of proliferation....The desire for nuclear weapons is on the upsurge." Biological warfare (BW) and chemical warfare (CW) capabilities are spreading fast as well. "Countries are more and more tightly integrating both their BW and CW production capabilities into apparently legitimate commercial infrastructures, further concealing them from scrutiny," warned Tenet.

At the end of February, 30 Russian ministries met under the leadership of the Defense Minister to initiate a new rearmament program committed to rebuilding Russia's defense industry and supplying its troops with state-of-the-art equipment. New tanks and fighters are at the top of Moscow's wish list of weapons, with mass production planned to start by 2008. And the Chinese are continuing to expand their capabilities across the board, but with a strong effort in submarines and combat aircraft.

It is against these expanding threats that defense funding must be assessed. The Pentagon says the new budget "calls for a focus on the capabilities needed to counter 21st century threats such as terrorism -- rather than on specific regional dangers or requirements." The DoD press release listed "winning the global war on terrorism" as one of three prime objectives, but the list did not mention anything about waging wars against states with WMD or meeting the threat from rising major powers. Yet, the United States is facing several emerging states with ambitions at odds with American interests. And it is states, not terrorist groups, that have the real means to upset the balance of power in a region or the world. The United States must reconstitute and expand both its military forces and the industrial base that sustains them if it is to maintain its world leadership position.

If the political will does not exist in a Republican administration, with majority control of both houses of Congress, at a time when American military forces are engaged in combat operations on multiple fronts in nearly every part of the world, when will it exist?

---

William R. Hawkins is Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council.

---

[gogogodzilla]

Isn't this 3 years old now?

[unkus]

Why was this posted?

[FreedomCalls]

New tanks and fighters are at the top of Moscow's wish list of weapons

Won't matter too much if they keep flying them like this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2136241946237981827

[HEY4QDEMS]

Friday, March 14, 2003

Do you know what "Breaking News" means?

[Paul Ross]

Isn't this 3 years old now?

It is. Wasn't ever posted here, however, so this rectifies that. Not much has changed since this article was written over 3 years ago. If anything, it underestimated the negative impacts as projected. We are now actually under the 290 Navy ships that were forecast...

Which makes it all the more urgent that we undertake to really educate the voters and legislators, and try and counter all the "static" of the liberal MSM...and the Administration's thin pretexts itself.

Paul Wolfowitz's (Rumsfeld's last deputy) in his last budget, before going on to a new job as head of the World Bank, classified the Navy procurement budget as Officially a "peacetime budget."

[ASOC]

Thanks for the link, pretty scary video. One cut looks like the -29 landed on top of the photog...

[Paul Ross]

Why was this posted?

Did you read it?

[Paul Ross]

Do you know what "Breaking News" means?

Didn't post it under "Breaking News"

[FreedomCalls]

pretty scary video

I just stumbled across it last night. I've never seen it before, and frankly, it's the most scary video I've ever seen. I couldn't imagine being at an airshow and seeing that big out-of-control aircraft coming straight at me like that.

One of the comments at the link says he thinks the pilot blacked out from the g-force of the maneuver just before the crash, and that makes sense as it looks like he is in a pretty severe stall prior to impact.

[operation clinton cleanup]

New tanks and fighters are at the top of Moscow's wish list of weapons, with mass production planned to start by 2008.

Looks like we will have to do another 1980's buildup again after 2010.... Unless Hillary gets elected in 2008.

[cva66snipe]

Neither the DEM's nor the GOP are interested in increasing our defense readiness nor are they genuinely earnest in such. Empty promises nothing more. To them it's trading partner buddies and back room deals. If Europe becomes a supplier of our military aircraft Hip Hip Yeppie they shout.

I mean what sense does it make for a nation to be self sufficient or self reliant in providing for and manufacturing it's own defense needs? It's far better to OUTSOURCE to a nation far far away who can use them contracts for diplomatic Blackmail and extortion from the producing nation to dictate our foreign policy./sarcasm

We need some planners in DC and I don't mean the status quo bunch who on both sides have been in a race to see who can shut down our national defense the quickest. We are indeed in a downturn and all we have is pie in the sky promises that neglecting upkeep on systems today will fund the equipment of the next decade. And let's not forget our most favorite nation trading partner China.

Isn't 17 years of downsizing quite enough? Don't blame it all on the Dems and don't give the GOP from 1989-present atta boy's either. Both parties are guilty in this. The number one responsibility of government is to provide for the common defense of this nation.

[Centurion2000]

Watch some of the other ones .... impressive. Especially the lady that looks like she can fly a rubber dog turd better than an Iranian in a top of the line fighter.

[rbg81]

I agree. Left to their own devices, the lighter-leaner-more lethal crowd will downsize and outsource our military till well have one division equiped with one tank, one aircraft, and one battleship.

[El Gato]

The Bush Administration claims that rather than expand, or even maintain, existing military force levels, funds are being allocated to develop a new generation of weapons that could enter production by the end of the decade. Even if true, the world is moving too fast to indulge in such a strategic pause. The 1990s were a relatively calm decade in the aftermath of the Cold War and could have been used for this kind of modernization and transformation. Instead, the decade was wasted in a "procurement holiday" that saw military force levels drop and the industrial base that sustains them shrink dramatically. Hundreds of thousands of skilled production workers, engineers and managers left the industry, and the opportunities to attract a new generation into the field were limited. In addition, hundreds of American defense subcontractors and high-tech companies were bought up by foreign firms, who moved their research and technology offshore. Another wasted decade would be hard for the industry to endure.

Funny they don't mention which administration this "procurement holiday" most took place under. FWIW, we called it being Clinton-sized, when we were laid off from our Arsenal of Democracy positions.

But as the author's indicate, the Bush years have been pretty lean in the force modernization and procurement arena as well. They also canceled important *Army* weapons systems, which would have been very handy, such as the Crusader SP Artillery and the Comanche helicopter. They did continue the under armored Stryker program. The Mobile Gun System version is said to no longer flip over when the 105mm (Abrams tank uses 120 mm) gun is fired to the side, but I remain skeptical about that.

[El Gato]

I agree. Left to their own devices, the lighter-leaner-more lethal crowd will downsize and outsource our military till well have one division equiped with one tank, one aircraft, and one battleship.

The tank will have wheels instead of tracks, it will need "cow catcher" add on slats to be able to ward off 50 year old RPGs. The aircraft will not be able to talk to the ground troops and will have a single air to air missile for self defense. The battleship will be a destroyer escort in all but name.

[Fee]

The problem is this current generation of bureacrats think in the digital age where production base is not important because we can build it overseas, depots are not needed because we can rely on the private sector and just in time inventories approach to logistics, and technology which increases the fire power of the soldier three folds means you can reduce the infantry squad by two thirds. The principles of war have not changed. Numbers count, stockpiling is important, manufacturing base is important and producing huge numbers of simple but effective weapons are needed during wartime. You do not need a very fancy aircraft carrier to provide a floating airbase against Iraqi insurgents, nor a CGX and DDX surface combatant. Just build losts of what we currently have.

[Paul Ross]

Isn't 17 years of downsizing quite enough?

Bump. Agreed. I think Hawkins framed it best when he asked this rhetorical question:

If the political will does not exist in a Republican administration, with majority control of both houses of Congress, at a time when American military forces are engaged in combat operations on multiple fronts in nearly every part of the world, when will it exist?

[Jeff Head]

F22 is being rolled back in numbers, DDX cancelled/put off, JSF rolled back, B1Bs down to 67 units, B2s only have 20 units, S3 ASW capability removed/retired from CVNs, Spruance Class DDs retired 10-15 years early, no AIM-54 Phoenix replacement ALRAAM missile developed for CVN protection, Tarawa class LHAs being retired and sunk (with service life left in them), etc.

The list from the last five years is becoming fairly exhaustive regarding our continued roll back/downsizing in numbers and capability. And this at a time when the WOT is expanding and the Red Chinese threat is growing at an alarming rate. Not a good thing at all IMHO. Alarming actually as far as I am concerned.

[Paul Ross]

Funny they don't mention which administration this "procurement holiday" most took place under. FWIW, we called it being Clinton-sized, when we were laid off from our Arsenal of Democracy positions.

Because there is no need to belabor that obvious well-proven fact (which the author has previously demonstrated on innumerable occasions). Indeed, he proceeds from it as an axiom, the GOP, the serious party (formerly under Reagan anyways) is the one that needs to be looking at the issue...and it is a subject of immense consternation that he has to call it...and this particular administration which had run as "pro-defense" to task, when he makes this rhetorical point (which I again reiterate):

If the political will does not exist in a Republican administration, with majority control of both houses of Congress, at a time when American military forces are engaged in combat operations on multiple fronts in nearly every part of the world, when will it exist?

[Jeff Head]

All of what I mentioned in post 19 has happened during the current administration.

[mississippi red-neck]

This is the first time in my lifetime of sixty years that a Republican administration has continued the downsizing of a democratic one.

As I have said before I strongly believe it is the Globalists mentality that is driving this downsizing of our military past the point of no return.

We may have reached that point already.

I think it is a deliberate act on their part to force our country unto the global community.

They are putting us in the position where we have to belong to the Global community because we will no longer be able to act independently on our own to protect ourselves.

Sure we can level the world with our nuclear weapons as can Russia but like them we won't have the conventional forces to take Cuba or Mexico as Iraq has shown anyone who wants to look including and especially our enemies.

When I served you would have never seen the number of national guard troops in front line combat as you have seen or soldiers having to make two or three tours against a nothing country with a nothing military like Iraq.

The guard in my service time would have been moved up to the bases to replace and supply logistic support for the regular full time troops as needed.

We do not have the conventional forces nor sound military equipment,weapons,and supplies we need to fight the conventional battles we face now and in the future.

Nuclear weapons where never meant for first use but only as a deterrent and as a last desperate action when all hope is lost and this is as it has to be. We had better be able to dominate them on the conventional battlefield as well and that takes numbers in properly equipped troops,tanks planes ships with good depth on the bench as well as modern high technology.

No matter what else, to dominate, defeat and control an enemy on his ground you have to a uniform with a good soldier in it looking him in the eye ready to put a bullet in his head for him to get the proper message.

That hasn't changed. You don't win battles or wars by trying to talk to people who want you as a slave or dead or by letting them dictate the terms of battle.

You don't keep sending an army after small groups of terrorists, to fight fading shadows. You hold those goverments of the countries they are in responsible.

They can either control the people in their borders or answer for the consquences.

The only way to win over their minds or hearts is to put a bullet in enough of their hearts and minds so those that are left will want to change.

[Paul Ross]

All of what I mentioned in post 19 has happened during the current administration.

Yes, I know. There is a much longer list of other negative decisions by the Administration. Dismantlement of the MX Peace-keeper missile. Dismantlement of 150 Minuteman III missiles. Destruction of the silos. Cancellation in December 2001 of the Theater Ballistic Missile Defense, cancellation last year of the proven and deployable fixed-installation Theater High Energy Laser system, paring back drastically projected orders for Aegis SM-2 and SM-3 missiles for missile interception, as well as the supposed 200 land based interceptors...which he pared back to 28...and so on.

I remember when he first came in...the President refused to timely submit his defense budget in '01, stalling four months, and then released an totally inadequate budgetary requested ...which really only was based on inflation...not the needs to even begin to address what Clinton had done. His habits of slicing have continued. Cancellation of planned R&D for space-basing of Kinetic Interceptor components for NMD.

And Senator Jon Kyl could tell us in detail how the Administration is slighting budgetarily our needs to prepare for EMP threats.

It is truly frightening at the degree of scales over the eyes of this administration.

[Paul Ross]

Just checked on the American Shipbuilding website, and the Administration has now reduced our fleet to significantly below the 375 ships that CNO Admiral Vern Clerk states we need, or even the 290 projected from just 3 years ago as I said...unfortunately it is even worse than I knew.

I had heard we had fallen down to 286 ships. But the new revised current total is in fact... only 281 ships in our fleet.

[Paul Ross]

This is the first time in my lifetime of sixty years that a Republican administration has continued the downsizing of a democratic one.

Bears repeating...and calling folks out on the carpet.

Admiral Mullen, the new USN CNO has stated that he needs an additional $14.1 billion more than Rumsfeld and Bush have approved for just a 313 fleet navy, which would be at "bare bones" for the forseeble threats in the near, if not immediate future.

What is really interesting is that President Bush came into office with what, about a 337 ship active naval fleet?

[cva66snipe]

We have only one of four former ship Builders capable of building even a conventional carrier left. The remaining one sits within same air strike range as the Atlantic Fleet Carriers piers. We have only two yards {one east and one west} as far as I know other than Newport News in the CONUS who can even service the ones we have. Worse some planning genius decided this fall would be an ideal time to place 3 of our carriers all in one ship yard at the same time. That is one fourth of of entire carrier fleet in a place where they can not if under attack get out. Whether we use it or not we need another yard capable of producing at least a conventional carrier.

Major mistakes were make and are still being made as no one is learning from past mistakes and disasters. There seems to be an arrogance that it can't happen again to us. Sec of Def Dick Cheney for example ended production of the F-14. Ending production is one thing. Destroying the capabilities to produce again if needed in the future is quite another.

CNO Borda warned congress in 1993 the numbers on ships were getting too low. Of course Clinton /Aspin didn't listen either.

[Paul Ross]

Better link to the Naval Historical Center here

A clip of the page if it doesn't show is as follows:

Return to Naval Historical Center home page Return to Ships History Branch

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060

U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1917-

This tabulation was compiled from such sources as the Navy Directory (issued at varying intervals to 1941); the Annual Reports of the Secretary of the Navy (issued annually to 1931); Comptroller of the Navy (NAVCOMPT) compilations; Department of the Navy (DON) 5-Year Program, Ships & Aircraft Supplemental Data Tables (SASDT); and records and compilations of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OP-802K, now N804J1D) Ship Management Information System (now Ship Management System), refined and edited with the assistance of the annual Naval Vessel Register.

For consistent historical comparison, Naval Reserve Force (NRF) and Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force (NFAF) ships, and Military Sealift Command (MSC) fleet support ships, are included in current and recent active totals. Figures, and conclusions drawn from them, would, otherwise, be historically inconsistent, and comparisons would be skewed.

From 1963 through 1974, former guided-missile frigates (DLG/DLGN) are counted under the categories (cruisers, destroyers) to which they were assigned on 30 June 1975: DLG 6 class Became DDG 37 class; DLG 16 class became CG 16 class; DLG 26 class became CG 26 class; DLGN 25, 35, 36 classes became CGN 25, 35, 36 classes .

TABLES:

1917-1923 | 1924-1930 | 1931-1937 | 1938-1944 | 1945-1951 | 1951-1957 |
1958-1964 | 1965-1971 | 1972-1978 | 1979-1985 | 1986-1992 | 1993-1999 | 2000-present

---

U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1917-1923

Type	4/6/17	11/11/18	7/1/19	7/1/20	7/1/21	7/1/22	7/1/23
Battleships	37	39	36	26	22	19	18
Monitors, Coastal	7	7	5	1	2@	-	-
Carriers, Fleet	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Carriers, Escort	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Cruisers	33	31	28	27	10	12	13
Destroyers	66	110	161	189	68 (208rc )	103	103
Frigates	17	17	-	-	-	-	-
Submarines	44	80	91	58	69 (11rc)	82 (7rc)	69 (5rc)
SSBNs*	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Command Ships	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Mine Warfare	-	53	62	48	50 (8rc)	36	38
Patrol	42	350	65	45	59 (1rc)	43	41
Amphibious	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Auxiliary	96	87	304	173	104	83	82
Surface Warships	160	204	230	243	102	134	134
Total Active	342	774	752	567	384 (228rc)	379 (7rc)	365 (5rc)

Events:

U.S. enters WWI 6 April 1917
Bolshevik Revolution begins 28 October (Old Style) 1917
WWI ends 11 November 1918
Washington Treaty in force 17 August 1923.

Notes:

@ = The last Coast Defense Monitor went out of commission in 1921.
* = Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine (nuclear powered).
rc = Reduced Commission: not included in "active" total.
The drop in ship numbers evident from 1920-21 is a post-WWI readjustment to a peacetime strength, with limited budgets and naval arms limitation.

RETURN TO INDEX

---

U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1924-1930

Type	7/1/24	7/1/25	7/1/26	7/1/27	7/1/28	7/1/29	7/1/30
Battleships	18	18	15(3rc)	15(3rc)	16(2rc)	16(2rc)	16(2rc)
Carriers, Fleet	1	1	1	1	3	3	3
Carriers, Escort	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Cruisers	16	18	18	16	16	16	20
Destroyers	103	105	106	106	106	103	103
Frigates	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Submarines	77(3rc)	76(3rc)	80	77	77	80	81
SSBNs	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Command Ships	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Mine Warfare	39	40	39	40	40	37	36
Patrol	37	37	37	32	33	32	29
Amphibious	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Auxiliary	84	73	71	69	68	68	68
Rigid Airships	1	2	1	1	1	1	1
Total Active	376 (3rc)	370 (3rc)	368 (3rc)	357 (3rc)	360 (2rc)	356 (2rc)	357 (3rc)
Surface Warships	137	141	139	137	138	135	139

Events:
Battleship modernization program in effect 1926-1934. London Treaty in force 31 December 1930.

Notes:
rc= Reduced Commission: not included in "active" total.

RETURN TO INDEX

---

U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1931-1937

Type	7/1/31	7/1/32	7/1/33	7/1/34	4/1/35*	7/1/36	9/1/37*
Battleships	12(3rc)	11(4rc)	11(4rc)	14(1rc)	15	15	15
Carriers, Fleet	3	3	3	4	4	4	3@
Carriers, Escort	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Cruisers	20	19	20	24	25	26	27
Destroyers	87^	102	101	102^^	104	106	111
Frigates	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Submarines	56	55	55	54	52	49	52
SSBNs	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Command Ships	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Mine Warfare	33	33	26	26	26	26	30
Patrol	27(1rc)	24	26	24	23	23	22
Amphibious	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Auxiliary	69	65	68	71	71	73	75
Rigid Airships	1	1	1	1	-	-	-
Surface Warships	119#	132	132	140	144	147	153
Total Active	308 (4rc)	313 (4rc)	311 (4rc)	320 (1rc)	320	322	335

Events:
Japan enters Manchuria 18 September 1931. Hitler to power 30 January 1933. Failure of the International Economic Conference to stabilize world currencies in July 1933 leads to growing instability. Vinson-Trammell Act, 27 March 1934, authorizes--though it does not fund--Navy construction to Treaty strength. Japan renounces Washington Treaty 29 December 1934, effective 31 December 1936. Germany renounces disarmament clauses of the Treaty of Versailles 16 March 1935. Spanish Civil War begins 18 July 1936. Japan begins large-scale military operations in China 7 July 1937.

Notes:
* Data for 1 July not available.
@ = CV-1 to AV-1 (auxiliary).
^ = London Treaty exchange of new DD for older types allowed.
^^ = New DD begin to appear.
# = Post-1921 low.
rc = Reduced Commission: not included in "active" total.

RETURN TO INDEX

---

U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1938-1944

Type	6/30/38	6/30/39	6/30/40	12/7/41	12/31/42	12/31/43	12/31/44
Battleships	15	15	15	17	19	21	23
Carriers, Fleet	5	5	6	7	4	19	25
Carriers, Escort	-	-	-	1	12	35	65
Cruisers	32	36	37	37	39	48	61
Destroyers	112	127	185	171	224	332	367
Frigates	-	-	-	-	-	234	376
Submarines	54	58	64	112	133	172	230
SSBNs	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Command Ships	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Mine Warfare	27	29	36	135	323	551	614
Patrol	34	20	19	100	515	1050	1183
Amphibious	-	-	-	-	121	673	2147
Auxiliary	101	104	116	210	392	564	993
Surface Warships	159	178	237	225	282	635	827
Total Active	380	394	478	790	1782	3699	6084

Events:
WWII begins in Europe when Germany and the USSR invade Poland September 1939.

RETURN TO INDEX

---

U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1945-1950

Type	8/14/45*	6/30/46	6/30/47	6/30/48	6/30/49	6/30/50
Battleships	23	10	4	2	1	1
Carriers, Fleet	28	15	14	13	11	11
Carriers, Escort	71	10	8	7	7	4
Cruisers	72	36	32	32	18	13
Destroyers	377	145	138	134	143	137
Frigates	361	35	24	12	12	10
Submarines	232	85	80	74	79	72
SSBNs	-	-	-	-	-	-
Command Ships	-	-	-	-	-	-
Mine Warfare	586	112	55	54	52	56
Patrol	1204	119	74	50	50	33
Amphibious	2547	275	107	86	60	79
Auxiliary	1267	406	306	273	257	218
Surface Warships	833	226	198	180	174	161
Total Active	6768	1248	842	737	690	634

Events:
WWII in Europe ends 8 May 1945. V-J Day 14 August 1945 (15 August in western Pacific). Pacific War formally ends 2 September 1945. U.S.-USSR relations deteriorate 1945-1950. Chinese Civil War won by communists 1949. Korean War begins 25 June 1950.

Notes:
* = V-J Day.
The increase in fleet size after 1950 is due to the mobilization, begun after North Korea invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950.

RETURN TO INDEX

---

U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1951-1957

Type	6/30/51	6/30/52	6/30/53	6/30/54	6/30/55	6/30/56	6/30/57
Battleships	3	4	4	4	3	3	2
Carriers, Fleet	17	19	19	20	21	22	22
Carriers, Escort	9	10	0	7	3	2	-
Cruisers	15	19	19	18	17	16	16
Destroyers	206	243	247	247	249	250	253
Frigates	38	56	56	57	64	70	84
Submarines	83	104	108	108	108	108	113
SSG/SSBNs	1	1	2	2	1	2	2
Command Ships	-	-	-	-	-	1	1
Mine Warfare	91	114	121	117	112	113	104
Patrol	40	29	23	22	15	11	12
Amphibious	208	189	226	223	175	139	134
Auxiliary	269	309	287	288	262	236	224
Surface Warships	262	322	326	326	333	339	355
Total Active	980	1097	1122	1113	1030	973	967

Events:
Korean War Armistice signed 1953. Taiwan Straits patrol begins 1955.

RETURN TO INDEX

---

U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1958-1964

Type	6/30/58	6/30/59	6/30/60	6/30/61	6/30/62	6/30/63	6/30/64
Battleships	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Carriers	24	23	23	24	26	24	24
Cruisers	15	12	13	12	13	18	24
Destroyers	245	237	226	223	240	222	215
Frigates	71	61	41	41	68	40	40
Submarines	109	109	106	105	104	102	102
SSG/SSBNs	2	4	7	10	14	17	23
Command Ships	1	1	1	1	1	2	2
Mine Warfare	77	82	81	83	84	84	84
Patrol	12	6	4	4	2	-	-
Amphibious	121	120	113	110	130	132	133
Auxiliary	213	205	197	206	218	216	212
Surface Warships	331	310	280	276	321	280	279
Total Active	890	860	812	819	900	857	859

Events:
Lebanon landings 1958. Cuban quarantine October-December 1962. Tonkin Gulf incident 1964.

RETURN TO INDEX

---

U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1965-1971

Type	6/30/65	6/30/66	6/30/67	6/30/68	6/30/69	6/30/70	6/30/71
Battleships	-	-	-	1	1	-	-
Carriers	25	23	23	23	22	19	19
Cruisers	27	29	35	35	34	31	30
Destroyers	221	217	216	219	201	155	152
Frigates	39	42	46	50	43	47	61
Submarines	104	104	105	105	100	103	100
SSG/SSBNs	30	37	41	41	41	41	41
Command Ships	2	2	2	2	2	-	-
Mine Warfare	84	84	83	84	74	64	59
Patrol	-	-	3	6	7	15	17
Amphibious	135	159	162	157	153	97	95
Auxiliary	213	212	216	210	207	171	177
Surface Warships	287	288	296	304*	279	249	262
Total Active	880	909	931	932	885	743	752

Events:
Carrier strikes on North Vietnam and Market Time Operations begin 1965. Sea Dragon amphibious operations 1966-1968.

Notes:
* = Vietnam era high.
Notes: The dramatic fall in ship numbers after 1968-1969 is due to the decision to limit the use of American military force in Vietnam and the decommissioning of many WWII-era ships.

RETURN TO INDEX

---

U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1972-1978

Type	6/30/72	6/30/73	6/30/74	6/30/75	6/30/76	6/30/77	9/30/78 ^
Battleships	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Carriers	17	16	14	15	13	13	13
Cruisers	27	29	28	27	26	26	28
Destroyers	132	139	119	102	99	92	95
Frigates	66	71	64	64	64	64	65
Submarines	94	84	73	75	74	77	81
SSBNs	41	41	41	41	41	41	41
Command Ships	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Mine Warfare	31	34	34	34	25	25	25
Patrol	16	14	14	14	13	6	3
Amphibious	77	65	65	64	65	65	67
Auxiliary	153	148	135	123	116	114	113
Surface Warships	225	239	211	193	189	182*	188
Total Active	654	641	587	559	536	523	531

Events:
Last U.S. forces withdraw from South Vietnam following the ceasefire 1973. South Vietnam falls to North Vietnamese communists 1975.

Notes:
^ = Beginning with FY 78, the fiscal year runs 1 October through 30 September.
* = Post-Vietnam low for surface warships.

RETURN TO INDEX

---

U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1979-1985

Type	9/30/79	9/30/80	9/30/81	9/30/82	9/30/83	9/30/84	9/30/85
Battleships	-	-	-	-	1	2	2
Carriers	13	13	12	13	13	13	13
Cruisers	28	26	27	27	28	29	30
Destroyers	97	94	91	89	71	69	69
Frigates	65	71	78	86	95	103	110
Submarines	80	82	87	96	98	98	100
SSBNs	41	40	34	33	34	35	37
Command Ships	-	3	4	4	4	4	4
Mine Warfare	25	25	25	25	21	21	21
Patrol	3	3	1	4	6	6	6
Amphibious	67	63	61	61	59	57	58
Auxiliary	114	110	101	117	103	120	121
Surface Warships	190	191	196	202	195	203	211
Total Active	533	530	521*	555	533	557	571

Events:
Grenada operation 1983. Attempted peacekeeping in Lebanon 1983.

Notes:
* = Post-Vietnam War low (total active ships).

RETURN TO INDEX

---

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

Events:
Fall of the Berlin Wall and many East European communist governments, 1989-1990. Gulf mobilization and war, 1990-1991. Dissolution of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War, 1991.

Notes:
^= 1980s high for surface warships.
* = 1980s high for total active ships.
Notes: A rapid decline in force level is evident after the anticommunist revolutions in Eastern Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union, 1989-1991.

RETURN TO INDEX

---

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^

Notes:
* = Low since 1931.
^ = Low since 1938.

RETURN TO INDEX

---

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
Events

 

To clarify the ship numbers included in this table, the year 2000 entries include active commissioned ships, those in the Naval Reserve Force (NRF) and ships operated by the Military Sealift Command (MSC).  Row entries are self-explanatory, with the auxiliary category including combat logistic ships (such as oilers, ammunition, combat store ships), mobile logistics ships (such as submarine tenders) and support ships (such as command, salvage, tugs and research ships).  Command ships have been subsumed into that category and the separate line entry removed. 

---

23 January 2002

[cva66snipe]

But why if it was wrong for Clinton is it right for Bush. Look at this oldie but goodie warning. Navy Shipbuilding Plan Falls Short; Critics Voice "Concern and Frustration"

[cva66snipe]

Word is the JFK is soon on it's way out due to problems & not to be replaced. The Kitty Hawk is likely gone as well. Our carrier fleet even with the building of the FORD will end up 9-10 by 2012 likely 9 at the rate we are going because the ENTERPRISE is older than what the JFK and AMERICA were. The only carrier left it's senior is KITTY HAWK as CONNIE was decommed. ENTERPRISE's age since delivery is 45 years and she is a nuke plant.

[Paul Ross]

There seems to be an arrogance that it can't happen again to us.

Bump. Agreed. And interesting that you mentioned this...

Sec of Def Dick Cheney for example ended production of the F-14. Ending production is one thing. Destroying the capabilities to produce again if needed in the future is quite another.

You likely know Cheney did more than simply end production. While SecDef...Cheney ordered destroyed in 1991 the titanium-casting "forms" for the F-14. These huge special forms had been custom-manufactured. Crucial to make the titanium-wing-boxes for the F-14 (and represented a huge R&D investment in their own right)... They were the key to ever building more F-14s or improved updated variants thereof...now all F-14s have to be retired due to extreme age and wear and tear. And I probably don't need to tell you that nothing either on our decks currently, in the works, or on any CAD/CAM station can do what they did.

[Paul Ross]

But why if it was wrong for Clinton is it right for Bush. Look at this oldie but goodie warning. Navy Shipbuilding Plan Falls Short; Critics Voice "Concern and Frustration"

Of course it isn't. Thanks for the blast from the past! It is important that we not lose perspective and accurate institutional memory.

It is what really separates those who are true conservatives [us old fogeys ]... from the phoneys.

[cva66snipe]

You likely know Cheney did more than simply end production. While SecDef...Cheney ordered destroyed in 1991 the titanium-casting "forms" for the F-14. These huge special forms had been custom-manufactured. Crucial to make the titanium-wing-boxes for the F-14 (and represented a huge R&D investment in their own right)... They were the key to ever building more F-14s or improved updated variants thereof...now all F-14s have to be retired due to extreme age and wear and tear. And I probably don't need to tell you that nothing either on our decks currently, in the works, or on any CAD/CAM station can do what they did.

So much needed money could have been saved and the greatest Naval Fighter Plane kept in service had the money simply went into future F-14 Avionics R&D. The airframe for what that plane did was the best design so far. Even a mouse trap can only be perfected so much in basic design.

[Paul Ross]

Our carrier fleet even with the building of the FORD will end up 9-10 by 2012 likely 9 at the rate we are going because the ENTERPRISE is older than what the JFK and AMERICA were. The only carrier left it's senior is KITTY HAWK as CONNIE was decommed. ENTERPRISE's age since delivery is 45 years and she is a nuke plant.

Enterprise since its last, 1995(?)RCOH could go quite a while...supposedly a 22 year extension of life. Supposed to be retired 2013, and be replaced by CVN-78. We'll see.

It is likely that the Administration WANTS the Navy fleet of carriers to go down to 9 ships. Their old plans had Kitty Hawk to be decommissioned in 2008...I believe to be replaced ultimately by CVN-77.

They have also commissioned a study to justify a 9 ship carrier fleet... Have to see if I can dig that up.

[Paul Ross]

The airframe for what that plane did was the best design so far.

But it and our capabilities allowed to fade into the sunset...

[Paul Ross]

Did you see this?

Tomcat Sunset……Last Time, Baby! -

A major reunion is scheduled for 20-23 September 2006. The reunion will take place in Virginia Beach, VA and coincide with the transitioning of the last F-14 squadron (VF-31 Tomcatters). Click on the "Last Time, Baby image to access a new web site for details. An on-line resistration form to sign up for all the events is available at this site

[cva66snipe]

Enterprise since its last, 1995(?)RCOH could go quite a while...supposedly a 22 year extension of life. Supposed to be retired 2013, and be replaced by CVN-78. We'll see

The reactor may last that long but the other equipment? There's 4 air craft elevators, 6? electrical generators, the turbines, Thrust block, catapults, arresting gears, etc that may not hold up to it.

Nukes like the conventionals in the KITTY HAWK and JFK class are still steam driven. The difference is how the steam is generated. This means a 1200 PSI super heated steam piping system. One leak the size of a number 2 pencil lead can dismember or decapitate you and you will never know the leak is there. This is why it did not make one bit of sense to give the older carriers Ship Life Extension Program S.L.E.P. and not the newer ones. They ran the America till it blew up at Norfolk then ran it another cruise. The JFK is in as bad if not worse shape than AMERICA was. These two were younger than Enterprise. I think the administration like the DEM's is steering us into a multinational reliance defense posture. That IMO is not good at all. For any leader of this nation from any party or branch of government to place our national defense into such a position that we are completely alliance dependent which is where this is head I call it Tyranny.

[rbg81]

The lighter-leaner-more lethal mindset has dominated the US military for the last 20+ years. While it has its positive points (why not do more with less, if you can?), it has evolved into a mantra that blinds people to its ill effects.

One such effect, from a political perspective, is that the fewer troops you have, the less of a constituency you have for defense. 50 years ago there was an enormous defense industry. 20 years ago, it had shrunken considerably, but was still huge. Now, it is relatively small and defense is an ever shrinking share of GDP. Yet even as it shrinks, you have people claiming that the smaller-than-ever share is intolerably large. And since fewer and fewer districts benefit from defense, it becomes ever harder to counter those voices.

The truth is that the downsizing of the military has become a vicious circle that shows no signs of slowing. Even the GWOT has failed to stem it. This does not bode well for our ability to fight in the future--no matter how capable our small force is. If you only have a few good men, you can't be everywhere at once. As we are finding out with Iran now.

[cva66snipe]

Did you see this?

No I sure didn't. Thanks for the heads up. One of the most awesome events I saw in my 4 years on the ship was an F-14 coming by flight-deck level at full speed. We were out on a dependents cruise and put on a family air show. I worked in AC&R {Air-conditioning & Refrigeration} and our shop got trouble calls for a week over that as it cleaned out the ventilation systems.

[cva66snipe]

The truth is that the downsizing of the military has become a vicious circle that shows no signs of slowing. Even the GWOT has failed to stem it. This does not bode well for our ability to fight in the future--no matter how capable our small force is. If you only have a few good men, you can't be everywhere at once. As we are finding out with Iran now.

It puts temptation before nations that otherwise would think twice before engaging us in combat. Who's the happiest communist dictator in the world right now? The North Korean is.

[Paul Ross]

For any leader of this nation from any party or branch of government to place our national defense into such a position that we are completely alliance dependent which is where this is head I call it Tyranny.

Agreed. It is subversion. And a breach of all solemn oaths and fealty, and treason against God and country. These oaths were sworn to before us all, so help them God. The President's reads:

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The requirement of "faithful execution" is clearly implicated in any willful non-feasance. And anything which consciously undermines the independence of the country, and the liberty of its citizens, which the Constitution was meant to protect, is an implicit attack upon that Constitution itself, and malfeasance against the "Duty to Preserve, Protect and Defend" it.

I've seen the Administration try to laugh off their willful, deliberate non-enforcement of existing border and alienage laws... To the extent they do these things deliberately (which is empirical undeniable), such mis, mal and nonfeasances are potentially impeachable offenses that represent betrayal of their oathe of office. They baldly simply pretend not to "get it."

And the happy circumstance for them is that they are immune from any such action...such as impeachment or prosecution or other crimes:

-- First because they are the party of the majority party. The GOP will never risk the huge debacle of having to discipline its own President...and it won't likely ever confront him no matter how blatant the misbehavior becomes...and

-- Second, the minority party, still powerful and able to intercede to block impeachments...is fully complicit and of substantially the same agenda.

So in a real crisis, in the beyond unlikely event if the GOP suddenly rediscovered that Country and Duty is more important than Party...they would be thwarted by the RATs...who would hold their noses and defend their lack of principles...and virtuously call it principle. And such futility makes the GOP cleaning house all the more improbably. This would take a degree of political courage...and integrity... we have not seen since Reagan.

So ends the Great Experiment then...in duplicitous betrayal by deceitful false friends, in tacit if unacknowledged collaboration with the debauched and openly wicked enemies who can brazenly conspire with impunity...and shameful cowardice by those who would be counted as true friends of the Republic...

[Paul Ross]

We were out on a dependents cruise and put on a family air show.

I'll bet it was awesome, albeit no Phoenixes were launched as in this photo:

You likely will appreciate The F-14 Tomcat Association

[cva66snipe]

Bottom right picture I think was taken off my ship {AMERICA} a few years after I left LOL... It's a real picture and the man standing with his hands behind his back is an Admiral. The Tomcat wasn't as close as it looked though.

[Paul Ross]

I think it is a deliberate act on their part to force our country unto the global community. They are putting us in the position where we have to belong to the Global community because we will no longer be able to act independently on our own to protect ourselves.

I agree with this suspicion. The possibility needs to be publically...and seriously... explored by conservatives. The explanatory power of this thesis really does tend to tie together a rather large number of the destructive and politically suicidal positions taken by the Administration. You just have to start connecting dots. The connections may not be always visible, but a lot of the dots are.

For one thing: it would also be historically consistent with what the elder Bush is believed to actually subscribe to.

Also, its easier to believe the ulterior "selfless Liberal" motivation of this particular President in this regard...who is constantly trying to emote, and "out-feel" the previous Prevaricator-In-Chief...[ who he has also all but Pardoned in practice...and rehabilitated ]. Rather than instead believing that policies which keep leading to Globalist submergence of U.S. supremacy are somehow merely accidental. If these were mere accidents, then some of them would break our way. This also requires assuming he is either stupid or merely corrupted. I wouldn't believe either of those assumptions. The President is above average in intelligence, although not in verbal fluency. I'm sure he is sincere in whatever he is striving for.

But it is equally clear that his motivations remained veiled. This is one of the reasons why so many find his speeches so unsatisfying, and people find that "something is missing." They are not what he purports to affirm, albeit sometimes things slip out. Such as the multiculturalism that Lawrence Auster identified in his column My Bush Epiphany.

The multiculturalism identified is something which I believe would be an absolute prerequisite of a Globalist Elitist/Fanatic. This fanaticism of his tends to support the suspicion of the corrollary fanaticism of the One (New) World Order.

Those who wish to defend the patriotic purity of the President's motives have a difficult task, and so they usually don't try, so they usually just disparage those who have raised the alarm with aspersions and ad hominem attacks. And they run away from the substantive evidences like scalded cats.

I think it is time for the President himself to get a lot more specific about rejecting "global tests" than he did for public show with John Kerry. And prove it with concrete budgets.

[Paul Ross]

The Tomcat wasn't as close as it looked though.

I can believe that. Of course, the F-14 is a big bird. The range that extra size lends means it can do things like this...go way out at supersonic speeed, to intercept and then slow down to "escort" a lumbering Bear past the carrier battle group...all beyond the Bear's own weapons range...

[cva66snipe]

An F-14 in the late 70's usually stayed on a catapult ready to go while underway and flight ops were secure. If anyone got too close you heard launch the alert cat and 9 out of 10 times could roll over and go back to sleep. In about a minute or two you'd hear it launch.

[Paul Ross]

The moral of that little example of course was not lost on the Soviet bomber pilots. The tomcats made our superiority look complete...and effortless.

[Paul Ross]

...and 9 out of 10 times could roll over and go back to sleep. In about a minute or two you'd hear it launch.

Heh. Well it is about time I hit the sack, and fortunately I won't have any carrier deck operations going on over head. But we can dream of these beauties in action...

[mississippi red-neck]

I like you do not believe he is stupid or insincere. I believe he has been misled or either has bought into this this globalist ideology of a world run on a business like basis where the nations are merged into regional zones or districts each dependent on the others for economic survival and their security.

I think that he and the ultra rich powerful supporters of the Global view really believe this is the only way to eventually bring about their utopia world of stable markets and reasonable a peaceful world where no one is able to act militarily or disturb the status quo without the approval and support of the other partners.

All they are doing is setting up a situation that the right[or wrong ]man can step in and take over.

The United States and its Constitution has been the one thing in the way to keep this from happening.

What they have been waiting for has been a big enough or made to seem serious enough World/US crisis of either a financial or security nature or both that would convince enough American people to give up enough of their freedom and power to the government.

They also needed someone who believed that Globalism and the Corporate World was the answer to most of the world's problems, someone that the American people trusted enough with this power.

The time the conditions and the man has come.

9/11,Iraq, Iran and world terrorism etc. has provided the security crisis that is being hyped for all it is worth.

Big oil, the media, and the insane over spending of billions of dollars on everything that even looks like a legitimate excuse or crisis is going to bring about the deliberate financial crisis and finish putting us so far in debt that we do an instant reply of what happened to the Soviet Union.

We are bing put in the same economic bondage with China the Saudis and Arabs have had us for years.

Iraq is being used to do to us the same thing that we did to Russia, spend us into a downsized member of the Global community where no independent super powers are allowed.

Iraq is the last time we will act militarily as an independent nation.

There's close to a trillion dollars and our soldiers blood that's been sunk down that black hole that won't gain us one friend.

It's going to end up in the hands of some Mullah as bad or worse than Saddam that will preach hate and destruction to us and our allies.

[Paul Ross]

I believe he has been misled or either has bought into this this globalist ideology of a world run on a business like basis where the nations are merged into regional zones or districts each dependent on the others for economic survival and their security.

Bump. Globaloneyism appears to be his real creed...which he has kept masked...but it comes out when he gets huffy over "free" trade.

[Paul Ross]

Ping.

Vector of change alert. The earlier forecast that we would be surpassed by China's Navy in 2015 just got dated. Looks like the Navy is being forcibly shrunk by the Administration even faster than the earlier forecast would have predicted. [ The forecasts 3 years ago was that we would decline to 290 navy ships by 2006. We now have only 281... ]