PROBLEM MEMORANDUM
To: Representative Mac Thornberry, Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, &
Senator John McCain, Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee
From: Peter E. Cipriano
Re: The US Navy’s Material Diminishment Amidst Increasing Global Maritime Security
Threats
Date: September 17, 2015
The United States Navy today stands at a physical size of 273 ships of varying size and
purpose, making it dramatically smaller than it has been at any time since the Second
World War. Simultaneously, the United States is engaged in, and has a reasonable
prospect of becoming engaged in, an increasing number of global conflicts whose
outcomes are of extreme interest to US national security. Further, the United States is
facing a growing number of maritime-specific challenges throughout the globe, coupled
with the emergence of new naval adversaries who could test the US Navy’s conventional
ability to successfully conduct warfare at sea.
The United States is in essence, an island relative to the rest of the world. Just as Great
Britain exerted global influence throughout the 18th and 19th centuries through a capable
Royal Navy, so too has the United States secured its global interests since the end of the
Second World War. The US’ strategic position between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans
have both provided the US with natural defensive barriers, but also tremendous
opportunities to engage with the world at sea. Throughout US history and without a
doubt today, the US Navy represents the most important tool available to the President of
the United States for the projection of US power anywhere on the globe.
While the naval vessels of today are equipped with tremendous force multiplying
technology which perhaps allows for a smaller Navy than the historical mean, the fact
cannot be ignored that “one ship cannot be in two places at one time.” (McGrath) No
better example of this fact exists than the current size of the US aircraft carrier force: 11.
(NHHC) Among all of the critical vessels in the Navy’s arsenal, none is more
indispensable than the carrier, which represents “4 ½ acres of survivable sovereign US
territory wherever they deploy,” (Erdossy) possesses a complement of at least 80 combat
aircraft and can project that air power up to 1,300 nautical miles in any direction. (USN
Fact File)
Considering the tremendous abilities and value of the US aircraft carrier, a standing fleet
of 11 ships with numerous vessels aging to the point of potential obsolescence, cannot be
accepted as sufficient to meet the security needs of the United States today. According to
Rep. Randy Forbes, former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee,
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, “in 2007 [the Navy] met 90% of the
combatant commander’s requirements. Today [2014] we will only meet 43%.” (Osborn)
This represents a stunning and disconcerting decline in the ability of our fleet to conduct
operations overseas as needed by the global military commands. Beyond the core role of
the aircraft carrier itself, the Navy is also in need of more surface vessels which comprise
the vital carrier strike group. The group provides numerous auxiliary security and supply
roles in support of the aircraft carrier’s mission while deployed. The fleet’s shrinking
size means not only greater downward pressure on the size of the carrier fleet itself, but
the viability of adjoining carrier strike groups and their effectiveness.
Presently the United States has security challenges in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn
of Africa, North Africa, the Korean peninsula, the Arctic Circle, and the South China
Sea. All of these hotspots with the exception of Afghanistan, are navy-accessible, and in
some cases, primarily maritime challenges altogether. This is most vitally the case in the
South China Sea and the Arctic Circle. In these theaters, the United States is being
challenged by the newly assertive People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLA Navy) and the
Russian Navy respectively. Not since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the
Cold War has the US Navy faced a serious challenge from an adversary fleet. This new
reality will require the Navy to become more flexible in its operational capacity, as it is
called upon to complete missions as divergent as sea-to-surface or air-to-surface strikes
for the degradation of terrorist forces, to potential sea-to-sea operations against opposing
naval forces.
These increased pressures will require a larger fleet with more ship roles, not fewer ships
with fewer abilities. One need look no further than the PLA Navy’s development of an
anti-carrier land-based missile, and its coordinated development of an anti-access/areadenial regional maritime strategy designed to lock the US Navy outside of the South
China Sea, and potentially pushed beyond operational ability in Taiwan and the
Philippines. (Clover)
In conclusion, any Defense Budget under consideration before the Congress must
consider the invaluable resource that is the US Navy. The present rate of shrinkage from
318 ships in 2000, to 273 ships today represents a decline of 14% in overall fleet size,
with an 8% decline (NHHC) in the carrier fleet alone projected to reach 16% in the near
future if proper budgetary action is not taken. (Erdossy)
Works Cited
McGrath, Bryan. "A Bigger Navy and the Spirit of 2007." Hudson.org. Hudson Institute,
Center for American Seapower, 1 Sept. 2015. Web. 15 Sept. 2015.
“NHHC” – Naval History and Heritage Command, US Ship Force Levels 1886-Present
<http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/us-ship-forcelevels.html#1945>
Erdossy, Marty. "Why Does the United States Only Have Eleven Aircraft Carriers?"
Forbes.com. Forbes, 12 July 2012. Web. 15 Sept. 2015.
“USN Fact File” - "Navy.mil Home Page." The US Navy. Department of the Navy, n.d.
Web. 15 Sept. 2015.
Clover, Charles. "China Parades ‘carrier-killer’ Missile through Beijing - FT.com."
Financial Times. 3 Sept. 2015. Web. 15 Sept. 2015.