Our Weak Navy

Great Debates
1

The navy of The United States has been getting weaker and weaker since the end of the Cold War, and it’stime to start building it up. Just because we haven’t been involved in a major war recently, we shouldn’t put our National Defense on the back burner. There hasn’t been a fire in my town for a while, so should we get rid of the Fire Department?

I received this message the other week and thought it is my duty as a concerned American citizen to pass it on.

-----Original Message-----
From: Admiral Thomas B. Hayward, USN (Ret.), Chief of Naval Operations
and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1978-1981)
[mailto:AdmiralThomasB.Hayward@MobilizationOffice.com]
Subject: A Important Message from Admiral Hayward

Presidents & Sea Power: A 20th Century History Lesson

To Teddy Roosevelt, sea power was the “Big Stick” of American foreign
policy. In President Roosevelt’s own words, “A good Navy is not a
provocation to war. It is the surest guarantee of peace.”

For Woodrow Wilson, the US Navy proved to be a decisive strategic
factor
in WWI - defending the North Atlantic and transporting two million
American troops to Europe.

Even though FDR does not live to see the end of WWII, a US naval fleet
of nearly 7,000 ships has made a major contribution to the Allied
victory - an awesome demon-stration of American sea power from the
South
Pacific to Normandy.

In 1963, aboard the USS Kitty Hawk, John F. Kennedy praises the Navy’s
role during the Cuban missile crisis, “Control of the seas can mean
peace. Control of the seas can mean victory. The United States must
control the seas if it is to protect our security.”

As the war in Viet Nam escalates during the Johnson administration, the
US Navy quickly adapts its fleet to control Viet Nam’s coastline and
provide air support for our troops on the ground.

Ronald Reagan increases defense spending 36% - and the Navy is able to
reverse a steady erosion in American sea power.

Under President George Bush’s leadership, Operation Desert Storm is
successful - with the US Navy controlling the Persian Gulf and pounding
Iraqi troops with cruise missiles.

But in 2001, Bill Clinton leaves the US Navy with its smallest fleet
since 1917. If current trends continue, American sea power will shrink
to less than 300 ships.

According to Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vern Clark, “Our ship
building rate is inadequate to…sustain even the QDR force.”

At the beginning of a new century, with a new Bush administration in
the
White House, we have an opportunity - and a responsibility - to rebuild
American sea power.

If not now - When? If not us - Who?

Help us share this important message with a many people as possible -
please visit our website at http://www.savethefleet.com

2

Mmmm…

Anyone wanna wait for the JCS to complete the current ‘Bottom-up Review’ before sounding the collision alarm?

Tranq
[sub]Squid yesterday, Squid today, Squid tomorrow[/sub]

3

asobie, you’re new here, so I’ll be nice to you this time. This thread is not a question of fact (example: “How much has the size of the U. S. Navy changed since WWII?”), but rather a question of opinion (“Is the U. S. Navy big enough”) or a statement of opinion (“The U. S. Navy isn’t big enough”). As such, it belongs not in the General Questions forum, but in either IMHO (In My Humble Opinion, for relatively trivial matters) or Great Debates (for more serious things). Since this is likely to turn into a political discussion, GD is the appropriate place, and I’m moving this thread there.

In the future, though, please try to put threads in the right place the first time: Moving threads is very hard on the server, so we don’t like to do it more than is necessary.

4

asobie, welcome to the SDMB. A few points of etiquette:

  1. Where’s the General Question here? As far as I can tell, there isn’t a question at all;
  2. Your post may be right or may be wrong, but don’t be spamming this message board with chain emails!!;
  3. The proper way to have done this would have been:
    [ul]
    [li]How many ships does the U.S. Navy need? (General Question)[/li][li]The U.S. Navy is too weak to defend U.S. interests! (Great Debates)[/li][li]That freakin’ Clinton destroyed the Navy! (BBQ Pit)[/li][/ul]
    Get the idea? Look forward to reading your own thoughts at some point.

Sua

5

Asobie: as others have covered the netiquette, I’ll address you post, vague as it is.

Maybe if you shed some light (since you seem to have the inside scoop) on predicted strategic and tactical imperitives for the next 25 years or so we might have something to talk about. Building military assets (especialy capital intensive ones like fleets) “just because” isn’t sound fiscal, strategic or tactical policy.

There was an artice last week on CNN, found here, discussing this very issue. Note that the report is in its preliminary phase, and the only indication of a force structure realignment [downsizing] is that the study’s author is a known proponent of force structure realignment. If he actually recommends such, well it’ll certainly be no surprise. But he hasn’t, yet. And he’s not the final say-so on the matter. I imagine all kinds of Congressional Pork-mongers will get involved before any finalized decision ever gets made.

Note that the Navy has already considered building smaller, less crew-intensive carriers; the Army is going to lighter RDF units, the Air Force is allocating more assets to multi-purpose aircraft with increased ground-support capability, and the Marines have always had a versatile RDF structure.

Note also that, in this context, “downsizing” doesn’t automatically refer to having fewer military assets. It means having lighter, more rapidly deployable assets. More Airborne and Air Mobile Infantry Divisions as opposed to Armor (Heavy) Divisions. More Ground Support aircraft, with forward-basing, rough-to-unimproved landing field capabilities (S/TOL and V/TOL). Stealth Ships, Missile Ships, versatile Cruisers and Frigates, and Subs.

We (America) cannot rely upon massive Cold-War concieved-and-engineered weapons systems built around outdated strategic and tactical doctrines.

Time to enter the 21st Century.

6

One of the reasons I can afford to be a bleeding-heart liberal is because I have a big-ass, knock-your-dick-in-the-dirt military to keep my tree-hugging activities safe. Don’t ever think that I don’t appreciate what you ladies and gents in the service are providing me.

Pound for pound, the U.S. Navy is still the biggest, most versatile, best trained, most dangerous, widest ranging military force in the world. But only just barely, in my opinion. I agree that the line must be drawn here and held firmly. I’ll bet a lot that’s just what the JCS is going to say, too.

7

asobie, we may very well have to beef up the navy but just looking at the number of ships or even tonnage is grossly misleading. IN WWII and prior a large portion of the ships were very small destroyers and destroyer escorts. They were so lightly constructed that the hulls made noise as they flexed in heavy seas giving them the nickname that holds to this day, “tin cans.” Last time I checked we had 13 big deck (Kitty Hawk class or bigger) carriers afloat. Three oil fired carriers and the rest nuclear powered. No one else in the world sails such ships or ever has.

8

Around here, they say “preview is your friend”.

I’ll add my own two cents, and try to follow my own advice: “thinking before posting is your friend”.

Unless carrier aviation undergoes a serious redesign, modern aircraft carrier architecture isn’t likely to change too drastically, either.

I’ll put a dunce cap on my head and go sit in the corner. :o

9

“Sail” is an expression. If I wasn’t too clear I meant that no one else has carriers that are as large as the ones we put to sea. The Russians and British have smaller carries suited to VTOL planes that don’t have the weapons capacity of our carrier based planes.

10

I will however point out that I feel that the biggest worry should not be the hardware, but the people. Retention rate is abysmal to put it mildly, and it is going to take a lot of work to get it back into a viable level. I recall my brother mentioning that Naval aviators have an average retention rate of only 14% or so, (18% w/F-18 pilots, 5% with S-3B’s), We need a retention rate of at least 45% to keep up the level of trained pilots to shepard the incoming new pilots. (On a pilot’s first cruise, he is a liability, not an asset, and you need experienced pilots to train him up to that asset while on cruise.) And the answer is not money either, its respect, decent conditions, and a leadership that doesn’t talk out of its yahoo. (This is not a slam at Clinton as much as it is of the fact that most of the high rankers in the millitary did not get there by giving Congress and their own superiors anything less than rosy reports and not rocking the boat[no pun], that goes back well over a decade.) I expect to start hearing of more accidents in the millitary because morale is low and people are overworked to much.

11

I never really understood the thinking behind wanting a military as large as our forces were during WWII. All sectors of the government, including the military, increase or decrease in size depending on how much they are needed. Right now, the United States doesn’t have any imminent military threats, although some people would obviously like to convince us otherwise. I find it interesting that the OP doesn’t give a single example of what an enormous American sea force could do for us today. Finally, I’d just like to add that the Navy would probably be more effective if it was allowed to control its own spending rather than being forced to spend billions on pork-barrel projects.

12

I have to agree.

We don’t need a giant Navy like in WWII because we don’t need to land half a million troops on some far away shore and storm the beaches like in the opening sceans of “Saving Private Ryan”. Consequently, we don’t need as many destroyers and other ships to protect such a large invasion fleet. Our navy relies on technology, not overwhelming numbers.

Our modern navy uses carriers and submarines to project force around the world. As of now, we are the only country to maintain a fleet of nuclear supercarriers. The rest of our ships are also the most advanced in the world in their classes.

I can’t really say if our navy is the right size or not. It’s more than adequate to protect America from any direct attack. The problem is that for all its advanced technology and power, a carrier battlegroup can only be in one place at any time. The question is how many carriers do we need to protect all our overseas interest?

13

Sofa King:

You just made the six years and six months I served in the US Army, the thirteen months I served in the US Army Reserves and the thirteen years and six months I served in the US Navy all well worth it.

Thank you.

14

I have to agree (though I wouldn’t continue by saying barely.).

The Navy is constantly modernizing – it must to remain viable. But somethings just won’t be happening in the near future. A smaller force is desired, but only small enough to still support operations in three theaters with work-ups (training deployments) and maintenance time scheduled. This neccessitates carriers deploying with ancillary support ships – destroyers, cruisers, ammunition/oilers, etc.

The biggest challenge for the Navy is not building more or better ships, but rather maintaining a well-trained, motivated personnel base to crew our existing ships.

For those of you who don’t think the Navy can meet any challenge set before it, I welcome you to visit me aboard IKE in Norfolk so I can prove to you how very wrong an misguided you are.

I also don’t believe the OP “message” is real.

15

Minor nitpick regarding the CNN.com link: The last Nimitz-class carrier is not being built in Norfolk, but in Newport News, Va. Sorry to sound anal, but I work at Newport News Shipbuilding, so I am required to complain about that.

The Pentagon review has caused quite a stir here, since some of the preliminary (and unverified) reports indicate that the fleet might be reduced, or future carriers might be small enough to be built someplace else and break NNS’ current monopoly on carrier construction. Obviously, since I work here, I want things to remain exactly the same. Realistically, though, I don’t know if they will.

The Navy is already making the transition to a slightly smaller, stealthier, less expensive carrier, but things may still change. Of course, any drastic change will be fought by Virginia’s congressional delegation, which is fairly entrenched and powerful (Sen. John Warner is Chmn of the Senate Armed Services Committee). So even if the Pentagon decides that they want something different, they may not get it. I have no doubt that politics will play as big a role as military necessity in deciding this issue. That’s no surprise, of course.

And I agree with ChiefScott on the strength of our Navy. Anyone who doubts it should drive across the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel one day and see the fleet. Even in port, it is an impressive sight.

16

One question that nobody yet has asked: who are we planning on fighting? To my mind, the Navy has two main tasks:
(1) to protect the USA from attack
(2) to allow the Army and Airforce to project power outside the USA
Well, if you look around, the only navy in the world that has fleet carriers is the French (GB has one or two small carriers, that deploy short range “Harrier” jets). These are nowhere near a match for our fleet carriers. The Russian navy is a disaster-they don’t have a single carrier! I think it unlikely that we will ever declare war on France!
Asd for supporting our remote military operations: if Iraq or Iran ever contemplated launchin an attck (on our naval forces in the Persian Gulf)., they would face INSTANT destruction. They aren’t stupid, so this is not likely.
So, far from being weak, we have a navy that outclasses any potential rival. True, the retention problem is worrisom, but this can be fixed. In many respects, our problem is that we are spending too much on defense, not too little.

17

egkelly: it’s lonely at the top, and someone, somewhere, is always scheming to take you out, and take what you have.

[slight hijack]

When I returned from Germany in '88, my first stop stateside was a layover for a few hours in Philly. As we were making our decent, I looked out the window and thought “That’s funny; we just passed the runway. And why’s it surrounded by water?”

Just as quickly, I realized what I was looking at. Wow!
TV, movies and words don’t begin to describe these things. The closest I can come is the opening sequence from Star Wars, as seen on a regular movie screen; the ship that goes on and on…

[/slight hijack]

With improvements in smart and laser guided weaponry, aircraft load-outs can be reduced; this allows for smaller, lighter planes, which in turn allows for smaller carriers.
Smaller carriers = less crew, and less expensive to build, although I don’t know how it would affect maintenence.

Of course, load outs can remain the same, giving more bang-for-the-buck on any given strike, seriously increasing the efficacy of the Carrier Air Group. What concerns me there more than anything is the Navy’s aging fleet of aircraft, not only by type, but by design as well.

18

Most seem to be on the mark, in my humble estimation. Some other things that are maybe less than correct need to be considered. For instance, the proliferation of carriers. France and Britain are not the only ones in the “Club”, so to speak.
And Russia in fact has two carriers, I bileive. They are selling one, after overhaul, to the Indian Navy along with a number of MiG-29Ks (navalized variants of a latter model I beleive). The Indian Navy may also buy the other. Whatismore, there are rumored plans for an Indian “supercarrier”, probably something in the 60-80 airframe range.
Brazil recently took possession of a French carrier. The French recently launched a modern replacement.
I have vague memories of other international carrier related news. Alas, my memory was never all that impressive.

These examples may not seem important, but (as many of you know) the naure of naval warefare is vastly different from that of other forms of combat. This is not to say that the one is more “complex” or dangerous than anyother. It is, on the other hand, to say that it’s often the case that the media poorly represents “defense issues” and this often leads to misunderstanding in the general public. It should be clear why THAT is important.

Maybe more important to consider in all things Naval, is the relative absolutism of naval combat. Modern combat means that all combat can unfold rather quickly. In naval warfare, however, it would appear that the inherent concentration of “weight” in vessels reflexs, more or less, an “all of one’s eggs in one basket” achilles’ heel. When a dozen ships engage a dozen ships, teh result could quickly be 12-0 leaving nothing to stand in the way. In theory, it’s far easier for a land force to adapt to changes (sometimes sudden) in technology and tactics. Numbers of ships, readiness, and so forth are vital. However, rapid and continual technological change is imperative. Maybe it’s best to give an example. Most don’t consider China a naval threat, becuase by and large they are not. Despite a pair of “modern” cruisers and a new ballistic missile submarine, the P.L.A.N. is still no match for the USN. A but was bound to come. The Chinese have purchased a new Russian developed (I think) anti-ship missile (Sunbeam or something like that, I have no idea what the alpha-numerics are). The missile ruffles the USN’s feathers because it’s performance envelope, particularly it’s terminal speed, suggests it may be able to evade, more often than not, anti-missile missiles and close-in weapons systems. (For the land lovers, me included, those are simply modified air-to-air missiles and that gatling gun thing you may have seen on CNN once or twice.) (For those with digital sea legs, I don’t know if this includes the remanufactured ESSM and Block 1B phalanx. They may have been excluded on the grounds that they have not been issued fleet wide yet.)
To make a long story short, the Chinese can now make unimpressive ships, rather threatening should the USN need to “intervene” on Taiwan’s behalf. It won’t win them a war, but it could give CNN disconcerting footage of burning hulks that look eerily Western in design.

The number of ships cannot be taken for the strength of a navy (as one of you have noted). In an era of tightening defense budgets (for good reason), less ships need to do and can do more with less crew, without coming close to stressing those crews beyond what should be “normal”. The trend toward lighter, faster, multirole ships that offer open architecture for rapid and continuous upgrading is and should continue.

I’d add that, specialty vessels such as mine countermeasure/sweepers and so forth need to be multitasked themselves and available only in special cases. (I never understood the reason behind having different ships for mine detection and mind disposal.) The modern multirole frigate and cruiser should have enough organic mine detection, avoidance, and clearing cpability to satisfy their own needs and those of the battlegroup/expeditionary force. Latent, dedicated countermine/munition vessels can be kept in reserve to service larger littoral operations (like the Gulf War sea lift effort). They can hone there skills in the annual mineclearing excerices with European navies, and contingent operations like the one to find and dispose of jettisoned NATO munitions in the Adriatic after the Kosovo air campaign. (They are a good way to keep readiness up; and they actually are useful. WWI era mines and torpedos are still found in sea lanes to this day believe it or not.)

The only way to know what’s really “needed” is to wait for the top to bottom to come out (quickly noted). Traditional ways of viewing see power are inadequate. Not that I have all or any of the answers, but it should be apparent to all that nostalgic appeals to the romantic days of massive majestic fleets, while inviting, should not be the basis on which policy and doctrine are built.

I appologize for being long winded. This is my first post here; and I hope I followed the rules. I look forward reading on and welcome ant and all criticism. I’ll save you some time and promise to be quicker next time. :wink:

19

I believe you are referring to the SS-N-22 Sunburn.

20

Mind disposal? I don’t think we have ships for that. Isn’t that what Anapolis is for?

(Sorry. As an ex Navy Nuke, I couldn’t help it…)

In all seriousness, and not to downplay the importance of modern hardware, sound policy and strategic deployment, the world class training received by Naval officers and enlisted is the critical factor which maintains the readiness to serve and competence of our fleets.