We Need a 600 Ship Navy
The expansion of the navy is crucial to the policies of deterrence in the Indo-Pacific
Alarm bells should be sounding off in Washington, as the United States Navy may find itself trending towards irrelevance. The Pentagon’s latest report on China’s military capabilities highlights the incredible power and capability of the rapidly expanding and modernizing People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). In comparison, the U.S. Navy has struggled to maintain its size and technological edge, which poses a significant strategic challenge, particularly in the context of deterring a Chinese incursion against Taiwan and regional stability in the Indo-Pacific.
In recent years, the sheer scale of China's naval advancement has been concerning. Beijing has outpaced Washington in both ship construction and fleet expansion. The PLAN's fleet, composed of more than 370 ships, has surpassed the U.S. Navy in size. Although quantity rarely has anything over quality, their ship quality has drastically improved with advanced surface combatants like the Renhai class cruisers and Luyang class destroyers, and two menacing aircraft carriers, the Liaoning and Shandong, with the third, Fujian, launching this year. This is a stark contrast to the U.S. Navy which, with a current fleet of 291 ships, continues to dwindle in size due to budgetary constraints and a slow rate of replenishment.
The most concerning, in a potential hot war scenario, is the U.S. defense industrial base and our overall economic dependencies. We have an unhealthy reliance on China for critical components in fighter jets, and ship production, and depend entirely on China for the manufacture of pharmaceuticals — drugs that would be needed with the massive casualties and injuries from war. Economic dependency on China complicates Washington's ability to maintain and enhance its capabilities, and makes apparent the necessity for manufacturing independence.
The United States must focus on the expansion and modernization of its nuclear submarine fleet. Nuclear submarines are the apex of naval deterrence, as they can operate undetected, adding a layer of ambiguity and uncertainty to would-be aggression by Beijing. Chinese military planning for an invasion of Taiwan would be limited, as they would be unaware of how many American naval submarines roam the South China Sea poised to strike if need be. In the twilight of the Cold War, from 1980-1991, the United States had between 118 to 137 submarines; today’s numbers are staggeringly low — only 53 fast attack submarines.
With the downsizing of the U.S. Navy, the balance of power in the Pacific has shifted. China's military-civil fusion strategy, incorporating commercial and military capabilities, has enabled the PLAN to grow in both size and capability. The transformation of civilian roll-on/roll-off boats for amphibious operations is designed for an invasion of Taiwan. The United States needs to dramatically, and rapidly, increase the size of its fleet; otherwise, any notion of deterring China away from Taiwan will be futile.
President Biden's strategy to expand the U.S. Navy from 296 to 321 ships by 2030, based on a "divest to invest" approach, is a profoundly flawed tactic. This plan, which involves retiring older vessels prematurely to fund the construction of newer ones, overlooks a critical aspect: the ships targeted for decommissioning are those currently deployed in the South China Sea.
Instead, Mr. Biden should point his ravenous appetite towards government spending in a more productive direction; on our navy. Doubling the size of our navy from 280, to say 560, over the next five years would be a viable effort that, in actuality, pays for itself. As per the CBO, the average cost of a new Arleigh Burke-class destroyer was 1.7 billion dollars in 2020. If other conventional ships cost a similar amount, then doubling the size of the fleet from 280 to 560 ships would cost around 300 billion dollars, with operating costs for this new fleet of roughly 33.6 billion dollars per year.
For new Virginia class attack submarines, it would cost roughly 306.6 billion dollars from 2023 to 2028 to build 66 of these. Such mass production is warranted, as we are replacing our exist fleet faster than we are constructing the replacements. The Virginia class is larger, more capable, and quieter than the currently used Los Angeles class — and is crucial for deterrence. They can patrol oceans undetected for months, providing Mr. Biden with a stealthy nuclear option.
Also necessitated is the doubling of construction plans for the new Constellation-class, doubling it to 40 rather than the 20 planned, for an additional 16.9 billion dollars — a bargain. The Ticonderoga class cruisers similarly need to be replaced with a new model, the navy’s idea of simply “phasing out” cruisers for destroyers is ridiculous; at bare minimum, we need to build sixteen replacement models that have a bigger missile capacity than the Arleigh Burke class destroyer. Also crucial to be included is an expanded space for the air warfare commander, that is lacking from the Arleigh Burke’s. If an Arleigh Burke costs roughly 1.7 each, then these hypothetical cruisers would likely cost 35 billion dollars for sixteen ships, at a rate of 2.1 billion dollars per new ship.
And lastly, we should build 6 additional America-class amphibious assault ships — bringing the total to 17 at a cost of 26.4 billion dollars. Recruiting 15,000 additional Marines for these ships will prove no challenge, as the Corps has miraculously hit its recruiting objectives amidst a dismal year for the armed forces as a whole. Like in World War II, the Marine Corps will assume the lead in the Pacific — making it crucial that they are modernized and prepared for the challenges ahead.
The total cost of this naval rearmament would be in the range of 681 billion dollars, which will likely prompt an outcry from the left who would rather dole out similar fees in vote buying ventures like student debt forgiveness or mismanaged green energy initiatives. However, such an expansion of the Navy would pay for itself. Millions of high-paying union ship construction jobs would be created by Mr. Biden, and the tax base would be dramatically expanded; bringing down the actual cost.
Since when have Democrats not welcomed a massive expansion of good-paying union jobs? If Mr. Biden, who self-touts himself as the most “pro-Union” president in American history, wishes to keep true to his word he will make this a crucial priority at the end of this term, or the beginning of his second. The expansion of the navy is necessary to maintain American power in the Pacific and protect our allies. Failure to address this predicament would cede strategic advantage, and eventually the title of superpower to China, which would effectively hand the communists in Beijing victory in this new cold war. An undesirable outcome.