 |
| Ticonderoga class cruiser: USS Cowpens (Image: Flickr User - Official U.S. Navy Page) |
By Franz-Stefan Gady
The current debate on the size of the US Navy offers very few new insights.
It seems to be time for another round of the periodical “is the U.S. Navy big enough?” debate, which sweeps across the American defense commentator community at least once a year and usually fails to yield any significant new insights.
As I noted here, the U.S. Navy is requesting $161 billion (a $11.8 billion increase) in funds for the next fiscal year. Some of the procurement highlights outlined in the budget include three new Littoral Combat Ships, and two Virginia-class attack submarines, among other things. At the end of the decade the fleet will number greater than 300 ships, according (PDF) to Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus.
The usual modus operandi in the “is the U.S. Navy big enough” discourse is that an outsider or “non-expert” puts forward the sweeping proposition that U.S. naval forces are adequate given their likely opponents in a future conflict. Meanwhile, an insider (a retired naval officer or former Pentagon official now working for a DC-based think tank) urges readers to take heed of the Cassandra-like warnings from him and his peers about the true state of the United States Navy, religiously noting its unique contribution in upholding the current international order while simultaneously emphasizing the growing technical capabilities of naval competitors.
Read the full story at The Diplomat