"How many ships does the USN need?" Topic

I suspect Romney's 315 ship navy is an attempt to bolster support in Virginia – but let's not get into politics here.

So – objectively – how many ships does the USN really need?

I'm inclined to think it is far too big already given the paucity of any opposition. By this I don't just mean in raw numbers but in the margin of naval power. Noone else has a modern operational aircraft carrier for example.

Sure – if you have a big navy you can always find some water somewhere that has space for another few ships/boats but really – how low could the USN go and still manage to cover the essentials?

Probably more than it currently has.

It's hard to avoid politics on this one. What are 'the essentials'? An isolationist USA will need a navy less than the world's policeman.

For the record, I'm with Skarper: it's probably bigger than it needs to be. Even bearing in mind that whatever the next war turns out to be, it won't have enough of whatever it turns out that they need.

Yes, you need to determine what capability you require (like, 24x7x365 ability to deliver at least 400 nuclear warheads from nuclear submarines, for example), then tailor the force levels to deliver those capabilities.

To deliver one ship on station requires a surprising number of actual ships, taking account of maintenance, refits etc.

The size of the US navy is not a military question, it is political. The navy needs to be the right size to meet the requirements of the perceived political situation. As to that, it will usually need to be bigger than the immediate situation requires because there is a long lead time needed to change things.

So my answer would be: there are no critical situations around at the moment requiring as many ships as you have, so in the short time it is probably too big, but if you make it smaller then you reduce the chances of meeting future requirements.

At any given time, roughly one third of any first world navy is in port undergoing maintenance cycles, one third are on station and one third are going or coming off station or training.

The US eleven CVBG's translate into about 4 out and about doing useful things of a muscular diplomatic nature. That can be surged to about 6 but at a cost in wear and tear on both crew and machinery that is not sustainable over time.

The issue is always can you afford to build a fleet for worst case or given fiscal limits, build for most probable and hope the full fecal load never hits rotating wind device.

If you don't mind whistling past the graveyard, then the Navy is probably too big.

However, having spent 30 years in the service that is the hard core around which the Navy forms in time of war, I fear it is too smal to handle everything that will be asked of it next time it is really needed. I have heard that deployment times are getting longer and longer (9 months for carrier strike groups vice the planned 6 months).

Th other factor to keep in mind is the capability argument only goes so far. If you say we need less ships because the new ones are so much more capable, I get that. But lose that really capable hull and your total capability takes a proportionally larger reduction.

but let's not get into politics here.

That's impossible.

So – objectively – how many ships does the USN really need?

And that's impossible to answer – certainly for amateurs like us and possibly even for the professionals (who often disagree vehemently on the question). There are just too many variables.

Doug

How is the majority of the World's commerse transported? By the sea. How do you protect your investments, reassure allies or pressure potential enemies? Park a battle group or amphibs full of Marines off their shore. You could triple the number of amphibious ships in the USN inventory and there would still be a demand…

Some very cogent points on all sides.

For a worst case scenario you might need 500 ships or 1000…

BUT – given the changing world with evolving threats/capabilities you have to face the fact that a lot of what the USN did it will never do again. Drones can probably do a lot that has traditionally been the role of carriers for example.

I suppose, if you have plenty of money then you might as well keep the navy big on the off chance it will be needed…but money will always be in ever shorter supply.

I agree the point people (me included) see a bug number like 300 ships and forget that only 1/3 will usually be 'on mission' at any given time.

I suppose the elephant in the room is the nuclear strategic deterrent in submarines. You need a lot of these to make a failsafe system – and it has very little liklihood of ever being any use – that kind of threat has all but disappeared.

I think most people in the US would like to see a more isolationist foreign policy. I live in Asia and the refocussing of US forces (especially Naval) to Asia will make China less of a bully and give North Korea pause for thought.

I'm not really on either side of the bigger/smaller argument. I'd just like to know what the consensus might be about a reasonable USN strength.

The other factor with having a navy is you must build a certain number of new ships all the time to keep the infrastructure and more importantly the trade skills that enable you to build a warship. Build too few and you won't be able to scale back up if there is a need. How many ships you need to build to maintain that ability is of course a political question based on the size of the force set by the politicians.

Same answer as hom many figures do we need. "Always one more that you have".

Vince

There was a recent question on another forum about who would win if it was the US Navy against all the military forces of all the other navies.

I number crunched it using a very rough theory – giving the american carriers a 3/1 advantage over other carriers, and accepting that all ships could be at sea on station at the start.

I think the telling facts would be

1 – The 11 american CVNs would eventually run out of ordnance to load onto the aircraft on board. – this would happen before all of the aircraft were neutralised…

2 Some enemy frigates would still remain – with capable surface to surface missiles. (this would devolve into a brawl that would destroy the remaining US navy surface vessels, and damage some of the carriers)

3 – The overwhelming enemy submarine force would penetrate the absent defences of the carrier group and score multiple torpedo hits.

I felt that the rest of the world might have a handful of frigates left – from the three hundreds down to about thirty or so.

I also feel that the rest of the world might have sixty submarines left.

If we go back to the first world war – and assume that the old Royal Navy rules of being able to face off against the next two biggest navies added together is enough, then America with its present navy is more than enough.

The need for America to have a fleet of light carriers to protect its fleet carriers is something that I would be pressing for, and for small hulls (something like a Perry class frigate, cheap (!) to build and capable of a bit of everything without having to swap modules) to show the flag on goodwill visits!

90% of the world's international trade goes by sea. The primary purpose of the US Navy is to keep those sea lanes open. Cut the US Navy and either someone else will have to step in to do the job or it doesn't get done. Who can keep the Straights of Hormuz open to oil shipments to Europe when Iran and Israel go at it? People may not like the US being the world's policeman (I certainly don't), but it is a job that must be done and no one else can for the foreseeable future.

The military calculates how big the force should be based on the threat, then the politicians decide how big it will be and the risk to take. When the excrement hits the fan and the military doesn't have the ships/planes/tanks, the politicians will cover their back sides while the lowly enlisted man pays the price.

You know, somebody made a comment on a similar thread a week or so ago that amounted to "if you have a surplus of hammers, everything in the world looks like a nail" which I think is apropos here as well. Perhaps if we in the US actually had more limited military resources, we might exercise somewhat more wisdom in how we choose to utilize those resources.

Doug

you also have to take into account that our allies Navies are shrinking to the point of uselessness IE Britan and france may end up sharing carriers. I a way we always get left holding the bag while europe saves money to get back on its feet…and In the pacific the only strong ally is japan and its navy is not much bigger then Britans even the ROK,ROC,JMSDF and the others are barely enough to contain China and NK….

"The navy needs to be the right size to meet the requirements of the perceived political situation."

"political situation." Let that sink in. Because the "political situation' is ALWAYS fluid around the world. A 250-ship navy may work for the worlds "political situation" for a time, but weakness (OK, fine – perceived weakness, then) encourages despots and opportunists.

The best time to make a move is when any force with the ability to stop you cannot act because they are stretched too thin. Cannot take away from one area to surge to protect one spot when opportunists make their move on two or three areas simultaneously.

Doug, "if you have a surplus of hammers, everything in the world looks like a nail" I don't feel is apropos here. The actual observation is, "If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail," whomever that was changed it to make their own point. Our only tool is NOT a hammer, and who decides what makes up a surplus? Having more limited military resources TAKES AWAY TOOLS (options.)

Maddaz111, I've been following that thread on BGG and there's way too many assumptions being made to have a quality discussion. Do you think that the world's navies could coordinate operations across the globe without the USN being involved? Probably not. Most exercises without the USN involved have numerous problems. Second, our SSNs are going to be on the hunt as well, not just sitting around waiting to be targets. Third, I'm not sure of the sortie capability of most of the world's navies at this time. Russia, who on paper still has a huge fleet, could only get one submarine running in a recent Black Sea Fleet exercise! The other ships were either undermanned, undergoing continual maintenance,, or simply could not make it out of port. There was a great article in a recent defense journal about the one remaining Russian carrier. Most of the toilets don't operate, there's electrical problems, and the CIC looked like they were still using the Atari 2600 for graphics!

Personally, 315 ships is simply not enough and my estimate is that 500 is needed to just meet our global obligations.

A bunch, unless you decide that we are going to cease patrolling the world's oceans, and will only maintain a defensive fleet for counter-invasion purposes.

I'd rather have a navy that is too big than one that is too small. However, the US is dead broke, so "need" or "want" is probably less important here than "can have". I mean, seriously – I would not be surprised to see the US government default on it's debt in my lifetime.

In any case the fleet size numbers that the two contenders are talking about are too close for there to be a significant difference in projected power. 50 ships give or take, same difference.
-Kle.

wrt strategic nuclear capability…

"that kind of threat has all but disappeared."

it could be argued it has disappeared because the big players maintain a credible strategic nuclear deterrant.

Besides it will come in handy when the Martians land:)

600 is a nice, round number, which means you can have 200 on station at any given time.

Of course, we'll probably not get back to that anytime soon, unless we can levy a tax on the world's nations for being the policeman of the world, or we start levying fees for bailing out countries in time of need (payment in gold bullion, and in advance, of course).

The capabilities argument only goes so far, especially if you start losing ships to routine maintenance, equipment breakdowns, accidents (collisions by inattentive captains and crews, like the recent Aegis cruiser and nuke sub incident), and/or combat losses.

We also lost a lot of capability when the Tomcat was retired, but I suppose some of the newer missiles help make up for that a bit.

I always find comments on what is needed by the Navy, which frankly very few of us know enough about, hilarious.

Those that think we have too much, are ignorant as the what the Navy does and why.

Those that want a return to a 600 ship Navy certainly don't take the current world situation objectively.

Another TMP discusses how the Navy currently uses its forces and more importantly, how a portion of the fleet is always in a state of repair of some sort.

We are projected to have about a 100 fewer ships than what is currently needed. 1/3rd of the carrier fleet is in the docks being repaired at any one time. Add to this the need to update what we currently have as well. It's not as if we are launching a new ship every month either. Again, this is 100 fewer ships that what we currently need and does not take into account some new hotspot coming into focus.

If someone would care to explain to me how we can a carrier group near Libya/Syria, the straits of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf (yes we have two groups there), the South China Sea, the Sea of Japan, the Indian Ocean, the Panama Canal Zone, the Atlantic, the Pacific, etc. and they be able to react to something else, I am all ears. This makes 9 carrier groups by my count, with 3 groups in repair. Which means we are short at least one carrier group as we speak.

I haven't even mentioned Russia, the vastness of the Atlantic and the Pacific requiring more than one group to patrol these oceans properly, etc. You start to understand how Somali pirates were fairly free to do what they wanted for quite some time.

As mentioned by others, we have become a de-facto police force in more ways than one. The UK has been shrinking its fleet as well, reducing their ability to help in this role too.

The argument that we are facing only terrorism as a threat to world peace is naive as well. China has been rattling its saber and is trying to project sovereignty not only in the South China Sea but 200 miles out in every direction from its coastline. Many of these areas not only overlap international waters but also overlap recognized sovereign waterways belonging to other countries. Ironically enough, this 200 mile projection also overlaps actual land masses of sovereign nations as well. Some of these countries are supposed allies of China, such as Viet Nam.

Russia is incrementally returning to totalitarian rule. Putin not only wishes to retain more nuclear warheads than previously agreed to but wishes to build up the military in general to include Russia's navy.

North Korea is still a threat to stability.

South and Central American countries still have political instability or governments that threaten regional peace. Venezuela is a prime example.

My comments are a-political in that we are talking about keeping the peace and insuring that free trade is not interrupted. With regards to where some of our carrier fleets are, I suppose this could be interpreted as political situations. Being that I am not supporting or condemning where our carrier groups are, I am not making a political statement. Some of the comments by previous posters are political in nature and don't belong on this board.

Saying that we have too much of a Navy already doesn't even take the current world situation into account let alone if things should turn 'hot' somewhere else. Deterrence by physical presence has kept many an area in the world more peaceful than just the possibility that the U.S. Navy 'might' send part of its fleet somewhere.

My comments are based on what is happening now and pointing to how thinly spread the Navy is currently. I suspect that there is more than one ship that should be getting an update/upgrade or normal repairs that is not able to because of the current situations mentioned above and the instability currently in the Middle East. Frankly, I don't know enough about naval operations either but logic dictates that we are spread dangerously thin and that these flare ups we are seeing around the world are not over with.

First off, the number fixation is a red herring. Just picking a number, like 100, or 800 doesn't discuss what kinds of ships. If numbers are all that matter, you could buy 1000 coastal patrol ships and be done with it. Numbers themselves are pointless without asking what kind of ships they are and what kind of capabilities.

Remember that at the height of the cold war, Reagan asked for a 600 ship navy to stand against the Soviets. That was the cold war, and many have rightly stated that we do not NOW face an opponent with that kind of capability.

However, the military isn't paid to only fight today's wars, but anticipate tomorrow's. People who think the only thing we need worry about is terrorism are truly blind to reality. We have to worry about a lot more than terrorism. On the flip side, we're not fighting a war against any major powers. Russia is still capable, but with a small fleet that is no where near their cold war maximum. They do, however, have modern (more modern than ours) ballistic missile subs that we have to track.

China is a rival, and should be taken seriously. However, the odds of a knock down drag out war with them are frankly small. Some use that as a reason to ignore them completely, but that would be a ridiculous for the Navy to do. Despite the lack of impending hostilities, they are our chief naval rival in the pacific, and they scare the hell out of neighbors with neighbors we have treaties with. For the military to simply dismiss them would be incredibly short sided.

If you want to know what the thinking is behind Romney's 350 ship plan, I came across this excellent interview with John Lehman, former secretary of the navy on what the vision is for the navy and the military in general. It's a great read, no matter what side of the fence you are on.

link

Pay particular attention to the discussion of procurement, which is one of the biggest problems the military must contend with right now. It's broken, and needs to be fixed.

In the last few days, the Obama administration has attacked Lehman as a corrupt guy who made money off of ship building since he left the government. This appears to be an interestingly timed attack on his character.

From my perspective, the US Navy has let its anti submarine capabilities slide dangerously at a time when foreign navies are expanding their submarine capabilities. China, North Korea, Iran, Russia and many other traditional rivals of ours (note that I didn't say enemies- since that can change) are all modernizing and expanding their submarine forces.

The new P8 Poseidon patrol craft, while a significant upgrade in many respects is dumping the Magnetic Anomaly Detector gear (though ironically, India, who is also buying this aircraft is not). We are selling or decommissioning our Perry Class ASW ships and there is no replacement planned. The new LCS is supposed to have an ASW loadout package that can be used, but the package is not finished, and is on the chopping block to be cancelled. Sosus was turned off years ago.

Why is that important? There is this: link

Our mineclearing ships are getting old, and the LCS is also supposed to have a mineclearing package in the works. This package is also not finished, and one big criticism of the package, assuming they ever finish it is, do you really want a 500 million dollar ship clearing mines?

Our attack submarine force is already projected to not keep up with needs. Older subs are being decommissioned at a faster rate than they are being replaced. To try to keep up with needs, old submarines are being kept in service past their projected service lives. That's dangerous for the crews who man those ships.

I hear the argument that modern platforms are much more capable than previous platforms, and that is true in specific cases, but the argument only works to a point. Yes, it is very true that modern aircraft are more capable, and the Burke class destroyers are incredibly capable ships that are currently expected to serve the roles of an AA cruiser, ASW frigate (though they really aren't designed for it), shore bombardment ship, ASUW ship and escort vessel. However, they are really big and expensive in and of themselves, and cover roles a cheaper, purpose built ship could do more efficiently.

At the end of the day, however, there are some jobs that simply require numbers. Our propensity to build a one size fits all platform for every situation results in very expensive, very capable overkill.

I heard a guy on the radio yesterday saying that one infantryman today has the capability of 4 infantrymen from World War Two. That's great, except when you have a need to have a man in four places and you only have 1 man to send.

Overall, the discussion is much more complicated than idiotic soundbites and requires a much deeper review of the situation. What kind of ships do we need, what kinds of capabilities?

Flippant remarks, armchair discussion of numbers without contextual analysis are meaningless on both sides. At the end of the day, what is the plan of each side for the military in detail moving forward?

"Britan and france may end up sharing carriers."

The F-35B switcheroo has effectively killed that one off (much to the annoyance of the French politicians but no-one else, apparently)

and In the pacific the only strong ally is japan and its navy is not much bigger then Britans

If you go by sheer numbers, the Japanese fleet is at least twice as large as the British fleet. According to my research, the Brits have 6 attack subs, 4 Ballistic Missile subs, 13 Frigates, and 5 Destroyers. Compared to Japan which has 4 "Helicopter-Destroyers," 8 DDGs, 30 FFGs, 6 "DEs" (more like FFs), and 17 SS. Almost twice as many DDGs and almost 3 times as many FFGs as the British Navy. You could make the argument about qualitative differences, and this would be valid (especially in submarines since none of the Japanese ones are nuclear powered. But the Japanese navy certainly comes across as being pretty well equipped…

Damon.

Doug, "if you have a surplus of hammers, everything in the world looks like a nail" I don't feel is apropos here. The actual observation is, "If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail," whomever that was changed it to make their own point.

Yes – the wording of the old phrase was changed specifically to make a point. "If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" is indeed quite ancient and well know, and it is this very familiarity that makes it useful as material. Just because an argument is expressed via a play on an old saying does not mean that it is somehow a mistaken paraphrasing of that saying. Here is the argument, expressed without utilizing a turn on a cliche:

We do not have infinite resources available in the US, and too many of the resources that we do have are currently in the form of hammers. We spend 5 times the resources on hammers that the next nearest nation does (which nation has nearly 5x our population), 10x the next after that, and over 4/10 of the entire world's expenditures of resources on hammers comes from our coffers. This excess of hammers encourages our leaders to use those hammers when faced with problems that might better be solved with other tools.

Doug

I say again, watch the political comments or risk the DH… ;-)

I am aware of the former Naval officer and his statements around a 350 ship Navy. This is why I made the statement that we are projected to be about 100 ships short in the near future unless something changes. I have also heard about the need of between 327 and the low 400s being correct too.

I am going to refrain from mentioning either candidate as again, the number is a-political in nature or it should be.
I will say that the current Navy will state what it needs under the guidance of the current administration. They will not contradict our commander-in-chief, the secretary of defense or the secretary of the Navy. They will comply with what is being asked and reduce capability by whatever number their civilian commanders request.

Better minds that me have stated what we need. Based on what I have heard our projected Naval fleet will be in the next 4 or 5 years, I can say that the number is not supported by military and naval experts for many reasons.

TG is correct in stating that pure numbers are meaningless. However, we can say that we need at least 13 carrier groups as far as capabilities go. The discussion should revolve around how many of the other types of ships do we need. I don't agree that Russia has the better technology in subs. They may have a better nuclear sub fleet based on numbers but not on the latest launches for the U.S. fleet. But then again, I am no expert ;-)

TG is correct in that we need to know what capabilities we need. Carrier groups are one area of capability as this allows us to have moving flight decks that can support ongoing presence to most places in the world. Add in-air refueling, and carrier based planes can get anywhere needed in the world. Cruisers and other ships can carry non-nuclear long ranged missiles for missions deemed too dangerous for planes. Troop transport ships can bring in Marines and support vehicles for ground bases presence quickly. Not just for offensive actions but for peace keeping ability as well.

The numbers I have seen come from military experts. The numbers coming solely from politicians have no worth whatsoever IMO. And I would say this no matter what political persuasion the politician comes from. It would be refreshing to base what we need on what our military tells us we need balanced with current and future objectives. While I am sure there are many from the military that would like to see us with as many ships as possible, there are also many that have a cogent response as to what we need minimally to support ongoing and projected operations. These cogent numbers are what we should go by.

There is another side to the issue – cost. The Western powers tend to go for high tech expensive equipment that can basically completely outclass the opposition. On the other hand, the opposition can buy far more ships for the same amount of cash – and you don't always need the high tech ships to do particular jobs. In some cases, the opposition don't even have that level of equipment.

My own view would be that for most foreseeable cases a better mix of low and high tech equipment is needed. Something in the way of modern day equivalents of the old cruisers and gunboats.

Look at the areas covered. Do they all need carrier groups, or a couple of lighter, lower cost patrol vessels? If they do need carrier groups, do they all need expensive, high tech carriers or something less sophisticated?

Remember, response times are pretty quick. Most situations tend to build over a period of time. In the Falklands war, Conqueror left France on 4th April. It reached the Falklands on the 19th April. What is really needed is a situation where we say 'we need to have the capability to get x ships to any potential flash point in y days' and use that as the required minimum number of carrier groups.

Doug, we don't spend the multiple times other nations on hammers, etc. This has been a long standing method of covering up where we spend money on secret weapons systems and other operations that the government deems too sensitive to be open about. If we were really buying $1,000 USD hammers and such, wouldn't the anti-war politicians be bringing this up all the time?

The stealth technology on aircraft is a prime example. In Panama, where the stealth planes were first revealed to the world and the press, is an example of secret weapons development kept under wraps for as long as possible. Military budgets did not show the stealth plane cost as a line item for many years.

Doug, we don't spend the multiple times other nations on hammers, etc. This has been a long standing method of covering up where we spend money on secret weapons systems and other operations that the government deems too sensitive to be open about. If we were really buying $1,000 USD USD hammers and such, wouldn't the anti-war politicians be bringing this up all the time?

Do I have to explicitly label every metaphor as such? Or would you even then insist on taking "hammers" and "nails" literally?

Doug

A few points:

* We have allies. In both of the big oceans. And those allies have navies. And for decades our navy has worked with them, with the understanding that if a really big war erupted, we're All-In.

* The US, NATO, Australia, Philippines, Japan, and S. Korea, combined have a massive superiority in both numbers and technical prowess, over any combination of plausible enemies.

* Aside from China and Russia, who could plausibly ever threaten the Americans at sea? War with China is highly unlikely, given that it would crash both economies. A naval war with Russia would be the old Cold War scenario, except with the "Red" team vastly reduced in size, readiness, and manpower. So who, exactly, are we worried about fighting the next Trafalgar or Midway with?

* All threats and potential threats have hierarchical value. Right now, with no plausible big-war threat, our navy is understandably dispersed in various police actions against pirates, terrorists, smugglers, and a couple of rogue states. But if a really big war did erupt, then obviously the forces would be concentrated and those little threats could wait.

* History proves that whatever problems you have, in expanding and managing a large force… your enemy probably will have, also. No doubt there are people in Beijing and Moscow who are at this very moment having the same fretful conversation about how to respond to what they perceive as their insufficient strength, capability, or readiness.

* Expanding the Navy is fine in theory… but where do you intend to get the manpower and the money ? Reinstate the draft? And since American military personnel are given socialized medicine with a number of other lifetime benefits, I'm a bit curious as to how much money the military-expanders really want to allocate to these sorts of long-term commitments for peoples' healthcare, pensions, etc., at the taxpayers' expense?

The Dept. of Veterans' Affairs has a budget of 70 billion this year: that's nearly half of the Navy's entire budget. You quickly reach a point where you can't pay for today's military, because of the commitments made to yesterday's military.

Something apparently overlooked by the "but we don't need them right now" thinkers is the enormous amount of time it takes to build, fit and shakedown a new combat vessel. Oh, and recruit and train those humans that are needed to operate that vessel.

Not days. Not weeks. Not months.

Years.

Now, respond to a series of rapidly changing global crises with what you have on hand. Go! :D

You know, somebody made a comment on a similar thread a week or so ago that amounted to "if you have a surplus of hammers, everything in the world looks like a nail" which I think is apropos here as well. Perhaps if we in the US actually had more limited military resources, we might exercise somewhat more wisdom in how we choose to utilize those resources.

I would disagree with this from two different directions.

1 – If the US had more limited military resources, it would also have a dramatically more limited deterrent and utility effect. That could encourage adventurism from various bad actors who currently feel constrained.

2 – If the US had more limited military resources, the flexibility of military response becomes less flexible. Instead of being able to use additional resources to suppress air defenses and strike specific targets, the limited resources might mean a less focused strike has to happen. That applies all the way up the continuum of threat/response – what would today be largely unthinkable (WMDs) might suddenly become a necessary option due to the limited resources.

"Now, respond to a series of rapidly changing global crises with what you have on hand. Go! :D"

One could just as easily flip that question upside-down and say: "Predict exactly how many, and what kind of ships you'll need for all possible future conflicts between now and 2025, now go and fund them and build them! And find the money for all of the pay and lifetime benefits for all their crew."

And do so while trying to close a trillion-dollar budget deficit. Go!

"Those that want a return to a 600 ship Navy certainly don't take the current world situation objectively".

Actually, I do.

That doesn't mean we need 600 brand new, large ones like we had before, but we do need a lot more inexpensive, light vessels, which can perform various missions around the globe, when needed:

1. littoral vessels that are small, have good range, can pack a decent punch, can carry/recover special forces teams, and that can launch helos, drones, and cruise missiles;
2. minesweepers – we have a huge need for a lot more of these, and are currently dependent upon our allies, and/or minesweeping helos to do the job;
3. AIP subs – a number of countries now field these, and we need some for coastal waters;
4. missile boats – we don't have any, and could use some, provided they are equipped with a decent, anti-aircraft SAM system, and CIWS;
5. amphibious ships – can also be used as helo and/or drone carriers. We need more;
6. logistics vessels, which can be converted to light carriers by adding a removeable flight deck, if needed, should we need to go to war. More will be needed to support the aforementioned vessels.

There are far more flashpoints around the globe than there were back in the Cold War, given the current terrorist hotspots cropping up on numerous continents. The above light forces would do a lot to permit us to project power to combat them.

There are long lead times on the production of these, so they need to start the funding for that now.

Ancients, I should clarify that I didn't say that the Russian subs were better than ours, and I meant only that their boomers are newer.

The last Ohio was built in 1997 and will be retired in 2029. We have no current plan as yet for the replacement- just a deadline.

The Trident II missile, our best SLBM was commissioned in 1990, with the last one constructed in 1990 but with life extension programs ongoing.

The Russians are building their new Borei II class which technically began construction this year with 5 boats planned.

The new Bulava missile was approved for construction last year and is being deployed now.

I see a lot of folks claiming these days that nuclear forces are unnecessary. There seems to be a clamoring in the West to just stop making them entirely. We could do that, but we'd lose all deterrence as well as open ourselves up to nuclear blackmail.

Russia, China, Pakistan and India are in the middle of upgrading their own nuclear forces. The odds of any of them using them against us are small, but each of them feels a strong need to maintain deterrence.

Our own forces are old and aging rapidly. I already mentioned our best SLBM. Our best ICBM is the Minuteman III first deployed in 1970. We replaced it with the MX/Peacekeeper in the late 1980s but we retired them all in 2005 under treaty with Russia. Our current missiles have undergone life extension, but we're now safeguarded with missiles that are over 40 years old and two generations ago in technology.

Much of our military equipment is aging, with most of the lines long since shut down. Right now, the ONLY US tank plant in Lima, Ohio is due to be shut down for two years as a cost savings measure. The people who run the plant state that the costs of closing and reopening the plan will far outweigh the savings to be garnered for two years, but no one seems to care as they can point to the savings on their bottom line for those two years.

Of course what the people with the know how to build the tanks will do for an income for those two years is not addressed, nor is the fact that those people will probably not stick around to come back after two years of non-employment. There will be lost know how as well as the problem of inertia to overcome once the plant is shut down. Restarting won't be as simple as turning the lights back on.

The naval builders face a similar problem. Stop building ships and tanks and you have larger problems when it comes time to start building them again.

Have you seen the TO&E for the Phillipine navy recently?

If not, I suggest you take a look.

They'd be hard-pressed to take on two drunk, rogue Chinese fishing boat captains at the same time, in different locations.

They've got a couple of old, ex-US Coast Guard vessels, plus a few patrol boats in their navy, but that's about it.

I seem to recall a factoid about the production of F-15 fighter jets. The point was that it takes many, many months to build one because it is so complicated. Was it 16 months? Someone help me here.

A nuclear-powered aircraft carrier takes about six years to build. Our massive naval building program in WWII actually started in 1940, a full two years before our entry into the war. Good thing we started when we did, eh?

Any war that occcurs tomorrow will have to be fought with the weapons on hand. Don't you think it would be a good idea to have more than we need to account for enemy sneak attacks and early-war losses? Because next time we just won't have the time to tool up our production and start from scratch as TGerritsen has shown.

"Any war that occcurs tomorrow will have to be fought with the weapons on hand. Don't you think it would be a good idea to have more than we need to account for enemy sneak attacks and early-war losses?"

Which enemy?

I'm still trying to figure out which hostile blue-water navy you guys are talking about. China? Obviously we have to keep an eye on them, but I have trouble imagining a US-Chinese war, when our two economies are so completely intertwined.*

India is a friend, or at least friendly.

That leaves Russia. Do we, plus all our NATO allies, have enough navy to handle the Russians? Good God, yes. Those poor s can't even keep their own subs from sinking.

Or are we imagining some new contender emerging? Because if so, then surely the same rules apply to him: it would take him years, also, to build up his fleet, for all the world to see. *IF* that starts happening, then yes, obviously, the correct response is to monitor and prepare accordingly.

Of course it's a hostile world. There are lots of crazy extremists who will try to kit-up a speedboat with explosives and ram it into the side of an anchored American DDG. But we have more than enough navy to deal with all the loonies, terrorists, and pirates that the world can scrounge up in our lifetimes.

- -

And I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me how we can massively expand both our materiel and personnel expenses – including offering lifetime healthcare and other benefits – while simultaneously closing a trillion dollar budget deficit.

We've been paying for our defense department on credit ever since the early 1980s. If you want an Eisenhower-era-sized military, then are you willing to pay Eisenhower-era tax rates for it?

- -

* Chinese exports to the US account for nearly a third of their global trade; losing us as a customer would crash their economy faster than you could say, "Hey Ma, where'd the Wal-Mart go?" If the other NATO countries plus Japan and Australia also boycotted Chinese trade in solidarity with the US, then China would lose 95% (!!) of its export economy overnight.

I confess that I lack the imagination to foresee a world in which China was not totally interlocked with the western economies, and thus able to wage a conventional war against the West.

No one is talking about an Eisenhower size military. Do you have any comprehension of what percentage of our GDP we spent during the 1950's (arguably at the height of the cold war)?

Can we at least agree on the fact that we're not talking about a major expansion of the fleet as you are putting it, but rather at the minimum maintaining the fleet we have? The navy is going down in numbers of ships and has been rapidly the last six years. No one is talking about some kind of major build up and going to 350 ships would hardly be that. We simply have too few ships to do what PEACE TIME demands we have in front of us. Ask any sailor and they will tell you there are too few sailors on too few ships. They are being asked every day to do more with less.

I don't see anyone saying we should gear up to some unheard of level, or even previous levels- we're talking about stemming the bleeding. The navy is shrinking right now beyond what it is tasked with. That means you either:

1. Stop shrinking.
2. Change the expectations.

The US Navy is there to keep sea lanes open and enforce free navigation of waters for all nations, ensure our trade in either direction gets where it needs to go and safeguard US interests overseas. That doesn't even include treaty obligations.

If what we currently have isn't up to the job in front of us (less, but more expensive ships are overkill for simple sealane patrols and anti-piracy) and everything is getting older and need of replacement, what is your solution? Give up and go home?

Think carefully before you answer, because if you say buy cheaper ships, that would mean new spending, not cutting.

I'm all for bright ideas on how to solve this problem, and I don't think anyone thinks there is a raft of cash out there to fix it, but that doesn't make the problem go away.
Just cutting the military and hoping everything turns out ok isn't really a plan.

"I'm all for bright ideas on how to solve this problem, and I don't think anyone thinks there is a raft of cash out there to fix it, but that doesn't make the problem go away."

Then pay more taxes. I've been a Navy enthusiast since childhood, and a USNI member for years. I'd love to have a bigger, badder Navy.

But the very same people who want to increase expenditure for the military, are usually the people who are determined to cut Federal spending and balance the budget, and I have yet to see a single concrete suggestion for how that can be.

If you want more military spending, then raise taxes and pay for it. And be prepared to pay for decades to come, because you're making a commitment to the personnel for life.

"Just cutting the military and hoping everything turns out ok isn't really a plan."

What, precisely, are you planning for? War against whom? I'm still waiting to learn what hostile blue-water navy we're planning for a war against.

If the answer is "No one," but you're still saying that we can't afford our peacetime commitments… then your choices are:

A) Raise taxes and pay for it, OR

B) Cut back on those commitments.

Naval forces aren't just used to fight naval forces anymore.

They can be used to project airpower against ground and air forces in far flung areas of the globe, e.g. Central and South America (against the strengthening drug cartels and corrupt governments there, if needed), Africa, Asia, the Middle East, various oceans and seas around the world, and against those uppity Canadians and New Zealanders who are far too nice, just in case they suddenly decide to try for global domination.

Seems to me this would be a good "investment" that some are always talking about.

However, if people aren't willing to support that, then I'm all for pulling back and protecting our beaches and borders instead, and letting someone else spend their blood and treasure on being the world's policeman for awhile.

"Then pay more taxes".

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem, e.g. billions being wasted on stupid programs and people, e.g. aid to countries and people that hate us, the UN, government buildings that are unoccupied, trips to Turkey for government legal conferences, judicial boondoggles (read paid vacations) in Hawaii, awards and unwarranted bonuses to employees at the aforementioned conferences, providing money to foreign nationals who've snuck into the US illegally, medical care for the citizens of other nations who are here illegally, airfare to repatriate illegals when a bus ticket would do, free college tuition to illegals, politicians lavished with golden fleeced medical and retirement packages, and expense accounts, etc.

China? Obviously we have to keep an eye on them, but I have trouble imagining a US-Chinese war, when our two economies are so completely intertwined

If you read a lot of the writings of the time, economic and political theorists of the late 19th/early 20th century were certain that large-scale conflicts between the European Great Powers were a thing of the past due to economic interdependence. Why would, say, Germany and France go to war when the economic – let alone material – costs would be devastating to both?

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem, e.g. billions being wasted on stupid programs and people,…

I would argue that the defence industry itself fits this description to the "T." Just look at all of the bloated cost overruns on every single weapon system deployed today. Multiply that tenfold and consider the bloated cost overruns of the 100s of weapon systems that never made the cut--our tax dollars flushed down the drain.

For example, the DDG-1000 "stealth" destoyer is quoted at $3 USD-billion dollars a piece, but it is now reported by Reuters that the actual costs are expected to reach $5.9 USD billion each. Are they really that much better than a Burke? The new CVN is expected to roll out for a paltry $12 USD billion a piece, without the air wing. Each Nimitz cost about $4.5 USD billion (adjusted 2000s dollars). Is one Ford class CVN better than three of the Nimitz jobs?

This has been going on forever, and it is not the fault of either party. The new Boeing air tanker is built from components produced in over forty states. Very clever. Boeing is making sure that nearly every Senator and Rep in the country has a stake in it.

Pardon me if I don't trust the Pentagon and Congress with my defence allocated tax dollars, but they never met a weapon system they did't like, and the bigger the better.

So, do we need 315 warships? Who knows. But I can say this with all certainty. The last person we should be listening to in this matter is a candidate running for office.

Thanks for all the comments. Naval matters have rather fallen off my radar of late so when Romney brought out 315 or 350 (not that clear to me which he said) I wondered if there really was a shortfall or if it was just a sap to Virginia.

From all the above input I think the bottom line is the US needs a proper debate about what the future of their navy in order to move forward. Fat chance of that happening though.

Looking at potential threats:

Both China and Russia would normally be considered the major threats.

Russia has a lot of stuff, but in 2012 spent 'only' $71.9 USD billion – a tenth of the US and not a great deal more than the UK on $62.7 USD billion. They have a lot of outdated legacy and badly maintained equipment and are unlikely to be a major threat – lots of posturing, but more show than substance. As Russians catch up on the wages front they will also find it increasingly difficult to maintain their current standards, never mind improving things.

China is more of a potential military threat. It spends twice as much as Russia and could easily double that before matching the proportion of it's GDP on military expenditure that the US spends. It has a growing economy, but may also have problems in future as wage expectations of the population increase. It should be expected that China's navy will grow in both numbers of ships and increased sophistication over the next couple of decades.

Re long lead times to develop and build new equipment, this should not be the problem described above. After all, the Chinese and Russians have the same problem, and as long as the US carefully monitors their progress then any growth in perceived threat can be matched.

The big problem to me is what the Western powers get for their money. A third world country can have massive armies because they don't pay their soldiers much. They can have lots of tanks, etc, because they use second hand obsolete equipment. For the US, high tech equipment costs more, but automation should reduce the number of people needed. The Navy has an advantage over the army in this sense – the army still needs the manpower.

It's a matter of getting a good cost-effective balance.

Re long lead times to develop and build new equipment, this should not be the problem described above. After all, the Chinese and Russians have the same problem, and as long as the US carefully monitors their progress then any growth in perceived threat can be matched.

So many assumptions in that one. And don't forget that US manufacturing capacity (in terms of facilities, resources, experienced labor, etc) is decreasing while China's is increasing.

Then again, maybe we can just ask them to build ships for us.

"Just look at all of the bloated cost overruns on every single weapon system deployed today. Multiply that tenfold and consider the bloated cost overruns of the 100s of weapon systems that never made the cut--our tax dollars flushed down the drain".

I totally agree, but the gov't bureaucrats are responsible for not holding them accountable, changing the specs continuously which results in added costs and longer production times, and for writing up poor contracts that permit cost overruns.

They need to put in the contract, on time and on budget, or there will be cuts to the payments for the items, and/or a cancellation of the project.

Captain Cornelius Butt:

In response to "Which enemy?" etc. etc.

On the morning of December 7, 1941 we had 17 battleships. On the second day of fighting in WWII we were down to 9 battleships.

Note also that Kido Butai (The six fleet aircraft carriers of Imperial Japan) didn't have nuclear weapons.

How hard do you think it would be to put nukes in steel shipping containers, load them onto container ships and sail them into Hampton Roads, Long Beach and San Diego? Have you ever seen all the container ships waiting to offload their cargo? Do you have any idea how many millions of shipping containers there are sitting on our docks right now?

Why are there so many Russian lads and lasses of military age living in the Hampton Roads area so close to the 36-odd military bases and installations located there?

Look what 19 goons with box cutters were able to do. Don't you think a determined effort by Chinese, North Korean or Russian special forces could cause severe damage to our ships in a conventional first-strike?

Don't you think we should allow redundance for overhauls, refits, re-coring of reactors and SLEPS? (Service Life Extension program)

Germany started out WWII with a handful of U-Boats and nearly severed the supply lifeline to Britain. Don't you think we should err on the side of caution in our builds programs?