« Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners | Main | How close will the mosque to Ground Zero be? »

All The Ships At Sea

Via Commander Salamander, I found this chart vaguely disturbing, yet not as troubling as I first thought. It turns out that the United States Navy currently has 283 warships in commission -- the lowest number since just before we entered World War I. Or, as Salamander puts it, "the age of coal."

On the one hand, that's a frightening thought. We have security concerns and commitments all over the globe, in all the seven seas, and that's a very, very small number to meet all our challenges. And I think it's a fairly safe prediction to say that the Navy will not expand during the Obama administration.

On the other, though, the sheer power represented by those relatively few vessels is tremendous. A single American battle group could easily defeat the entire navy of any other nation on earth.

Further, other nations have drawn down their navies, as well. We don't have an active "enemy" right now, and haven't for about 20 years. The closest thing to an active threat is the Chinese navy, and they're still several years from posing a major threat. The same with the Russians -- Putin's rattling his saber, but the former Red Navy is a pale ghost of its peak. I read that if you added up all the tonnage of all the warships in service today, over half of it would be attached to the Stars And Stripes.

But fleet-on-fleet combat is but one of the challenges our Navy faces. For example, piracy is resurging. We all know about the Somali pirates, but that's not the only place. Look at this map of reported pirate attacks just from this year.

Piracy ain't Johnny Depp. Piracy is the original "terrorism." Piracy was one of the first challenges of the United States Navy, and fighting pirates is one of the prime duties of every warship of every nation. The global decline in navies has created an opportunity for piracy to return -- and it is doing so.

Purely on the basis of power, and destructive potential, I'd argue that our Navy is more powerful today than it has ever been. (With the possible exception of the late 1980's.) But that power is concentrated in fewer and fewer hulls, and that means that less and less ocean is covered at any time.

"Nature abhors a vacuum." While it might not quite be true in physics, it's certainly true in politics. And right now, there is a vacuum in power at sea.

We all should worry about what will seek to fill that vacuum.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (6)

Considering that the Chines... (Below threshold)

Considering that the Chinese have been ramping their naval fleet ship construction for several years now and are about to field their own carrier group you can consider that question answered. I know Lex has written on this subject previously, not so sure about CMDR S.

Just think, the US is financing TWO navies right now ... and the idiots in charge want to further draw down our capabilities.

"there is a vacuum in power... (Below threshold)

"there is a vacuum in power at sea"

It matches the vacuum between the ears of certain people in Washington as well.

The chinese have a missile ... (Below threshold)

The chinese have a missile that can hit an aircraft carrier from 900 miles away - apparently from a distance that the aircraft on the carrier cannot travel.

Damn, whatever happened to the neutron bomb?

The chinese have a missile ... (Below threshold)
Jeff L:

The chinese have a missile that can hit an aircraft carrier from 900 miles away - apparently from a distance that the aircraft on the carrier cannot travel.
What is the range of one of our anti-ship missile? I can guarantee it is way, way more than 900 miles.

So is Jay saying that we need to start building more ships? Who is going to pay for that? Pile the additional ships on the pile of f-35 fighters that are amazing aircraft but for $80-$90 million apiece are they really necessary?

the "new" Chinese missle is... (Below threshold)

the "new" Chinese missle is a balistic missle ... thats a different breed on anti-ship missle ...

not sure we need anymore ships ... plenty of good planes for the aircraft carriers we do have would be nice though ...

olsoljer says that carrier-... (Below threshold)

olsoljer says that carrier-based aircraft are range-limited.

One would hope (in vain, alas) that wannabe enemies would wanna-so-believe.

(See: Buddy refuelers)






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy