11:09 GMT +3 hours27 August 2016
Live
US Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Lassen

Sinking Ship: US Navy 'Unable to Meet Rising Global Dangers'

© REUTERS/ US Navy
US
Get short URL
95088145

In its current state, the US Navy is incapable of countering the rising global threats, Seth Cropsey, former US Assistant Secretary of Defense, wrote in his article.

Cropsey now serves as director of Hudson Institute's Center for American Seapower.

Currently, the US naval fleet consists of 272 ships, half its size 30 years ago. The Navy’s plan to expand the fleet to 308 vessels is unlikely to be fully implemented. The Pentagon ordered to cut the number of future ships and modernize the existing fleet instead.

Meanwhile, as Cropsey wrote, the large number of ships is the key element of deterrence. He said the US needs 350 ships to counter rising global dangers.

For instance, the number of aircraft carriers should be increased from 11 to 16. A total of 100 large surface ships, destroyers and cruise ships would be necessary to protect the aircraft carriers. The number of supply vessels should be halved, to 58, the analyst wrote.

According to him, the number of small warships should not be decreased from 52 to 40 as the Pentagon plans, but 30 more ships of this type are needed.

He also commented on submarines. According to Pentagon estimates, by 2020, the US and China will have 70 submarines in service each. Despite the fact the US will have the upper hand in quality, it will need 90 submarines for nuclear deterrence and other purposes, Cropsey wrote.

The build-up of maritime presence by Russia, China and Iran in the Mediterranean as well as the siege of the Libyan coastal town of Sirte have proved the need for US amphibious ships in the region, as it was in the Cold War era, the article in The Wall Street Journal read.

Cropsey underscored that the US naval presence in the Mediterranean would require 45 ships.

According to the analyst, to ramp up the US Navy, $24 billion is needed annually, a 45-percent rise in spending.

This is expensive, but it is less costly than losing US naval dominance. And the threat is real, taking into account the build-up of the Chinese fleet, Cropsey concluded.

Related:
US Navy’s Newest Ship Breaks Down in the Open Sea
US Navy Orders $255Mln Contract for Zumwalt-Class Destroyer - Raytheon
US Nuclear-Powered Attack Submarine Visits Japan - Navy
Plans to Upgrade US Navy Nuclear Subs to Cost Taxpayers Billions
Tags:
defense, Pentagon, US Navy, United States
Community standardsDiscussion
Comment via FacebookComment via Sputnik
  • Сomment

All comments

  • Bullsh|t... just another ploy to scare the murikan sheep to hand over more taxes for more tools to murder civilians in foreign nations.
  • ivanwa88
    With 50% of American adults out of work owing to lack of resources spent on Global domination does it really make any difference if its 80%.? After all Europe loves immigrants surely a fab new destination for Americans. There's also Syria its empty and there standard of living was way higher before we levelled it! We could swear allegiance also.
  • puffinwillow
    any gentiles in government?
  • support
    Four factors to consider:

    1. While China is expanding its fleet primarily to safeguard its merchant fleet against the type hijackings experienced by the oil tanker community in the Arabian Gulf, their economy is reliant on continued good relations with the USA market. The Chinese are making very solid inroads into the LDC's but it will be 30-40 years before that market matches China's present USA exposure. Bluntly put, one US Navy destroyer sunk by the Chinese Navy means the entire USA market will be blocked to China for at least 3 generations. This in fact happened before with the closure of Chinese market access to the USA owing to Japanese military occupation in the the 1920's and continued through until 1971 when the Nixon-Mao trade treaty was formed.

    2. It appears news people ignore the very extensive 5 year Plans which China has been executing with some degree of precision for decades. Both the 12th and 13th Plans are explicit about this present time being devoted to retooling, upgrading and re-training the Chinese workforce and the entire manufacturing infrastructure to be more efficient, to conform to higher quality standards and to be able to reduce worker hours while increasing wages owing to consequent planned individual productivity rates. All these changes of necessity require a slowdown of trade and manufacturing activity whether done in China or in the rest of the world. You cannot upgrade a manufacturing capability while the production lines are still operating at full capacity, not even with the most sophisticated forms of automation or production planning.

    China needs peace ot make these changes happen. The US Navy therefore does not need large vessels at the moment to counter a potential Chinese threat which is not there IMO. For now China has shown no indication of being an old-style warlord empire governing by an emperor: even to suggest that would reduce a roomful of Chinese officials to laughter at the absurdity of the notion. It is not 1898 anymore.

    3. China is inexorably pursuing the ways of faith whilst slowly working against corruption. That is a slow process but it is working. That is a higher priority than pursuing a WW II era Japanese Bushido-like warrior code to attempt the creation of yet another doomed-to-failure violence propelled sphere of influence: indeed China has no intention of doing this. They have found that friendly persuasion and negotiations based on Reason works best. I therefore do not think a massive US fleet for the Pacific should be a priority unless there is evidence of piracy affecting US seaborne trade in the region.

    4. The US public will no longer stand for their military being policemen for other nations without commensurate gain to the positive advantage of all parties in any conflict. Past efforts have borne none of the fruits of peace.
Show new comments (0)
Top stories