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

It would be, but at what cost? The military (Congress, really) isn't ready to foot the bill for our "enormous" fleet as it is, leaving us with the sea-going equivalent of 287 1987 Chevy Celebrities. We need funding to maintain the fleet, and with the current cost of our tech, that need for funding will only continue to grow. If Congress refuses to release the funding to properly maintain the hulls we currently have, what use is building new ones to watch them rust to pieces alongside the rest? If you could see what some of our ships look like after only 6 months in the water, you would be demanding we start hiring painters and welders before another ship leaves the pier.

Actually, MAJ Ken Landgren, I'd say it depends more on the nature of the policy being implemented (or not).

1LT William Clardy - that is astute, add the threat and we have a more compressive strategic policy.

Did the spell checker miscorrect "more comprehensive" into "more compressive", MAJ Ken Landgren?

No I failed to do a brain check.

LCDR (Join to see) That, or draw our presence down in the Gulf (imo). They don't want us there, we're NOT, contrary to haters' rhetoric, taking any of the oil, and I honestly fail to see why we should be there after we've carpet bombed ISIS out of existence. (I know that's an oversimplification, but you get the point.)

SN Gregg Wright, sadly we need to maintain presence all over, just look at what happened since we left Subic Bay and cut back patrols there, China has sailed in and started building artificial islands. So we need to increase our fleet in order to get proper maintenance done on all our ships in a timely manner.

Right the PCs are still around but the LCS is intended to replace them as they come to the end of their service life. And yes Mission Modules are a good concept I work on their testing and evaluation on HSVX-2

Got it. I'm still not convinced that the two hull forms is a smart move - I think it's going to create a management nightmare, speaking from experience as an Engineer. Imagine the whole thing with Shipalts, system upgrades, repair parts, etc. A real pain...

The advantage of carriers is undoubtedly the air wing(s). The advantage of amphibs is the Marines they deploy. Unfortunately neither of these ships meets the requirement for BMD and/or shore bombardment (airplanes do, but that isn't the point). A strong outfit of Aegis Cruisers and Destroyers, posted in squadrons around the world, is likely the most cost-effective way to put ordnance on target before the boots even touch the ground.

I think we need more front line ships too. The LCS isn't a great idea, and the buy of the Elmo Zumwalt class is only 3 ships...

LCDR (Join to see) - I agree with you. Being the world police comes with several huge challenges. One of the major challenges is how do we extend our presence to all areas that we are needed in. Yes we have the U.N. But the mostly handle humanitarian and joint nations ops. They hardly ever seem to move unless we do anymore.
I think your point is dead on. There is no way around it, we need a larger Navy again.

LCDR (Join to see), I would point out that we are very present in the East and South China Seas, and the Chinese continue their island building unabated. We COULD stop them, if you want a war, but the Chinese are calculating (correctly) that nobody in the region has the cajones to face them down.
In the Arctic, the fact is the Russians have as much claim as anybody, and the sea lanes being open up there is a huge national priority if they can figure out how to bring crude and minerals out via Arctic Ports. We need to look after our interests in the area, and have always done so with a few submarines. The Danes and the Canadians are making similar moves. Even the current administration recognizes the realities up there.
In the west Indian Ocean, the pirates have confounded naval patrols for a decade now. I think patrolling is wise and has a deterrent effect, but if you want to be rid of pirates, there bases in Somalia need to go away.
In the Black Sea, which should be free for navigation of course, the reality is any naval vessel operating in there would be a sitting duck if the Russians wanted to destroy it. Do you really think Turkey would play ball in such a scenario? I don't.
This does not belie your salient point that the Navy is busy. I agree. But I do think one could reasonably question the number of submarines we need. Carrier Battle Groups pack an awesome amount of capability and presence. Do we really need 10 of them? What foe do we face in the Mediterraean Sea or the Atlantic?
We are the only nation in the world that maintains presence all over the globe. We are certainly not the only one with global interests. Why are we the oddball? Because we want to, and we enable our allies to diminish their once formidable navies to shells of their former selves. The British, French, Japanese, and yes the Russians all had "real" navies. Not anymore. Seems to me the US Navy is doing the job for everyone else.

LCDR (Join to see) - I really think it's a huge mistake that we're letting them build up those islands. We're giving them de facto permission (through inaction), and so they're going to keep doing it. Those islands are now effectively claimed. I'm not sure what a good solution is, but I wouldn't be adverse to putting some Naval gunfire into the (illegal) facilities there.

Yes absolutely and the same with the Russian basses in the Arctic but is it US policy or in our interest to protect the worlds oceans to include Philippine islands, remember it was not that long ago when they kicked us out. Throughout history we have been the protector of the sea (at least modern post WWII history) so you either have to pay the bill or change the policy. Our politicians cant make any decisions so you think they are going to clear up the misunderstanding here? I say not.

1LT William Clardy - I don't disagree with your basic assertion. A vehicle that gets to a ship in any form is bad news...but that would be bad news even to a battleship. As for superstructures...even on battleships only the hull had that level of armor.

There are also other kill vehicles in the inventory and, notably, I think, you're not taking into account the Aegis ballistic missile defense system. Only a few countries can saturate that system enough to get strikes, and if we're at war against them, all bets are off anyway.

In any case, like I said: there's no getting around the money issue. We can make wish lists all day. Finally, this is just me being an armchair Admiral. I could be wrong about any or all of it.

Battleships still had an armored conning tower... I've stood inside one.

Very little of the Iowas are armored, just a single tower within the superstructure. "all or nothing" concept of armor.

Right, but that single tower can still conn the ship.

PO2 Mark Saffell Agreed. But if something happens during that period of absence, I bet that sure would spur some spending. I almost hope something does just for that reason. As an aside, I believe the 3rd Ford-class boat will be named the Enterprise, iirc.

That is correct CVN-80 will be named Enterprise. Im hoping Im still able to attend her launching. I was at The Enterprise's retirement.. sad day for the 10,000 of us that attended.

I wish we would stop naming carriers after political people. I think we should shift the formerly battleship, now boomer naming convention of states to Carriers... or since they are technically Cruiser aViation, go back to famous military victories.

SSG Kevin McCulley - I can get behind that, SSG. I'm REALLY annoyed that they named the USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS-10) after a LIVING person who did nothing more than get shot. Should we start naming combat vessels after VICTIMS, ffs?!