The chances of boosting the size of the fleet appear slim in austere fiscal times. It’s more likely to dwindle further. If it does, missions may have to contract with it to restore some equilibrium to fleet operations. Indeed, one gets the sense that the Navy’s “two-ocean strategy” of the past seven decades is being repealed – if not by conscious choice, then by dint of heavy demand, soaring shipbuilding costs, and the resultant downward pressure on the fleet’s size. Congress and the Franklin Roosevelt administration passed the “Two Ocean Navy Act” in 1940 in order to confront two hostile sea powers, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. In effect, the United States built a second navy so it could keep one self-sufficient battle fleet in the Atlantic Ocean and another in the Pacific. FDR & co. inaugurated a strategic approach that endures to this day yet looks increasingly perishable.
Sort of. Our Navy is surely shrinking from its Cold War high which in part coasted on the World War II building spree in the early decades of the Cold War. I thought we needed to pick a number for the amount of hulls we need for a global Navy and then build the ships--whatever their size--needed to get that number:
The United States Navy is shrinking and our missions aren't.
So we have to do something. This article lays out the somethings options.
I have another idea. Set a number of platforms that we need to perform the missions we need to protect ourselves. Then build ships to reach that number.
Oh, they don't all have to be Ford super carriers or high end Aegis cruisers/destroyers. We really can build some less capable and cheaper ships for many missions. Remember, our fleet is composed primarily of high end ships, unlike the past when we had a core of capable ships and then cheaper, less capable, and more numerous escorts. In a version of grade inflation, our destroyers are no longer the cheap tin cans of World War II but high end ships that are amongst our most capable.
Our Navy refused to do that realistically and so in effect made a choice for far fewer hulls.
Yes, when the Soviet Union died, we lost the reason we had that prompted FDR's decision. Our 6th Fleet is a shadow riding on reputation and the Atlantic is as secure as it ever has been. Truth be told, we don't need a two ocean navy in FDR's view of the separated Atlantic and Pacific. We do need a two ocean navy in the sense of needing naval forces for the Pacific and, in a supporting role, the Indian Ocean's periphery near the Persian Gulf. That's been a clear trend that I think will continue.
But whatever our deployment needs, we'll still need a two-ocean Navy in the sense that our ships will be based both in the Atlantic and Pacific. One, we have a lot of facilities on the East Coast and we aren't going to abandon them and rebuild them on the West Coast. Two, Atlantic bases will be more secure from attack by a Pacific foe. Three, just basing forces in the Atlantic is necessary for Latin American and African missions. Atlantic-based vessels can also feed rotations into the Pacific Ocean as well as feeding the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf region. The former journeys can include show-the-flag port visits to provide a virtual presence along their transit route to the Western Pacific or Australia.
So we'll have a fleet based on two oceans. But naturally the focus of our fleet is on a single ocean--the Pacific. But this post-FDR and post-Cold War era doesn't mean that our debate over the number of ships we need must change. A focus on a single ocean today and the future doesn't imply that we need half the ships we needed when we assumed the Atlantic and the Mediterranean extension would be the major naval battlefield if it came to a hot war with the Soviets. Even that situation was different from FDR's world. Back in the Cold War, recall, the Pacific Ocean was clearly a secondary theater for a fight with the Soviets. So in a sense we are just changing what ocean we focus on. Let's not pretend that a Pacific focus in the future implies we don't need to have more ships than we think we can afford.
Pick a number.
