 Editor in Chief Bill   | 03 Jan 2019 6:47 p.m. PST |
The ability to move merchants and armies through the sea at will—and to prevent an opponent from moving theirs—typically is referred to as "command of the sea."… link |
| Thresher01 | 03 Jan 2019 7:00 p.m. PST |
No. Other than in littoral Chinese and Russian waters, who can challenge or rival the US Navy on the "high seas"? No one. |
 Saber6  | 03 Jan 2019 7:00 p.m. PST |
So far I don't think anyone else is even close |
| Max Schnell | 03 Jan 2019 8:01 p.m. PST |
|
| jurgenation | 04 Jan 2019 4:09 a.m. PST |
No..no one close to our projection Navy. |
| rustymusket | 04 Jan 2019 8:15 a.m. PST |
As Thresher01 said. At least from what I have read and heard. I am definitely no defense expert, though. |
| Walking Sailor | 04 Jan 2019 9:07 a.m. PST |
The problem is that the US lacks a Merchant Navy. |
 David Manley | 04 Jan 2019 12:03 p.m. PST |
Depends on whether you are after additional funding. If yes then of course it has :) |
| Lion in the Stars | 04 Jan 2019 12:19 p.m. PST |
I think we're actually getting close. With 10 carriers in service, we only have 3 deployed at any one time. One carrier cannot control the Atlantic, let alone the Pacific. |
| Timmo uk | 04 Jan 2019 1:27 p.m. PST |
Of the seven carriers not at sea how quickly could they deploy a couple more? Nobody else even has three in total. |
| NavyVet | 04 Jan 2019 2:35 p.m. PST |
Guys most of you are thinking like this is the 1990's. Their is no Soviet Navy now like there was in the 90's. No large surface fleet and no large submarine fleet like existed in the 90's. Both Russia and China would have problems gaining access to the open ocean in the face of opposition from the USN and its allies. I am sure that the USN has given a great deal of thought on how bottle up both China in the South China Sea and Russia both in the Baltic and Barents Seas. No the USN has not lost command of the sea now or in the foreseeable future. |
| Lion in the Stars | 04 Jan 2019 5:04 p.m. PST |
We could probably get 3 more carriers 'surged' within 60 days, depending on where they are in their maintenance and workup cycles. One is just about guaranteed to be stuck in serious maintenance taking more than 6 months to finish, and the last 3 might be deployable within 6 months. If you have 4 crises blow up on you, one is not going to get a carrier deployed to it. |
| Thresher01 | 04 Jan 2019 11:35 p.m. PST |
How many cargo ships/tankers can be outfitted with F-35 jumpjets, not to mention our amphib vessels which are already capable of carrying them? Of course, there's the burning decks issue, but I suspect someone will come up with a workaround to deal with that. |
| Lion in the Stars | 05 Jan 2019 3:54 p.m. PST |
There's quite a difference in capability between 60-80 aircraft on a carrier and 12-20 F35s on a 'phib. Not to mention the general lack of combat escorts in an Amphibious Ready Group. Those are usually an LHA/LHD, an LPD, and an LSD. No frigates, no destroyers, no cruisers. |
| David Manley | 09 Jan 2019 11:58 p.m. PST |
"How many cargo ships/tankers can be outfitted with F-35 jumpjets," having seen the onboard infrastructure required to support F35 I'd take a guess at "none" |
| Rudysnelson | 10 Jan 2019 10:14 a.m. PST |
With both massive submarine and ‘over the horizon' capabilities, the US can interdict enemy shipping. As mentioned the lack of a merchant navy would hinder the US ability to transport our forces. When I was in the First Cavalry we conducted Reforger excercises and transported and entire brigade via ship. A daunting task and it would be even more difficult with an active enemy force. |
