Interesting Graph - Shrinking US Naval Power

[bobbymike]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aks0cupRxl0/TGP7sD2X7tI/AAAAAAAAAIg/FAJ9up0ntwI/s1600/SHips.png

Interpretation, scary? Sign of the times? Good-bye Superpower? Some good news it that the numbers of weapons delivery vertical Launch tubes along with increased aircraft sortie rates and weapons capability means each platform is worth around 2.5 platforms 25 years ago according to one naval analysis (sorry can't find the study)

While the increased capability is welcome having so few ships also reduces global coverage, you just can't be everywhere. This may be why the Navy is pushing to convert Standard 3's into prompt global strike systems and, apparently, the Submarine Launched Global Strike Missile is still being considered for NSSN and SSGN each with 2000 or so km ranges.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Interpretation, scary? Sign of the times? Good-bye Superpower?

You left out meaningless pap.

If anything the comparative strength of the US Navy has grown since WW2 and the Cold War. Is there anywhere the US Navy can not go and kick the crap out of anyone at sea or on the coast? Persian Gulf? East China Sea? Sea of Japan? Arctic Sea? The Baltic? Bass Strait? Irish Sea? The US Navy can sail anywhere in 2010 and have total dominance to do as it pleases. You couldn't say that in 1944.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Such a chart is completely useless without comparing it to the other fleets in the world, power is relative, and at this time the USN can still be argued to be more powerful than all the other world navies combined.

 

[Orionblamblam]

at this time the USN can still be argued to be more powerful than all the other world navies combined.

That itself is a pretty useless metric. Imagine if the US produced a half-mile-long ballistic missile sub carrying 500 Trident missiles, and equipped with ten Iowa-class 16-inch gun triple turrets, with a landing pad for 250 F-35s. That ship alone would be more powerful than all the other anvies of the world combined. But it would be pretty useless, as it can only be one place at a time.

As the US Navy shrinks, its adaptability also shrinks. And as the number of ships gets smaller, their vulnerability to single strilkes increases. If you have a thousand important vessels scattered around, you cannot take them out with a few nuclear acttacks, as is the case with a navy built around a small number of powerful carrier groups.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

at this time the USN can still be argued to be more powerful than all the other world navies combined.

That itself is a pretty useless metric. Imagine if the US produced a half-mile-long ballistic missile sub carrying 500 Trident missiles, and equipped with ten Iowa-class 16-inch gun triple turrets, with a landing pad for 250 F-35s. That ship alone would be more powerful than all the other anvies of the world combined. But it would be pretty useless, as it can only be one place at a time.

As the US Navy shrinks, its adaptability also shrinks. And as the number of ships gets smaller, their vulnerability to single strilkes increases. If you have a thousand important vessels scattered around, you cannot take them out with a few nuclear acttacks, as is the case with a navy built around a small number of powerful carrier groups.

So you imagine that US Navy might end up in a situation similar to that of Royal Navy during WWII, or even right before WWI?

 

[JFC Fuller]

at this time the USN can still be argued to be more powerful than all the other world navies combined.

That itself is a pretty useless metric. Imagine if the US produced a half-mile-long ballistic missile sub carrying 500 Trident missiles, and equipped with ten Iowa-class 16-inch gun triple turrets, with a landing pad for 250 F-35s. That ship alone would be more powerful than all the other anvies of the world combined. But it would be pretty useless, as it can only be one place at a time.

As the US Navy shrinks, its adaptability also shrinks. And as the number of ships gets smaller, their vulnerability to single strilkes increases. If you have a thousand important vessels scattered around, you cannot take them out with a few nuclear acttacks, as is the case with a navy built around a small number of powerful carrier groups.

But the US navy does not have an asset like that, instead it has more SSN's, destroyers (90+), aircraft carriers (10+), amphibious ships etc than all the other navies in the world combined. Its adaptability is not shrinking at all, unless you are aware of other navies that have developed an ability to shoot down satellites?

The USN may have less ships than it used to have, but each of those ships is more capable by multiples than those of the Cold War and fields longer range sensors and munitions than it ever used to. The sheer numerical supremacy of the USN in addition to this means it has nothing to worry about for the time being.

 

[Orionblamblam]

So you imagine that US Navy might end up in a situation similar to that of Royal Navy during WWII, or even right before WWI?

I can imagine many things.

 

[sublight]

Any enlightening info this chart pretends to convey is lost in the shadow of its political slant....

Some boat yard in a congressman's back yard is slated for the bone yard?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Any enlightening info this chart pretends to convey is lost in the shadow of its political slant....

The info it conveys is "number of ships" vs "year." Would the graph look very different if the source of the graph was politically opposed to *this* source? If so, since the number of ships in the Navy at any given time is a verifiable quantity, then it would seem to be your position that one or both of these hypothetical graphs would be an outright lie. Is this graph lying? If so, then the *honest* graph showing ship # vs year might be in order. If the hypothetical graph produced by someone with a different political view would be a lie, why bring it up?

 

[Colonial-Marine]

The sheer numerical supremacy of the USN in addition to this means it has nothing to worry about for the time being.

Yet does that mean we should get complacent, not bother further improving our capabilites, and let our fleet shrink? That line of thought will lead to our Navy having plenty of things to worry about.

I was hoping ye old naval fire support issue would be addressed one of these days, but I guess that is unlikely.

 

[Triton]

Any enlightening info this chart pretends to convey is lost in the shadow of its political slant....

The info it conveys is "number of ships" vs "year." Would the graph look very different if the source of the graph was politically opposed to *this* source? If so, since the number of ships in the Navy at any given time is a verifiable quantity, then it would seem to be your position that one or both of these hypothetical graphs would be an outright lie. Is this graph lying? If so, then the *honest* graph showing ship # vs year might be in order. If the hypothetical graph produced by someone with a different political view would be a lie, why bring it up?

The graph's caption proves that the information conveyed is polically motivated:

Low Tide for US Naval Power

The US has fewer ships than it had before World War I and not even half the ships that helped
Presiden Reagan win the Cold War. The current total is expected to shrink further under defense
cuts planned by President Obama.

The graph is intended to scare people that the United States is losing its naval power and is an
attack on the Obama Administration.

In addition, for years we have been hearing that the United States Navy would shrink in size because
it would have more capable ships. The capability of these ships is not measured or documented. The graph also
does not document the present emphasis on littoral combat capability rather than blue water navy.

Tracking the number of ships that constitute the United States Navy over time is a meaningless metric of United States
naval power.

 

[Triton]

The sheer numerical supremacy of the USN in addition to this means it has nothing to worry about for the time being.

Yet does that mean we should get complacent, not bother further improving our capabilites, and let our fleet shrink? That line of thought will lead to our Navy having plenty of things to worry about.

I was hoping ye old naval fire support issue would be addressed one of these days, but I guess that is unlikely.

Hunh? No one has suggested that we tow the United States Navy to the scrap yard or let it become obsolete. How is the number of boats/personnel a measure of United States naval strength? There are also active new ship building programs in the United States. You might disagree with the emphasis of these shipbuilding programs, but I wouldn't say that we are becoming complacent and not bothering to improve our capabilties.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The sheer numerical supremacy of the USN in addition to this means it has nothing to worry about for the time being.

Yet does that mean we should get complacent, not bother further improving our capabilites, and let our fleet shrink? That line of thought will lead to our Navy having plenty of things to worry about.

I was hoping ye old naval fire support issue would be addressed one of these days, but I guess that is unlikely.

You really need to read more about the USN, its capabilities are improving very rapidly indeed, Tomahawk Block IV, BAMS, SM-6 SM-3 enhancements, Arleigh Burke Batch III, F-35C Virginia class, Ohio SSGN conversions, etc, etc, etc...

 

[Orionblamblam]

Any enlightening info this chart pretends to convey is lost in the shadow of its political slant....

The info it conveys is "number of ships" vs "year." Would the graph look very different if the source of the graph was politically opposed to *this* source?

The graph's caption proves that the information conveyed is polically motivated:

That doesn't answer the challenge. How would, say, a Marxist graph "number of ships in US Navy" vs "year" any differently?

The graph is intended to scare people that the United States is losing its naval power and is an
attack on the Obama Administration.

Oh, hell, *everyhting* short of a Dear Leader loveletter is an "attack on the Obama administration," and is a sure sign of racism.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

So you imagine that US Navy might end up in a situation similar to that of Royal Navy during WWII, or even right before WWI?

I can imagine many things.

Verily.

 

[Triton]

Oh, hell, *everyhting* short of a Dear Leader loveletter is an "attack on the Obama administration," and is a sure sign of racism.

Umm, no. The title of the graph is "Low Tide for US Naval Power" and "The current total is expected to shrink further under defense cuts planned by President Obama." Its point is to convey a direct relationship between the number of ships to naval power and to imply that United States naval power is declining over time and will decline even further in the future under defense cuts planned by President Obama.

You could probably create a similar graph for United States air power and assert that United States air power is also declining over time as well because the number of aircraft has decreased from World War II levels to today or from Reagan Administration levels to today. But is it fair to make comparisons between the aircraft inventory in 2010 to the inventory of 1988 or the inventory in 1945 for that matter?

The graph also does not measure United States navy striking power or compare this naval striking power relative to the power of other world navies.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The title of the graph is "Low Tide for US Naval Power" and "The current total is expected to shrink further under defense cuts planned by President Obama."

And these are factually incorrect?

Its point is to convey a direct relationship between the number of ships to naval power

Is it your contention that there is no such relationship?

and to imply that United States naval power is declining over time and will decline even more in the future under defense cuts planned by President Obama.

And is the Navy shrinking, and is Obama planning defense cuts?

There's more to having a usefully powerful navy than just having ships with the ability to obliterate continents. You have to have a navy that can actually show up and put on a good show. And a navy of limited numbers has a hard time doing that, or can be bottled up in one conflict while leaving the rest of the world under-patrolled.

 

[Triton]

There's more to having a usefully powerful navy than just having ships with the ability to obliterate continents. You have to have a navy that can actually show up and put on a good show. And a navy of limited numbers has a hard time doing that, or can be bottled up in one conflict while leaving the rest of the world under-patrolled.

It sounds like what you are saying is that we should cancel the next Gerald R Ford-class nuclear aircraft carrier (CVN 79), for example, and build simpler and less expensive ships, perhaps conventionally powered, to increase the numbers in the United States Navy. Perhaps build several Midway-class carriers, sea control ships, or CVVs instead of CVN 79?

Or cancel future Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and build more Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates? Or better yet, how about a whole bunch of new Flechter-class destroyers to show the flag? Perhaps build them to merchant ship specs as opposed to military specs to save money and then send them after Somali and other pirates?

But the graph isn't saying that the United States Navy does not have enough ships to safeguard friendly shipping and/or United States interests. It's just counting the number of ships over time. How many Midway-class ships is the Gerald R Ford worth? It presumes that all ships are equal and equivalent over time and proceeds from that basic premise and concludes that US sea power is in decline.

 

[Orionblamblam]

It sounds like what you are saying is that we should cancel the next Gerald R Ford-class nuclear aircraft carrier (CVN 79), for example, and build simpler and less expensive ships, perhaps conventionally powered, to increase the numbers in the United States Navy.

I see no reason not to do both. A smallish number of supercarriers for concentrated whoopass, and a largish number of smaller carriers for dispersed whoopass. With all appropriate support vessels. Best of all, make it an all-nuclear Navy.

Perhaps build them to merchant ship specs as opposed to military specs to save money and then send them after Somali and other pirates?

Actually, the Somali pirates aren't exactly the job for the Navy... especially a Navy of boomers and supercarriers. Instead, deal with pirates via a public-private partnership: letters of marque and reprisal. Imagine Blackwater at sea with their own "cargo ships," waiting to be boarded by pirates. Pirates who then are mailed home to their families in small pieces. It'd be cheap, and it'd be over quickly. This is the sort of thing that the Navy would get in trouble over, but which would be just the thing for privateers.

How many Midway-class ships is the Gerald R Ford worth?

One supercarrier can in principle be taken out by one missile. Two lesser carriers dozens of miles apart require more effort to sink.

 

[Triton]

I see no reason not to do both. A smallish number of supercarriers for concentrated whoopass, and a largish number of smaller carriers for dispersed whoopass. With all appropriate support vessels. Best of all, make it an all-nuclear Navy.

But this isn't the argument that the graph is making. It just counts the ships and presumes that a ship in service in 1918 is equivalent to a ship in service in 2009. I don't disagree with you when you phrase your argument as you have above. It seems that the United States Navy is spending far too much money on superships filled with the latest technology and automation. There needs to be more balance in US Navy ship procurement. There is no reason why USS Indendependence should be purchased at $708 million, when it was originally intended to cost $220 million a piece. Or why every aircraft carrier in service with the United States Navy needs to be a Nimitz or Gerald R Ford class carrier at $4.8 billion a ship.

Actually, the Somali pirates aren't exactly the job for the Navy... especially a Navy of boomers and supercarriers. Instead, deal with pirates via a public-private partnership: letters of marque and reprisal. Imagine Blackwater at sea with their own "cargo ships," waiting to be boarded by pirates. Pirates who then are mailed home to their families in small pieces. It'd be cheap, and it'd be over quickly. This is the sort of thing that the Navy would get in trouble over, but which would be just the thing for privateers.

Would Blackwater be able to sell cargoes confiscated from Somali pirates as prize money? Further, it seems like overkill to send an LCS, even at the original $220 million unit price, after Somali pirates or terrorists.

One supercarrier can in principle be taken out by one missile. Two lesser carriers dozens of miles apart require more effort to sink.

True, so the United States Navy shouldn't consist entirely of Nimitz-class and Gerald R Ford-class carriers and supporting ships and assets. The Admiral Zumwalt high-low procurement philosophy made a lot of sense. The Navy shouldn't consist entirely of a few high-priced platforms. The arsenal ship also made a lot of sense, but instead we continue to get high-priced platforms like the DD(X).

 

[Orionblamblam]

But this isn't the argument that the graph is making. It just counts the ships and presumes that a ship in service in 1918 is equivalent to a ship in service in 2009.

I doubt the arguement is really meant to go back that far; instead the arguement is on *current* trends, which seem to show a fairly substantial decline.

the United States Navy is spending far too much money on superships

While I'm sure the prices for such things should be brought down (insert long boring discussion of government procurement bloat HERE), the issue is that the Navy should be getting *more* ships and planes, not that it should be getting *different* ones.

Would Blackwater be able to sell cargoes confiscated from Somali pirates as prize money?

Unsure. Also unsure if the pirates have anything worth selling. Property that the pirates steal should be returned to the rightful owners. Pirate vessel and pirate property should, I should think, be towed to their home port and detonated with a few thousand tons of ammonium nitrate/deisel fuel within full view of the populace, perferably with the bodies of the pirates - dead or otherwise - roped to the bridge. The privateers would get paid based on success... not on boddy counts or tonnage, but on agreed-upon declines in pirate activity.

Alternatively, sail the pirate vessel to the home port, then just leave them in the middle of the port as ghost ships. When someone boards them, *then* detonate them. Then tow in another pirate vessel, and wait to see how long before Darwin gets his sacrifice.

The important thing would be to instil a sense of stark terror in the minds of the Somalis at the very idea of piracy. Again, this is the sort of thing the Navy would be unable to really do. But mercenaries could hire *anybody* to do the job. Hell, hire Hutus or Tutsis or Palestinians or some such to deal with the pirates with machetes. Anybody complains about human rights violations, we can send in some UN bluehats to go and rape the pirates.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

You really need to read more about the USN, its capabilities are improving very rapidly indeed, Tomahawk Block IV, BAMS, SM-6 SM-3 enhancements, Arleigh Burke Batch III, F-35C Virginia class, Ohio SSGN conversions, etc, etc, etc...

My point is we should continue these and other programs and not get complacent. We also can't use these improved to justify further cutting the fleet's overall size. You have to have the assets to be deployed across the globe.

 

[JFC Fuller]

You really need to read more about the USN, its capabilities are improving very rapidly indeed, Tomahawk Block IV, BAMS, SM-6 SM-3 enhancements, Arleigh Burke Batch III, F-35C Virginia class, Ohio SSGN conversions, etc, etc, etc...

My point is we should continue these and other programs and not get complacent. We also can't use these improved to justify further cutting the fleet's overall size. You have to have the assets to be deployed across the globe.

Again, the US has assets deployed across the globe and is anything but complacent, which is why it spends in excess of 4% of GDP on defence.

The above graph is utterly useless and as Triton points out it is nothing but political propaganda. It neither takes into account the capabilities of current USN ships compared with their predecessors neither does it take into account the size and capability (including things like sea days and readiness levels) of other nations fleets, both of which are the real arbiters of naval power.

Take the Aegis ships, they are the most capable non-aircraft carrier warships in the world and the USN is heading for a fleet of about 90 before transitioning to the even better Batch III design, there is no other realistic combination of navies in the world that can match that.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Again, the US has assets deployed across the globe and is anything but complacent, which is why it spends in excess of 4% of GDP on defence.

The above graph is utterly useless and as Triton points out it is nothing but political propaganda. It neither takes into account the capabilities of current USN ships compared with their predecessors neither does it take into account the size and capability (including things like sea days and readiness levels) of other nations fleets, both of which are the real arbiters of naval power.

Take the Aegis ships, they are the most capable non-aircraft carrier warships in the world and the USN is heading for a fleet of about 90 before transitioning to the even better Batch III design, there is no other realistic combination of navies in the world that can match that.

Yet letting the fleets size continue to decline as it has since 1989 will threaten our capability to have assets deployed across the globe regardless of how capable an individual ship is. Yeah those DDG-51s are very powerful but they can't teleport to where they are needed. There is a sound basis for the 300+ ship requirement the Navy has. And I hardly see how pointing out that the fleet will probably will face further cuts under President Obama is political propaganda. It would be a problem regardless of who is in charge.

And the US Navy has largely been the force than enables safe civilian shipping across the seas. If we go down to 200 ships, the problem of modern piracy certainly isn't going to vanish.

 

[bobbymike]

I don't see the need to label something political propaganda or label those who say the fleet is too small as all being "anti-Obama."

There are three sides; too many, too few, just right (number of ships) There is arguments to be made for these positions. So let's dig further. I believe there has been many reports lately that say there are too few ships now and that if that number shrinks we will lose our traditional global naval presence. The argument is NOT "as compared to other countries" who DO NOT have to deploy ships across the entire globe, nor defend a large number of allies.

Again one can argue that these reports are wrong, that I'm wrong to say we need more ships, but guess what? I do not make these arguments because "Obama" is the president. I condemned the Bush 41 cuts after the Cold War as too deep and their continuation under Clinton.

I have certain principles that transcend "who is in the Oval Office".

 

[JFC Fuller]

Again, the US has assets deployed across the globe and is anything but complacent, which is why it spends in excess of 4% of GDP on defence.

The above graph is utterly useless and as Triton points out it is nothing but political propaganda. It neither takes into account the capabilities of current USN ships compared with their predecessors neither does it take into account the size and capability (including things like sea days and readiness levels) of other nations fleets, both of which are the real arbiters of naval power.

Take the Aegis ships, they are the most capable non-aircraft carrier warships in the world and the USN is heading for a fleet of about 90 before transitioning to the even better Batch III design, there is no other realistic combination of navies in the world that can match that.

Yet letting the fleets size continue to decline as it has since 1989 will threaten our capability to have assets deployed across the globe regardless of how capable an individual ship is. Yeah those DDG-51s are very powerful but they can't teleport to where they are needed. There is a sound basis for the 300+ ship requirement the Navy has. And I hardly see how pointing out that the fleet will probably will face further cuts under President Obama is political propaganda. It would be a problem regardless of who is in charge.

And the US Navy has largely been the force than enables safe civilian shipping across the seas. If we go down to 200 ships, the problem of modern piracy certainly isn't going to vanish.

Seriously, count the number of ships the USN has.

 

[Triton]

I don't see the need to label something political propaganda or label those who say the fleet is too small as all being "anti-Obama."

There are three sides; too many, too few, just right (number of ships) There is arguments to be made for these positions. So let's dig further. I believe there has been many reports lately that say there are too few ships now and that if that number shrinks we will lose our traditional global naval presence. The argument is NOT "as compared to other countries" who DO NOT have to deploy ships across the entire globe, nor defend a large number of allies.

Again one can argue that these reports are wrong, that I'm wrong to say we need more ships, but guess what? I do not make these arguments because "Obama" is the president. I condemned the Bush 41 cuts after the Cold War as too deep and their continuation under Clinton.

I have certain principles that transcend "who is in the Oval Office".

Because this bar graph is fundamentally flawed in that supposes that numbers of ships is an adequate measure of United States naval power. It would have been different if you had attached a report or graph that stated that the United States Navy needs 100 more frigate-type vessels to safeguard the world's oceans or needs another carrier battle group to protect national interests and/or fulfill treaty obligations. The type of ships and their capabilities also need to be included in any discussion that we have about the power of the United States Navy and its ability to fulfill its mission.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Seriously, count the number of ships the USN has.

I believe the numbers being referred to are commissioned ships. And I'm not implying the Navy will suddenly be slashed to 200 ships tommorow, but what will be the results if the Navy faces a decade of penny-pinching and budget cuts?

 

[JFC Fuller]

Seriously, count the number of ships the USN has.

I believe the numbers being referred to are commissioned ships. And I'm not implying the Navy will suddenly be slashed to 200 ships tommorow, but what will be the results if the Navy faces a decade of penny-pinching and budget cuts?

Quite probably, still the most powerful fleet on earth.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Quite probably, still the most powerful fleet on earth.

Perhaps, but less capable of having ships (and the ability to project power) where needed. Also, China certainly has the intention to build a true blue-water navy in the coming decades.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Quite probably, still the most powerful fleet on earth.

Perhaps, but less capable of having ships (and the ability to project power) where needed. Also, China certainly has the intention to build a true blue-water navy in the coming decades.

If you want the US to bankrupt itself trying to maintain global hegemony against powers which are ultimately predicted to have larger economies than it then be my guest. As for US power projection capability, it is unparalleled in the history of warfare and is still being improved through new acquisitions.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

If you want the US to bankrupt itself trying to maintain global hegemony against powers which are ultimately predicted to have larger economies than it then be my guest. As for US power projection capability, it is unparalleled in the history of warfare and is still being improved through new acquisitions.

There is no reason we should not try to keep a military edge over the PRC. We didn't bankrupt ourselves when modernizing a much larger military expected to fight the USSR if it came to that.

Every ship you subtract is one less ship capable of projecting power. If you don't have enough ships to be where you're needed, than all of those missiles and aircraft you have loaded mean nothing. Again, the Navy has some firm math behind the 340 or whatever # goal they have.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Because the economy of the USSR was never as large as that of the US.

You are confusing less ships with less power, the USN may have less ships but each is orders of magnitude more capable and offers far higher rates of availability than its predecessors. The USN is at the zenith of its comparable global power and is investing in maintaining and enhancing what it has and the chart that started this thread is nothing more than a piece of political propaganda designed to enrage the simple minded.

 

[Triton]

I didn't think that the days of the Pax Americana, world's only remaining superpower days would last. The Caspar Weinberger 611-ship United States Navy during the Ronald Reagan presidency was intended to defeat the Soviet Union in the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean. Fleet assets intended to support the North Atlantic dash of troops and equipment to support England and/or Western Europe from Warsaw Pact aggression.

The United States Navy has also used sea power to ensure the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf region.

But it seems that the recent trend is to emphasize brown/green water capability as opposed to blue water capability with LCS and DD(X). I am still shocked that the USS Independence is a $700 million ship. The US Navy wanted 60 of them. As of mid-2006, the Navy wanted to procure seven DDG-1000s, 19 CG(X)s, and 55 LCS. The way things are looking, the Navy is only going to get two DDG-1000s, perhaps a third. Who knows how many LCS will finally be built. But does it really make sense to buy the DD(X), CG(X), and LCS due to their high unit cost? EDIT: It appears that the CG(X) program was canceled this year.

Should we have kept CG-47 through CG-51 in service, perhaps modernizing them with updated radars and VLS? There is also the arsenal ship and should the US Navy have built three of four of them. What about re-activating the Iowa-class?

Are the right procurement decisions being made in light of current budget realities? Do all oceans require top-of-the-line ships with leading-edge technology to defend United States' interests? Are we in a death spiral too when it comes to United States Navy ship procurement?

I also don't see why South Korea, Japan, or Taiwan can't help to pay for its own protection by United States Navy ships. Perhaps Japan should amend its post-war Constitution to allow it tobuild and or purchase aircraft carriers and other assets to defend itself from North Korea and the People's Republic of China? Or perhaps contribute to the building of a US Navy carrier battlegroup.

 

[JFC Fuller]

One good procurement decision has been made, Arleigh Burke Flight III. I am hoping we start to see more. That said I think the Ohio SSGN conversions were logical and sensible and the Virginia class programme is now yielding very impressive results (including cuts in manufacturing costs for individual units). The risks remain with the LCS programme, and to a lesser extent the next generation carriers where costs are ballooning. The elephant in the room is SSBN-X, if that has to come out of the Navy's regular budget then big cuts will have to be made. But that is what you get for 12+ years of bad fiscal and economic policy (same in Europe).

 

[Triton]

Some interesting reading concerning SSBN(X):

O'Rourke, Ronald. Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service. July 27, 2010
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41129.pdf

 

[Orionblamblam]

the chart that started this thread is nothing more than a piece of political propaganda designed to enrage the simple minded.

Well, it seemed to make *you* mad, so...

 

[JFC Fuller]

the chart that started this thread is nothing more than a piece of political propaganda designed to enrage the simple minded.

Well, it seemed to make *you* mad, so...

Quite the contrary, I was merely disappointed by its lack of intellectual validity.

 

[bobbymike]

Quite probably, still the most powerful fleet on earth.

Perhaps, but less capable of having ships (and the ability to project power) where needed. Also, China certainly has the intention to build a true blue-water navy in the coming decades.

If you want the US to bankrupt itself trying to maintain global hegemony against powers which are ultimately predicted to have larger economies than it then be my guest. As for US power projection capability, it is unparalleled in the history of warfare and is still being improved through new acquisitions.

Please tell me how we will bankrupt ourselves spending a smaller percentage of GDP on defense that at any time during the Cold War? We were able to spend 6 to 7% or more of our "national wealth" for 60 years AND emerged with the strongest most technologically advanced economy is the history of the planet.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Quite the contrary, I was merely disappointed...

Your terminology was that of someone upset.

by its lack of intellectual validity.

Ah. So, once again, apparently the numbers are factually in error?