With the Soviet Union long gone and pirates a thing of the past, some
people think that America no longer needs a big navy. Navy leaders
don't agree, but budgetary pressures are forcing them to take steps
that make it seem as though they do. On August 3, the Navy submitted a
proposed 2006 budget to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
that would buy only four ships - a submarine, an amphibious vessel, a
coastal patrol boat and a cargo ship. That number matches the lowest
level of ship construction seen during the Clinton defense depression
of the 1990's. Warships last for about 30 years, so a construction rate
of four per year eventually yields a fleet of 120 vessels. Remember
Ronald Reagan's 600-ship fleet?
The Bush Administration
undoubtedly will argue that shipbuilding is programmed to increase in
future years, just as the Clinton Administration always claimed until
the years in question actually arrived. But the Navy's 2006-2011
spending plan doesn't exactly ooze optimism on that score. Among other
things, it delays funding construction of a new class of aircraft
carriers (the first in 30 years), delays a planned increase in
submarine construction to two per year (from the current one per year),
delays construction of next-generation destroyers (maybe forever),
delays construction of a new class of maritime prepositioning ships,
and proposes early termination of a class of amphibious vessels already
in production.
So much for the Bush defense buildup. Apparently
deferring modernization of major military systems has become a
bipartisan phenomenon. At least during the Clinton years the U.S. was
shrinking a fleet that really was oversized for the post-communist
world. But having rightsized the fleet, budget planners are now
inventing new excuses to continue the Navy's contraction. Under a
so-called "6+2" posture, one of the Navy's aircraft carriers will be
rationalized into oblivion, leaving the service with a mere eleven
flattops to cover the world (three of which are in maintenance at any
given time). Meanwhile, the forward-basing of submarines at Guam is
being advanced as a reason for letting the number of attack subs in the
fleet fall to the low forties, and maybe even lower.
The nicest
thing you can say about these trends is that at least the money didn't
come out of aircraft. It could have: with huge shortfalls in their
investment accounts as far as the eye can see, Navy leaders considered
gutting their aviation modernization program to make ends meet. But
because the average Navy aircraft is actually older than the average
warship, it was decided to let shipbuilding take the hit. Obviously,
that reasoning will only work for so long -- the planes won't be much
use if there aren't carriers and amphibious vessels from which they can
operate. It appears the Navy is running out of options.
Like
the other military services, the Navy has entered a budgetary death
spiral in which skyrocketing personnel costs and aging equipment are
undercutting the investments needed for future warfighting
effectiveness. The service wants to reduce its headcount, but that
partly depends on buying new ship classes that require less manning. It
wants to have the benefits of new technology, but money keeps draining
away to maintenance of the existing fleet. It is a measure of just how
desperate things have become that Navy leaders thought their best
option was to not buy ships. This isn't the sort of situation most
people were expecting when Dick Cheney assured soldiers and sailors
four years ago that help was on the way.
