Why do we have a Navy?

You have to hunt for it on www.navy.mil, but the official Web site states: "The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas."1 In the current political environment, however, a more pointed question is: "Why do we have such a big Navy when we hardly ever use it?"

If that question has not been asked since the 2008 election, stand by. It is certainly going to be posed before next year's midterms. But it is more likely to be phrased as: "What do we get for the hundreds of billions of dollars we pay for having a Navy and Marine Corps?"

The question of the utility of a strong Navy can only stem from complete and utter ignorance. There is no other way anyone could start questioning the need for naval power in today's world.

Not really true at all. The absence of apparent peer competitors on the sea or in the air does beg the question of why bother with the difficulties and the cost? The answer is fo course that deterring peer competition is probably ultimately cheaper than fighting it--the lack of sea battles and limited aerial engagements in the last half century is a benefit of our power, not evidence that it should be reudced.

But it takes much less than "complete and utter" ignorance to not understand that. It takes a pretty comprehensive understanding of the sources and uses of national military and political power to see it clearly. A lot of people have that knowledge--I would venture to guess the majority of regular contributors here do. But it takes an orientation towards that kind of thought, not just common sense.

Also much of the stuff we do is self reinforced truisms because the motivation and purpose for many design features has been lost with their creators and merely propagated indefinitely "because it works".

Your own specialty, explosives, has relied for many years on rules of thumb that still do work. Recently we've been able to analyze mathematically why they work, but I doubt anybody that can do the mathematical analysis has a clue how the rules of thumb were developed in the first place.

What is the cause of this insane line of thinking of late?

have you looked at your economy lately?

If we were building more new ships, aircraft, tanks, etc. those are a few new jobs anyway.

Coincidentally, I spotted this on a news channel just now: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8050737.stm

As things become prosperous the immediacy and obvious importance of the military security dwindles to the point where some people pretend you don't need it anymore. - I do so love these hippy peacenik theories that completely ignore the complexity of the system of the world.

Its pretty simple, navies are primarily insurance policies for ensuring trade and have been for four thousand years. Their Secondary task is transporting and more recently supporting military expeditionary forces.

If it never fires a shot and trade is flowing, then it is doing its primary job.

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/...e+NI+Newsletter
Interesting article in this month's Proceedings by Barret Tillman. Focused primarily on the USN/USMC, it also refers to the RN.

Those of you who know me will not be surprised to know that I advocate a continuing strong naval capability. Tillman notes that the question is an inevitable politial topic in the very near future.

What do our esteemed (and even unesteemed) members think?

Oh what in God's name is this nonsense? We don't need a Navy? Yeah we don't need an Air Force either, or nukes, or the Army, because we can all hold hands and sing together with dear leader Obama.

There may not be a foe with a superior Navy to ours, but China has been doing their best to modernize their Navy over past years. Also regarding recent Navy efforts are SEAL team ops, countless tons of air support, and protecting trade routes from piracy/terrorism entirely worthless? Not to mention deterring any action from Iran and providing the capability to quickly project military power.

What is the cause of this insane line of thinking of late?

Do we have a big Navy....compared to what? The Navies now days are quite puny in size IMO relative to the earlier part of last century when there was one fifth of the population we have today.

Uh (and you'd be able to answer this if you'd read the article), compared to the rest of the world's navies combined?

A fatal disease I call liberal socialism.

This debate comes up every few decades. It was a big one in the '70s, under Carter. Among other things, his administration was seriously considering doing away with "big-deck" carriers and going with smaller "sea-control" ships, comparable to the RN's Invincible class. Cruise missiles from smaller surface ships and subs were also touted as viable alternatives to CV-launched aircraft. The realities of power projection (the Iran Hostage Crisis helped) and the economics of scale prevailed, and the CVs were vindicated. Much of the Navy's mission is not simply sea control, but power projection ashore. An unfriendly nation can't simply close down a carrier or bar naval aircraft from using their facilities, and most areas that might be of US interest are within range of carrier air (A'stan, for example) though overflight rights can be a sticking point.

During this time, the Marine Corps also came under fire as a "second Army" and had to re-define and justify itself. Hopefully Ken Estes can give insight here.

Uh (and you'd be able to answer this if you'd read the article), compared to the rest of the world's navies combined?

...we'd prefer National Socialism?

I know that, what I am saying is to think outside the box, that perhaps ALL the navies are smaller than what they SHOULD be. As evidence, look to the massive increase of piracy world-wide, we are comparing navy size to contemporary standards but as the old saying goes "in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king."

Ah yes, you need all the CVNs, DDGs, CGs and SSNs you can get against those mighty pirate fleets!

Some countries definitively could do with a larger (blue water) fleet, e.g. the UK and France (at this rate of downsizing at least), the US isn't one of them.

Ah yes, you need all the CVNs, DDGs, CGs and SSNs you can get against those mighty pirate fleets!

Some countries definitively could do with a larger (blue water) fleet, e.g. the UK and France (at this rate of downsizing at least), the US isn't one of them.

More light units, like FFGs and DDGs wouldn't hurt.

From: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/06/navy_lcs_gap_061609w/

Navy has few FFG options to fill LCS gap

By Philip Ewing - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Jun 17, 2009 17:40:23 EDT

The Navy has few small-ship options if its littoral combat ship program continues to lag behind schedule, the service’s top requirements officer said Tuesday, because the fleet’s frigates are too old or maxed-out on equipment to upgrade further.

Vice Adm. Barry McCullough told lawmakers at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee’s seapower subcommittee that the fleet’s Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates’ hulls were rusting and wearing thin, that the ships couldn’t bear the weight of additional weapons or sensors, and that it generally wouldn’t be worth trying to extend their lives to have them around in place of the planned LCS platforms the Navy thought it would have by now.

“The ships have been great,” McCullough said of the frigates — he told Navy Times after the hearing “they’re doing God’s work,” and that he “had nothing against frigate sailors” — but, he told lawmakers, “upgrading them would provide little return on investment.”

Also, the frigates can only accommodate the SH-60B variant of the Navy’s workhorse Seahawk helicopter, which is scheduled to leave the fleet in 2017. But LCS is designed to carry the SH-60R and -S Seahawk variants — helicopters that are vital to its ability to do its jobs because LCS carries no onboard sonar, surface-to-surface missiles, torpedo launchers or mine-countermeasure gear, and needs its helicopter for those weapons or sensors. So even as-is frigates today couldn’t accommodate the anti-submarine, anti-mine or anti-surface equipment designed to fly on a helicopter carried by an LCS.

The topic of potential frigate upgrades was broached by Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., as part of a larger discussion by the subcommittee concerning problems the Navy has had building LCS. Martinez and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked the Navy witnesses whether the service could still do the jobs meant for the LCS it had planned on having by now, even though none are operational.

(The first littoral combat ship, Freedom, is undergoing testing at Naval Station Norfolk, Va.; the second, Independence, has yet to sail for sea trials, although the Navy hopes to commission it this fall. Although Navy officials are studying the notion that Freedom could make an early, short, trial deployment, its formal schedule doesn’t call for it to deploy until 2012.)

Yes, the Navy’s mine countermeasure ships and frigates can hold on for a few more years, said McCullough and the other witness, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition Sean Stackley.

But many of the fleet’s minesweepers ships are in bad shape — the commanding officer of the Devastator was fired earlier this year because his ship was in such poor condition. And, after the hearing, McCullough described the long metal bars on the hulls of many frigates at Naval Station Mayport, Fla., which help strengthen metal that has rusted and thinned faster than engineers anticipated.

According to one analysis, under the Navy’s original plan it should now have 13 LCS platforms in the fleet and be requesting six in the fiscal 2010 budget request. But beyond Freedom and Independence, it has ordered one of each additional variety, a Freedom-class ship named Forth Worth and an Independence-class ship named Coronado. It is asking for three more ships in its fiscal 2010 request.

More light units, like FFGs and DDGs wouldn't hurt.

It appears Adm. McCullough wants to retire the remaining Perrys.

I was talking big blue water ships, doesn't the USN have 50+ Burkes already?
Some FFGs for when 96 SM2 aren't needed couldn't hurt, neither would a few decent corvettes (not that stupid speedboat LCS is).
And the USN is definitely the only navy that could call a DDG a light unit these days!

While I agree that "DDG" destroyers have gotten so big/expensive that they're more like light cruiser equivalents, these days, the size of US ships is partly dictated by the fact that they tend to operate for longer / further away from home bases than virtually any navy in the world.

that said, a class of boats with, say 76mm gun, basic sam/ssm and one medium-light helo would be useful, yes.

But a DDG is a light unit, by deafault, when it's your smallest seagoing combatant.

I would agree that what we are lacking, is a small, cheap surface combatant for patrol work.

Yet the US DDG class, for all its size, is not capable of operating helos. This is a fault of operating a big carrier navy, and the USN has its own Luftwaffe problem e.g. 'everything that flies is mine'

"Also, the frigates can only accommodate the SH-60B variant of the Navy’s workhorse Seahawk helicopter, which is scheduled to leave the fleet in 2017. But LCS is designed to carry the SH-60R and -S Seahawk variants..."

Why would an FFG-7 not be able to opperate a Romeo or Siera?

I would have done that a long time ago......if I had ships to replace them with!
How is LCS doing anyway? Wasn't it half dead or something?

As noted, DDG-51 through -78 do not have the hangar & other support facilities. I think they do have the ability to refuel heloes, but I don't know about rearming.

[*]Unbelievable power/speed, along with water jet drive. A larger Arleigh Burke generates about 100K shp (a Tico even less); these things get over 115k shp when they bring the Rolls-Royce gas turbines (same as on a B777, complementing the usual crusing diesels) online. Freedom will do 45kts and higher.
[/list]Cons:[list]
[*]ENORMOUSLY expensive for what they are.
[*]Water jet drive worries me. First it sucks in/spits out an Olympic -sized swimming pool's volume of water every three seconds (all the junk that's in it), plus screws are just so much more conventional and easy to maintain.
[*]Fuel economy has to be a killer.