Let’s face it, Reagan’s 600-ship Navy is about as dated as the Great White Fleet these days, and Mitt Romney’s reflections while on the campaign trail to the current fleet numbers vs. the fleets of the early 20th century was painfully ignorant.
[B]The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas.
On the subject of winning wars at sea, what is the current or projected threat and what assets might be used to fight this country?
The only asset that wouldn’t get destroyed almost immediately would likely be a submarine. In my view, ships like LCS’, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, aircraft carriers are highly vulnerable to attack from high-speed, surface skimming cruise missiles and/or submarines and would be sunk very quickly if the US ever got in a full-on naval battle.
[B]Defense against piracy perhaps? [/B]
Not really. Private Maritime Security Companies (PMSCs) have proven far more effective in mitigating this threat.
China makes some of the most deadly anti-ship missile systems ever invented, plus China has submarines. Surface Navy ships would be sitting ducks and showing the flag, or parking a big grey ship off the coast somewhere, only goes so far.
It seems to me that global influence has more to do with shipping than naval presence these days. Why else would China be rumored to be considering building a fleet of new supertankers?
I don’t claim to be a naval strategy analyst, but after being around the commercial sector for a while and looking back at the Navy, I think it’s a much harder argument when it comes to justifying building naval surface ships… what do they ACTUALLY do for us? Why not build more commercial ships, or drilling rigs for that matter?
Anyone want to try and pose an argument for or against?