Why We Have Half of the World's Naval Power

Some naval advocates are implying that our shipbuilding policy is essentially dismantling our naval superiority.

Strategypage lists our ships (as of last summer).

We have a total of 316 ships as our main fleet elements, with 22 cruisers, 12 carriers, 50 destroyers, 21 frigates, 2 amphibious command ships, 11 amphibioius warships that are essentially small carriers (and which could carry jump jets to be as effective as most fleet carriers in our navies), 21 smaller amphibious ships, 9 mine warfare ships, 8 patrol craft, 14 ballistic missile submarines, 4 Tomahawk-carrying subs (like the old Arsenal Ship idea), and 52 attack subs.

Today, we include amphibious ships in the total. I'd only count as combat ships the 11 small carriers the Marines use and not the remaining 23. Nor would I include the 9 mine counter-measure ships. I'd also exclude the 14 ballistic missile submarines, which despite their firepower are really strategic assets and not combat warships. This would get the modern fleet down to 270 warships.

So how does this compare to our fleet before Pearl Harbor?

Our December 1941 fleet, which is often used as a point of reference to show the decline in numbers of our fleet, had 346 ships, with 17 battleships, 7 aircraft carriers, 18 heavy cruisers, 19 light cruisers, 173 destroyers, and 112 submarines. (From The Encyclopedia of Military History, Dupuy and Dupuy)

So our 270 actual warships compare poorly in number to the 346 1941 warships. So is our situation worse than Navy proponents argue just based on numbers?

No. As long as I'm adjusting modern numbers, let me address the numbers of 1941.

Submarines in 1941 were too slow to really be counted as combatants and were mostly useful against slow merchant ships or transports. So we should really only say that the 1941 fleet has 234 combat ships. So by numbers, our current fleet is actually stronger.

But number aren't the only issue. What about the capital ships of the two eras?

The capital ships of the era were the battleships and carriers, which were 7% of the total in the pre-Pearl Harbor fleet.

In capital ships today, if we only count our carriers we have only 4% of our ships as capital ships. Since we don't have battleships anymore, if you agree our cruisers replace them in this category, our total is 11%. That's better than in 1941.

Comparing our modern fleet to the World War II fleet is apples and oranges, not least due to the different definitions of ships. Our destroyers are actually only marginally smaller than our cruisers and function similarly. So we should add those 50 ships.

And nuclear submarines are now capital ships based on their price and capabilities, so add 56 more. Now, we have 140 capital ships. And I'd add the 11 mini-carriers which could carry aircraft. So our 151 "capital ships" represent 56% of our combat fleet!

Clearly, ship-type inflation has made it difficult to compare the 2007 and 1941 fleets. Destroyers are the most obvious difference. In World War II they were light escorts. Now they are main flet elements capable of distant strike, anti-air warfare, and anti-submarine warfare. So how about comparing on displacement only?

In our pre-Pearl Harbor fleet, the combat ships that had a displacement of at least a light cruiser size numbered 61 ship, or 18% of the total.

Destroyers represented half the ships.

If we exclude the 1941 submarines, as I think we should, the 1941 fleet had 26% of its ships of at least light cruiser tonnage. Destroyers would be 74% of the surface fleet.

Consider that ships in the modern fleet that have tonnages of at least as much as World War II light cruisers would include the small carriers, destroyers, cruisers, and carriers, for a total of 95 ships. This is 30% of the 270 warships in the fleet. But you could also add in the modern submarines, which are threats to warships and larger than World War II light cruisers. So add 56 subs for a total of 151 ships of the size of a 1941 light cruiser or larger, or 56% of the fleet--more than twice the percentage of the 1941 fleet.

And while the destroyers are half the 1941 fleet, only 29 of our modern ships are small escorts, or 11% of the combat fleet.

The biggest difference is in ship-killing capability of ships. The 1941 ships that could kill the biggest ships were really reduced to the battleships and the carriers (or their air wings, more specifically). The cruisers and destroyers could conceivable sink the bigger ships if they got within short range for their guns or torpedoes, but that wasn't terribly likely. The cruisers and destroyers were escorts for the primary capital ships.

Today's ships, including small ships and subs, can all carry ship-killing missiles. And all but the smallest combatants can carry helicopters that can carry anti-ship missiles. We no longer have our striking power limited to the battleships and carriers. That's why I called more of our ships capital ships. While our number are misleadingly similar, our modern fleet is far more capable on a ship-for-ship basis compasred to the rest of the contemporary fleet. The 1941 fleet had a few capital ships and a large number of far less capable light escorts.

Our fleet is the best in the world and comparisons to our 1941 fleet are almost as pointless as comparing it to our Civil War-era fleet. I suppose comparing our fleet to our fleet of 1941 might have some remote relevance if we still faced the foes of 1941.

But in the real world, our fleet has about half the combat power of all the world's navies combined.