The Pentagon’s new budget request asks that the Navy receive a large increase: $161 billion for the 2016 fiscal year, versus $149 billion in the current fiscal year. Last month, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told the House Appropriations Committee that the Navy must get bigger — increasing to a total of at least 300 ships, versus the current 275.
Gregg Easterbrook makes the case in the NY Times that no naval expansion is needed. The Navy has 10 nuclear-powered supercarriers — 10 more than the rest of the world.
The Boston Herald calls the 2011 “sequestration” limits a starvation diet military budget of $523 billion. President Obama’s proposed budget would make the figure $561 billion.
Reihan Salam of the National Review says the Easterbrook neglects the rise of China’s anti-access/area-denial capabilities. China does not need to match the U.S. Navy ship for ship. Rather, they just need to limit the U.S. Navy’s freedom of action in maritime Asia. Easterbrook addresses this concern glancingly when he discounts the threat of China’s anti-ship missiles. What he fails to appreciate is that China’s anti-ship missiles don’t have to clear a high bar to greatly undermine America’s ability to project power in the Western Pacific.
![]()
Jerry Hendrix of the Center for a New American Security explains, the Chinese approach is to launch a slew of (relatively) low-cost missiles to overwhelm U.S. defenses:
It should be noted that current estimates are that China only has 100-200 DF-21 missiles
![]()
![]()
Read more »![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Gregg Easterbrook makes the case in the NY Times that no naval expansion is needed. The Navy has 10 nuclear-powered supercarriers — 10 more than the rest of the world.
The Boston Herald calls the 2011 “sequestration” limits a starvation diet military budget of $523 billion. President Obama’s proposed budget would make the figure $561 billion.
Reihan Salam of the National Review says the Easterbrook neglects the rise of China’s anti-access/area-denial capabilities. China does not need to match the U.S. Navy ship for ship. Rather, they just need to limit the U.S. Navy’s freedom of action in maritime Asia. Easterbrook addresses this concern glancingly when he discounts the threat of China’s anti-ship missiles. What he fails to appreciate is that China’s anti-ship missiles don’t have to clear a high bar to greatly undermine America’s ability to project power in the Western Pacific.
Jerry Hendrix of the Center for a New American Security explains, the Chinese approach is to launch a slew of (relatively) low-cost missiles to overwhelm U.S. defenses:
Using a maneuverable re-entry vehicle (MaRV) placed on a CSS-5 missile, China’s Second Artillery Division states that its doctrine will be to saturate a target with multiple warheads and multiple axis attacks, overwhelming the target’s ability to defend itself. MaRV warhead itself would use a high explosive, or a radio frequency or cluster warhead that at a minimum could achieve a mission kill against the target ship. While the United States does not know the cost of this weapons system, some analysts have estimated its procurement costs at $5 million to $11 million. Assuming the conservative, high-end estimate of $11 million per missile gives an exchange ratio of $11 million to $13.5 billion, which means that China could build 1,227 DF-21Ds for every carrier the United States builds going forward. U.S. defenses would have to destroy every missile fired, a tough problem given the magazines of U.S. cruisers and destroyers, while China would need only one of its weapons to survive to e!ect a mission kill. Although U.S. Navy and Air Force leaders have coordinated their efforts to develop the means to operate in an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) environment by disrupting opposing operations, the risk of a carrier suffering a mission kill that takes it off the battle line without actually sinking it remains high.
It should be noted that current estimates are that China only has 100-200 DF-21 missiles
Read more »
