2 thoughts on “Policy Options Brief on the Material Decline of the US Navy”
I have to question the seriousness of the problem, your entire problem rests on the premise that a smaller navy is a weaker navy. The real issue is how strong the navy is compared to the rest of the world. While the navy may have been larger in the past, I would argue that the navy has never been stronger than it is today. The U.S. carrier fleet is bigger than the rest of the world’s navies combined. The U.S. navy is the largest navy in terms of fleet tonnage, and the U.S. navy is the only true blue water navy. Unlike World War 2, where the Japanese’s navy was relatively technological on par with the U.S. navy; no nation is remotely close to possessing the naval technology we currently have.
I agree that the U.S. navy needs an upgrade but building more ships does not translate into a better navy. The biggest threat that the U.S. navy faces is the Chinese Deong type 2 missiles. These missiles have the potential to undermine our entire carrier strategy. Your solution of building more ships does absolutely nothing to prevent this catastrophe. The navy needs to reassess the role of the carrier. The days of large naval ship to ship conflicts are over, countries such as China know they can never defeat the U.S. navy in ship to ship battles. That is why they are investing their resources such as cyber warfare and the Deong type 2 missile. I think you should modify your problem to combatting the Chines Deong type 2 missiles and other cyber threats. Going off of that, I would suggest focusing on your second policy proposal of trimming the fleet while improving technology. When thinking of building more carriers, it is important to remember that the Germans built the expensive Bismarck, which was sunk by a cheap canvas Swordfish torpedo plane. Are we going to make the same mistake building an expensive carrier that can be destroyed by an inexpensive missile? Or are we going to realize the future?
It is a well written post supported by facts and analysis. In my opinion, a country’s strength is not only measure by the navy only. There can be multiple wings, and if one wing is cut short, the chance might be that other wing is made stronger. The bottom line is, national security is a combined effort. I think, the post could include this point of view.
It is evident from the post that, number of ships is declining. But I was not convinced with the fact that the whole navy strength and capability is dependent only on the number. Smaller number of ships (well equipped with advanced weaponry and technology) having higher coverage can be a better solution than larger number of ships with a lower coverage area. I found the facts presented in the post to prove that the number is shrinking but it was not clear enough that the present U.S. nave has become weaker. The tactics of warfare changes in every century, and this is a fact. I believe navy might not be able to play the strong role like the past in the future warfare.
Another important factor I feel could be included in the policy brief is the reason behind the decreasing amount of investment in the Navy. Is it because U.S. cannot afford the investment or the priority is set to be lower than before. But it is evident that, budget is decreasing and for this reason among the policies, I prefer the third option; maintain a Small Fleet & Invest in New Weapons Systems which can be achieved at the current trend.
I have to question the seriousness of the problem, your entire problem rests on the premise that a smaller navy is a weaker navy. The real issue is how strong the navy is compared to the rest of the world. While the navy may have been larger in the past, I would argue that the navy has never been stronger than it is today. The U.S. carrier fleet is bigger than the rest of the world’s navies combined. The U.S. navy is the largest navy in terms of fleet tonnage, and the U.S. navy is the only true blue water navy. Unlike World War 2, where the Japanese’s navy was relatively technological on par with the U.S. navy; no nation is remotely close to possessing the naval technology we currently have.
I agree that the U.S. navy needs an upgrade but building more ships does not translate into a better navy. The biggest threat that the U.S. navy faces is the Chinese Deong type 2 missiles. These missiles have the potential to undermine our entire carrier strategy. Your solution of building more ships does absolutely nothing to prevent this catastrophe. The navy needs to reassess the role of the carrier. The days of large naval ship to ship conflicts are over, countries such as China know they can never defeat the U.S. navy in ship to ship battles. That is why they are investing their resources such as cyber warfare and the Deong type 2 missile. I think you should modify your problem to combatting the Chines Deong type 2 missiles and other cyber threats. Going off of that, I would suggest focusing on your second policy proposal of trimming the fleet while improving technology. When thinking of building more carriers, it is important to remember that the Germans built the expensive Bismarck, which was sunk by a cheap canvas Swordfish torpedo plane. Are we going to make the same mistake building an expensive carrier that can be destroyed by an inexpensive missile? Or are we going to realize the future?
It is a well written post supported by facts and analysis. In my opinion, a country’s strength is not only measure by the navy only. There can be multiple wings, and if one wing is cut short, the chance might be that other wing is made stronger. The bottom line is, national security is a combined effort. I think, the post could include this point of view.
It is evident from the post that, number of ships is declining. But I was not convinced with the fact that the whole navy strength and capability is dependent only on the number. Smaller number of ships (well equipped with advanced weaponry and technology) having higher coverage can be a better solution than larger number of ships with a lower coverage area. I found the facts presented in the post to prove that the number is shrinking but it was not clear enough that the present U.S. nave has become weaker. The tactics of warfare changes in every century, and this is a fact. I believe navy might not be able to play the strong role like the past in the future warfare.
Another important factor I feel could be included in the policy brief is the reason behind the decreasing amount of investment in the Navy. Is it because U.S. cannot afford the investment or the priority is set to be lower than before. But it is evident that, budget is decreasing and for this reason among the policies, I prefer the third option; maintain a Small Fleet & Invest in New Weapons Systems which can be achieved at the current trend.