Politicians and Analysts Call for Larger Navy: Can We Afford It?

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:12:10 -0400

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

Politicians and Analysts Call for Larger Navy: Can We Afford It? | RealClearDefense

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...

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Aug 28 at 2015 11:16 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:16:20 -0400

What will the United States be giving up to have a larger Navy or will this come out the the taxpayers pockets?

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Aug 28 at 2015 12:02 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:02:47 -0400

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...

Response by PO3 Sherry Thornburg made Aug 28 at 2015 12:59 PM

PO3 Sherry Thornburg — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:59:47 -0400

Shouldn't have drown it down so bad in the first place.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 1:24 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:24:49 -0400

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.

Response by SN Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 5:41 PM

SN Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:41:19 -0400

we may need to look to upgrading what all we currently have before we build new ships, and don't forgot about that debt ceiling, though politicians be like, "RAISE THE ROOF!"

^-_ ('u')_-^

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 9:38 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 21:38:43 -0400

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.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Aug 29 at 2015 5:28 AM

SSG Gerhard S. — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 05:28:30 -0400

Clearly we can't afford it, because our government is so bloated we are still operating at a deficit. The same politicians who want to increase our Navy, are unwilling to cut spending, or eliminate programs that do not even have a reason for being, Constitutionally speaking.

Response by SCPO Penny Douphinett made Aug 30 at 2015 12:46 PM

SCPO Penny Douphinett — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:46:56 -0400

As we've all seen, China has become so emboldened, they are creating islands to become ports where they want them and no one can stop them. The UN can try and condemn the actions, but that is an empty threat. As others have said the only real deterrent is the US fleet being at sea where needed. An impossible goal these days as we just don't have the ships or the personnel to man them.

Will the government do something before it is too late? Probably not, we lack Statesmen who put the Country first. I don't think it is impossible to provide support to our most vulnerable citizens at the same time we provide for a strong deterrent and defense. It takes strong leadership and ethical behavior on the part of ALL our elected officials. Commonsense in funding across the board is needed not slash and burn.

We don't need hungry, homeless families anymore than we need hungry, homeless veterans. We need a strong military presence to prevent the "wolves" from knocking at our door. There is no reason, except for lack of ethical leadership across all parties, that the U.S. can't do it all.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Aug 31 at 2015 3:41 AM

PO1 John Miller — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 03:41:28 -0400

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?

Response by CDR Kenneth Kaiser made Nov 5 at 2015 2:24 AM

CDR Kenneth Kaiser — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 02:24:35 -0500

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.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Dec 10 at 2015 3:02 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:02:19 -0500

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.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2015 6:49 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:49:32 -0500

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.

Response by PO3 Donald Murphy made Apr 20 at 2016 10:39 AM

PO3 Donald Murphy — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:39:30 -0400

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.

Response by SMSgt Roy Dowdy made May 26 at 2016 12:19 PM

SMSgt Roy Dowdy — Thu, 26 May 2016 12:19:07 -0400

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?

Response by PO1 Aaron Baltosser made Jun 2 at 2016 1:44 PM

PO1 Aaron Baltosser — Thu, 02 Jun 2016 13:44:39 -0400

We better. At one time we had 200 ships under maintenance, 200 underway, 200 getting ready. We were easily able to meet mission and maintenance requirements. Then politicians with no concept of operational requirements cut that number down to less than half while scheduling longer deployments. Now we can meet mission, or maintenance, but not both. Something has to give. Unfortunately, in a salt water environment with a steel hull that something is the ship. With the super aggressive China has taken with dramatic increases in military spending particularly with their stance on sea areas controlled by the Phillipines and Viet Nam. Still, we sit still not bothering to adjust our measured response. It takes a damn long time now to build a ship, put it through trials, and have it ready for deployment. The longer we wait to adjust our inventory of ships, the worse it will be.

Response by SP5 William Glass made Jun 2 at 2016 2:30 PM

SP5 William Glass — Thu, 02 Jun 2016 14:30:00 -0400

We cannot afford not to put together a larger Navy. We have been able to afford it in the past so I'm sure the money is there so just cut out the nonsense subsidies and focus on our National Security.