Alfred Thayer Mahan's World has Changed, What is the Future of Sea Power?

In Service Navy
1

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.
[/B]
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.

[B]China?[/B]

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?

[B]Anything else?[/B]

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?

2

I think the first step in discussing fleet size is looking at personnel vs. asset cost. How much does it cost to build a ship vs how much does it cost to operate and man one? Why can a ship like the Marco Polo that’s over 200 foot longer than a Ford class carrier operate with 4,500+ less people?

I’m not saying that an aircraft carrier can operate with just 25 merchant mariners… but crewing one with many thousands of people seems excessive and expensive.

3

I used to be on battlegroup staff with the Carl Vinson, and it seemed like most people were pretty busy while we were on deployment. You gotta keep in mind that an aircraft carrier performs hundreds of different tasks simultaneously not to mention they have nuclear reactors on board. A better comparison might be a cruiser which has around 400 people assigned to a 567 foot long ship.

4

The reason for such large size crews is that in combat you receive material and personel damage. You need enough bodies to repair and replace at the same time in order to remain combat effective. With modern (nukes) submarines, surface ships of any nature are just targets. In a wartime situation and defenses being at the ready, Navy ships can put up a pretty good defense against surface and air units, even against modern cruise missles. The purpose of the Navy is not only securing shipping lanes, but also project power with forward deployed troops. In other words, showing the flag to let whoever know that we are in the neighborhood and don’t f*#k with us. With a floating air force base and floating barracks for the marines, you can quickly regain control of a given situation until you get help from the other guys back home. Which is where our zoomies and ground pounders should be. It’s been a long time since Begium, England and France have been invaded and I don’t think Germany, Italy and Japan are going to try anything soon. With all of the monies saved from the AF/Army, you ensure enough funds (yeah, I know) to maintain the PrePo ships.

5

RkyMtn Paul, I wouldn’t say that I 100% disagree with you, but it’s close.

Surface ships like Aegis cruisers and destroyers can put up a good defense against a few cruise missiles, but the reality is that in a real war, their defenses will get saturated quickly and it’ll be all over very quickly.

Projecting power you say? Why would you project power from a surface ship when you can do so from a submarine which isn’t vulnerable to cruise missile attack? And, would you really land marines from a ship which is highly vulnerable to attack from surface missile attack? I certainly hope not.

This may be what our doctrine says we’ll do, but in reality, it’s not what we’ll actually do unless we’re ready to face the fact that thousands will be killed in the process.

6

Just watched BBC news this morning and they where talking about how Japan and China are both increasing the size of their navies. With China stating that they are going to be the world most powerful navy in the near future.

Its not in anyones best interest to allow China to achive this. They are a threat to our allies, mainly Japan. We just have to be careful to not get caught in a spending war that we would lose like Russia did in the 80s.

It sounds like you’re advocating that the US recede from the world stage as a primer navy?

If we ever get caught in a traditional war, and it will most likely be with China, don’t count out Russia, and most likely both with N. Korea thrown on for good measure. We are going to need troop transport landing craft, air craft carriers, and all the support craft they need. How else do you propose that we move thousands of troops and supplies and give them air support while a beach head is established?

7

I wouldn’t say that the US needs retreat from its current standing, I just think that it needs to reconsider what it’s mission is, what it’s capable of, and what the threat is. Landing Marines in China just isn’t gonna happen. I don’t think that’s a viable option these days when you evaluate all your options from a global security standpoint.

8

China what!!??
[ATTACH]2668[/ATTACH]

9

Wars are not fought by beach landings and the like these days. In fact there’s not been a naval battle in over 60 years. We could well reduce the USN, save money and not notice any change in our world power. Besides, We simply cannot afford a large armed forces when 50 percent of the public desire federal funding from cradle to grave as the last election seems to suggest. Shortly the defense funds will be reduced due to the fiscal cliff. The USN would be the best place to cut funding as they seem to be the most wasteful of the armed forces.

10

[QUOTE=Xmsccapt(ret);88542]Wars are not fought by beach landings and the like these days. In fact there’s not been a naval battle in over 60 years. We could well reduce the USN, save money and not notice any change in our world power. Besides, We simply cannot afford a large armed forces when 50 percent of the public desire federal funding from cradle to grave as the last election seems to suggest. Shortly the defense funds will be reduced due to the fiscal cliff. The USN would be the best place to cut funding as they seem to be the most wasteful of the armed forces.[/QUOTE][I]

“when 50 percent of the public desire federal funding from cradle to grave as the last election seems to suggest.”[/I]
Sir, you have violated an unspoken word on this forum, and that’s OK, there is a lot more involved than sound bytes. I am able to post rebuttals but I choose not.

The US Military-Industrial Complex has surpassed IKE’s warning. We are in deep trouble.
Our next wars will be waged by robots. Is it not sad I posted "wars?"
I maintain my faith in the goodness of the American People, in spite of all the ugly folks in Congress and in Church.

11

Hey AMERICA, I will wait for you.

12 
" I maintain my faith in the goodness of the American People, in spite of all the ugly folks in Congress and in Church.[/QUOTE]"

I would agree with that statement. And I hope it’s true.

13

And btw, it’s not the first time I’ve been in violation of rules when speaking the truth, did so many times when in command, often to the dismay and shock of superiors ( who more than once relented that indeed I was correct in the first place ) :slight_smile:

14

[QUOTE=Xmsccapt(ret);88732]And btw, it’s not the first time I’ve been in violation of rules when speaking the truth, did so many times when in command, often to the dismay and shock of superiors ( who more than once relented that indeed I was correct in the first place ) :)[/QUOTE]

Speaking the truth as you see it - I often do likewise. I know, I know, that’s difficult to believe.

15

Well absolutely, if we don’t believe in our truths what do we have? Nothing of course.

16

[QUOTE=Xmsccapt(ret);88741]Well absolutely, if we don’t believe in our truths what do we have? Nothing of course.[/QUOTE]

I’ve heard of folks who believe the earth is flat.

17

Well, I think 50 percent of the American voting public think it is…,

18

[QUOTE=Xmsccapt(ret);88747]Well, I think 50 percent of the American voting public think it is…,[/QUOTE]

Yes, they may be related to those who believe the earth and all its creatures were created 5011 years ago, give or take a few years of course.

To your health, you Loon ~

19

And to yours. Just remember when we that are pulling the wagon cannot be taxed any more to pay for the lives of the ones riding in the wagon we will then see who the loons are.

20

[QUOTE=Xmsccapt(ret);88769]And to yours. Just remember when we that are pulling the wagon cannot be taxed any more to pay for the lives of the ones riding in the wagon we will then see who the loons are.[/QUOTE]

You realize we need to stop this before someone reports us to the Principal.