Our Incredible Shrinking Navy

At Ultraquiet No More, there have been quite a few posts lately on the recent round of proposed base closures and, more disturbingly, on the alarming rate of shrinkage of our submarine force. While some have expressed the concern that submarines might be especially vulnerable to cutbacks due to the perception that the force is a relic of the Cold War, or that their capabilities do not fulfill our current needs, I think there is a far more fundamental cause for alarm: Our Navy in general is being allowed to shrink at an alarming rate.

We submariners are, of course, acutely aware of the cutbacks being made in our own force, which are bad enough. But step back and take a look at the larger picture. Via TIA Daily awhile back, I learned of this article, "Our Incredible Shrinking Navy." (Free, but registration required.)

The Reagan administration was the first since World War Two to acknowledge that a great nation needs a great navy. Navy Secretary John Lehman created a fleet of 600 ships and submarines not just to meet the demands of the Cold War, but also to fulfill America's other vital task in the age of globalization: protecting the world's sea lanes, where 95 percent of the weight of intercontinental trade, from cars and computers to oil and steel, still travels.

That 600-ship Navy has now shrunk to 288, and the number will continue to shrink as more of our ships become old and obsolete. By naval expert Norman Polmar's calculations, the Navy will need 10 new ships a year just to keep even — but next year's budget only has money to build four.

This article, by Arthur Herman, author of To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World, is well worth the quick read. The reduction in size of our submarine fleet, from 96 to 56 since 1990, is alarming enough, but far worse, it is consistent with the overall reduction in the size of our fleet cited by Herman as well.

Fortunately, there are some making the case for more submarines, at least. Via The Sub Report, come two articles on testimony before the House Armed Service subcommittee on the dangers of allowing our submarine force to continue shrinking. The first article focuses on several congressmen going to bat for naval facilities in their districts. In my opinion, the best way to defend the base in Groton is to back away from the local trauma of the prospective base closure for a moment, as Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT) does, and look at the overall health of the submarine force. He cites some alarming trends.

"The nuclear submarine, able to depart at a moment's notice, and sustain operations throughout the globe without the constraint of constant refueling, is the way of the future, not a relic of the past," said the Committee's Chairman Roscoe Bartlett , R-Maryland.

Simmons spoke strongly about his belief that plans to cut the submarine fleet from the current level of about 54 to 33 in the coming years would be a catastrophic mistake.

"In five years, the Chinese sub fleet will outnumber us 2-to-1," Simmons said.

Simmons went on to list the numbers of subs countries such as North Korea and Russia have, emphasizing that the United States cannot afford to lose its edge under water.

Bartlett was adamant about his concern that last year, with a military budget one tenth that of the United States, China had built 11 submarines to the United States one.

This segued nicely into arguments related to the need to maintain our industrial base (and with it, the Sub Base) for submarine construction:

[Rep. James] Langevin [(D-RI)]focused on the synergy in southeastern New England between Electric Boat and the Sub Base. The keeping of industrial industries [sic] and ensuring they have enough work to do, both to keep costs down and keep skills fresh was not lost on navy officials.

"We must be willing to continue our financial investment to sustain the industrial base, or risk the inevitable loss of this formidable capacity," said Admiral Kirkland H. Donald.

Talk during the committee hearing about a desire of members to build two Virginia class submarines a year instead of the one planned in coming years, could mean big business for Electric Boat, who had representatives in the audience.

The second article focused more on testimony before the subcommittee by VADM Charles Munns.

Munns testimony comes at a critical time for the submarine fleet. After building up the fleet during the Cold War, Congress and the president are preparing to pare down the fleet from 55 attack submarines to 33, said U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Maryland, chairman of the Subcommittee on Projection Forces.

Munns said submarines have played a key role on the war on terrorism, gathering intelligence and supporting military action.

"What keeps me awake at night is ensuring our ability to keep doing this in the future," Munns said.

Both articles mention a push to build two Virginia-class submarines per year rather than the one currently planned.

I sure hope this does some good. As Arthur Herman puts it:

Right now, our Navy and its men and women are doing the best job they can with what we've given them. But if we don't confront reality, we may be facing not just an Incredible Shrinking Navy, but shrinking American power around the world, as well.

Preserving our ability to build submarines and then increasing the number we build would be two good first steps on the road towards preserving our nation's naval power. But we have a far greater task ahead than that alone.

-- CAV