• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

Spekkio said:
First off, the devil's in the details of reporting. The 355 ship navy is a cap / target is on specifically manned warships that kill and blow up things. The 530 ship Navy includes support / logistics, command, and unmanned ships, which our current fleet sits at 490. This isn't really a big jump, and the study even recommends decommissioning some warships in our fleet including two carriers.
Click to expand...

If we're including tankers, logistics, command, tenders, repair, and salvage ships, then 500 isn't nearly enough. Right now we have 130 USNS ships, 14 maritime prepositioning ships, and 290 war ships. That's a current total of 434 ships which can barely meet our current operational needs and we're going to add 66 new ships and think we can sustain a large scale fleet engagement with a peer adversary? That's laughable.

During WW2 we built 860 auxiliary ships of various classes and descriptions to support, repair, and salvage the fleet. We literally had thousands of these ships to support about 800 warships and submarines and keep the fight going. There is no possible way we can maintain a protracted, full scale war with just 500 ships spanning both ships of the line and auxiliaries. No matter how you look at it, this study seems like nonsense.
 
AllAmerican75 said:
If we're including tankers, logistics, command, tenders, repair, and salvage ships, then 500 isn't nearly enough... That's a current total of 434 ships which can barely meet our current operational needs
Click to expand...
It's 490, and SECDEF didn't say anything to indicate that 530 wasn't enough. Personally I think our force structure is fine and more ships just means more in theater 'requirements' from the COCOMs.

During WW2 we built 860 auxiliary ships of various classes and descriptions to support, repair, and salvage the fleet. We literally had thousands of these ships to support about 800 warships and submarines and keep the fight going. There is no possible way we can maintain a protracted, full scale war with just 500 ships spanning both ships of the line and auxiliaries.
Click to expand...
Our Navy wasn't even close to that size at the onset of the war, nor was it even as big as our current Navy.

No matter how you look at it, this study seems like nonsense.
Click to expand...
SECDEF doesn't seem to think so, and I like to give the benefit of the doubt that a bunch of smart people put into a room with the resources and manpower to analyze this problem did a good job with it.
 
Last edited:
Spekkio said:
It's 490, and SECDEF didn't say anything to indicate that 530 wasn't enough. Personally I think our force structure is fine and more ships just means more in theater 'requirements' from the COCOMs.


Our Navy wasn't even close to that size at the onset of the war, nor was it even as big as our current Navy.
Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking. Would presume you have to weigh where we are against the adversary day one, and separately weigh our capacity to ramp up immediately thereafter against the adversary’s capacity. Second question gets less discussion, and is potentially more interesting/scary? Maybe not?
 
Spekkio said:
SECDEF doesn't seem to think so, and I like to give the benefit of the doubt that a bunch of smart people put into a room with the resources and manpower to analyze this problem did a good job with it.
Click to expand...

The difference between then and now is that our industrial capacity has atrophied to the point that we no longer have the capacity to build that many ships that quickly. To make matters worse, we've even outsourced most of our industrial and manufacturing capacity to our primary adversary.

Notanaviator said:
This is what I was thinking. Would presume you have to weigh where we are against the adversary day one, and separately weigh our capacity to ramp up immediately thereafter against the adversary’s capacity. Second question gets less discussion, and is potentially more interesting/scary? Maybe not?
Click to expand...

We should all be terrified by our dearth of industrial capacity. There was a study conducted a few years ago (I can't seem to find it) that determined that the American steel industry had atrophied to such a point that it could no longer produce enough steel to support a shipbuilding effort like we had in WW2. Also, for a more contemporary example, we had shortages of masks, antibiotics, and other life-saving medicine during the early stages of the pandemic because American companies had shifted their manufacturing plants to China and the CCP had essentially redirected all of the production of those plants to medical efforts within the PRC. It's so bad that roughly 98% of our medicinal manufacturing is performed in the PRC or elsewhere overseas. In a major conflict, we'll be hosed.
 
AllAmerican75 said:
The difference between then and now is that our industrial capacity has atrophied to the point that we no longer have the capacity to build that many ships that quickly.
Click to expand...
The reason it takes so long to build modern war equipment is that they're significantly more expensive complex. It takes 60,000 man hours to just bolt together the fuselage of a modern fighter. An M4 Sherman cost $500k in 2020 dollars; an M1 Abrams cost $4M.

The other thing is that we live in a democratic society where few voters are going to get behind needing a wartime sized fleet in peacetime.

This is compensated by the fact the USN enjoys a significant capability advantage, has somewhere between 2-3x the tonnage of the PLAN, and has international partnerships with other players in the region. It would take a massive military blunder for the PLAN to win a straight fight and they know it... Which is why any future conflict over the next couple decades is unlikely to look like a Battle of Midway type scenario and is more likely to look like Russia's annexation of Crimea.

We should all be terrified by our dearth of industrial capacity. There was a study conducted a few years ago (I can't seem to find it) that determined that the American steel industry had atrophied to such a point that it could no longer produce enough steel to support a shipbuilding effort like we had in WW2. Also, for a more contemporary example, we had shortages of masks, antibiotics, and other life-saving medicine during the early stages of the pandemic because American companies had shifted their manufacturing plants to China and the CCP had essentially redirected all of the production of those plants to medical efforts within the PRC. It's so bad that roughly 98% of our medicinal manufacturing is performed in the PRC or elsewhere overseas. In a major conflict, we'll be hosed.
Click to expand...
During WWII the federal government took over manufacturing and rationed resources. People were employed on a mass scale to produce for the war effort. Almost any undergrad history student has had to compare / contrast the era of strong central governments and economic systems between USSR / Germany / US.

We didn't come close to implementing any of those controls during our COVID-19 response. Instead we did the opposite - shut down manufacturers and distributors by forcing people to stay home. That's why there was a shortage of goods.

I don't think that you can draw any useful conclusions on the US's ability to shift to a wartime economy to mass produce ship / aircraft based on COVID-19.
 
Last edited:
Spekkio said:
The reason it takes so long to build modern war equipment is that they're significantly more expensive complex. It takes 60,000 man hours to just bolt together the fuselage of a modern fighter. An M4 Sherman cost $500k in 2020 dollars; an M1 Abrams cost $4M.
The other thing is that we live in a democratic society where few voters are going to get behind needing a wartime sized fleet in peacetime.
This is compensated by the fact the USN enjoys a significant capability advantage, has somewhere between 2-3x the tonnage of the PLAN, and has international partnerships with other players in the region. It would take a massive military blunder for the PLAN to win a straight fight and they know it... Which is why any future conflict over the next couple decades is unlikely to look like a Battle of Midway type scenario and is more likely to look like Russia's annexation of Crimea.
During WWII the federal government took over manufacturing and rationed resources. People were employed on a mass scale to produce for the war effort. Almost any undergrad history student has had to compare / contrast the era of strong central governments and economic systems between USSR / Germany / US.
We didn't come close to implementing any of those controls during our COVID-19 response. Instead we did the opposite - shut down manufacturers and distributors by forcing people to stay home. That's why there was a shortage of goods.
I don't think that you can draw any useful conclusions on the US's ability to shift to a wartime economy to mass produce ship / aircraft based on COVID-19.
Click to expand...

While we didn't put in place as much control of the manufacturing plants for the pandemic that we did in WW2, it's also really hard to do that when those plants aren't actually IN the United States. When the CCP decides they will take charge of the output from Chinese plants in China, there's not much we can do about it.

Furthermore, it's not just expense and complexity that makes it so difficult to produce our ships. We have a measured reduction in number of shipyards, shipbuilding workforce, manufacturing plants IN the US, and resource production. I have literally toured these facilities, spoken with the CEOs of the companies who own these yards, and worked with the military personnel who are responsible for the strategic planning of construction and repair of our fleet. Believe me when I say that there is no way we can pull off the same industrial feat we did in WW2 with our current resources.
 
Hotdogs said:
It took 2-3 years for the American economy to go into full war time production in WWII. Calm your tits.
Click to expand...
Luckily folks that mattered saw the storm coming saw years early and was able to expand the fleet with the Two Ocean Navy Act of 1940. This act, passed over a year before pearl harbor, funded:
18 aircraft carriers
2 Iowa-class battleships
5 Montana-class battleships
6 Alaska-class cruisers
27 cruisers
115 destroyers
43 submarines
15,000 aircraft
The conversion of 100,000 tons of auxiliary ships
$50 million for patrol, escort and other vessels
$150 million for essential equipment and facilities
$65 million for the manufacture of ordnance material or munitions
$35 million for the expansion of facilities

Which is pretty much the entire US Navy of WWII. One of the guys who made sure this act got passed was named Carl Vinson.
 
Pags said:
Luckily folks that mattered saw the storm coming saw years early and was able to expand the fleet with the Two Ocean Navy Act of 1940. This act, passed over a year before pearl harbor, funded:
18 aircraft carriers
2 Iowa-class battleships
5 Montana-class battleships
6 Alaska-class cruisers
27 cruisers
115 destroyers
43 submarines
15,000 aircraft
The conversion of 100,000 tons of auxiliary ships
$50 million for patrol, escort and other vessels
$150 million for essential equipment and facilities
$65 million for the manufacture of ordnance material or munitions
$35 million for the expansion of facilities

Which is pretty much the entire US Navy of WWII. One of the guys who made sure this act got passed was named Carl Vinson.
Click to expand...

It was a great start for sure, and those numbers are still only a fraction of what was produced by 1944-1945. We really didn’t start rolling production lines hard until mid-late 1942. The amazing fact is that is just one service. The total combined/joint force production of mechanized vehicles, ships, munitions, weapons, transports, artillery pieces, and aircraft will probably never occur again in human history. Link below shows the Navy ships numbers in detail.

Ship force levels since 1886

The near peer conflict shortage will not be in tonnage or shear capacity, but in precious metals, electronics, and technical manpower. I would submit we are in a better place now for a near peer fight vice where we were when we started WWII. Especially when we include all of our mutual defense treaties and partners. However that will not be true in about 10-20 years if we’re specifically talking about the PLAN. So I agree that total capacity/capability needs to be increased. It’s also part of the reason we’re seeing a lot of rhetoric and posturing in the news by the CNO and CMC.
 
Hotdogs said:
It was a great start for sure, and those numbers are still only a fraction of what was produced by 1944-1945. We really didn’t start rolling production lines hard until mid-late 1942. The amazing fact is that is just one service. The total combined/joint force production of mechanized vehicles, ships, munitions, weapons, transports, artillery pieces, and aircraft will probably never occur again in human history. Link below shows the Navy ships numbers in detail.

Ship force levels since 1886

The near peer conflict shortage will not be in tonnage or shear capacity, but in precious metals, electronics, and technical manpower. I would submit we are in a better place now for a near peer fight vice where we were when we started WWII. Especially when we include all of our mutual defense treaties and partners. However that will not be true in about 10-20 years if we’re specifically talking about the PLAN. So I agree that total capacity/capability needs to be increased. It’s also part of the reason we’re seeing a lot of rhetoric and posturing in the news by the CNO and CMC.
Click to expand...

We won't have a shortage in conflict because, as has been pointed out by senior government officials not so tactfully, you go to war with the <Fleet> you have. And to the DOD's credit, we're probably generally capable of scrapping with the PRC now to achieve some objectives.

It's the post-conflict situation where we may have a problem...ie Round 2, or 3, or 4.
When you look at both development/upgrade cycles and production times, it's entirely possible we will enter the second fight worse off than the first, and so on.
That said, a large part of that has more to do with the fact that the PRC actually is, unlike what the USSR could ever achieve, an actual peer on the economic/industrial front.

Spekkio said:
Chill out man.

First off, the devil's in the details of reporting. The 355 ship navy is a cap / target is on specifically manned warships that kill and blow up things. The 530 ship Navy includes support / logistics, command, and unmanned ships, which our current fleet sits at 490. This isn't really a big jump, and the study even recommends decommissioning some warships in our fleet including two carriers.

SECDEF hasn't asked Congress to fund this 530 ship Navy; he commissioned a study that recommended this force structure and the media got a hold of it. Surely you know that the final proposal won't look exactly like the study, just like the blended retirement plan stopped short of getting rid of Tricare standard, expanding MTFs, and establishing a healthcare BAH to get healthcare costs under control, which was the largest cost saving measure recommended in that study.
Click to expand...

Surely you're not that sensitive over a few F-bombs.
You may be mixing up some of the details.
490 includes all of USNS and Ready Reserve/Reserve Fleet, even barracks barges, etc.
Command/Unmanned ships count towards battle force.
The decomm of the 2 CVNs is also made up in the same study by expanding numbers to incorporate CVLs.

Spekkio said:
The ability to design, build, and maintain a platform within its allocated budget is directly related to its 'cost effectiveness.'

I don't care if MUSV cost $30 instead of $30M. If it can't accomplish a relevant mission that money is better spent on something that can.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with either statement on its own necessarily, but you realize these 2 statements are directly contradictory right?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top