If we can afford Obamacare, why can’t we afford a decent Navy or a border fence?
My point is, Democrats only raise affordability issues about programs they don’t approve of, because they know that some GOP and independent voters like fiscal prudence, even if they haven’t seen much of it from Obama... or GW Bush.
All of the supporting documentation is located in White Papers written by neocons who hope to get positions in the next administration.
Dept of Education
Environmental Protection Agency
That should free up a few billion.
The big story here is that we’re down to 270 ships.
When Reagan left office we had over 600.
Now talk of 350 ships is considered sufficient. Not buying it.
Pushing another liberal agenda item.....
I tend to agree. Fewer ships with upgraded capabilities would make more sense in this age. Start retrofitting those rail guns and design a drone carrier.
Really? Putin is our ally all of a sudden? He didn’t threaten Poland and Ukraine with nukes?
The Cold War threats are gone …
They are expanding; we are not. How much time before they surpass us?
… the U.S. Navy is still infinately (sic) stronger than the Chinese navy is …
There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. …George Washington said that in 1793. If it was of paramount importance two centuries ago, how much more important now?
I don’t know. USS Nathan James — one ship — seems able to counter any threat in the world. /S
Much of what is happening now is the product of a declining nation that must choose between guns and butter. The welfare state has a voracious and increasing appetite for resources. Butter usually wins in this battle because it has more constituents. It is far easier to cut the military and rationalize why you are doing it. Until the sh#t hits the fan, you see no impact from the cuts.
The Navy allows the US to project power around the globe and to keep sea lanes open. Alfred Mahan's great book, The Influence of Seapower upon History provides some context on why a great nation depends upon its navies. Many naval ships provide logistical support to keep the combatant ships fueld and at sea. And the centerpiece of our Navy is the carrier, which requires other ships to protect and support it. Thus the number of ships can be deceiving since many are not combatants.
You need a sizable fleet so that you have the flexibility of having a certain percentage undergoing rehabs and refitting. You also have ships back in the home ports to rest and train the crews. So a significant portion of the fleet is undergoing repair or not deployed.
And there is a strategic part of the Navy, namely missile submarines that are part of the part of the nuclear triad that defends this country. We have 14 SSBNs and around 75 total submarines in service. China has 67 submarines.
Finally, it takes a lot of time and money to build a ship. We have to replace the existing fleet as it ages. Once you decrease the size of the navy, it will take some time to increase it. The Chinese are increasing the size of its navy.
The Chinese navy consists of 255,000 personnel (2012)] 485 ships (excl. auxiliaries), and 690+ aircraft. It has one aircraft carrier.
The US Navy has 326,046 active duty personnel, 107,115 reserve personnel[3] 273 ships, 2,641 aircraft and 10 aircraft carriers.
The missions of both navies is very different. The US has treaty commitments with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia along with NATO. We are obligated to help defend those countries in case of attack. China, for now, is more of a regional power--like Japan prior to WWII.
It all boils down to what kind of role the US will play in the world in the 21st century and beyond. Do we retreat from that role in much the same way the UK did, mainly due to the lack of resources, or do we continue to be a global power capable of projecting its influence worldwide? And can we afford it? Right now, we have chosen the former due to a lack of resources. Butter versus guns.
5.56mm
It’s been known for 10-20 years that more carriers and destroyers are becoming mostly just expensive drone and long-range missile targets - so why not spend money on drones and cruise missiles, as well as satellites, and special ops?
disband the TSA and DHS and use the money for ships, tanks and airplanes.
1) Op tempo has not decreased significantly in line with the fleet size movement. Choice is grow fleet and maintain op tempo or reduce op tempo to allow current equipment and man power to survive - more use, less shipyard maintenance (big issue right now), less training time vs operations...
2) Things wear out and cannot be repaired after a certain life without overhauls that are more expensive and risky then building new.
3) Technology improves and advances both for the good, to be used by our guys, and the bad, to be used AGAINST our guys, and needs to be put into use or counteracted.
The Ohio class SSBNs are an example of a strategic asset that requires upgrade to include new tech, but also is past the scheduled end of life.
Reagan aimed for 600 ships and achieved 594 which was the high point of the 1980s (see: http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/us-ship-force-levels.html#1986).
Capability is based on threat faced - if we look at China, they have a handful (and growing fast) of ships at par with us. More overall combatants, tough we outweigh them in tonnage - mainly do to our carrier sizes. If they do nothing but swarm in numerous directions independently then sea lanes and shipping would be at serious risk with no way to counteract hundreds of independent attack points. Yes ours are more capable, but you have to have enough to cover the areas in question - currently we’re severly limited.
I’m hearinig 450 in most discussions which is about half way between now and the peak.
Those are the basics
Individual ships are not more capable than they were 30 years ago, and in some cases they are less capable. There are some individual systems that are on paper more capable, but for those high $ capabilities something else was sacrificed.
The fleet supply system 30 years ago could respond anywhere in a damned hurry. Today, not so much of a hurry. We depend on a supply system today that is not in our control at all points and therefore undependable.
Our amphibious Navy is a shame now compared to 30 years ago.
Our anti-submarine capabilities and ability to cover the globe with a sensor blanket is no more. We have to shift assets to where needed, thereby uncovering other areas.
Our mine clearance assets are greatly reduced as well.
I was in when we had a 600 ship Navy. It was sufficient for peacetime. It would have been too small for a protracted single theater war.
Nope. We don’t need a bigger politically correct sodomy club. FIRST sort our the problems and the cowardly leaders. Then when its reprofessionalized, then and only then do they get a bigger fleet.
We need a six hundred ship Navy to uphold our treaty obligations. This allows us to control the seas. Naval deployments are tough on people and equipment. You need the ability to rotate ships into maintenance windows and give the crews a break. Pluse we need the ability to replace combat losses. Three hundred fifty ships is not enough.
If we stopped sending foreign aid money to people who hate us we could afford a boatload of new ships!
The sea routes that need protecting are still the same as they were before. The USSR may be history but Russia still has a Navy and China has a growing Navy now and they did not have a deepwater Navy in the last century. The ships may be more capable now but neither the crews or the ships are capable of 24/7/365 deployment. You have to account for a certain number being unavailable due to maintenance, crew training, etc. A certain number of ships is needed to protect all our trade routes around the world. Than agreed number used to be 600, not sure what it is now but it probably is higher than 270. There are periods now where we do not have a significant presence in critical areas due to a shortage of assets.