Do we still need the Navy?

[ITR_champion]

The U. S. Military and most other militaries started out divided up according to function. We had the army for land battles, the Navy for warfare at sea, and the Marines for campaigns involving both land and sea. In the early years of our country, each branch stayed closed to its purpose. When Indian tribes on the plains got uppity, we sent the Army. When the British attacked our shipping, we used the Navy. When we needed to make a landing in the Barbary states, we sent the Marines.

Warfare has changed since then. We have an Air Force, for one thing. On the flip side, naval warfare has been radically altered. Surface warfare just doesn’t happen anymore. There’s no scenario where we’d want ships to close to the distance where they can fight with guns and torpedos; missiles and airstrikes are always preferable. Hence the Navy has drifted away from its original purpose, and now focuses on aerial warfare.

We need to be realistic about our military needs. For now and as long as the neocons hold power, the military will see combat mainly when occupying countries that don’t desire to be occupied. Submarines just aren’t useful for that sort of thing.

I propose that we abolish the Navy. Aircraft carriers could become part of the Air Force, along with whatever vessels support them. Other necessary vessels would be folded into the other branches of the military as logic dictates.

Advantages: 1.) Better coordination. It would no longer be necessary to deal with two different chains of command when planning a series of airstrikes that involve both land-based and carrier-based planes.

2.) Reduction of the infamous military bureaucracy.

3.) Budget advantages. Eliminate many superfluous positions. Also, some of most outrageous pork barrel projects involve the Navy. The fewer branches of the military we have, the better hope the taxpayers have of figuring out where their money is going.

[silenus]

Bad idea. Really bad idea.

The Air Force and the Navy have radically different roles and outlooks on combat. It took forever to get the AF to even notice the poor ground-pounder and start looking into tactical, attack aircraft. They have no freaking idea what the needs of the ground troops are. The Navy has centuries of experience providing support for the Marines. It’s what they do.

Who is going to take care of Logistics? You want to fly supplies across the planet? Not to mention suppression of pirates, fighting everybody else’s navies, etc. You think the Army can swim out and attack a sub? Speaking of subs, who do they go to, the Boy Scouts?

If you don’t control the air and the sea, you have no hope of controlling the land.

[Johnny_L.A]

Power projection. A carrier battle group can be positioned such that a strike can be launched on short notice. There would be a considerable delay if attacks had to be launched with Kansas-based B-2s. As was seen in the raid on Libya, there can be problems with flying over the airspace of our allies. A naval task force can be positioned where those problems might be minimised. Also, governments might be more likely to take notice of a carrier or two operating in international waters off of their coast than they would a wing of bombers or a bunch of missile silos in the middle of the U.S. We could have bases in ‘friendly’ countries, but that can open a political can of worms. IIRC bin Laden’s major gripe with us is that we had military forces in Saudi Arabia.

[XT]

Short answer is…hell YES we still need a navy. Unless you don’t want the US to be able to project power or military force anymore that is. If thats your goal, then certainly we don’t need a navy…or an army or marine corps for that matter. The only thing we’d need the air force for would be air defense and maybe to manage the ICBM’s and bombers.

Thinking much like your’s occured right after WWII, when there was serious thought about whether or not the US still needed a powerful navy. It looked like the Air Force had won the day, Navy funding was cut back and looked to be further cut…until Korea and then Viet Nam showed that the Navy was vital to project force. Air Force units need basing, support staff, etc, all protected. The Navy brings all that and more with them, and can move it around where ever its needed. In addition, though troops and supplies can be flown it, the real bulk of supplies and equipment is brought in on…ships.

'Course I may be a bit prejudiced, since I served in the Navy. To me the REAL question is…why the hell do we still need an Air Force??

-XT

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
Power projection. A carrier battle group can be positioned such that a strike can be launched on short notice.
[/QUOTE]
Well, in fairness, he said he’d give the carriers to the USAF.

It is still a bad idea, of course. We still need to be able to patrol the world for ICBM equipped subs, transport materiel (and protect the transports), sit off the coast of a hostile shore and provide support for our land forces until they can support themselves (with water-transported reinforcements).

I also suspect that ITR champion is not familiar with the actual composition of the current navy. We are not building battleships (or even heavy cruisers) any more. The Navy is made of a number of mission-specific ships that are designed to provide air and sea protection for carriers and transports and provide coastal interdiction against smaller creaft. The argument that

Surface warfare just doesn’t happen anymore. There’s no scenario where we’d want ships to close to the distance where they can fight with guns and torpedos; missiles and airstrikes are always preferable.

is pretty much irrelevant because we no longer have a navy that is actually designed to do that.

(There is also the case that Russia, China, and other nations do not attempt to challenge us specifically because we have a Navy that is pretty much impervious to that sort of challenge.)

[ITR_champion]

[QUOTE=silenus]
Who is going to take care of Logistics? You want to fly supplies across the planet?
[/quote]

Each branch could be in charge of its own logistics. During the two world wars, we needed warships to accompany cargo ships because the Germans and Japanese were attacking our supply lines with subs and surface warships. Those days are over. We haven’t been in such a situation for more than fifty years. Today we can get stuff from point A to point B without a fleet of destroyers.

Not to mention suppression of pirates, fighting everybody else’s navies, etc.

I think that America sees more pirates in Disney movies than in real life these days, but if they are a problem, we could reconstitute some ships under a civilian agency to police our waters.

You think the Army can swim out and attack a sub?

No. Good thing we haven’t had to deal with subs lately, and never will again.

Speaking of subs, who do they go to, the Boy Scouts?

I think they go to the junkyard, since they’re not doing as much good right now.

If you don’t control the air and the sea, you have no hope of controlling the land.

This thinking is symptomatic of old views of warfare in which opposing militaries clash for control of territory. That model is now three generations out of date. Modern warfare is guerilla warfare. We need to change the military to reflect that reality.

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
No. Good thing we haven’t had to deal with subs lately, and never will again.
[/QUOTE]
I’d be curious which potential enemy you believe does not have a submarine fleet?

[XT]

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Each branch could be in charge of its own logistics. During the two world wars, we needed warships to accompany cargo ships because the Germans and Japanese were attacking our supply lines with subs and surface warships. Those days are over. We haven’t been in such a situation for more than fifty years. Today we can get stuff from point A to point B without a fleet of destroyers.
[/QUOTE]

You don’t think transport ships are vulnerable anymore?? That we haven’t had this situation in more than 50 years (I’ll let that go without asking for details for the sake of the point) is precisely BECAUSE we have the worlds most powerful Navy.

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
No. Good thing we haven’t had to deal with subs lately, and never will again.
[/QUOTE]

Where are you getting this from? Do you realize that Iran (among other things) has subs? China, India, Russia…they all have subs. North Korea has subs. China especially COULD build a rather large navy (and actually IS building up their navy lately) if encouraged by the US opting out.

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
I think they go to the junkyard, since they’re not doing as much good right now.
[/QUOTE]

Sure…might as well junk all the tanks too. And the B52’s and other bombers. They aren’t doing much these days. Why have all those nasty soldiers hanging about, eating all the food and drinking all the beer? Lets get rid of them too. All those Marine Corp amphib craft? Who needs it? Smells like jarhead. Air Force Fighters? Naw, scrap em.

:dubious:

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
This thinking is symptomatic of old views of warfare in which opposing militaries clash for control of territory. That model is now three generations out of date. Modern warfare is guerilla warfare. We need to change the military to reflect that reality.
[/QUOTE]

The irony is that your thinking here isn’t new either. Its exactly what happened after WWII prior to Korea. The Air Force especially was pushing at the time for cutting the Navy’s budget and perhaps even eliminating it, or folding it into a smaller coastal guard force. Why did we need the Navy when the Air Force had long range strategic bombers, fighter jets…and the bomb? Then Korea happened.

After that, AGAIN folks who thought as you did put forth that the Navy was obsolete. Guerilla warfare would be the norm, small regional proxy conflicts…no need for big ships that cost tons of money. We had the Army and Air Force to deal with that stuff. Then came Viet Nam.

So, now you are trotting out the same arguements that have been used in the past as to why the Navy is no longer important. Who has ships these days (actually, quite a few nations)? Who has subs (ditto)? What does the Navy do thats important anyway (besides projecting US power across the globe…hows it working out for our Euro buddies without a big Navy these days?)?

-XT

[Johnny_L.A]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Well, in fairness, he said he’d give the carriers to the USAF.
[/QUOTE]

Somehow I skimmed right over that.

[AFAIKnow]

ISTM that this OP is either very short sided or has some desire to level the playing field. Lets even up the odds since no one fucks with us for whatever reason. The US is the acknowedged military (esp navy) superpower so no one fucks with us militarily. I guess once we start getting threatened again and pirates start taking a few US vessels we can build up again?

[silenus]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Well, in fairness, he said he’d give the carriers to the USAF.
[/QUOTE]

Like a bunch of zoomies would know what to do with a ship that big. By the way, who is going to sail that great big floating Air Force base for you?

As for piracy, you might want to take a look at the figues for international ship hijackings over the last decade. Piracy on the high seas is a growth business these days. Think of what a target a bunch of unescorted merchant ships would be to a third-world warlord.

Back to logisitcs…if every branch is in charge of getting its own supplies wherever needed, aren’t you just creating duplicate bureaucracies and fleets? And I repeat my previous: who is going to sail these ships? Should West Point and Colorado Springs start teaching basic seamanship?

As others have noted, there are major sub fleets out there, operated by very not-nice people.

Even if modern warfare is guerilla warfare (and I would argue that it isn’t. See Gulf War 1 & 2 as examples) that doesn’t mean that the situation won’t change in a heartbeat. See xtisme’s excellent rebuttal of all of your arguments for that.

[Polycarp]

So we have the U.S.A.F.S. Tooey Spaatz, which took 10 years and several billion dollars to build, sitting off the coast of hostileOllistan. And out comes the Pride of the Ollistani Navy – a sub and two PT boats. Three torpedoes later, the Spaatz is headed for the bottom. Unless the Air Force has destroyers to defend it. And maybe bigger ships to defend the carriers and their destroyers against the enemy’s destroyer-killing larger ships. Hmmm – looks like the Air Force needs an ocean-going defense force! Wonder what we ought to call it?

[Beware_of_Doug]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Thinking much like your’s occured right after WWII, when there was serious thought about whether or not the US still needed a powerful navy.
[/QUOTE]
At one point the talk was of keeping the navy but junking the Marine Corps. In response, the Corps transformed itself from merely the roughest toughest bunch of SOBs ever to pick up rifles into the highly regimented warrior cult we know today.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

ITR Champion–getting rid of the Navy might just be the worst idea I’ve ever encountered on the SDMB, not counting Remote Viewing.

Genuinely, you need to read up on what a modern Navy is, and what it does.

The US Navy may just be our most valuable Service Branch, & that’s no bull.

Get a book on Modern Naval Warfare. Today.

[msmith537]

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
We need to be realistic about our military needs. For now and as long as the neocons hold power, the military will see combat mainly when occupying countries that don’t desire to be occupied. Submarines just aren’t useful for that sort of thing.
[/quote]

Submarines are useful for intelligence gathering and special operations work like offloading Navy SEALS.

The Navy also has amphibious assault ships in addition to it’s carrier fleet. The rest of the destroyers, missle cruisers and other ships are there to defend the carriers and amphibious assault ships.

You’re right though that Ole’ Tyme gun duels between capital ships are a thing of the past. This is largely the reason you don’t see large battleships anymore.

[QUOTE=ITR champion]

I propose that we abolish the Navy. Aircraft carriers could become part of the Air Force, along with whatever vessels support them.

[/QUOTE]

you mean the dozen or so subs, destroyers, cruisers and tenders that make up it’s battle group?

[XT]

[QUOTE=msmith537]
you mean the dozen or so subs, destroyers, cruisers and tenders that make up it’s battle group?
[/QUOTE]

I’m guessing here, but I don’t think the OP has a good grasp of the logistics and support/defense ships that allow for a modern carrier to operate. I THINK that his guess is that they don’t really do much, and all you need is the carrier. Or maybe he has some vague idea that potentially hostile countries can’t hurt a carrier. Either that or he was just granting the AF carriers (which is a laugh thinking of the propeller heads trying to RUN the thing, let alone thinking of their pilots trying to LAND on one! ) but actually doesn’t think they are necessary anymore. After all, what can a carrier do against an insurgent in Iraq?

Just for drill, here is a Wiki article on carrier battle groups:

A carrier battle group (CVBG or CARBATGRU) or carrier strike group (CVSG) is a fleet of ships in support of an aircraft carrier. Such groups are primarily used by the United States Navy, which has 12 carrier battle groups scattered across the world. Their existence is an important part of the power projection capability of the United States in that they provide the ability to strike quickly almost anywhere in the world.

The large number of CVBGs used by the United States reflects, in part, a division of labor allotted during the Cold War, in which the United States assumed primary responsibility for blue water operations and for safeguarding supply lines between the United States and Europe, while the NATO allies assumed responsibility for brown and green water operations.

While an aircraft carrier has the ability to project a large amount of air power, it is vulnerable to attack from aircraft, submarines, and other surface ships. The primary role of the other ships in the battle group is to help protect the carrier from enemy air, surface, and submarine threats. The primary role of the carrier and its air wing is to provide the offensive firepower. These roles are not exclusive. Other ships in the battle group sometimes undertake offensive operations (launching cruise missiles, for instance) and the carrier’s air wing contributes to the battle group’s defense (through combat air patrols and airborne anti-submarine efforts).

CVBGs have no definitive specification and are formed and dissolved on an ad-hoc basis, and one may be different from another. However, they all comprise similar types of ships, and a typical U.S. carrier battle group might include:

* a carrier, usually Nimitz-class or Kitty Hawk-class — The carrier provides a wide range of options to the U.S. government, ranging from simply showing the flag, to attacks on airborne, afloat and ashore targets. Because carriers operate in international waters, their aircraft do not need to secure landing rights on foreign soil. These ships also engage in sustained operations in support of other forces. The carrier is the flagship of the battle group, with the commanding rear admiral on board, making use of the advanced combat information center and communications suite.
* two guided missile cruisers, usually Ticonderoga class — multi-mission surface combatants, equipped with Tomahawk missiles for long-range strike capability.
* two to three guided missile destroyers, usually Arleigh Burke-class — multi-mission surface combatant, used primarily for anti-air warfare (AAW) and anti-submarine warfare (ASW)
* a frigate, usually Oliver Hazard Perry-class — primarily for anti-submarine warfare (ASW)
* two attack submarines, usually Los Angeles-class — in a direct support role seeking out and destroying hostile surface ships and submarines
* a combined ammunition, oiler, and supply ship, usually Sacramento or Supply class — provides logistic support enabling the Navy's forward presence: on station, ready to respond

The Carrier Battle Group (CVBG) could be employed in a variety of roles, most of which would involve the gaining and maintenance of sea control:

* Protection of economic and/or military shipping.
* Protection of a Marine amphibious force while en route to, and upon arrival in, an amphibious objective area.
* Establishing air superiority or supremacy in an area in combination with land-based aircraft.
* Establishing a naval presence in support of national interests

Not sure the AF is up to the task…or what we’d save by giving them this job. This leaves aside if they could do it at all, which I’m frankly skeptical of.

-XT

[JRDelirious]

Hmmm… “Transferring” the carrier battle groups to the Air Force and other components to the closest-kin other forces, would mean that we would STILL have a navy, only that for some bizarre reason its main offensive surface forces report to a Chief of the Air Staff. It’s like with other countries that have “unitary” armed forces, such as Canada and Israel: on paper, sure, it’s only the “maritime command” of “The Forces”, but it looks, walks and quacks like a navy.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Cleary the U.S. military has to get rid of all weapons except 100-megaton thermonuclear-tipped ICBMs.

I mean, if it’s important enough to get involved with at all, you may as well be thorough.

[ITR_champion]

[QUOTE=AFAIKnow]
ISTM that this OP is either very short sided or has some desire to level the playing field.
[/quote]

Well, I’m not sure what ISTM means, nor what “short sided” means, and “level playing field” has always seemed to be a deliberately vague phrase. Are you capable of providing a quote from my posts that demonstrates this alleged short sidedness or desire to level the playing field, or are you deliberately avoiding my arguments and building up straw men?

@msmith

you mean the dozen or so subs, destroyers, cruisers and tenders that make up it’s battle group?

Yes, that’s exactly what I mean. Contrary to the rapidly jumped to conclusions here, I know exactly what makes up a carrier battle group, though it doesn’t seem all that practical to me. For instace, as xtisme has posted, some ships are there for offense aagainst “hostile surface ships and submarines”, which, since we don’t face any, is rather wasteful. I rather imagine that the airforce would trim the groups down a bit if they were in charge.

@silenus

Even if modern warfare is guerilla warfare (and I would argue that it isn’t. See Gulf War 1 & 2 as examples) that doesn’t mean that the situation won’t change in a heartbeat. See xtisme’s excellent rebuttal of all of your arguments for that.

Huh? Are you saying that the current quagmi, I mean, conflict in Iraq isn’t guerilla warfare? (Or as neocon bloggers prefer to call it, asymmetrical warfare.) We haven’t fought a single big pitched battle over there.

As for piracy, you might want to take a look at the figues for international ship hijackings over the last decade. Piracy on the high seas is a growth business these days. Think of what a target a bunch of unescorted merchant ships would be to a third-world warlord.

Link me up to the figures and I’ll have a look. But even if it’s true that hijackings are going up, I highly doubt that it’s happening in our waters. We’re not the world nanny; it’s not our business to stop piracy in some God-forsaken place like Indonesia. If international piracy is actually bothering our shipping, we’d be better off training and supporting other country’s forces to deal with it, rather than using American taxpayer money to maintain our own fleet in far-flung places.

[silenus]

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Yes, that’s exactly what I mean. Contrary to the rapidly jumped to conclusions here, I know exactly what makes up a carrier battle group, though it doesn’t seem all that practical to me. For instace, as xtisme has posted, some ships are there for offense against “hostile surface ships and submarines”, which, since we don’t face any, is rather wasteful.
[/QUOTE]

What posts above did you skip? Every freaking country with a coastline has a navy, fer crying out loud. The Russians, the Iranians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, everybody! All of them chock full of “hostile surface ships and submarines.”

Huh? Are you saying that the current quagmi, I mean, conflict in Iraq isn’t guerilla warfare? (Or as neocon bloggers prefer to call it, asymmetrical warfare.) We haven’t fought a single big pitched battle over there.

See my previous examples, or wasn’t Desert Storm comprised of battles? Yes, there is a guerilla war going on right now. So what? Are you saying that because a current situation, of limited duration, of recent development is happening that “battles” don’t take place any more, even though they happen with some frequency at the start of this conflict?

If international piracy is actually bothering our shipping, we’d be better off training and supporting other country’s forces to deal with it, rather than using American taxpayer money to maintain our own fleet in far-flung places.

That’s the most short-sighted thing I’ve ever heard of. Let’s spend untold billions of dollars to train and equip other people to protect our ships. Never mind that for a fraction of that, we could project our power with our own navy and avoid the problem in the first place.

Ostriches find the sand comforting. Men face the world head-on.