Posted on Aug 28, 2015
Politicians and Analysts Call for Larger Navy: Can We Afford It?
9.34K
77
47
5
5
0
The United States Navy has been shrinking for decades and is now at levels last seen in the 1930’s. Politicians on both sides of the aisle say they want to reverse that trend. But is a larger Navy really affordable?
Today’s Navy has 273 active duty ships—14% fewer than were afloat on 9/11. During his 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney proposed a plan to get the Navy to 350 ships. Many of this year’s Republican presidential candidates have called for rebuilding lost naval capacity as well. But making the Navy larger and stronger Navy is actually a bipartisan position. The Obama administration’s budget calls for getting to a 308-ship Navy by 2022 and growing it to 321 ships in 2028.
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/08/25/politicians_and_analysts_call_for_larger_navy_can_we_afford_it_108407.html
Today’s Navy has 273 active duty ships—14% fewer than were afloat on 9/11. During his 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney proposed a plan to get the Navy to 350 ships. Many of this year’s Republican presidential candidates have called for rebuilding lost naval capacity as well. But making the Navy larger and stronger Navy is actually a bipartisan position. The Obama administration’s budget calls for getting to a 308-ship Navy by 2022 and growing it to 321 ships in 2028.
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/08/25/politicians_and_analysts_call_for_larger_navy_can_we_afford_it_108407.html
Navy
Politics
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 16
7
7
0
Yes, when the federal government stops subsidizing Planned Parenthood, the Tobacco Industry, and thousands upon thousands of other pork barrel projects, groups, or social programs; when it eliminates welfare and hundreds of other entitlement programs; when it stops paying for every cost associated with supporting illegal aliens instead of shipping them wherever and building an impregnable wall across our southern border; when it eliminates the IRS and the current Tax Code and replaces it with a flat or consumption tax across the board; when it eliminates the Department of Energy; when it eliminates pensions for Congress; do just a couple of these things, and we could triple our military capabilities in all five services. REMEMBER THIS: "providing for the common defense" is the ONLY constitutionally-mandated job requirement of the Federal Government. Period!!! Not one damn thing else was written into nor is mentioned in the Constitution. Not one.
(7)
(0)
SCPO (Join to see)
Oh, I firmly agree, SGT (Join to see). I'm just saying that's what it would take, and then this country would have all the money it needs to do the things it NEEDS to do.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
That would be wonderful! If the corruption ever ended, along with what you said, would be awesome for our future generation and us.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Aaron Baltosser
We could also stop funding other countries and use those dollars as well. Especially countries causing us trouble like any in the Middle East, and South/Central America.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
A larger Navy is nice but you have to have the sailors to man the ships and that's going to be an issue.
Yes with technology theoretically we can have less sailors manning the ships because of automation and more efficient systems.
I see a lot of reliance on technology and less reliance on actual manpower. You will always need sailors to man the ship and be able to operate manually in an emergency.
With politicians not able to come to a consensus on a budget for the military I don't see how they can effectively build up the Navy or any other of our services.
Yes with technology theoretically we can have less sailors manning the ships because of automation and more efficient systems.
I see a lot of reliance on technology and less reliance on actual manpower. You will always need sailors to man the ship and be able to operate manually in an emergency.
With politicians not able to come to a consensus on a budget for the military I don't see how they can effectively build up the Navy or any other of our services.
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Good point PO1 Glenn Boucher. I'm sure they haven't thought of that with the tunnel vision they seem to have.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Aaron Baltosser
Smaller manned ships are great...until it's time to generate a watch bill. I wish the powers that be thought of that before signing off on a ship with much smaller crews.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
The only solution is to remain competetive with civilian salary levels and go to a two-crew rotation so that sailors do not burn out. This would also solve a lot of unemployment issues.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
It isn't so much the number of ships but the mix. Some of these are non combatants (e.g. support ships) so the first question would be how many combatants? Then you look at the potential threats posited. How much of the threat could be littoral for instance (coastal or inland riverine force type stuff, how much is going to be open ocean or undersea how much will involve air and then you start to structure a Navy that can respond to these threats. Unfortunately we have bee saddled with some ships which do not meet their original mission and we have others that do but are in short supply. Then you have the whole acquisition problem and the maintenance problem. The number of yards that can handle certain ships is diminishing so projected maintenance can get tricky. So it is more than just the number, it is the types and the skills needed to support those types and then how well the new ships if any meet our actual requirements.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
as our first president put it "It follows then as certain as that night succeeds the day, that without a decisive naval force we can do nothing definitive, and with it, everything honorable and glorious" the navy is the projection of power overseas, its why wars don't happen on US soil.
(3)
(0)
PO2 (Join to see)
nope but the fact that Chinese cruisers don't sit out near my house makes me sleep better at night :)
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
We can afford it if Congress funds it, fully. This year, DOD healthcare and Tricare have run short on funds. POTUS, Congress and the Pentagon have put the budget pain on the backs of active duty, retirees and veterans. Without proper funding, force size cannot be increased. That includes funding for retirees and veterans, not just ships and materiel, and the people to staff them...
PO1 John Miller
LCDR Rabbi Jaron Matlow
And yet CONgress can still find the funds to give themselves raises. That ain't right!
And yet CONgress can still find the funds to give themselves raises. That ain't right!
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
What will the United States be giving up to have a larger Navy or will this come out the the taxpayers pockets?
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
It's not going to come out of anyone else's pockets. It's a dream scheme SCPO David Lockwood. I hear cutbacks and now I hear progression. I wish they would decide what they (government) wants.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Aaron Baltosser
I'm willing to give up Congress getting a sweetheart retirement deal with healthcare coverage.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I'm curious to get the feel of current and former Naval personnel what their take is on the sustainability of actually being able to properly provide enough personnel to fill the necessary billets of an increased fleet? My understanding over the past two-three years that manning the current deployments of 8-10 months has been, to say the least, challenging. Would we be able to come up with manpower for an increased fleet of ships even if the funding was approved?
(2)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
A good idea would be to go to a two-crew model like submarines do. One crew is out for three months and then they come back to port and the other crew goes out for three. This would keep burn-out from setting in. Also, keeping the submarine model going, give everyone sea pay for the entire time they are attached to the ship, not just when they are deployed. This keeps your stock of folks that "wanna go to sea" from depleting.
And keeping really in to that submarine frame of mind, train everyone in multiple functions. This way people with really boring ass jobs like mine (Yeoman) can do exciting things like blow things up (Fire Control Technician Of The Watch). You could have everyone pick two jobs they'd like to do or try their hand at in addition to their normal job. Provide training and certify them appropriately. I stood Radio, Sonar and Fire Control watches.
Last but not least, get rid of the touchy feely social worker shit. I'm pulling into ports to get drunk and/or laid. Enough of the "look-we're-building-an-orphanage" shit. I work my ass off 24X7 and now I'm in port for three days; leave me the f**k alone and stop filming me for Navy News Today.
And keeping really in to that submarine frame of mind, train everyone in multiple functions. This way people with really boring ass jobs like mine (Yeoman) can do exciting things like blow things up (Fire Control Technician Of The Watch). You could have everyone pick two jobs they'd like to do or try their hand at in addition to their normal job. Provide training and certify them appropriately. I stood Radio, Sonar and Fire Control watches.
Last but not least, get rid of the touchy feely social worker shit. I'm pulling into ports to get drunk and/or laid. Enough of the "look-we're-building-an-orphanage" shit. I work my ass off 24X7 and now I'm in port for three days; leave me the f**k alone and stop filming me for Navy News Today.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Noted Naval tactics technology analyst Norman Polmar was once asked in the early 80's about seaborne threats and the person asking was interested in Soviet submarine technology. Norman surmised (and proved) that the Soviet submarines would only need to sink nine merchant ships to cause havoc. Now...whats interesting is that the Reagan administration took this information to heart and started pouring money in to the Navy like there was no tomorrow, but...
---and this is a big BUT...
The USA was not exporting or importing by sea, **HALF** as much as it is now. So if a 600 ship Navy was needed during times of lean sea traffic, then we SURE AS HECK need a larger Navy now. Also, with America drawing back and pulling out of Europe, Asia, and other once friendly areas, we need the ability to put American military presence in an area at a moments notice. And nothing does that better/quicker than an aircraft carrier battle group or troop ship.
---and this is a big BUT...
The USA was not exporting or importing by sea, **HALF** as much as it is now. So if a 600 ship Navy was needed during times of lean sea traffic, then we SURE AS HECK need a larger Navy now. Also, with America drawing back and pulling out of Europe, Asia, and other once friendly areas, we need the ability to put American military presence in an area at a moments notice. And nothing does that better/quicker than an aircraft carrier battle group or troop ship.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I would say it is a matter of understanding future warfare and capabilities of other country's. Build smatter ships that will support future wars not build same old platforms. Smatter ships smatter crews and less manpower you can make that work. I am a ground guy so what do I know. They downed sized Three active Battalion's to save an outdated Aircraft carrier. But now that Afghanistan is winding down that was ok until the DOD decided to increase the harts and mind warfare in which the Seabees play the major part of that mission all over the world so now intended of leveling the force the missions are increasing in other area's. So this is why I say we need to figure out what type of missions will help in the future. We have more forward area Air bases then we ever have in the past, so why more carriers do we need more? We have what is called smart size launch bases all over that will support Air Force and Navy Air wings. I know we helped build them all over.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
SGT (Join to see)
Great ideas, but are they going to increase recruiting and retention efforts to keep the enlisted and Officer Sailors to properly man these 321 to 350 ships?
Great ideas, but are they going to increase recruiting and retention efforts to keep the enlisted and Officer Sailors to properly man these 321 to 350 ships?
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I don't know PO1 John Miller. I thought we were cutting back. Just shows to go you that nobody in Washington knows what's going on. WHO DOES!!! We need a leader. Not a deal maker.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google