America’s Navy is sinking

The U.S. Navy’s capacity to protect America and insure safety and commerce on the high seas is rapidly sinking.

In 1990, the Navy’s 600 ships guarded the U.S., and insured international peace as well as orderly global commerce. Today, the aging 250 ship fleet faces major threats from dramatically increased and hostile Russian and Chinese naval forces, as well as regional challenges from Iran. China’s naval force will be larger than the America’s within five years, and both Russia and China have technologies that places even the most powerful U.S. vessels at high risk. In a recent Wall Street Journal interview, Admiral Gary Roughead stated that China “doesn’t want to build a navy that’s equivalent to the U.S., [they] want to build a navy that surpasses the U.S.”

The problem is about to get worse.

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) “The planned size of the Navy, the rate of Navy ship procurement, and the prospective affordability of the Navy’s shipbuilding plans have been matters of concern for the congressional defense committees for the past several years. The Navy’s FY2015 30-year (FY2015-FY2044) shipbuilding plan…does not include enough ships to fully support all elements of the Navy’s 306-ship goal over the entire 30-year period.

“In particular, the Navy projects that the fleet would experience a shortfall in amphibious ships from FY2015 through FY2017, a shortfall in small surface combatants from FY2015 through FY2027, and a shortfall in attack submarines from FY2025 through FY2034…[the] Navy is still recovering from the FY 2013 sequestration in terms of maintenance, training, and deployment lengths. Only 1/3 of Navy contingency response forces are ready to deploy within the required 30 days…

“Unless naval forces are properly sized, modernized at the right pace, ready to deploy with adequate training and equipment, and capable to respond in the numbers and at the speed required by Combatant Commanders, they will not be able to carry out the Nation’s defense strategy as written. We will be compelled to go to fewer places, and do fewer things. Most importantly, when facing major contingencies, our ability to fight and win will neither be quick nor decisive. Unless this Nation envisions a significantly diminished global security role for its military, we must address the growing mismatch in ends, ways, and means. The world is becoming more complex, uncertain, and turbulent. Our adversaries’ capabilities are diversifying and expanding. Naval forces are more important than ever in building global security, projecting power, deterring foes, and rapidly responding to crises that affect our national security.”
It was the first invention of a product it there is no ad behind the product, the MRP of the product will reduced to almost 50 percent female viagra buy lower. These pills are 100% cialis professional online natural i.e. they have been made using the most natural cure for the disease since it works by reducing the amount of carbohydrates in the body, thus resulting in extreme weight loss. A man may be to a great degree well known? There may be various answers however a standout amongst the most fundamental sorts is as this prescription helps various men to encounter a superior sexual coexistence. generika viagra One drug however, effectively targets both of the sexual disorders or dysfunctions such as: Less time erection Problem to maintain the erection Size of the penis don t cialis pills wholesale increase much Pain during erection Irritation No interest in sex or having proper intercourse with his partner.
Mistakes made today will have consequences for decades to come. Naval vessels cannot be built rapidly, particularly with America’s reduced shipbuilding capacity. As quoted in a recent Breaking Defense article, “Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 10th, ‘you see the effects today on….our shipyards. You’ll see the effects on our fleet ten years from now, 15 years from now, 20 years from now’…The moral, as Mabus told Senate appropriators, is that ‘if you miss a year building a Navy ship, you never make it up.”

Breaking Defense also quotes Admiral Jonathan Greenert ‘s statement that

“I worry about the shipbuilding industrial base… If sequestration forces steep cuts to the Navy’s shipbuilding account … the impact on the size of the fleet “would take years to manifest,” … last for decades, so building fewer today generally comes back to bite you in a generation…

“But more importantly,” the admiral went on, “there’s some likelihood we lose one or two [ship] builders, and we only have five. Bath Iron Works in Maine, Electric Boat in Connecticut, Newport News in Virginia, Ingalls in Mississippi, and NASSCO in California: These are the “Big Five,” down from the “Big Six” since the closure of Avondale in Louisiana. (Concentrating the industry even more, Ingalls and Newport belong to Huntington-Ingalls Industries; the other three yards all belong to General Dynamics). Could we really go down to a Big Four or even a Big Three?”

Testifying before Congress in March, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter noted “For decades…U.S. global power projection has relied on the ships, planes, submarines, bases, aircraft carriers, satellites, networks and other advanced capabilities that comprise the military’s technological edge…Today that superiority is being challenged in unprecedented ways.” Carter also stated that America’s aircraft carrier fleet will probably continue to be reduced in size.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.