Modern vs Old navy

Gargamel · 01-10-17, 11:17 AM

I keep reading references to how small our (US) Navy has shrunk. We had X number ships during WWI, and now look at how few we have! We've slacked off! We must build back up to those levels!

To me this is an apples/oranges type comparison. The two navies are completely different in capabilities. I'd wager that a handful of modern warships would be able to completely destroy that WWI navy, without getting a scratch. One would be able to do it if it didn't have to worry about running out of ammo.

To me, it's a matter of meeting current needs, not having X number of ships.

/rant

discuss/

EDIT: Missed the other similar thread, sorry.

ikalugin · 01-10-17, 11:45 AM

Yes and no, for example you need x surface action groups to cover y operational areas. For thos x surface action groups you need z numbers of s sets of ships.

So in a way, despite the changes in how we fight the naval wars, some things do not change because a single surface action group or a ship cannot be in two different oceans at the same time.

Mr Quatro · 01-10-17, 11:53 AM

The answer may be like in that other thread about modern submarines: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=229137

Perhaps it is the men and women that would qualify for a bigger and better Navy that are missing.

Where are the romantics of old that wanted to go to down to the sea and sail the seven seas?

Oberon · 01-10-17, 12:25 PM

Americans think their navy has shrunk?

But yes, as Barry put it during the elections before last, we also have fewer horses and bayonets than we used to. It's all power projection and economics. Of course, that also means that if one unit is lost, the expense is greater which is a problem, but I think at some point in the future smaller drone vessels may well help fix some of that problem by being able to be manufactured in greater numbers and operate autonomously.

eddie · 01-10-17, 02:43 PM

Our new President (not getting into politics here though) wants to increase the size of our Navy to at least 355 ships, IIRC. Some say this is great because of all the jobs it will create. But the cost of that is so incredible!! They want to build the new Nuclear Class subs, Columbia is the name of this class, but in 2017 the cost is $100 Billion. The Navy has ordered 12 so far, but when the s subs are completed in the future, costs will have gone up to $128 Billion! Now throw in all the other ships the Navy wants, and my question is, how the heck do we pay for it? How far will our deficit grow too? It ain't cheap anymore.

Oberon · 01-10-17, 03:05 PM

Well, you'll pay for it with your tax dollars, and then once they're built then you can get someone else to pay for them...like China maybe.

eddie · 01-10-17, 03:15 PM

Jimbuna · 01-10-17, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddie

Our new President (not getting into politics here though) wants to increase the size of our Navy to at least 355 ships, IIRC. Some say this is great because of all the jobs it will create. But the cost of that is so incredible!! They want to build the new Nuclear Class subs, Columbia is the name of this class, but in 2017 the cost is $100 Billion. The Navy has ordered 12 so far, but when the s subs are completed in the future, costs will have gone up to $128 Billion! Now throw in all the other ships the Navy wants, and my question is, how the heck do we pay for it? How far will our deficit grow too? It ain't cheap anymore.

Is that not a reduction in real terms Eddie?

My current understanding (and the link below) states there are approximately 430 ships in service or in reserve atm.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-entire-fleet/

eddie · 01-10-17, 05:08 PM

I'll double check Jim, getting old over here, one of those senior moments again,lol

kraznyi_oktjabr · 01-10-17, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Is that not a reduction in real terms Eddie?

My current understanding (and the link below) states there are approximately 430 ships in service or in reserve atm.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-entire-fleet/

I think it depends on how you count. "Traditionally" U.S. Navy has counted auxiliaries (today USNS) separately from commissioned warships (today USS). That 430 vessel figure sounds ball park right if you include minesweepers, cargo ships, oilers and harbour tugs.

However couple of (or more) years ago when numbers were dropping low with FFGs d'comming and LCSes AWOL somebody in "five-sided-wind-tunnel" got bright idea of boosting fleet numbers by changing counting rules. After few pen strokes some "force multiplier" auxiliaries such as hospital ships (USNS Mercy and USNS Comfort) were counted equal with destroyers.

Don't know if that rather creative way to increase fleet size is still used.

01-10-17, 11:17 AM	#1
Gargamel Lucky Sailor Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Rome Posts: 4,273 Downloads: 81 Uploads: 0	Modern vs Old navy I keep reading references to how small our (US) Navy has shrunk. We had X number ships during WWI, and now look at how few we have! We've slacked off! We must build back up to those levels! To me this is an apples/oranges type comparison. The two navies are completely different in capabilities. I'd wager that a handful of modern warships would be able to completely destroy that WWI navy, without getting a scratch. One would be able to do it if it didn't have to worry about running out of ammo. To me, it's a matter of meeting current needs, not having X number of ships. /rant discuss/ EDIT: Missed the other similar thread, sorry. __________________ Luck is a residue of Design.

01-10-17, 11:45 AM	#2
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Yes and no, for example you need x surface action groups to cover y operational areas. For thos x surface action groups you need z numbers of s sets of ships. So in a way, despite the changes in how we fight the naval wars, some things do not change because a single surface action group or a ship cannot be in two different oceans at the same time. __________________ Grumpy as always.

01-10-17, 11:53 AM	#3
Mr Quatro Navy Seal Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 6,772 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	The answer may be like in that other thread about modern submarines: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=229137 Perhaps it is the men and women that would qualify for a bigger and better Navy that are missing. Where are the romantics of old that wanted to go to down to the sea and sail the seven seas? __________________ pla•teau noun a relatively stable level, period, or condition a level of attainment or achievement Lord help me get to the next plateau ..

01-10-17, 02:43 PM	#5
eddie Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,023 Downloads: 99 Uploads: 0	Our new President (not getting into politics here though) wants to increase the size of our Navy to at least 355 ships, IIRC. Some say this is great because of all the jobs it will create. But the cost of that is so incredible!! They want to build the new Nuclear Class subs, Columbia is the name of this class, but in 2017 the cost is $100 Billion. The Navy has ordered 12 so far, but when the s subs are completed in the future, costs will have gone up to $128 Billion! Now throw in all the other ships the Navy wants, and my question is, how the heck do we pay for it? How far will our deficit grow too? It ain't cheap anymore. __________________ Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. I'm kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me. Al Capone

01-10-17, 03:15 PM	#7
eddie Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,023 Downloads: 99 Uploads: 0	__________________ Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. I'm kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me. Al Capone

01-10-17, 12:25 PM	#4
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Americans think their navy has shrunk? But yes, as Barry put it during the elections before last, we also have fewer horses and bayonets than we used to. It's all power projection and economics. Of course, that also means that if one unit is lost, the expense is greater which is a problem, but I think at some point in the future smaller drone vessels may well help fix some of that problem by being able to be manufactured in greater numbers and operate autonomously.

01-10-17, 03:05 PM	#6
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Well, you'll pay for it with your tax dollars, and then once they're built then you can get someone else to pay for them...like China maybe.

01-10-17, 05:08 PM	#9
eddie Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,023 Downloads: 99 Uploads: 0	I'll double check Jim, getting old over here, one of those senior moments again,lol __________________ Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. I'm kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me. Al Capone