# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/121 "2012-10-24T21:22:33Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Reagan wanted a 600 ship Navy (I don’t think he quite got that). Today we have a 280-ish ship Navy. Has anyone done a study on comparing these two forces? > > Is today’s Navy doing the same number of tasks that Reagans Navy did? Political scientists Brian Crisher and Mark Souva address that question, and others. US absolute naval strength declined during the 1990s, while relative naval strength rose slightly. Both declined slightly from 2000-2010. Relative naval strength was at a record in 2011, if I read Kevin Drum’s chart properly. See my previous post for linky goodness, which contain caveats. Brian Crisher and Mark Souva: The figure also shows that in the second half of the twentieth century, the US enjoyed preeminence in naval power that the British could only dream about in the nineteenth century. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/122 "2012-10-24T21:34:28Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > I don’t like this method. > > Consider: When considering the potential firepower of nuclear tipped weapons, the raw firepower of a modern cruiser could be 1000 times that of a WW1 cruiser. That does not mean that 1 modern cruiser could do the work (as in seperate discrete missions and tasks) 1000 older cruisers would have been doing. First, let’s leave nukes out of it. I concede that using the power of nukes to offset the power of a battleship is weird math. Let’s focus on the conventional explosive payloads. Second, you took that 1 to 1000 comparison while skipping the stated assumption in the example you quote, that ships work in groups like task forces and fleets. Yes, if you spread them out in singletons, then having 100 platforms go in 100 different directions is better than having only 80 platforms, even if each platform is individually more capable. > [@](#): > > I don’t understand this statement. You say don’t count hulls, but then you do just that when comparing modern effectiveness. (Like you did in the previous paragraph. You state that since modern ships are 20% better, we can reduce the number of hulls by 12%.) I said you can’t _just_ count hulls, you have to look at overall capabilities. 100 ships is 100 ships is 100 ships means my 80 ships are inferior to your 100 ships, even if my 80 ships are WWII battleships and your 100 ships are patrol boats. > [@](#): > > Some are still deployed individually and not in fleets. Anti-drug patrols in the Carribean and Eastern Pacific, for example. They receive support from satellites and shore based patrol aircraft, I’ll grant that. But the US Navy doesn’t always float around in Task Force/Fleet strength. This is a valid criticism of my statements. There are a number of regions where the ships patrol individually rather than in large groups. There is some benefit to having more numbers of ships over more individually capable ships for this role. However, those situations are not the bulk of active operations, and also, that benefit is offset by the communications improvements modern ships have that allow use of airplanes and satellites to increase their detection patrol coverage, and their weapons capabilities that extend their effective range. If the old ship (1917) is stuck with line of sight surveillance and can only fire on targets within a 4 mile radius, but the new ship (2012) can talk to satellites and aircraft and thus surveil and target in a 40 mile radius, then that new ship is way more capable. > [@](#): > > I don’t follow. “Increased technological capability”, so far in the last two decades, has been in surveillance & communications. Not as much in engineering (ships’ power plants) or metallurgy. The newest generation ships use more automation, requiring smaller crews to operate. > **[Military Personnel: Navy Actions Needed to Optimize Ship Crew Size and Reduce...](https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-03-520)** > > The cost of a ship's crew is the single largest incurred over the ship's life cycle. One way to lower personnel costs, and thus the cost of ownership... > [@](#): > > The Navy’s use of human systems integration principles and crew size reduction goals varied significantly for the four ships GAO reviewed. Only the DD(X) destroyer program emphasized human systems integration early in the acquisition process and established an aggressive goal to reduce crew size. The Navy’s goal is to cut personnel on the DD(X) by about 70 percent from that of the previous destroyer class–a reduction GAO estimated could eventually save about $18 billion over the life of a 32-ship class. The goal was included in key program documents to which program managers are held accountable. Although the Navy did not set specific crew reduction goals for the T-AKE cargo ship, it made some use of human systems integration principles and expects to require a somewhat smaller crew than similar legacy ships. The two other ships–the recently cancelled JCC(X) command ship and the LHA(R) amphibious assault ship–did not establish human systems integration plans early in the acquisition programs, and did not establish ambitious crew size reduction goals. Unless the Navy more consistently applies human systems integration early in the acquisition process and establishes meaningful goals for crew size reduction, the Navy may miss opportunities to lower total ownership costs for new ships, which are determined by decisions made early in the acquisition process. > [@](#): > > Ship engines still need refit & repair at the same rates, I assume, as they did 40 or 50 years ago. Hulls still rust. Sailors still break stuff despite those things being made “sailor proof”. I’m not saying differently. I’m saying that if you have a successful plan in place that sufficiently accounts for refit, repair, and crew rotations, and you then reduce the number of ships in an intelligent manner such that fleet sizes go down but fleet capabilities remain constant or go up, you do not have to dramatically increase your refit/repair rates. It’s accounted for by the same math, and I even allowed for keeping the same number of ships out of active rotation, for a slightly higher overall tally count than direct scale substitution. > [@](#): > > The few Navy publications I have browsed discuss the increased time it’s men and ships now spend on deployment compared to the pre-9/11 levels, and the challenges this presents. These articles mention that continued reduction in force imposes more of a work load on the remaining forces, and usually include statements of “Can Do” optimism from the CNO or other Admirals and dignitaries. This is a fair concern. Note that Obama has _more_ ships than Bush did. Note that we just launched a _new_ ship last month, the [USS Fort Worth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Fort_Worth_(LCS-3)), commissioned on Sep 22, 2012. Note also that that is not directly a number of hulls problem, but a staffing problem. Although I gather from the way Navy logistics works, those are fairly coupled. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/123 "2012-10-24T22:05:54Z")
Fair enough. I hope you all will remember that I said I gave the cureent administration the benefit of the doubt about what it needs to meet the missions they expect to have to cover. 🙂 Note: It looks like the DD(X) program may be in trouble. [Zumwalt-class destroyer - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD(X)) > [@](#): > > The lead ship will be named Zumwalt for Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, and carries the hull number DDG-1000. Originally 32 ships were planned, with the $9.6 billion research and development costs spread across the class, but as the quantity was reduced to 10, then 3, the cost-per-ship increased dramatically. The cost increase caused the US Navy to identify the program as being in breach of the Nunn–McCurdy Amendment on 1 February 2010. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/124 "2012-10-25T03:20:29Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Is today’s Navy doing the same number of tasks that Reagans Navy did? This is a better question that the absurdly silly comparison which Romney made, but it’s still apples to oranges. My econ professor (back in the Reagan days) had previously taught at North Dakota and related that among his students were air force pilots. In a lesson on the economic worth of particular jobs vs. their pay, he asked one such pilot what the guy did. The F-14 pilot responded that his job was to keep nuclear armed Soviet bombers out of US airspace. So the professor asked him to quantify his answer, how many bombers did he keep out that day. I love the pilot’s response as reported by the professor – “All of them.” It’s a different world now and different mission **s**. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/125 "2012-10-25T21:34:33Z")
Amusing observation: scrolling the thread list, I see the title of this thread: When was the U.S. Navy at its most powerful? ( [![](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/misc/multipage.gif) ](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/misc/multipage.gif) 1 2 3) Then I look over to the right and see: “Yesterday 10:20 PM” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2012, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/126 "2012-10-26T03:50:03Z")
The US Navy at it’s most powerful is _right now_. To consider otherwise is crazy talk. Its more capable, more far-reaching, more technologically advanced and more mobile than ever before. Plus nukes. We can deploy more (and more advanced) planes than ever before, more subs that are actually quiet and more capable than before (with nukes!), more advanced attack and defense weaponry than ever before (Aegis systems are outdated) and can put forth numbers in a rapid deployment than ever before if necessary. This doesn’t even take into account our ability to deploy more and better trained Marines in a shorter amount of time, or the ability to project the likes of SEAL teams in rapid response units faster than ever before. Ya’ll be crazy. Hulls, schmulls. The only scenario where we need MORE ships is in a direct naval confrontation, and that ain’t happening unless China gets uppity. ---
**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 8, 2015, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/127 "2015-09-08T13:08:03Z")
Bumped. Several GOP candidates are making Romney’s point again: [http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/us-navy-size-military-election-2016/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/us-navy-size-military-election-2016/index.html) ---
**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:** [September 8, 2015, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/128 "2015-09-08T13:50:55Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > My econ professor (back in the Reagan days) had previously taught at North Dakota and related that among his students were air force pilots. In a lesson on the economic worth of particular jobs vs. their pay, he asked one such pilot what the guy did. The F-14 pilot responded that his job was to keep nuclear armed Soviet bombers out of US airspace. So the professor asked him to quantify his answer, how many bombers did he keep out that day. I love the pilot’s response as reported by the professor – “All of them.” > > It’s a different world now and different mission **s**. I know it’s a three year old post, but I think you misremembered the story. There have never been F-14s in the Air Force and certainly not in North Dakota. Also, their role was to intercept threats to US fleets, not to the US mainland. He was probably an F-15 pilot. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2015, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/129 "2015-09-08T15:52:46Z")
> [@Rick](#): > > If that battle line got to within gun range of the 2012 US Navy, the 2012 version would be on the bottom in short order. The armor on those battleships would stand up to cruise missile hits, and no way in hell could a modern navy ship stand up to getting hit with shells from the main battery of battleship. > [@Otara](#): > > Which is a bit like saying if a guy with an axe catches an F16 on the ground its toast. Its true, but kind of irrelevant. > > Otara This. The 1945 US Navy battle line would never even get within visible range of the modern US Navy battle group before it was sunk. Also keep in mind that modern US Navy battlegroups include fast attack submarines as escorts. So even if the 1945 battle line did manage to get within gun range of a modern battle group, it would have difficulty keeping its guns on target once the battleships started getting hit (and sunk) by multiple MK-48 ADCAP torpedoes. 🙂 While the old battleships might shrug off cruise missile hits with their armor, they would not survive multiple hits from torpedoes that are designed to explode beneath their keels and break their backs. Modern torpedoes are self-guided and rarely miss…and if they do miss, they circle back and re-attack. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/130 "2015-09-08T16:59:25Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Bumped. > > Several GOP candidates are making Romney’s point again: [http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/us-navy-size-military-election-2016/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/us-navy-size-military-election-2016/index.html) Heh. In that article, I see that they quote experts who are still carrying on with our “hull numbers” vs. “capability” discussions. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/131 "2015-09-09T00:07:08Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Bumped. > > Several GOP candidates are making Romney’s point again: [http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/us-navy-size-military-election-2016/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/us-navy-size-military-election-2016/index.html) Oh no, our hull counts are down. I mean, just look at our battleship count! At least one Republican cited in the article dismissed hull counts, and framed it in terms of mission capabilities. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/132 "2015-09-09T06:05:06Z")
I think the introduction of hypersonic anti ship missles and rail guns are going to change things. ---
**Author:** ![dba\_Fred](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c37758/32.png) [@dba\_Fred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dba_Fred)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/133 "2015-09-09T10:04:21Z")
* * * > [@Rick](#): > > If that battle line got to within gun range of the 2012 US Navy, the 2012 version would be on the bottom in short order. The armor on those battleships would stand up to cruise missile hits, and no way in hell could a modern navy ship stand up to getting hit with shells from the main battery of battleship. > [@robby](#): > > This. The 1945 US Navy battle line would never even get within visible range of the modern US Navy battle group before it was sunk. > > Also keep in mind that modern US Navy battlegroups include fast attack submarines as escorts. So even if the 1945 battle line did manage to get within gun range of a modern battle group, it would have difficulty keeping its guns on target once the battleships started getting hit (and sunk) by multiple MK-48 ADCAP torpedoes. 🙂 > > While the old battleships might shrug off cruise missile hits with their armor, they would not survive multiple hits from torpedoes that are designed to explode beneath their keels and break their backs. Modern torpedoes are self-guided and rarely miss…and if they do miss, they circle back and re-attack. :eek: I’ll let **robby** & the bubbleheads (band name!) sink the 1945 US Navy battleships with torpedoes after the 2012 US Navy battlegroup has blinded them. The battleships turn on their fire control radar or anti-aircraft radar or navigation radar or radios? Seconds later an anti-radiation missile just took out the antennas (and a good bit of the superstructure). Those mighty guns of the battleships aren’t any good unless they know where the target is. With laser guidance, any missile or bomb could take out the superstructure where the eyes and ears are. Then I’d let the destroyers and cruisers have target practice with their guns (they have launched torpedoes also) on the 1945 ships and then if anything is still floating, turn them over to **robby** and his subs to finish them off - unless the attached Marines want to do a boarding raid. ---
**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 9, 2015, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/134 "2015-09-09T12:31:38Z")
> [@dba\_Fred](#): > > … > Then I’d let the destroyers and cruisers have target practice with their guns (they have launched torpedoes also) on the 1945 ships and then if anything is still floating, turn them over to **robby** and his subs to finish them off - unless the attached Marines want to do a boarding raid. Leave this part off. Modern surface ship guns, and especially torpedoes, have ranges of just a few miles, point blank range for the big guns on cruisers and battleships – radar or not. On review, I didn’t mean the subs. Let them out ahead, and if they have enough torpedoes, you don’t need a surface fleet. Little known factoid – the US submarine force constituted about 2% of the Navy, but sank more than half of the Japanese ships sunk during the war. And that was with shitty defective torpedoes for the first 3 years. ---
**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:** [September 9, 2015, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/135 "2015-09-09T13:30:01Z")
In fairness, most of the surface fleet (other than carriers) had been destroyed before the war really started. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/136 "2015-09-09T13:57:14Z")
In terms of firepower, a modern frigate has more than a WWII battleship. take today’s RN-small as it is, it has vastly more power than the entire fleet of WWII. There simply is no comparison. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/137 "2015-09-09T13:58:24Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Leave this part off. Modern surface ship guns, and especially torpedoes, have ranges of just a few miles, point blank range for the big guns on cruisers and battleships – radar or not. You should also consider that any modern surface combatant will have helicopters that can drop the same lightweight torpedoes that you mention, so the range of the weapons is greatly more than where the ship happens to be located. “But wouldn’t a WWII battleship just shoot down the helicopter?” I don’t see how that is possible. The radar on an old surface combatant would be useless, whether by jamming by modern airborne or surface electronic warfare systems. They would probably not see the helicopter coming. And in any case, shooting down a helicopter from 7+ miles away would just be an incredibly improbable thing to happen. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/138 "2015-09-09T15:13:33Z")
The real modern difference in single-ship-vs-single-ship is the range of modern weapons and sensors. Carriers did for battleships in WWII because 1940s aircraft outranged the 1920’s biggest big guns. The same is even more true today. Claims of competitive capabilities against 70+ years of heavily-funded progress are laughable. You’ll not be surprised to learn that [xkcd: The Past](http://xkcd.com/1191/) has an entry on point. ---
**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 9, 2015, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/139 "2015-09-09T15:34:59Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You should also consider that any modern surface combatant will have helicopters that can drop the same lightweight torpedoes that you mention, so the range of the weapons is greatly more than where the ship happens to be located. > > “But wouldn’t a WWII battleship just shoot down the helicopter?” I don’t see how that is possible. The radar on an old surface combatant would be useless, whether by jamming by modern airborne or surface electronic warfare systems. They would probably not see the helicopter coming. And in any case, shooting down a helicopter from 7+ miles away would just be an incredibly improbable thing to happen. Maybe – but the poster specified ships firing them. Interesting question – does anyone know if ASW torpedoes can be used against surface ships? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/140 "2015-09-09T15:35:41Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > The real modern difference in single-ship-vs-single-ship is **the range of modern weapons and sensors**. Carriers did for battleships in WWII because 1940s aircraft outranged the 1920’s biggest big guns. The same is even more true today. Claims of competitive capabilities against 70+ years of heavily-funded progress are laughable. To further illustrate the point, there’s a [Great Debates thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=670771&highlight=halsey) about the Battle of Leyte Gulf in which the U.S. Navy plain couldn’t find a whole damn Japanese battle group, and was sent on a wild goose chase that very nearly had significant consequences for the battle. If that happened 70 years ago, what assurance does the legacy navy have of ever seeing its modern opponent today? Especially considering that the old navy’s radar would be useless. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164.md?page=8)