Former QM2 got to ride WWII built destroyers for a couple years. I considered it the best duty in the navy. I had great captains, I would have followed them anywhere. For an officer, being a destroyer captain has got to be a career high. Who would want to be an admiral if you could just stay a captain forever.
In my navy, we had over a thousand ships. 15 attack carriers and others that could fly jets. Probably 200 plus destroyers. Today's destroyers are many times more capable. But no matter how capable, a destroyer can only be in one place at a time. And once it shoots off its' missiles, has to return to port to rearm.
China has been gearing up for a new Pacific war for 20 years. You'd have to be blind and deaf not to know what is coming. Congress has failed America in many ways, but not maintaining a fleet size necessary to counter a growing aggression is going to get people killed. When the balloon goes up the navy will have to fight with what it has, not what we expect to have at some future date. And there is no second string. We killed the naval reserve and no longer maintain mothballed ships in a condition that could return them to service in a few weeks. From what I read we don't have a sufficient war reserve of weapons and today's destroyers can't be rearmed at sea. And if I know it, so does China.
I found your in-depth analysis incredibly enlightening and informative. I learned so much! Thank you. I'm very glad you spend time pondering these critically important issues.
It's a guns or butter issue. There is a huge voting block that's always going for the "more butter" side of the issue with a side of high fructose corn syrup blended in as a bonus. Even if the right amount of money got thrown at the problem, who thinks we could field a bug-free, ready-to-go sea, air and ground force by 2027? 2035? And build it where? Man it with whom? Pay for it how...with Zimbabwe bucks? I want to be optimistic, even in the face of grim realities.
You are absolutely spot on as to the needs. As you well know--the problem is funding. This "Administration" will never provide funding to the Navy to accomplish what is needed. Their default foreign affairs position is appeasement, and they are on record a needing to reduce defense spending to fund "Domestic" needs--i.e. welfare. Hold tight Navy.
It boils down to will and money. If you have the will you will have the money.
The part of Congress that supposed to initiate the budget is holding funding for Ukraine hostage to get its immigration policies implemented. It is interesting that full on ending of all immigration is projected by the Census to result in the loss of 100 million in US population by 2100.
"HARPOON" reminded me of when Admiral Seiberlich said that they could not identify a target at 75miles. I was part of a study on The Modern Airship at NASA at the time. The admiral flew the 3W airship around the Atlantic so was interested in what we were doing. I did a study of using combinations of aerodynamic lift and gas lift. I used an anti submarine patrol profile in the study.
Read the book The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed to get a visual.
We need a give a penny get a penny agreement. You find a dollar being spent and pick a better direction for it and you get a fresh dollar to spend on the same. Although it will need independent oversight. Maybe that's where you come in. We need ideas like how to save on fuel and maintenance w/ new, low risk designs, sooner.
I think there is something to be said about more long endurance land based UAV ISR. It almost has to be cheaper. Your point is a surface combatant may be cut off from other resources and still need to build its own picture. I agree and kind of feel like an all UAV solution may be the way to go so as to get 4 class V UAVs into the existing 2 MH-60 slots. The other real bad option as I see it would be a seaplane that can launch from a 7M RHIB davit.
Really appreciate this in depth look. I went and checked some data at St Louis FRED - interesting and educational to see defense spending compared to GDP over the years:
Not what I expected going in! Which is why I look. Defense spending as a % of GDP is generally speaking lower now than in the past. As others have mentioned and I agree the approach should be expanded government revenue. As mentioned in the article, we have the ability to choose (or not) to do this.
I agree with you but how do we do what is needed when there are parties in the congress that want to cut the debt while cutting taxes. I can't fiqure out how we do both as well as support all of our Military, Domestic and Foreign commitments.
Could not agree with you more. Budgeting to a strategy? Or Strategizing to a budget? The Navy's dilemma of trying to do both with what they have been given. As always, thanks for a good article.
Former QM2 got to ride WWII built destroyers for a couple years. I considered it the best duty in the navy. I had great captains, I would have followed them anywhere. For an officer, being a destroyer captain has got to be a career high. Who would want to be an admiral if you could just stay a captain forever.
In my navy, we had over a thousand ships. 15 attack carriers and others that could fly jets. Probably 200 plus destroyers. Today's destroyers are many times more capable. But no matter how capable, a destroyer can only be in one place at a time. And once it shoots off its' missiles, has to return to port to rearm.
China has been gearing up for a new Pacific war for 20 years. You'd have to be blind and deaf not to know what is coming. Congress has failed America in many ways, but not maintaining a fleet size necessary to counter a growing aggression is going to get people killed. When the balloon goes up the navy will have to fight with what it has, not what we expect to have at some future date. And there is no second string. We killed the naval reserve and no longer maintain mothballed ships in a condition that could return them to service in a few weeks. From what I read we don't have a sufficient war reserve of weapons and today's destroyers can't be rearmed at sea. And if I know it, so does China.
I found your in-depth analysis incredibly enlightening and informative. I learned so much! Thank you. I'm very glad you spend time pondering these critically important issues.
In terms of "third party platforms" I'm curious as to why AWACS wasn't considered. I do see how the onboard UAV is a very useful option.
It's a guns or butter issue. There is a huge voting block that's always going for the "more butter" side of the issue with a side of high fructose corn syrup blended in as a bonus. Even if the right amount of money got thrown at the problem, who thinks we could field a bug-free, ready-to-go sea, air and ground force by 2027? 2035? And build it where? Man it with whom? Pay for it how...with Zimbabwe bucks? I want to be optimistic, even in the face of grim realities.
You are absolutely spot on as to the needs. As you well know--the problem is funding. This "Administration" will never provide funding to the Navy to accomplish what is needed. Their default foreign affairs position is appeasement, and they are on record a needing to reduce defense spending to fund "Domestic" needs--i.e. welfare. Hold tight Navy.
It boils down to will and money. If you have the will you will have the money.
The part of Congress that supposed to initiate the budget is holding funding for Ukraine hostage to get its immigration policies implemented. It is interesting that full on ending of all immigration is projected by the Census to result in the loss of 100 million in US population by 2100.
"HARPOON" reminded me of when Admiral Seiberlich said that they could not identify a target at 75miles. I was part of a study on The Modern Airship at NASA at the time. The admiral flew the 3W airship around the Atlantic so was interested in what we were doing. I did a study of using combinations of aerodynamic lift and gas lift. I used an anti submarine patrol profile in the study.
Read the book The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed to get a visual.
Things have changed in the last 50 years.
We need a give a penny get a penny agreement. You find a dollar being spent and pick a better direction for it and you get a fresh dollar to spend on the same. Although it will need independent oversight. Maybe that's where you come in. We need ideas like how to save on fuel and maintenance w/ new, low risk designs, sooner.
I think there is something to be said about more long endurance land based UAV ISR. It almost has to be cheaper. Your point is a surface combatant may be cut off from other resources and still need to build its own picture. I agree and kind of feel like an all UAV solution may be the way to go so as to get 4 class V UAVs into the existing 2 MH-60 slots. The other real bad option as I see it would be a seaplane that can launch from a 7M RHIB davit.
Really appreciate this in depth look. I went and checked some data at St Louis FRED - interesting and educational to see defense spending compared to GDP over the years:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1jp7M
Not what I expected going in! Which is why I look. Defense spending as a % of GDP is generally speaking lower now than in the past. As others have mentioned and I agree the approach should be expanded government revenue. As mentioned in the article, we have the ability to choose (or not) to do this.
Is there anything American citizens who agree with your arguments can do? Vote, write our legislators, anything else?
I agree with you but how do we do what is needed when there are parties in the congress that want to cut the debt while cutting taxes. I can't fiqure out how we do both as well as support all of our Military, Domestic and Foreign commitments.
Hi Bryan,
Could not agree with you more. Budgeting to a strategy? Or Strategizing to a budget? The Navy's dilemma of trying to do both with what they have been given. As always, thanks for a good article.
Best,
Nigel