Role of the Navy

I’ve debated whether or not I want to post anything politics related. I’ve held back on some things while deciding. But since this is my blog, what the hell, I can write what I want.

Naval history is a passion of mine. I saw this article over at Think Progess today. It talks about how we shouldn’t be investing in production of new Virginia-class submarines. The article makes a few good points, Virginia-class is primarily a blue-water warship, and doesn’t have a huge role in terrorist threats. But Virginia-class has more capabilities than that. They were designed to be modular and have the capability to perform multiple roles. If the argument against Virginia is that they’re deep-water ships, the older Los Angeles are even more so.

I completely agree, the DoD needs to be scaled back (especially the Army). As for the Navy, we have a fleet of 284 ships with approximately

• 54 attack submarines (3 Seawolf-class, ~8 Virginia-class and the rest being the older Los Angeles class, the most recent being the Cheyenne commissioned in 1996)
• 14 ballistic missile submarines (Ohio class)
•  22 cruiser (Ticonderoga class, latest, last, Port Royal, commissioned in 1994)
• 61 destroyers (Arleigh Burke class, first ship commissioned in 1991 and new ships still being built)
• 29 frigates (Perry class, first one commissioned in 1977, last built for the US Navy in 1989)
• 11 carriers (10 Nimitz class and 1 Enterprise class, Nimitz commissioned in 1975 and last ship, Bush, commissioned in 2009)
• 10 amphibious assault ships (Wasp (1989) and Tarawa (1970’s) classes)
• The rest are a combination of amphibious support ships

Now, the case can certainly can be made that we don’t really need this many ships. There is no large naval threat out there. Deployed at any given time are 5-6 carriers and 4-5 assault ships, plus escorts, with the other half of the fleet in for servicing and overhauls. The case can also be made that the SSBN’s (ballistic missile subs) are no longer needed or as many attack submarines.

However, removing funds for replacement ships is just stupid. If you want to scale back the fleet, you first need to scale back the mission. A smaller fleet can’t do everything the current one does. Then, you need to make sure the ships we keep are the top of the line. In order to maintain a sufficient level of tactical superiority with less hardware, your hardware needs to be the best it can be.

I could see the Navy being scaled back to ~170 ships:

• 8 carriers (most recent Nimitz class, all replaced over the next 30 years with the new Ford class)
• 8 amphibious assault ships
• 16 cruisers (Ticonderoga for now, replaced in time, possibly by Zumwalt class destroyers)
• 80 destroyers (Burke and the new Zumwalt class)
• 0 frigates (decommission the Perry’s over time)
• 40 attack submarines (the Seawolf’s and replace all of the Los Angeles over time with Virginia)
• 0 SSBN’s
• ~20 ships as need to fulfill amphibious support roles

That’s a reduction to about 60%.  It still may seem like a lot, but unlike the Army, the Navy takes  a lot longer to scale up if its needed, and is the front line defense force. The Navy can go anywhere in the world where there is trouble, and especially with the surge of piracy near Somali, keeping the shipping lanes patrolled should be a major role. That’s why I think there should be an increase in the number of destroyers, so that more can patrol independently or in small squadrons away from the carriers.

Building modern warships takes years. The Army numbers could be scaled back dramatically and brought back to full strength much faster. Keep a small force active and increase the Reserves. So, yes, scale back the military commitments, scale back the Army dramatically, scale back the Navy slightly, but don’t cut funding for new equipment. New warships, new fighter planes, new tanks all need to be built and used to replace older equipment. You don’t have a large military out in the field at all times. But you do need a well equipped military for when a crisis arises.