Last week, the acting Under Secretary of the Navy suggested the nation’s fleet wouldn’t reach its target of 355 ships until after 2050, more than 30 years from now. Since our ships (except aircraft carriers) are designed to last about 35 years, that means, with the exception of just three aircraft carriers, all those ships and submarines will be ships not yet built.

Stated differently, the Acting Under Secretary is saying is that the only way the US can get to a Navy of 355 ships and subs is to start now and completely replace the current fleet with a different fleet in order to increase the numbers. His inference is that current ships are too expensive; only a less costly fleet will allow us to increase the numbers.

It isn’t an absolute, but it’s pretty close to one, that the less you spend on a ship, the less you get, in those things that matter when engaged in a war at sea: number of weapons, capability of weapon systems, ship survivability, range and performance of the ship, etc. If you want capable ships that can fight and survive, you need to pay for them.

The Under Secretary’s inference is that we can buy more, but less capable, ships and grow our Navy; or fewer, more capable ships; you can’t have it all. The same can also be said of things like aircraft – fighters and bombers, and tanks and artillery and all those things that make a modern military force.

To remind everyone of the obvious (perhaps not so obvious), the Navy is the force that keeps peace through presence abroad. A large, capable US Navy means stable international trade routes, secure friends and allies and a peaceful US. If trouble does start, it starts “over there,” not near the US.

Why is that important? Because China – and President Xi, is quite determined to make China dominant, and it continues to expand its military forces. By 2030, China will have nearly 500 ships, to include 4 or 5 aircraft carriers. And they intend to keep building. These are capable ships, every bit the equivalent of our destroyers and cruisers. We’re already in an arms race with China, but we haven’t recognized it yet.

The thing is, we’ve been trying to get by on the cheap. And that doesn’t work. The US needs a bigger, more capable fleet (and a bigger, more capable Air Force, etc.) and we can’t do that on 3.5% of GDP. Particularly with an all-volunteer force.

So, how much would it cost to build another half-dozen ships and submarines per year, starting right now? Perhaps $10 billion per year. Another $20 billion per year for new aircraft and tanks.

Which sounds like a lot. But is it?

It will, of course, be pointed out that the US spends more on defense than the next dozen countries combined. But most of those countries don’t count. China counts. And several points about China’s defense spending are relevant: they pay far less for their personnel; their labor force is cheaper, hence weapons are less expensive; and they’re probably not being quite honest about how much they actually spend.

I saw an article the other day in which the author noted, in an attempt to shock, that we’d spent $24,000 per taxpayer over the last 16 years fighting terror.

That sounds bad, but break it down: about 150 million taxpayers (out of a nation of 315 million – kids, single income families, etc…), $24,000 over 16 years equals $1500 per year per taxpayer to hold at bay the forces of darkness. Which further breaks down to $125 per month. Or $4 per day, just a bit less than one of those very tasty coffee drinks you can get at your local coffee shop – to fight terror. Sounds cheap.

And for a larger Navy and Air Force to contain China? Disregard that we could assuredly find several tens of billions of fluff in our current federal budget. Consider simply the amount. $30 billion works out to one less latte per week per taxpayer.

We need to address China now, while it’s possible – short of a real war. That means a bigger fleet. Which doesn’t seem like much if you compare it to a second latte.

So, it all just depends on what you think is important. Is that eighth mocha frappucino this week more important that your peace and security?

Copyright 2017 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com