Is the US Navy too small to be effective?

[Thəorətic Muslim]

Technology can't always negate a numerical advantage however.

No it cant, but the ability to carry out multi-role functions can and will limit the number of ships required. But that limitation comes from the cost of the advancement itself.

I'm 1000% certain that the US military can become an even more robust force once Congress decides that the Military should be allowed to order the equipment it needs and not have equipment forced upon them. It was congress that itself forced the military to privatize functions that it used to do.

 

[TechnoFox]

LMAO. USN can take on USAF & Rest of the world(all 3 branches combined) together.

PERIOD !

You know what's funny, this, being about the USN, doesn't even include ships belonging to the US Army or Air Force, both of which do maintain their own ships.

Granted these are intelligence, support, basing and logistics craft and not surface combatants, but in accordance with Distributed Lethality, they are too be armed with offensive weapons

A naval version of LOCUST is said to be in the works, perhaps it could suffice as a small-attack weapon too:

Already some logistics craft are being converted into Mobile landing plaforms:

And Forward staging bases:

It wouldn't be too difficult to do the same with Army and Air Force ships, just expensive, though not as expensive as building new ships.

 

[Providence]

You know what's funny, this, being about the USN, doesn't even include ships belonging to the US Army or Air Force, both of which do maintain their own ships.

Granted these are intelligence, support, basing and logistics craft and not surface combatants, but in accordance with Distributed Lethality, they are too be armed with offensive weapons

A naval version of LOCUST is said to be in the works, perhaps it could suffice as a small-attack weapon too:

Yeah. All I am highlighting is the tremendous firepower USN have. Even if hypothetically USAF defects and fights against US, USN can take care of everyone !

You know what's funny, this, being about the USN, doesn't even include ships belonging to the US Army or Air Force, both of which do maintain their own ships.

Granted these are intelligence, support, basing and logistics craft and not surface combatants, but in accordance with Distributed Lethality, they are too be armed with offensive weapons

A naval version of LOCUST is said to be in the works, perhaps it could suffice as a small-attack weapon too:

Already some logistics craft are being converted into Mobile landing plaforms:

And Forward staging bases:

It wouldn't be too difficult to do the same with Army and Air Force ships, just expensive, though not as expensive as building new ships.

Wow ! Some impressive pics there

 

[TechnoFox]

Yeah. All I am highlighting is the tremendous firepower USN have.

I know, I know, but all this talk of the USN being too small, when it's large enough to effect any nation anywhere, as you and I already know, is rather ridiculous. Our Army has more tonnage than most Navies... I forget to included the Army Corp of Engineers ships, which aren't included in the Army's overall tonnage count:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Vessels | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Even if hypothetically USAF defects and fights against US, USN can take care of everyone !

I don't know about that, the USAF is massive in its own right.

Strategic craft - remember to click on the image to re-size it:

Many of which have an anti-ship capability:

Not being responsible for it, the USAF does lag in Anti-submarine warfare, but some strategic assets can do that too.

MK60 CAPTOR:

Non-strategic assets.

Re-size this one too:

Many of these are capable of anti-ship attack too:

 

[Providence]

I know, I know, but all this talk of the USN being too small, when it's large enough to effect any nation anywhere, as you and I already know, is rather ridiculous. Our Army has more tonnage than most Navies... I forget to included the Army Corp of Engineers ships, which aren't included in the Army's overall tonnage count:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Vessels | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



I don't know about that, the USAF is massive in its own right.

Strategic craft - remember to click on the image to re-size it:

Many of which have an anti-ship capability:

Not being responsible for it, the USAF does lag in Anti-submarine warfare, but some strategic assets can do that too.

MK60 CAPTOR:

Non-strategic assets.

Re-size this one too:

Many of these are capable of anti-ship attack too:

WOW !

@AMDR @gambit Check this out !

 

[TechnoFox]

No it cant, but the ability to carry out multi-role functions can and will limit the number of ships required.

All of our surface combatants and most of our combat aircraft are multi-role, and yet this, the USN being too small, is still a discussion. They've been multi-role since Reagan proposed a 600 ship navy. The number required is never enough. There's always something more we need to do. Some region we need to effect.

I don't see this as a problem of numbers or technology, one will always be proposed as the counter to the other when one can either afford or not afford to do so, I see it as a function of doctrine. The question "is the US Navy too small to be effective" is already rippling through Naval command, it's the reason we are seeing integrated combat doctrines such as Air-Sea Battle, Distributive lethality and Cooperative Engagement Capability, Naval command realizes that for all our numbers and our edge in tech over our peer rivals we still aren't using our assets as effectively as we could.

Will our four destroyers in Rota really be effective in a war against Russia and provide an effective missile shield? Could be bring more forces to bear quickly enough, and would that leave gaps in our defenses elsewhere? Can we dissuade a growing Chinese fleet without further trans-service cooperation with the JMSDF and JASDF? Can the Navy function effectively without the USAF?

The USN is big, huge really, but it's overstretched, the military knows this, they know its effectiveness is being challenged by our taking on too much responsibility. This is why we integrate with Japan and Europe, why we are seeking to arm logistics ships as a force-multiplier rather than explore new ships to counter China's A2/AD, it's why we are seeing further inter-service cooperation between the USAF, USN and US Army.

In the end promoting regional nations to take over some of our roles is what the US needs most, and privately what they are asking of Japan and Russia and other regional powers. The less we have to do the better our already stretched military can perform.

...

Also, I don't know if everyone here is aware of this, but this is me:

SvenSvensonov

I locked myself out of my account after changing its credentials... I didn't write them down.

 

[Arthur]

Doesn't USN has a fleet of mothballed ships,which can be pushed into service if they want numbers in case?
And not to mention fleet of mothballed air crafts,which itself is large enough to form another AF for US??

 

[TechnoFox]

Doesn't USN has a fleet of mothballed ships,which can be pushed into service if they want numbers in case?

Yes, but no surface combatants like Battleships, cruisers or destroyers - all retired surface combatants have either been converted into self-defense test ships like USS Paul F. Foster.

Which tests emerging technologies for the US Navy including laser weapons:

And RIM-116 Block 2:

Or stricken from the US Navy Registry as noted with the Iowa Class Battleships:

The reserve fleet isn't large at all, and features no surface combatants, despite some surface combatants being mothballed.

Ready Reserve Force ships (MV, SS, GTS);

• 2 Aviation logistics support ships
• 5 Cargo ships (5 of 7)
• 6 Crane ships
• 1 Fuel tanker (1 of 2)
• 37 Vehicle cargo ships (37 of 56)

These ships aren't fit for service and wont be, they've been stricken from the Navy Registry:

Mothballed Super Carriers | Deano In America

Sunk, Scrapped or Saved: The Fate of America’s Aircraft Carriers - USNI News

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

All of our surface combatants and most of our combat aircraft are multi-role, and yet this, the USN being too small, is still a discussion. They've been multi-role since Reagan proposed a 600 ship navy. The number required is never enough. There's always something more we need to do. Some region we need to effect.

I agree with you everywhere. Reading the OP, one could derive that that the USN is "too small to be effective", ie

"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916," Obama said in a pointed jab at the GOP nominee. "Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed.

He continued, "We had these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. So the question is not a game of battleship where we're counting ships. It's 'What are our capabilities?'""

That's something that needs to be dispelled. In any conflict involving the US, there's going to be a combined arms response. It's not just going to be the US Navy vs _____ or the US AirForce vs _____ is going to be the entire weight of the US vs ______.

The US will always have enough assets to dissuade any potential aggressive action and remain the sole Superpower. The question like you pointed out will they be "in the right place at the right time" is the issue. The answer is no. The US will never have enough assets in S. Korea to prevent a suicidal Kim Jung Un. Or enough air-power to prevent ISIS from carrying out an attack outside of the Middle East. It will always come down to the capabilities, like you said. If any potential event arises vis a vis a comparable adversary the US will lose planes, ships, and lives. But the adversary will lose a lot more.

The soldiers in S. Korea know their orders, its to prevent the North from completely engulfing S. Korea. They know they're not going to make it out of the massive human waves that will rush them, but it's taking out as many of the starving N. Korean soldiers as they can so that the reinforcements coming from Japan wouldn't have to deal with the entire 1.1 million man army. Hold out enough so that as they huddle in assault formation, they'll be easy prey for the air power from Guam/ Japan/ Aircraft Carriers, and the cruise missiles from various destroyers that are only limited by the range of the munitions.

The US doesn't need to be everywhere all the time. It just needs enough to prevent a rational actor from considering something foolish.

Also, I don't know if everyone here is aware of this, but this is me:
@SvenSvensonov

@Horus @WebMaster help this guy!

 

[INDIAISM]

US Navy has more fighter planes than Air Forces of Most countries . .

If you keep the junk(3rd Gen fighters) out then USN has more fighter jets in its inventory then all the airforces in the world except ofcourse of US airforce...

 

[Penguin]

Doesn't USN has a fleet of mothballed ships,which can be pushed into service if they want numbers in case?
And not to mention fleet of mothballed air crafts,which itself is large enough to form another AF for US??

Myeah, but don't think too much of that: it is very expensive getting those back in service (so this would only happen for a real life national emergency kind o situation)

But, uhm, the retired Spruances were mostly sunk as targets, Perry frigates too or sold / given away to allied navies. So, mostly transport / logistic ships, and some carriers.

MLPs are not conversions, they are brand new, purpose built ships.

 

[TechnoFox]

Myeah, but don't think too much of that: it is very expensive getting those back in service (so this would only happen for a real life national emergency kind o situation)

But, uhm, the retired Spruances were mostly sunk as targets, Perry frigates too or sold / given away to allied navies. So, mostly transport / logistic ships, and some carriers.

There isn't a single surface combatant in the USN's Ready Reserve Fleet, just logistics ships.

Suisun Bay reserve fleet.

USS Paul F. Foster is combat capable, but wont be reactivated:

MLPs are not conversions, they are brand new, purpose built ships.

Yeah, I meant to use Mighty Servant 1 as an example of the concept. It was a conversion and the test ship used to validate the MLP program:

But I didn't mean the MLPs where logistics ship conversion, but that they took the basic design of a logistic ship, in this case submersible platform ships:

And turned their carrying capacity into an offensive capability, though it can be argued these types of ships where already militarized, not to fight, but still to support the war effort:

The MLPs are a new class, but not a new concept or design, they are basically offensive submersible platform ships.

 

[Penguin]

You know what's funny, this, being about the USN, doesn't even include ships belonging to the US Army or Air Force, both of which do maintain their own ships.

It wouldn't be too difficult to do the same with Army and Air Force ships, just expensive, though not as expensive as building new ships.

????? Say whaaaaaat!?!?!

The Army operates 50 vessels of five types, excluding the United States Army Corps of Engineers ships

• Spearhead high speed logistics ship (1)

• ex Stalwart-class ocean surveillance ship operated as Kwajalein Mobile Range Safety System (KMRSS) (1)

• Runnymede-class large landing craft (35)

• MGen. Nathanael Greene-class large coastal tugs (6)

• General Frank S. Besson-class Logistics Support Vessels (see USAV General Brehon B. Somervell (LSV-3)) (8)

The US Army Corps of Engineers has a total of 11 Dredge Vessels, divided into hopper and non-hopper dredges

List of ships of the United States Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The U.S. Air Force still operates a small fleet of drone recovery vessels nicknamed the "Tyndall Navy". These ships recover pieces of wreckage from drones and aerial targets from the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The largest of these vessels are three 120-foot ships operated by the 82nd Aerial Targets Squadron, which is based at Tyndall AFB, Florida

List of ships of the United States Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please research before your post.

 

[TechnoFox]

????? Say whaaaaaat!?!?!

The Army operates 50 vessels of five types, excluding the United States Army Corps of Engineers ships

• Spearhead high speed logistics ship (1)

• ex Stalwart-class ocean surveillance ship operated as Kwajalein Mobile Range Safety System (KMRSS) (1)

• Runnymede-class large landing craft (35)

• MGen. Nathanael Greene-class large coastal tugs (6)

• General Frank S. Besson-class Logistics Support Vessels (see USAV General Brehon B. Somervell (LSV-3)) (8)

The US Army Corps of Engineers has a total of 11 Dredge Vessels, divided into hopper and non-hopper dredges

List of ships of the United States Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The U.S. Air Force still operates a small fleet of drone recovery vessels nicknamed the "Tyndall Navy". These ships recover pieces of wreckage from drones and aerial targets from the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The largest of these vessels are three 120-foot ships operated by the 82nd Aerial Targets Squadron, which is based at Tyndall AFB, Florida

List of ships of the United States Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please research before your post.

Reread what I wrote. I already stated that the US Army and USAF operate ships, I even linked to the same links you offered. I stated that this discussion, being about the USN and its size, doesn't include either the US Army or US Air Force, both of which operate ships, which would make the total US tonnage even greater.

Are they large ships? No. Are they ships that belong to the USAF and US Army? Yes.

What's the problem? I'm not even sure what you're trying to point out.

 

[Penguin]

A Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility (NISMF) is a facility owned by the U.S. Navy as a holding facility for decommissioned naval vessels, pending determination of their final fate. All ships in these facilities are inactive, but some are still on the Naval Vessel Register

Philadelphia: holds several dozen inactive warships, including the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy, Ticonderoga class cruisers, Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates, and numerous supply ships

Bremerton: hosts, among its other ships, three aircraft carriers: USS Ranger, Independence, and Kitty Hawk. two dozen decommissioned submarines, several frigates, and numerous supply ships

Pearl Harbor: holds logistic support ships and amphibious transport dock ships.

Kinda like what AMARC (Arizona) is to the Air Force.

Reread what I wrote. I already stated that the US Army and USAF operate ships, I even linked to the same links you offered. I stated that this discussion, being about the USN and its size, doesn't include either the US Army or US Air Force, both of which operate ships, which would make the total US tonnage even greater.

Are they large ships? No. Are they ships that belong to the USAF and US Army? Yes.

What's the problem? I'm not even sure what you're trying to point out.

These are not the kinds of ships that you would arm, that's just silly.

Big logistics ship like this could be home to forward elements for a marine unit, with a V-22 or two. So you wouldnt always have to bother the LHA/LHDs/LPDs for e.g. special forces operations.