Building a Navy That Won’t Sink the Economy
America is by geography a maritime state. Even with a vastly shrunken defense budget, we must remain a naval power.
Fortunately, we can. The first reason is that that we face no serious naval challengers. Only Russia and, prospectively, China, have fleets that could contest with ours beyond coastal waters. Russia is not an enemy, and strategy dictates that we not let China become one.
Second, the end of the Cold War made many of the ships in the U.S. Navy obsolete—including some under construction. Heading the list are cruisers and destroyers armed primarily with the Aegis anti-aircraft system. Third World air forces pose little threat to our ships. A handful of Aegis ships would suffice, especially since the effectiveness of Aegis has never been demonstrated in honest testing.
Our twelve big aircraft carriers are worth retaining, because big floating boxes with flat tops are useful in a variety of roles, not just to transport aircraft. The same goes for our carrier-like amphibious ships.
The Navy’s 14 ballistic missile submarines should be retained, because our strategic nuclear forces not only deter other nuclear powers, they also make large-scale conventional warfare unlikely. That saves a lot of money.
Attack submarines are the modern capital ship, in that they determine command of the sea. The current number of 53 is about right, but new nuclear attack subs should be smaller and cheaper—and we need some non-nuclear boats as well, especially for coastal waters.
At this point, we find ourselves wanting to keep a lot more ships than we could afford on a $100 billion defense budget. The key to retaining an adequate Navy with much less money is a revival of the centuries-old practice that diminished in the 19th century and disappeared in the 20th. In peacetime, few of the Navy’s ships should be in commission. Most would be in reserve or, to use the 18th-century term, “in ordinary.”
To man the fleet on mobilization, the new Navy would adopt a variant of the old Prussian army reserve system. Each active-duty crew would go into reserve together, like a regiment. When mobilized, they would man a reserve ship identical to the one they had served on. With the same people working together doing the same jobs on the same type of ship, reserve ships could quickly attain active-duty levels of efficiency. An active-duty sailor would serve three years, then be in reserve for nine years, allowing each ship manned in peacetime to support three other ships in reserve.
Future surface warships would be built to support and strengthen the reserve system. They would all be designed to serve as merchant ships in peacetime, converting to warships when needed by plugging in modularized weapons and sensors. This would take advantage of a little-noticed but historic change: for the first time since the 16th century, the hulls and propulsion plants of merchant and warships are similar. Most warships have no armor, and some merchant ships are designed for speeds of 30 knots or more. If anything, the merchant ships are sturdier than the warships.
This approach would revive a now-moribund American merchant marine with crews of Naval reservists. Weapons and sensors officers would not need to be in ship crews in peacetime; they could practice their skills as easily in Keokuk as at sea. These merchant ships would require subsidies to be competitive, but would achieve vast savings by keeping warships in reserve.
Fourth Generation war levies a new requirement of on the Navy: it must be able to take control of a region’s coastal and inland waters. This is a powerful way to tilt local political balances without having to invade and occupy a country. Such shifting of local balances, by a variety of means, will be how we often deal with Fourth Generation threats.
At present, the U.S. Navy has little capability to operate in coastal and inland waters. Even as budget pressures reduce the overall size of the fleet, we need to build new craft for this mission. Unlike the Navy’s new and hyper-expensive Littoral Combat Ship, these should be based on commercial designs such as fishing boats. They should be organized in deployable packages or flotillas, each with a mother ship that can serve as a base. As with the rest of the Navy, in peacetime most flotillas would be in reserve.
These reforms would permit the United States to maintain itself as a naval power, indeed the dominant naval power when mobilized, within a peacetime defense budget of $100 billion. They would simultaneously give us a fleet designed for future war, not for contesting the Pacific with the aircraft carriers of Imperial Japan.
The current Navy leadership, and its vast attending squadron of contractor bumboats, will respond by furiously puffing the Dragon, warning that the fleet described here would not be adequate for war with China. That is one more point in its favor.
Soundly reasoned and argued and written, as always from this source. One question: is it true that as of now, the best missile technology makes any aircraft carrier a sitting duck? I’ve heard this argued by reasonable sources, wonder what the facts are. Are we down to a situation where we can only deploy carriers against third-rate opponents, because otherwise they will be hit by missiles before they get close enough to launch aircraft? I’ve read that the most advanced missiles are launched to a high altitude, then plunge straight down at very high speeds, and are essentially unstoppable. If this is so, I presume our attack subs have such missiles, and are now the leading edge unless the enemy is using outdated technology.
> …big floating boxes with flat tops are useful in a variety of roles, not just to transport aircraft.
I’ll bite; what roles are these?
I wouldn’t want “a handful” of AEGIS ships in the Taiwan Straits if/when China decides to suppress Taiwan’s air defenses by launching hundreds of missiles at them. I’d want alot more than a handful.
I would also be interested in seeing some actual designs for the merchant ship/warship conversions. Given that cargo ships and warships have very different “missions” and requirements, the possibility of the worst of both worlds exists.
We could probably make do with two less CVNs (and their attendant task forces).
The weakness of the US merchant marine (and the cost of reviving it) defies easy answers.
Well, if Mitt Romney becomes President and his adviser John Lehman becomes his Secretary of Defense, we might see a new push for a 600-ship Navy. After all, we still have NATO to protect Europe from the U.S.S.R. so why not an extraneous fleet to protect us from the U.S.S.R.?
Even with a vastly shrunken defense budget, ….
Is this page being used for futurist fantasy writing…..? if so, this scenario seems extremely implausible. Congress is so beholden to the military-industrial complex that they will slash spending on all non-military programs before there are any reductions at the pentagon…..
Mr. Lind’s suggestions are interesting and provocative as always, but I don’t see where we need aircraft carriers or ballistic missile submarines at all if the object is simply to defend the US. Hawaii poses a special problem which could easily be solved just by giving that central Pacific kingdom back its independence, which we should never have taken from it to begin with. BHO is Queen Liliuokalani’s revenge.
Aircraft carriers allow us to project power, provide diplomatic presence when necessary (4.5 acres of sovereign territory wherever you need it) and keep shipping lanes safe to ensure free trade for not just the U.S., but our allies. More than 70% of all our trade is by the oceans. Besides the ability to provide strike aircraft towards belligerents, they are quite effective in humanitarian and disaster relief roles. They were there for the recent Japanese tsunami, Pakistan earthquake, Hurricane Irene, etc. just to name a few. As for the threat of advanced missiles and being an easy target, it is not as easy as you might think to hit a moving object (even on the size of an aircraft carrier) on a spinning globe, on the surface of the ocean. It has yet to be demonstrated. And current intelligence suggests that it would not sink a carrier where it to actually strike the ship. Buying into this thinking is just what China wants as they begin to develop their power projection capabilities in efforts to thwart U.S. influence in the Asia Pacific region. Carriers will continue to play an important role in our national defense strategy for many years to come. We should continue to maintain and build these symbols of national purpose. They keep us safe, and they play a pivotal role in allowing us to live in the greatest democracy in the world.
Once again, we ignore the growing Klingon threat at our own peril. When will you paleos learn?
“One question: is it true that as of now, the best missile technology makes any aircraft carrier a sitting duck?”
Yes. This causes another problem, a warship too expensive to send in harm’s way.
@ David- Hosting gimmicky propaganda basketball games.
Merchant/warship modular conversions have been on the drawing boards for years. They always stay there. You are right, a cheaper littoral combat vessel would be better for us. Do not sell non-nuclear subs short. They can do a lot more than coastal, and are quieter than nuclear subs can ever be.
A substantial portion of American “defence” spending has very little to do with defending the US from attack, deterring an attack, etc. Will we see actual cuts in defence spending?
Ron Paul will need a Secretary of Defense…
Why do I think I would feel far safer under such?…
Maybe because sanity is so long lost I can’t remember what it was like.
The only way we’d save money on diesel-electric submarines is if we bought them off the shelf from one of our NATO allies (Germany, for example).
“@ David- Hosting gimmicky propaganda basketball games.”
Kim Margosein, LOL.
I would argue precisely the opposite: we need a much larger navy composed of smaller, cheaper ships. As someone else posted, we’ve reached the point where ships are so expensive that we’d be reluctant to put them at actual risk in a real fight with a peer enemy (much like the Battle of Jutland… overall, it was a letdown as both sides realized “hey, these things are expensive… pull them back from danger”).
I think something like Elmo Zumwalt’s idea of small VSTOL carriers, frigates, and fast attack craft needs another look. Add a bunch of smaller, cheaper diesel subs to the mix, and perhaps we could actually have a navy of significant numbers again.
Very interesting article. Its been pushing on 70 years since WW2 ended. The Imperial Japanese navy was ground down and eventually dispatched by the US Navy. Since then the US Navy,along with the rest of the American military has acted as the policeman of the world. Going beyond America”s Strategic interests, the American military has served to defend Western Europe,Japan,Korea,Taiwan plus several other countries. This policeman to the world mission has helped to bankrupt America. It is time for these and other countries to defend themselves and not rely on the American Government and the American Taxpayer to continue to defend them. I say we should close most of our foreign bases and pull back and downsize our forces and let these other nations defend themselves. Best to use the money saved to build up America’s manufacturing base which has been severly eroded over the last 30 years. This manufacturing base is what real world power is about. As an aside,in a major sea battle,if I had to be on a surface ship, I would rather be on an Iowa class battleship to protect me from incoming missiles or wire guided torpedoes. An aircraft carrier,after a few hits,would go up like a thousand Roman Candles ala IJNS Kaga at Midway.
As for the threat of advanced missiles and being an easy target, it is not as easy as you might think to hit a moving object (even on the size of an aircraft carrier) on a spinning globe, on the surface of the ocean. It has yet to be demonstrated.
It has yet to be demonstrated? You’ve never heard of the Falklands, then? Or the USS Stark?
Aircraft carriers allow us to project power, provide diplomatic presence when necessary (4.5 acres of sovereign territory wherever you need it) and keep shipping lanes safe to ensure free trade for not just the U.S., but our allies.
Keep the shipping lanes safe from whom? For whom? Are you suggesting that if we don’t keep the shipping lanes safe from China, that China will use its military might to prevent China from continuing to see 10% yearly economic growth by flooding our big box retail stores with goods made in China?
Or perhaps you are suggesting that we need a dozen carrier battle groups to take on some third-world pirates?
Douglas,
There is nothing remotely resembling a “peer navy” facing the US Navy. Any future naval conflict will be asymmetrical, with the US possessing significant advantages.
If you want to build more and smaller vessels (which will not be less expensive if built under current acquisition policies), that would be fighting potential enemies on their terms, not ours.
I am a little surprised that no one (including the author) have mentioned Landing Platform Dock (LPD) vessels, which should provide tactical flexibility, in-shore operational capacity, VTOL aircraft, to future US naval missions.
Libertarian Jerry, would you have wanted to live in a post-WW2 world where the US was not the “policeman?”
I think we need a 900 ship navy! Thirty carriers, a hundred
with all of their support vessels. It wasn t FDR s 5year plans
that ended the great depression. It was WW 2! A 900 ship navy and doubling the size of our military would end our
recession in six months!
Tom S….Talking about the immediate post war years,maybe America should have acted as a stabilizer, However,if you look at history,you’d find that in these same post war years the navy, and as far as that is conscerned our whole military, was was greatly downsized, This is one of the reasons why America prospered in the wake of WW2. As far as living in a non-policeman era, I would have eagerly accepted that situation then to spend over 100 thousand American lives and a vast treasure in the stupid fruitless wars in Korea and Vietnam.
“Libertarian Jerry, would you have wanted to live in a post-WW2 world where the US was not the “policeman?” ”
I’m pretty sure that many of the families of the 33,000+ Americans who lost their lives in Korea and of the 58,000+ Americans who lost their lives in Vietnam would have been happier if the U.S. had been involved in fewer “police actions” after WWII.
“I think we need a 900 ship navy! ”
Mel Roberts, that is 50% larger than the 600 ship navy I proposed a few messages back! I think you are truly insane. Of course, the good news is that we may be able to find you a high level position in a future Romney Administration.
tbraton,
I am sure you could say the same about the families of those who died in World Wars I and II.
“tbraton
I am sure you could say the same about the families of those who died in World Wars I and II.”
The reason I focused on post-WWII conflicts was because your comment to Liberarian Jerry focused on the post-WWII world:
“Libertarian Jerry, would you have wanted to live in a post-WW2 world where the US was not the “policeman?” ”
FWIW I subscribe to the view that, if the U.S. had not foolishly intervened in WWI under Wilson, not only would American families been spared but that Europe might have spared the destruction of WWII and that certainly there would have been no Hitler in Germany.
This is a joke, right? We are broke and the article proposes an expanding navy. And we can buy the submarines from the Germans, no less! We should be thinking of selling 5 or 6 navy carriers to the Chicoms to lower our debt to them, and let them police that part of the world. Well, don’t take me to seriously, but we are broke. We are not even going to have Saturday mail delivery!
We are not broke. We are not willing to pay for what we feel we need. Big difference.
“This is a joke, right? We are broke and the article proposes an expanding navy.”
jsmith, I’m puzzled by your reaction to the piece since Mr. Lind makes it clear that he is proposing ways of
“retaining an adequate Navy with much less money.” In fact, he concludes his piece with two paragraphs which demonstrate that he is not proposing an “expanded navy”: “These reforms would permit the United States to maintain itself as a naval power, indeed the dominant naval power when mobilized, within a peacetime defense budget of $100 billion. They would simultaneously give us a fleet designed for future war, not for contesting the Pacific with the aircraft carriers of Imperial Japan.
The current Navy leadership, and its vast attending squadron of contractor bumboats, will respond by furiously puffing the Dragon, warning that the fleet described here would not be adequate for war with China. That is one more point in its favor.”
In other words, Mr. Lind is making proposals to change our navy to make it suitable for our defense needs in the 21st century rather than the need to repel a naval threat from Japan in the 1940′s which no longer exists and at considerably less cost.
This is doable. I served in the Military Sealift Command and we could easily convert ships like cruisers into merchant/combat ships. We could run these ships with 100 sailors.
Merchant/warship modular conversions have been on the drawing boards for years. They always stay there.
I’m still fascinated…are there any resources discussions of these online that you could point to?
Aircraft carriers today are about as useful as battleships were in WWII, which is to say, good for some minor missions but not a whole lot else.
“Aircraft carriers today are about as useful as battleships were in WWII, which is to say, good for some minor missions but not a whole lot else.”
There is no disputing the fact that aircraft carriers are very useful in burying assassinated terrorist leaders at sea when you don’t want anyone to know their burial locations. You can’t do better than the U.S.S. Carl Vinson in performing this essential function.
Lets get real.
We need a military like Brazil’s
They’re like us. A big country bordered by weak neigbors and the ocean, with plenty of oil and other stuff.
They never lost a war, never been invaded, never worried about atomic attack, never needed bases, an empire or body bags. They mind their own business and spend 4% what we do on the military.
If we had done the same when the cold war ended, our debt, the biggest threat to our security, would be zero.
That’s just it Mr Shabazz. People and governments don’t get real!
They will just print money until there is a collapse. Just print money and give everyone a million dollars. That’s the ticket. To quote someone that what we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history. We should have learned from history that we should only pick on small islands like Grenada and Panama to invade, but there is no money to be made by the merchants of death on such small stuff. Why cure the patient when there’s more to be made treating him.