Posted on Jan 5, 2016
US Pacific Fleet Shrinks Even as China Grows More Aggressive
4.71K
12
14
8
8
0
RP Members what do you think about our shrinking US Pacific Fleet?
When the U.S. wanted to show the world it didn't recognize what it called China's "excessive" territorial claims in disputed waters of the South China Sea this fall, it sent a warship near one of Beijing's newly built artificial reefs.
The move came amid a debate about whether the U.S. has enough ships to meet challenges posed by a fast-growing, increasingly assertive Chinese navy that is unsettling some of its neighbors. China announced last week that it would build its second aircraft carrier, this one with domestic technology.
The Navy and its regional component, the U.S. Pacific Fleet, both have fewer ships now than in the mid-1990s. Navy officials say vastly improved technology on those vessels outweighs any disadvantage from a drop in numbers.
When the U.S. wanted to show the world it didn't recognize what it called China's "excessive" territorial claims in disputed waters of the South China Sea this fall, it sent a warship near one of Beijing's newly built artificial reefs.
The move came amid a debate about whether the U.S. has enough ships to meet challenges posed by a fast-growing, increasingly assertive Chinese navy that is unsettling some of its neighbors. China announced last week that it would build its second aircraft carrier, this one with domestic technology.
The Navy and its regional component, the U.S. Pacific Fleet, both have fewer ships now than in the mid-1990s. Navy officials say vastly improved technology on those vessels outweighs any disadvantage from a drop in numbers.
US Pacific Fleet Shrinks Even as China Grows More Aggressive
Posted from military.com
Navy
Sailors
China
Foreign Forces
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 6
1
1
0
Without the threat of a balancing power why wouldn't they build islands to extend their control.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I don't agree with the Navy official that says a drop in number doesn't matter. Take as an example that because The Obama Admin retired my ship The USS Enterprise two years early and has now stretched its replacements out, there where not enough Carrier Groups to do the job. For the first time in decades we didn't cover the seas around Iraq for a time when they didn't have a Carrier Group in that area. That says to me it doesn't matter how improved a ship is, if its not on station it does ZERO good to be so advanced.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
PO1 Thomas Jenkins Its great that France did that but that carrier group doesn't hold a candle to ours. The best way to project strength is that Carrier Group. Nothing puts the fear in bad people like seeing that Carrier. Japan knew that to start WWII. We knew it during the cold war and its still a fact that you park a carrier off shore someplace and you basically rule that area.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
I seem to recall something about Peace though strength...Well when you want strength...That Carrier Group is Strength.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
I read a statement some time back regarding the technological superiority of our Navy, it was saying regardless of how good we are, we can not be in two places at once. Numbers count. Remember this? Sure sounds different from today.
President Ronald Reagan was elected President partly on his pledge to restore America's military superiority. In addition to strengthening the nation's strategic retaliatory arm with advanced B-1B bombers, deploying Pershing II theater missiles to Europe, and producing sophisticated Abrams main battle tanks and Bradley armored fighting vehicles, his administration dramatically increased the size and capability of the U.S. Navy. In 1981 USS Ohio (SSBN-726), the largest submarine ever built and the first of her class, was commissioned. The ship carried 24 Trident I nuclear missiles, each one capable of hitting targets 4,000 miles distant. Stepped up was construction of the 90,000-ton, nuclear-powered Nimitz-class carriers, Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarines, and the Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers equipped with the revolutionary Aegis antiair warfare system. Also joining the fleet during the 1980s were Tomahawk land attack, Harpoon antiship, and high-speed, anti-radiation (HARM) missiles; improved versions of the F-14 Tomcat fighter, A-6 Intruder attack, and EA-6B Prowler electronic countermeasures aircraft; and the new F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter. The venerable battleships USS Iowa (BB-61), USSNew Jersey (BB-62), USS Missouri (BB-63), and USS Wisconsin (BB-64) once again put to sea with their awesome 16-inch guns and new Tomahawk surface-to-surface missile batteries.
President Ronald Reagan was elected President partly on his pledge to restore America's military superiority. In addition to strengthening the nation's strategic retaliatory arm with advanced B-1B bombers, deploying Pershing II theater missiles to Europe, and producing sophisticated Abrams main battle tanks and Bradley armored fighting vehicles, his administration dramatically increased the size and capability of the U.S. Navy. In 1981 USS Ohio (SSBN-726), the largest submarine ever built and the first of her class, was commissioned. The ship carried 24 Trident I nuclear missiles, each one capable of hitting targets 4,000 miles distant. Stepped up was construction of the 90,000-ton, nuclear-powered Nimitz-class carriers, Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarines, and the Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers equipped with the revolutionary Aegis antiair warfare system. Also joining the fleet during the 1980s were Tomahawk land attack, Harpoon antiship, and high-speed, anti-radiation (HARM) missiles; improved versions of the F-14 Tomcat fighter, A-6 Intruder attack, and EA-6B Prowler electronic countermeasures aircraft; and the new F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter. The venerable battleships USS Iowa (BB-61), USSNew Jersey (BB-62), USS Missouri (BB-63), and USS Wisconsin (BB-64) once again put to sea with their awesome 16-inch guns and new Tomahawk surface-to-surface missile batteries.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
One thing the Navy has repeatedly failed to take into account when reducing the size of the fleet because of "vastly improved technology" is people. Sure our Sailors are highly trained, but if they're exhausted from overwork all that training and technology is moot.
One thing the Navy has repeatedly failed to take into account when reducing the size of the fleet because of "vastly improved technology" is people. Sure our Sailors are highly trained, but if they're exhausted from overwork all that training and technology is moot.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google