Size matters: Is the U.S. Navy really too small?

We have the most advanced Navy in the world and are envied by all. Yet, I think we need to invest fully in the Nimitz modernization program and accelerate the Ford production to get back to a 12 carrier fleet. Yes the Flight III Burke and Virginia class are important but they will always ask "Where is the carrier"

SN Greg Wright
Not only do we need more ships but we'll need the qualified Sailors and Officers to operate them! Sure, "smart" technology will allow us to do more with less (meaning it will take less bodies to fully man a ship) but we still need the people.

I have a few scale model ships ready to go !!!! Where do we need them the most??? Pacific??? Atlantic??? Bathtub???

Without delving too deep into the actual numbers, I always worked under the assumption we needed an up/down Carrier group (and ARG) for each of the major AO's and another in case a "contingency" occurred. So 7+ 1 (x1.5 - 2) if my math is correct. That means "at least" 11 Carrier Groups x however many ships (including logistical support ships) that ends up being. So we either have that or we don't.

SN Greg Wright, It's too early in the morning with that headline lol. If the military did away with all of the faulty and pointless weapons systems (F-35 this means you 400B and counting), we could more effectively invest those dollars into systems and programs that would more support the forces. But we're busy having new uniforms, new boots, challenge coins, new battle tanks, and the ever loving F-35. As far as ships go, maybe a more effective rotational system so that if one is in drydocck, another could take it's place seamlessly and continue the mission effectively. We're never going to have it as good as it was. Money isn't there anymore, but a more effective use of the systems we have could probably give the same effect and not break the backs of the sailors or the bank. All those ships in mothballs couldn't be used as a stop gap measure? If not why have them?

We need more ships and crews. As a guinea pig of the minimal manning experiments I know there is no room for error with minimal crew or minimal ships. You take one ship off the line for repairs or damage you have no back up. Ships take damage and need repair and crews doing damage control take loses. The Flight I Burkes are getting long in the teeth the flight II's are approaching middle age. The LCS's bring little or nothing to the table and are suffering engineering casualties right and left. Your cruisers are almost 30 years old. Availability and SRA time is a joke, 90 day SRA's after deployment? Yeah a lots gonna get done. At the present rate your looking at 9 month deployments every year and 4 months of repair and workups, 6 at the most. Here's a question, how many ships can we dry dock in the US currently at one time. How many carriers? If a carrier(s) needs to be dry docked how many can we do at one time? The answer might shock you

It's a slippery slope brother. You build a lot of ships, you feel good knowing you can produce redundant force anywhere in the world. Great. Now with this comes the manpower costs, maintenance costs, and support costs. So was that giant Navy really required, or could SOME technology or the opening of closed jobs between enlisted and officers close some of the gap? With more ships, are you really saving when it comes to drydock time? We have (had?) the mothball fleet. Is it too much to ask to maybe update them and place them back in service? Not a Sailor so I need the experts on that. I'll equate this to having an Army the size of the surge; it damn sure was needed, and we're damn sure glad there were folks ready to come in. Now that big Army isn't needed per se (I think it needs to be larger than where we're headed), but nothing like what it used to be. Could we effectively intergrade the NG and Reserves into the AC where we're short? Or how about our own "mothball fleet" the IRR? Call them up and say you're contract isn't up yet. At the end of the day it's going to come to dollars. How much should be spent vs. the actual need or requirement? And with our unstable economy, whatever procurement the military makes will have an effect on the civilian side also. Something will have to give. But if you did away with the F-35 program as a whole and even tried to recoup SOME of the wasted money in that dead program, you could use it to augment some of the costs of the ships. I do not like the F-35 and will slam it any time I can.

I was in San Diego when the George Washington pulled in. She has been rode hard and put away wet. We need more flat tops.

It's easy to say that we need more ships (or that we need fewer ships), but that really comes down to manning and operational commitment. Do we NEED 330,000 sailors in the fleet? Do those sailors NEED a home/work balance? How many deployments/etc before attrition begins to climb? If the mission of the Navy is to be omnipresent, then yes, we need more ships. If we could keep the ships out to sea and rotate the crews more frequently, then that might accomplish the same goal with fewer ships (less money on maintenance and upkeep). A big problem that we are seeing today is the strain that these vessels are under, however. After more than a decade of extended deployments, surging, and decreased funding, these ships are starting to fall apart. Even the brand new DDGs such as the Jason Dunham look like they have seen better days, when only 4 years ago it was brand new and entering Norfolk for the first time.
So, the question becomes where do we make cuts? Is it better to have 300 beaters or 200 ships you can rely on? Should we maintain a global presence or focus only on the highest class of threats? Should we spend $10 billion researching the next generation of warships or should we better maintain the hulls currently in service and try to stretch their lifespans?

I vote for extending the current classes, scaling back operations where we can, and ensuring that the money gets to the sailors and ships on the waterfront to ensure that WHEN they are needed, they are adequately prepared for the fight.

I think we should have a lot more. The age old " the best defense is a strong offense" comes to mind in this decision. Of course I have always believed in being prepared and overkill, lol