# When was the U.S. Navy at its most powerful? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 27, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164 "2012-02-27T17:38:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/61 "2012-03-01T01:14:10Z")
> [@Morbo](#): > > Probably everyone reading this has already done so, but this would be a good place to mention John Birmingham’s [Axis of Time](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_Time) series. Basically a bunch of futuristic Navy ships from 2021 accidentally go back in time to WW2, and lots of things happen differently in ways (at least for me) I never would have thought of. Good series. I like the fact that Birmingham didn’t just portray it as technological difference between the two eras. He recognized that people thought differently in that time. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/62 "2012-03-01T01:33:49Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > The 2,384 figure for U.S. Navy ships is clearly erroneous–from the Wikipedia list [Number of warships in service worldwide](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_warships_in_service_worldwide), the total for warships of all nations is 2,848, of which 341 are U.S.–the [U.S. Navy itself](http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=146=) reports 283 “Deployable Battle Force Ships” (possibly some of the discrepancy comes from auxiliary vessels, or maybe the Wikipedia article is counting the U.S. Coast Guard as well. Or maybe Wikipedia is just wrong). Wikipedia lists three different figures in three different articles: [United States Navy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy): _“It operates 286 ships in active service and more than 3,700 aircraft.”_ [Number of warships in service worldwide](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_warships_in_service_worldwide): _“United States Navy … Total: 341”_ [List of current ships of the United States Navy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy): _“There are about 436 ships listed here (238 USS ships, 198 USNS, MV, SS and other ships) that meet this definition of current ships.”_ I got my figures from [Global Firepower](http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=United-States-of-America). I don’t know the site enough to know how credible their information is. But this [chart](http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-ships.asp) shows 2384 wasn’t just a typo. It’s probably just a different standard of what they count. Wikipedia says China has a total of 239 ships and France has a total of 72 ships. GFP says China has 972 and France has 289. (I thought perhaps GFP included Merchant Marine ships in the Naval Total. But that isn’t it. They have Russia listed as having a total of 233 Navy ships and a Merchant Marine Strength of 1097 ships. So obviously Merchant Marine ships aren’t including in the total.) ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/63 "2012-03-01T14:55:00Z")
I’m wondering when the era of robotic warships will come-it seems to me a cheaper way to have a naval force-lots of heavily armed missile platforms, with no human crew-controlled via a floating commqand center. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/64 "2012-03-01T15:13:48Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > (I thought perhaps GFP included Merchant Marine ships in the Naval Total. But that isn’t it. They have Russia listed as having a total of 233 Navy ships and a Merchant Marine Strength of 1097 ships. So obviously Merchant Marine ships aren’t including in the total.) I’m pretty sure it _is_ a typo. GFP shows the (UK) Royal Navy as having 99 ships, which is the number of commissioned ships plus fleet auxiliary. The US Navy has 290ish commissioned ships and another 50ish in the auxiliary, so it’s counting USN ships it isn’t counting elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/65 "2012-03-01T17:36:32Z")
> [@Slithy\_Tove](#): > > The USN may be bigger and more diverse now than it ever was, but those old timers were really something. “Wooden ships and iron men.” We’d watch \*Victory At Sea[/] on our ship’s CCTV, and see the WWII navy doing underway refueling in 20 foot seas with green water over their bow, and say holy shit we couldn’t do that. Carrier in heavy seas: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWpQ\_0fqJOM&feature=related](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWpQ_0fqJOM&feature=related) Just linking that 'cause it’s always fun to watch. ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/66 "2012-03-01T21:25:36Z")
The cost of that aircraft vs the annual income of the kid whose job it is to gripe it fast to the deck! ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/67 "2012-03-02T04:56:02Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I’m pretty sure it _is_ a typo. GFP shows the (UK) Royal Navy as having 99 ships, which is the number of commissioned ships plus fleet auxiliary. The US Navy has 290ish commissioned ships and another 50ish in the auxiliary, so it’s counting USN ships it isn’t counting elsewhere. Definitely a typo. Even the Reagan-era goal of a 600 ship navy was including auxiliaries, only 357 would be combatants. Breakdown by type is on page 25 [here](https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Yqia0su61IgJ:www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index%3D10404%26type%3D1+600+ship+fleet&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj9M1tehWN7nkXoA3EJXLv1sG1nVug5_LAZzakSy8FFcxIm-fJAqHa6sXablhGPYGMqKIU1XH99gbu0LGdeCSpt_y5kin16-1S1CJ_1OYYeEl_pcDN2fGrdWwnzxEyzBB83NM4q&sig=AHIEtbQSSCl1zkbVt3wEt9ND2KGKab59iQ). ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/68 "2012-03-02T05:30:57Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > Do you really think so? Anti-ship wise, I think the current fleet could sink the entire WW2 fleet without a single loss - between modern subs, anti-ship missiles, and modern aircraft, the WW2 fleet couldn’t even get within their own engagement range of current ships. > > Force projection too - there’s plenty of non-nuclear ordnance on modern carriers that can range pretty far inland. Much further than battleship guns. I disagree for the simple reason that the modern navy (nukes aside) doesn’t carry enough ammunition to sink all the ships of the WWII navy. But if you include a supply train, then yes. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/69 "2012-03-02T16:43:03Z")
> [@Scholar\_Beardpig](#): > > I’ll just leave this here… > > [http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/all/1/](http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/all/1/) > > No, fr srs. The article above posits, in summary, that the advances in anti-ship ballistic missiles over the last 30 years have so changed the dynamic of modern naval warfare that our big-carrier fleet, though more effective at fighting World War 2 than our WW2-era navy would be, is completely out of its depth (pardon the pun) at any future modern conflict. The sinking of the INS Eilat by Styx missiles in 1967, the author continues, demonstrated conclusively that the era of big surface ships is over, except as tools of fighting asymmetrical warfare… You might find interesting [this GD thread on your topic](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=590950). I disagree with the War Nerd’s conclusions, and wish that Dolan would get back to writing that character, as I’m not a fan of much of the rest of the Exiled website. Eileen Jones’s reviews are occasionally exceptions. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/70 "2012-09-04T17:56:51Z")
Just saw this on p. 47 of the April 2012 issue of _Naval History_ magazine: “In 2005, CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] Admiral Vern Clark made a very important point to the Senate Armed Services Committee: ‘The number of ships in the fleet is important. But it is no longer the only, nor the most meaningful, measure of combat capability… In fact, today’s Navy can deliver more combat power than we could 20 years ago when we had twice as many ships and half again as many people.’” ---
**Author:** ![gunnergoz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e95f7d/32.png) [@gunnergoz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gunnergoz)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/71 "2012-09-04T18:31:14Z")
I’d have to say that one has to measure power in relative terms and in that respect, the US Navy in the immediate postwar years was without peer or credible potential opposition. Today’s navy is indeed powerful, but even its nukes can be countered or have counterparts in other countries. Projection of power by aircraft is as powerful then as now, but the sustainability of the fleet today is not what it was in 1945. This is the era of asymmetrical warfare and the fact that the incredibly powerful US fleet is (by itself) unable to stamp out piracy at sea is a sad testament to how times have changed. You cannot measure power in a vacuum, it has to be considered in the light of the situation. ---
**Author:** ![drastic\_quench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e36b37/32.png) [@drastic\_quench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drastic_quench)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/72 "2012-09-04T22:32:19Z")
> [@gunnergoz](#): > > I’d have to say that one has to measure power in relative terms and in that respect, the US Navy in the immediate postwar years was without peer or credible potential opposition. Today’s navy is indeed powerful, but even its nukes can be countered or have counterparts in other countries. Projection of power by aircraft is as powerful then as now, but the sustainability of the fleet today is not what it was in 1945. This is the era of asymmetrical warfare and the fact that the incredibly powerful US fleet is (by itself) unable to stamp out piracy at sea is a sad testament to how times have changed. You cannot measure power in a vacuum, it has to be considered in the light of the situation. I think the US only lacks the political capital to stamp out modern piracy. We need a Lusitania event before the government has the mandate to shoot first and ask the salvaged remains later. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/73 "2012-09-04T23:38:22Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Here’s the _Pennsylvania_ in the lead in Jan. 1945, in one of the most famous naval photos of the war: [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/US\_warships\_entering\_Lingayen\_Gulf\_1945.jpg](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/US_warships_entering_Lingayen_Gulf_1945.jpg) Impressive - I would not want to be on the receiving end of any sort of attention from the old Iowa though. [http://johnfenzel.typepad.com/john\_fenzels\_blog/images/uss\_iowa\_broadside.jpg](http://johnfenzel.typepad.com/john_fenzels_blog/images/uss_iowa_broadside.jpg) it is not allowing me to paste in the img clicky and i am stuck in bed with a horrible cold and not dealing with board screwups .. sorry ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/74 "2012-09-05T02:11:57Z")
Even better IMHO - check out the water: [http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS\_16-50\_mk7\_Iowa\_pic.jpg](http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_Iowa_pic.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/75 "2012-09-05T03:27:36Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > “In 2005, CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] Admiral Vern Clark made a very important point to the Senate Armed Services Committee: ‘The number of ships in the fleet is important. But it is no longer the only, nor the most meaningful, measure of combat capability… In fact, today’s Navy can deliver more combat power than we could 20 years ago when we had twice as many ships and half again as many people.’” It makes for a good sound bite, but I wouldn’t place too much cotton in it. Combat power is a very nebulous term; did the lethality or effectiveness of conventional weapons more than double between 1985 and 2005? By what exact metric did combat power more than double on a per ship basis between those years? Deliverable to where - force projection onto land, ability to fight decisive naval battle against surface ships, ability to control the sea lanes, ASW, or in achieving air superiority? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/76 "2012-09-05T03:59:26Z")
As a WAG, I would guess almost all that extra firepower comes from Tomahawk cruise missiles. They existed 20 years ago, but the navy refitted (or re-tasked) some Aegis cruisers (which can theoretically carry about 125 each), Arleigh Burke and Spruance destroyers (which carry about half that), and even some former SSBNs to carry shitloads of them. In the surface ships they essentially emptied out most of the anti-aircraft missiles in the VLS systems and replaced them with Tomahawks. In the subs they developed some new tech to house clusters of Tomahawks in the former strategic missile tubes. And the converted subs can hold about 150 each. These weapons can’t be used against other ships, however. They are for attacking fixed targets on land. ---
**Author:** ![gunnergoz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e95f7d/32.png) [@gunnergoz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gunnergoz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/77 "2012-09-05T04:21:09Z")
> [@drastic\_quench](#): > > I think the US only lacks the political capital to stamp out modern piracy. We need a Lusitania event before the government has the mandate to shoot first and ask the salvaged remains later. Unfortunately, stamping out piracy is much more than just shooting up ships and pirates: it would involve a physical invasion and occupation of the various territories and ports (some very primitive) that support the idea of piracy as a viable means of getting power and wealth. The whole point of asymmetrical warfare is that the political cost of victory against the weaker foe is made too high for even the most powerful of nations. No fleet in the world can stamp out piracy without a land army and many years, lives and dollars to nation-build new societies that are not dependent upon that form of activity to support themselves. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/78 "2012-09-05T04:25:56Z")
Oddly, the US Monitors, esp the twin turrented monitors would have blown anything esle afloat out of the water for a few years. The 110# guns of say the Warrior would have bounced off the armor like hail on a tin rook, whilst the 15" Dalgrens would have punched thru the Warriors armor like it was tissue paper. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/79 "2012-09-05T04:29:49Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > These weapons can’t be used against other ships, however. They are for attacking fixed targets on land. [Nope](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29). > [@](#): > > RGM/UGM-109B Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile (TASM) - radar guided anti-shipping variant. They did build an anti shipping variant. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/80 "2012-09-05T04:33:06Z")
> [@chacoguy](#): > > No other force on Earth could pull off the Bin Laden raid. Otto Skorzeny. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164.md?page=5)