Romney responds to Libya by criticizing Obama

[D.Turtle]

Or it could simply be the post-convention bounce wearing off.

[Aaron MkII]

We're not doing nearly enough to justify 2009's budget making up 40% of all global arms spending

Maintaining pretty much complete and total global hegemony? I think spending 5% of GDP making sure no one has any real capability to attack the US is a pretty damn solid investment. What more would you want the US military to do?

I doubt many here would disagree that maintaining spending and a force to keep the US safe is a bad idea. But you don't need what the US has now for that.

[Dalton]

Or it could simply be the post-convention bounce wearing off.

According to FiveThirtyEight, that's exactly what it is. Over the past few days, Obama's chances of a second term dropped from 80% to 74%, likely due to convention bounces settling down. Of course, he's still beating Romney in national polling, especially in some key swing states. Romney is fighting dirty because he's desperate, but I don't think it'll have the effect he intended.

We're not doing nearly enough to justify 2009's budget making up 40% of all global arms spending

Maintaining pretty much complete and total global hegemony? I think spending 5% of GDP making sure no one has any real capability to attack the US is a pretty damn solid investment. What more would you want the US military to do?

I doubt many here would disagree that maintaining spending and a force to keep the US safe is a bad idea. But you don't need what the US has now for that.

What we are seeing from Mittens is his version of the Tarkin Doctrine: he wants a military so powerful that nobody would even dare mess with us, i.e. rule by fear of force rather than by force itself. Of course it doesn't help when the people you're trying to dissuade don't give a fuck how powerful you are. Meanwhile, they want to increase defense spending while cutting social safety net programs, all under the guise of "helping" Americans by telling them that they don't need the government's help and they can bootstrap themselves into a better life.

[Magis]

What we are seeing from Mittens is his version of the Tarkin Doctrine: he wants a military so powerful that nobody would even dare mess with us, i.e. rule by fear of force rather than by force itself.

It could be credibly argued that the United States can already project that level of force.

[D.Turtle]

According to FiveThirtyEight, that's exactly what it is. Over the past few days, Obama's chances of a second term dropped from 80% to 74%, likely due to convention bounces settling down.

Not quite - the chance of winning went down because the model expected an even stronger convention bounce than Obama has had.

[Aaron MkII]

What we are seeing from Mittens is his version of the Tarkin Doctrine: he wants a military so powerful that nobody would even dare mess with us, i.e. rule by fear of force rather than by force itself.

It could be credibly argued that the United States can already project that level of force.

Yeah but it isn't working, as already noted.

But hey, at least the US isn't roaming about the world dropping nukes on people in caves.

[Irbis]

What we are seeing from Mittens is his version of the Tarkin Doctrine: he wants a military so powerful that nobody would even dare mess with us, i.e. rule by fear of force rather than by force itself.

Well, Mittens recently said US Navy is weakest since 1917

In case anyone didn't saw it yet, here's picture documenting sad, overwhelmed status of US Navy recently, and that was before a few of foreign ones here were scrapped and a new US one added to inventory. Hell, this base alone, minus ships, is larger investment than most navies on this planet. Tarking Doctrine, really?

[Simon_Jester]

The US Navy's problem is that while it has a lot of firepower, much of that firepower is based on ships that are going to be ancient decaying clunkers in a decade or two. And we don't seem to be able to scrape up the money to do anything about it.

Then again, we had the same blasted problem in 1932-33, which is probably the best analogy to what the government's priorities ought to be at the moment. Commissioning new warships in five years' time will hopefully look a LOT more budget-possible than commissioning them now.

[Borgholio]

Well the problem we had in the 30's was that our fleet construction had been hobbled by the Washington Naval Treaty a decade earlier. It took rising world tension for us to begin to push the limits of the treaty by building not only a dozen new battleships, but new carriers, cruisers, and submarines. Right now it's more of a financial issue than a treaty obligation.

[Lord Damos]

It is not just the Navy but all branches of the military have been forced to slow production. One of the main reasons I think caused this is both Political and Public opinion.

[Irbis]

The US Navy's problem is that while it has a lot of firepower, much of that firepower is based on ships that are going to be ancient decaying clunkers in a decade or two. And we don't seem to be able to scrape up the money to do anything about it.

Gee, in 1917, Kaiserliche Marine and Royal Navy, two direct competitors of the USN, could field seven times the USN power if we count capital ships. In 1937, RN and French Navy could field 1.33 the USN power. Today, care to enlighten me to any two navies that can combined field more than, oh, 0.05-0.08 of the USN? MURICA WEAK.

The only field where rest of the world can even dream of maintaining any parity with USN are nuclear submarines, but out of 4 competing fleets, one is rusting in port, one hopelessly obsolete, one in US pocket down to ICBMs it carries, and last is proven US ally.

[Justice]

According to FiveThirtyEight, that's exactly what it is. Over the past few days, Obama's chances of a second term dropped from 80% to 74%, likely due to convention bounces settling down.

Not quite - the chance of winning went down because the model expected an even stronger convention bounce than Obama has had.

Yeah. Remember that Nate's long-term forecast heavily discounts the convention bounce. If you look at the Now-Cast, it's obvious that things have not dropped off nearly as much.

[Borgholio]

The US Navy's problem is that while it has a lot of firepower, much of that firepower is based on ships that are going to be ancient decaying clunkers in a decade or two. And we don't seem to be able to scrape up the money to do anything about it.

Gee, in 1917, Kaiserliche Marine and Royal Navy, two direct competitors of the USN, could field seven times the USN power if we count capital ships. In 1937, RN and French Navy could field 1.33 the USN power.

No sorry, it wasn't that bad. In the late 1800s yes, our navy sucked ass. Starting in the early 1900s and the "Great White Fleet", we demonstrated that we were not just some second-rate power. In the 20's, we were actually exceeding Britain in naval expansion...the Washington Treaty put a stop to that though. Even at the dawn of WW 2, there was doubt that Britain could defeat the US in a full-scale naval war. After WW 2, there was no doubt.

[Thanas]

The US Navy's problem is that while it has a lot of firepower, much of that firepower is based on ships that are going to be ancient decaying clunkers in a decade or two. And we don't seem to be able to scrape up the money to do anything about it.

Gee, in 1917, Kaiserliche Marine and Royal Navy, two direct competitors of the USN, could field seven times the USN power if we count capital ships. In 1937, RN and French Navy could field 1.33 the USN power.

No sorry, it wasn't that bad. In the late 1800s yes, our navy sucked ass. Starting in the early 1900s and the "Great White Fleet", we demonstrated that we were not just some second-rate power. In the 20's, we were actually exceeding Britain in naval expansion...the Washington Treaty put a stop to that though. Even at the dawn of WW 2, there was doubt that Britain could defeat the US in a full-scale naval war. After WW 2, there was no doubt.

In 1917 the US fielded 15 dreadnoughts. Britain fielded 33 (+11 battlecruisers), the Hochseeflotte 19 (+ 6 battlecruisers), France 7 dreadnoughts. So while he got the ratio of 7 wrong (it is actually 4.6 times) the overall point is correct.

[Irbis]

Gee, in 1917, Kaiserliche Marine and Royal Navy, two direct competitors of the USN, could field seven times the USN power if we count capital ships. In 1937, RN and French Navy could field 1.33 the USN power.

No sorry, it wasn't that bad. In the late 1800s yes, our navy sucked ass. Starting in the early 1900s and the "Great White Fleet", we demonstrated that we were not just some second-rate power.

1917: the United States Navy has 14 modern dreadnought battleships.

Royal Navy: 41 battleships and battlecruisers, Kaiserliche Marine: 25 battleships and battlecruisers. If you count pre-dreadnoughts, IIRC, you get a ratio of 6-7:1, in navies that unlike USN actually had 3 years of war experience already. You were saying?

In 1937, it was 5 (US) vs 5 (UK) + 1.75 (Fr) tonnage allowed by treaties, giving ratio 1:1.33, using usual British comparison to other 2 most powerful navies.

[Simon_Jester]

What about Japan, Irbis?

Well the problem we had in the 30's was that our fleet construction had been hobbled by the Washington Naval Treaty a decade earlier. It took rising world tension for us to begin to push the limits of the treaty by building not only a dozen new battleships, but new carriers, cruisers, and submarines. Right now it's more of a financial issue than a treaty obligation.

Even if it weren't for the treaty, we weren't in a position to build new warships in the depths of the Depression. Very few nations did, even when they had the chance.

The US Navy's problem is that while it has a lot of firepower, much of that firepower is based on ships that are going to be ancient decaying clunkers in a decade or two. And we don't seem to be able to scrape up the money to do anything about it.

Gee, in 1917, Kaiserliche Marine and Royal Navy, two direct competitors of the USN, could field seven times the USN power if we count capital ships. In 1937, RN and French Navy could field 1.33 the USN power. Today, care to enlighten me to any two navies that can combined field more than, oh, 0.05-0.08 of the USN? MURICA WEAK.

Is there some reason you are taking this tone? I don't understand.

I mean, here I'm trying to say what I think is the US Navy's great challenge for the 2020-2040 window. Which is not the same as what Romney said it was, but it does exist. Can I do this without being yelled at as a Romney sympathizer?

[Thanas]

Because quite frankly the idea that the nation which is building more ships than any other nation will fall behind the curve so suddenly is a bit comical.

[Simon_Jester]

The cost per unit of building new warships for the USN is going through the roof, Thanas. We might be forced to cut back until there aren't enough ships left to escort carriers and convoys at the same time.

Here, the measure of strength that matters isn't so much the carriers and ballistic missile submarines, it's the smaller vessels, the ones LCS and DDX were fondly hoped to replace.

Now, you personally might not care about that, and I'm not going to argue with you. It's still relevant to naval questions: "we have plenty of ships and always will!" is not a good conversation-ender. Not when we're talking about how, or if we can replace aging destroyers with new ones.

It isn't out of line to point out that there may come a day when the US expects its military to have that casual, world-spanning dominance it got after the Cold War ended, and realize it's not there. Because the equipment hadn't been maintained or replaced adequately. That could happen in our lifetimes, if the US lets it happen, or lets its economy rot to the point where it has to happen.

Now, does that mean I support Romney babbling hawkishly about "WEAKEST SINCE 1917!?" No, it does not.

[Sea Skimmer]

Because quite frankly the idea that the nation which is building more ships than any other nation will fall behind the curve so suddenly is a bit comical.

Actually in the the land of facts China put more combat ships and submarines in the water last year then the US did. It remains to be seen if they'll continue this pace of development, but the mere fact that they can and are among other things building two major aircraft carriers at once shows they certainly have the capability to do so. Also the USN has had huge collapses in strength before from block obsolescent, this is not some theoretical problem.

[Thanas]

Because quite frankly the idea that the nation which is building more ships than any other nation will fall behind the curve so suddenly is a bit comical.

Actually in the the land of facts China put more combat ships and submarines in the water last year then the US did.

It did? What are the numbers and how capable are they compared to the Arleigh Burke class? And how serious a threat is that to the US naval dominance?

It remains to be seen if they'll continue this pace of development, but the mere fact that they can and are among other things building two major aircraft carriers at once shows they certainly have the capability to do so.

Two aircraft carriers who are nowhere near the Nimitz class. In fact, I'd wager to say one Nimitz class carrier is a more worthwhile combatant than the two chinese carriers put together.


To be quite frank, this discussion too much reminds me of the previous naval scares in history.

[Sea Skimmer]

You can lookup the full breakdown if you want it, but it included two Type 52C air defense destroyers and four Tpe 054A air defense frigates which are much more powerful then the single Burke the US launched in all of 2011. In fact that Burke was the only surface combatant the US launched, not even a LCS was launched in 2011. Zero Burkes will be launched this year, though if DDG-1000 was being built in a conventional manner she might be counted as launching late in the season. One LCS was launched, though at that point you’d have to start counting some of the Chinese minewarfare and bigger patrol craft against it anyway.

If the Chinese kept building at the rate they did in 2011 they’d be easily on track for a 400 ship navy without excessive lifespans, while even the underfunded longer then design life USN plan is for 313. I do not think they will do this, but they certainly could try and in any event they do not need equal numbers to dominate a large portion of the globe. They are you know, utterly dependent on imports and exports by sea now. Big incentive to take a navy seriously. Meanwhile the USN even by its underfunded plan expects to keep certain ships for 70 years. By underfunded I mean the funding for the next 30 years may need to as much as triple above a inflation increase to meet it, unless someone finds a way to make ships cost much less. As it is now the USN on hard on track for at least a 50% reduction in numbers, while a substantial fraction of its new units will be LCS which are simply not designed to engage in full scale combat the way the frigates and destroyers they replace were.

Two aircraft carriers who are nowhere near the Nimitz class. In fact, I'd wager to say one Nimitz class carrier is a more worthwhile combatant than the two chinese carriers put together.

You base this on what exactly? Your magic ball telling you how big they are and exactly what air group they have? You you grasp that due to yet another sustained lack of funding, each Nimitz actually has about as many planes on it as would and did fit on a carrier thirty thousand tons smaller?

To be quite frank, this discussion too much reminds me of the previous naval scares in history.

Like the one leading into WW1 that turned into several massive wars and the scales of naval power being completely flipped over to the other side of the Atlantic, in about a 30 year time frame, which just happens to be the same timeframe as USN planning works in? Yeah, totally nothing to be afraid of about that.

[Thanas]

You can lookup the full breakdown if you want it, but it included two Type 52C air defense destroyers and four Tpe 054A air defense frigates which are much more powerful then the single Burke the US launched in all of 2011.

Are you taking them all together or are you saying that the Type 52c is more powerful than the Burke ship per ship?

They are you know, utterly dependent on imports and exports by sea now. Big incentive to take a navy seriously.

And not much of an incentive to start a naval war.

Meanwhile the USN even by its underfunded plan expects to keep certain ships for 70 years. By underfunded I mean the funding for the next 30 years may need to as much as triple above a inflation increase to meet it, unless someone finds a way to make ships cost much less.

The budget for the US Navy alone is higher than the entire defence spending of China. And you are telling me the chinese manage to produce six times the ships than the US, ships of equal capabilities to boot? Why is that system so inefficient?

You base this on what exactly? Your magic ball telling you how big they are and exactly what air group they have?

No, on the estimates bandied about. Unless you have some evidence they have gone post-varyag size and are actually building nuclear powered supercarriers now......

As to the low number of jets on the Nimitz etc, I agree that this is a problem. However, that is a problem which IMO is a real serious problem, unlike the "China is interested in an arms race" point of view.

Like the one leading into WW1 that turned into several massive wars and the scales of naval power being completely flipped over to the other side of the Atlantic, in about a 30 year time frame, which just happens to be the same timeframe as USN planning works in? Yeah, totally nothing to be afraid of about that.

Oh yeah because that arms race back then totally benefitted the nations engaged in it, or even benefited the younger nation trying to match the hegomon.

[Sea Skimmer]

Are you taking them all together or are you saying that the Type 52c is more powerful than the Burke ship per ship?

Several of them together are more powerful. You'd hope so since they displace three and a half times as much all together.

And not much of an incentive to start a naval war.

Wars rarely start in a straightforward manner. That's why its better to be strong then weak.

The budget for the US Navy alone is higher than the entire defence spending of China. And you are telling me the chinese manage to produce six times the ships than the US, ships of equal capabilities to boot?

Actually its about the same amount of money, but the actual USN shipbuilding budget last year was 12.8 billion dollars. Not 128 billion, 12.8. This is not a difficult amount of money for China to match if they decide they care and if the Chinese economy keeps expanding at even a slow rate. Meanwhile the US will iinevitably require more money for personal and operations and maintenance because our labor is just going to be more expensive. In fact it is totally realistic for the US to greatly increase the size of its navy if it takes a long term approach, and the cost is hardly bank breaking either compared to all the other massive outlays. It is simply a matter of political will. It would also be a good way to discourage China from even trying and allow spending to go back down in the long term once the cold war fluff is replaced. Above all the SSBN(X) program which has no funding source at the moment.

Why is that system so inefficient?

Lots of reasons, one is you can't pay people dirt to make stuff in the US. All the more so with a very limited industrial base and military shipyards which must exist off nothing but a slow rate of military contracts, while China is producing warships in speciality branches of huge shipyards. The US should have a quality advantage, the problem is stuff becomes obsolete quickly and warships are very focused on fast changing electronics and the USN attempt to push ahead with DDG-1000 was been terminated at three hulls, while Flight III Burke probably will not work. It certainly won't be good given that the Flight IIA already had no margins left.

No, on the estimates bandied about. Unless you have some evidence they have gone post-varyag size and are actually building nuclear powered supercarriers now......

Why would they even need nuclear power to match a Nimitz in combat? That's mainly a matter of saving money on fuel. The Chinese carriers are expected to be in the 60,000 ton range which should support ~50 fast jets and allow two of them to outmatch the air group of even a fully equipped Nimitz, which none is nor is likely to be. As it is a Nimitz has about 48 jets. So actually, any Nimitz advantage lies primarily in the quality of the aircraft, not the ship. But aircraft funding is its own immense problem and in any event, two decks are always better then one. One deck cannot fly all the time.

Oh yeah because that arms race back then totally benefitted the nations engaged in it, or even benefited the younger nation trying to match the hegomon.

Yeah, so that's why all arms races stopped right, and everyone lived in peace and joy ever after, and not because another arms race started right after it and both sides were able to deter each other only by being heavily armed?

[Thanas]

Wars rarely start in a straightforward manner. That's why its better to be strong then weak.

True. I concede that the US has an interest in being strong, I just don't see the great threat of China.

Actually its about the same amount of money, but the actual USN shipbuilding budget last year was 12.8 billion dollars. Not 128 billion, 12.8. This is not a difficult amount of money for China to match if they decide they care and if the Chinese economy keeps expanding at even a slow rate. Meanwhile the US will iinevitably require more money for personal and operations and maintenance because our labor is just going to be more expensive.

But are the costs that much higher? I mean, China is able to maintain and expand her entire armed forces for the budget of the US navy.

In fact it is totally realistic for the US to greatly increase the size of its navy if it takes a long term approach, and the cost is hardly bank breaking either compared to all the other massive outlays. It is simply a matter of political will. It would also be a good way to discourage China from even trying and allow spending to go back down in the long term once the cold war fluff is replaced. Above all the SSBN(X) program which has no funding source at the moment.

That seems a reasonable strategy. I concede that point.

Lots of reasons, one is you can't pay people dirt to make stuff in the US. All the more so with a very limited industrial base and military shipyards which must exist off nothing but a slow rate of military contracts, while China is producing warships in speciality branches of huge shipyards. The US should have a quality advantage, the problem is stuff becomes obsolete quickly and warships are very focused on fast changing electronics and the USN attempt to push ahead with DDG-1000 was been terminated at three hulls, while Flight III Burke probably will not work. It certainly won't be good given that the Flight IIA already had no margins left.

Then why not try and build cheaper warships to hold the line for the next five years or so and then get a real new program rolling? The Burkes replaced the Spruances, why not build another new program that is not obscenely expensive like the Zumwalt. (I know, LCS, but that isn't the kind of destroyer class I got in mind. More like the MEKO ships the Europeans are building).

Why would they even need nuclear power to match a Nimitz in combat? That's mainly a matter of saving money on fuel. The Chinese carriers are expected to be in the 60,000 ton range which should support ~50 fast jets and allow two of them to outmatch the air group of even a fully equipped Nimitz, which none is nor is likely to be.

If there would be wartime, I fully expect the US to amalgate flight groups or just send several carriers. At which point 2 carriers - or even 4-6 might not be that much in a straight fight.

Yeah, so that's why all arms races stopped right, and everyone lived in peace and joy ever after, and not because another arms race started right after it and both sides were able to deter each other only by being heavily armed?

Actually, both sides eventually signed a treaty because they did not want to continue excessive spending.

[Simon_Jester]

Like the one leading into WW1 that turned into several massive wars and the scales of naval power being completely flipped over to the other side of the Atlantic, in about a 30 year time frame, which just happens to be the same timeframe as USN planning works in? Yeah, totally nothing to be afraid of about that.

Oh yeah because that arms race back then totally benefitted the nations engaged in it, or even benefited the younger nation trying to match the hegomon.

That building race worked out pretty well for the US.

It didn't work so well for the Germans and Japanese, because they decided to take all that hardware and fight the hegemon, which entailed the risk of losing. The US just outbuilt and co-opted the old hegemon, and thus became the new one.

A weapon system can have an impact without firing a shot.