Okay, but it is all a matter of degree. Like i said, US can do what it wants, and if it wants larger navy than what other countries have - thats fine. But its a matter of how much larger. If 50% larger navy would do the job of making sure no rival is there, why have a 200% larger navy? It just goes to waste.
US Navy might not have enough submarines
- Thread starter Clouded Leopard
- Start date
Tasman
Junior Member
We need to remember that the USN is maintaining a force of carriers and amphibious ships for power projection. The navy is not just structured to fight other navies. If that was the case the navy could be much smaller for the reasons you have given.
The USN needs to maintain a navy able to defeat any combination of powers it believes may simultaneously engage it and it needs to maintain sufficient carrier strike groups and amphibious groups to meet its power projection needs. The carriers and amphibious groups will need escorts and submarines are part of that requirement as well as part of the fleet it requires to take on other navies. Of course there is a crossover of roles. Carriers and submarines that are part of the power projection force will also be used against enemy naval forces but the point I am trying to make is that it is not just a matter of working out what size and structure of navy is needed to take on the next 3 largest, 5 largest, 20 largest, etc. If it is determined by military planners that 11 carrier groups are needed to meet the USA's projected needs then the supporting cruisers, destroyers and submarines, etc, must also be provided. The current projected fleet of SSNs seems to be about the minimum needed unless the US decides it no longer needs to be able to deploy as many carrier or amphibious groups.
Cheers