Article

2009-03-21 Southeast Asia

This will be an interesting naval discussion

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 3dc 2009-03-21 08:20|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 What does the US need a navy anymore? It's not like we have any oceangoing commerce to protect anymore. Instead, I propose to invite the world's navies to gather and fight it out. The winner get's exclusive rights unload at US ports for the next year. Come on world what's a trillion $/year import market worth to you?

Makes as much sense as the current American trade policy.

Posted by ed 2009-03-20 08:36|| 2009-03-20 08:36|| Front Page Top

#2 Disarming America has always been a bad idea.

Dismantling our Navy is the worst of bad ideas.

Posted by badanov 2009-03-20 10:35|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2009-03-20 10:35|| Front Page Top

#3 It's not like we have any oceangoing commerce to protect anymore.

Here's a hint: look at US mariner pay and compensation.

Posted by Pappy 2009-03-20 13:05|| 2009-03-20 13:05|| Front Page Top

#4 Yeah. Most work for the US gov moving military supplies around.

The U.S.-flag Merchant Marine is now less than one-tenth the size it was in 1950, however, and shrinking every year. At its post-World War II peak, the U.S.-flag merchant fleet totaled 3,492 oceangoing cargo vessels and nearly 166,000 mariners. Today it has only about 220 vessels in active trade and fewer than 15,000 mariners available.

Posted by ed 2009-03-20 13:34|| 2009-03-20 13:34|| Front Page Top

#5 From the same article: The entire U.S.-flag Merchant Marine could disappear from the oceans tomorrow, and most American consumers might not even notice. Their store shelves are well-stocked with a steady supply of imported goods carried to them on foreign-flagged vessels. Fewer than 3 percent of the nation's imports ever see the inside of an American ship but the Pentagon would notice.

Interesting article.

Posted by ed 2009-03-20 13:49|| 2009-03-20 13:49|| Front Page Top

#6 OK, I haven't read that thing from 10 years ago, nor most of his recent stuff, but Barnett's comments in interviews have been enough for me to scratch my head and wonder how he makes a living as a "strategist" (and I've been having this reaction to seeing similar types up close in the Beltway for years). His perspectives on Iraq and Iran that I've heard are sophomoric and uninteresting.

Posted by Verlaine 2009-03-20 14:19|| 2009-03-20 14:19|| Front Page Top

#7 ed,
In 1945 my father was one of those 166,000, but after a few months sitting on the shore waiting for a job he went back to school and got in on the ground floor in computer research with IBM - clearly a higher value activity to him and to society in the long run than running engines on a Victory ship.

Posted by Glenmore 2009-03-20 14:26|| 2009-03-20 14:26|| Front Page Top

#8 The United States runs a Merchant Marine Academy, I think on Long Island. Graduates receive a reserve commission in the Navy, and are usually hired as Third Mate on US-flagged merchantmen. When I applied for West Point and the USAF Academy, they were accepting 660 nominations. I haven't heard anything about the size of the class this year. Querying the Google database doesn't provide an answer, either.

Pay and compensation are just one part of the problem. Another is that commanders of US-flagged ships must be US citizens. There is a huge amount of pressure to NOT promote anyone to Captain who doesn't have prior Navy command background, or a graduate from the USMMA.

If they call all four witnesses at the same time, there will indeed be fireworks. If they call them one at a time, there will be some interesting comparisons to be made from their testimony. There are a few other names I'd have added to the list of witnesses. One would be the current commander of the US Navy's Logistics Command, and the person responsible for the Navy's Forward Deployed Logistics activities.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2009-03-20 18:00|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2009-03-20 18:00|| Front Page Top

#9 The 1000-FLAGS/NATIONS "GLOBAL TASK FORCE" + MOBS + GLOBAL-PROMPT STRIKE + GLOBAL ARMED UV's + GMD-capable AEGIS Ships, etc > heralds a shift in focii to the STRATEGIC DEFENSIVE vee NAU + [desired] US-led Proto-SPACE EXPLORATION.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2009-03-20 18:50|| 2009-03-20 18:50|| Front Page Top

#10 WAFF > STRATEGYPAGE - THE US ARMY AIR FORCE QUIETLY REAPPEARS [Armed UAVS]; + JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS [Helo Amphibs = peacekeeping roles] ARE BACK IN BUSINESS.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2009-03-20 19:02|| 2009-03-20 19:02|| Front Page Top

#11 Maritime commerce and navies is one the clearest examples of free-riding in our modern tranzi world.

You don't see the navies of Liberia, Bermuda and Luxembourg protecting their (registered) ships from Somali pirates.

Posted by phil_b 2009-03-20 19:19|| 2009-03-20 19:19|| Front Page Top

#12 Something you seem to have missed, ed:

U.S.-flag ships, which must hire expensive American crews and make repairs in expensive U.S. shipyards, typically cost as much as $4 million more to operate for a year than an identical ship flying a foreign flag. That is an expense few shipowners are willing to pay, which is why the U.S.-flag merchant fleet has all but vanished from the world's oceans.

Officers on U.S. merchant vessels essentially work six months out of the year (3 months on, 3 off in one case). That means shipowners must have two crews. And they make some damn good money. That their leaving is understandable, since there's few openings to move up to.

In addition, there's the fact that ocean-shipping really doesn't have that big a profit margin unless you deal in volume and frequency, and cut costs to the point of ridiculousness. Or you go into the business like China and consider it a strategic asset and are willing to take the losses.

Posted by Pappy 2009-03-20 19:36|| 2009-03-20 19:36|| Front Page Top

#13 Our ports, our control. No need for whiny punk ass bitch excuses. We control whose ships and what cargo are allowed entry. Not China, not Japan, not Germany, not Greece, not Liberia, not Panama. That we don't exercise this right is a crying shame that has led to the decimation of US shipping commerce and death of the commercial shipbuilding industry. So while nations with unimpeded access to US markets, like China, have built vast fleets that can at a minutes notice also serve the state in crisis (e.g. Taiwan invasion), the US is reduced to begging other nations for ships. And who wants to help US and incur the wrath of a China or Russia? (see Taiwan)

Posted by ed 2009-03-20 22:28|| 2009-03-20 22:28|| Front Page Top

#14 Take the case of international airline landing rights. They are allocated on the basis of reciprocity. Air passenger and freight volumes are healthy. If the shipping model was adopted to air traffic then Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, etc would easily undercut US labor rates and take over US routes.

Posted by ed 2009-03-20 22:32|| 2009-03-20 22:32|| Front Page Top

#15 That also means those airlines choose which airplanes to buy and fly (i.e their own nations) and the US aviation industry would be in the same situation as US shipbuilding, dead. Would the 1990 US airlift to Saudi, even with the cold war air fleet intact, have been possible if the US airlines were in the same state as US shipping?

The only logical, reciprocal and sustainable strategy is for each foreign ship that loads/unloads at a US port, a comparable US ship must do the same in theirs.

As for comment #1, that was written in the vein of "A Modest Proposal". But the question remains. What is the US Navy protecting at a cost $150 billion per year? It certainly is not the US merchant fleet. Is the benefit to Americans worth the cost?

Posted by ed 2009-03-20 22:33|| 2009-03-20 22:33|| Front Page Top

#16 OK. The offending word was "sl0ts"

Posted by ed 2009-03-20 22:33|| 2009-03-20 22:33|| Front Page Top

#17 We control whose ships and what cargo are allowed entry.

Wrong. "Wal-Mart" does.

Take the case of international airline landing rights. They are allocated on the basis of reciprocity. Air passenger and freight volumes are healthy.

Air travel also has a different infrastructure, history, labor environment, etc.

The only logical, reciprocal and sustainable strategy is for each foreign ship that loads/unloads at a US port, a comparable US ship must do the same in theirs.

It's not logic. It's jingoism. What shipper in his right mind is going to pay 5-10 times more to ship or import goods in a US flagged ship, when the Taiwanese/Chinese/Greeks/Ukranians are willing to do it cheaper?

What is the US Navy protecting at a cost $150 billion per year?

For one thing, dump the Mahan theory of seapower. It has some basis, but it's not been the end-all, be all for over 80 years. At this point it's power-projection, either soft (the hospital ships or humanitarian missions) or direct (carriers) or security assurance (SSBNs).

Posted by Pappy 2009-03-20 22:43|| 2009-03-20 22:43|| Front Page Top

#18 No. Foreign ship visits to US ports require US permission. That is what sovereignty means. Can you point me to the section in the Constitution where Walmart has the right to determine what ships enter US ports?

False argument w/ airlines claiming infrastructure, history, labor environment. Might as well as claim different genetics. Chinese airlines, with 5-10X lower labor cost, will always undercut US airlines when given unrestricted access. The advantage increases then if the airliner is also built in China w/ Chinese labor. Same advantage, same end result as shipping.

If cost is all that matters, why would the US taxpayer want to pay you salary? 20 Chinese, Ukrainian or Pakistani soldiers can be hired for less that what you cost. Talk about being cost non-effective.

Seapower for security, yes. SSBNs yes. Scattering our fleet worldwide to protect competitors' fleets and chase down pirates, no. Fund the core defense needs of the nation and use the ecess budget to build a dozen power reactors/year, exploit the 1000 years of coal and shale reserves, build up our own industry and infrastructure.

Take care of our own and quit subsidizing enemies and rivals and you will find a lot of international problems reduced, as well as the need for a $600 billion military budget.

Posted by ed 2009-03-20 23:11|| 2009-03-20 23:11|| Front Page Top

#19 The only logical, reciprocal and sustainable strategy is for each foreign ship that loads/unloads at a US port, a comparable US ship must do the same in theirs.

This should work splendidly for an hour or two until we realize we're only going to get about a dozen ships of imports a year.

Posted by Mike N. 2009-03-20 23:30|| 2009-03-20 23:30|| Front Page Top

#20 That's a feature, not a bug. Keep the $800 billion/year that is leaving the US circulating in the US economy. Build Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh instead of Shanghai, Ryadh, and Kuala Lumpur.

Posted by ed 2009-03-20 23:40|| 2009-03-20 23:40|| Front Page Top

#21 ed - It seems you're in rough agreement with Pappy on some issues. I take Pappy's central comment to be how Mahan's doctrine has served its useful life at sea, and his now far more applicable to space.

Clearly we can ruin others with our recession faster than they can adjust, which is why it's worth our while to call KSA and China's bluff if need be.

Of course, with POTUS Messiah still looking for a spine, it may take a while, and he may get it all wrong.

Politically, I'm waiting for the unions to wake up and realize that their democrat, eco-euro tranzi's are and have been more than decimating their membership. I guess they expect public sector unions to save them, but there's a limit to the money and power there, unlike private sector industry.

The GOP needs to peel off the UMW for starters, and follow with similar heavy industry collectives.

Posted by Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2009-03-21 12:20|| 2009-03-21 12:20|| Front Page Top

#22 OT: Obama to give commencement at USNA. There goes the navy. Forget the seminar.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2009-03-21 13:15|| 2009-03-21 13:15|| Front Page Top

#23 Three months onboard without nookie? Besides difficulty recruiting, there are other difficulties for shippers. The owner of Sabine Shipping, a merchant fleet out of Seattle, is doing time because his ship, requiring a US captain, hired a (cheap)Bulgarian crew to haul grain from Asia, I believe. The ship had previously hauled oil in the same cargo hold, contaminating the grain. The crew was ordered to toss the polluted cargo overboard and they reported it when back to port. To make it profitable, ships need two-way cargo and often sit just outside port awaiting another load but that doesn't happen much anymore in America. Russian crews used to come ashore in NO to steal parts for their junker cars and law enforcement let it go, as it was stolen from junkyards in the first place and they felt sorry for anyone who was desperate enough to steal New Orleans scrap. We have an abundance of containers from China that clever people use for storage, homes, and other enterprising ideas. I'd say the Merchant Marine has died out but we need a Navy. The bad guys are still out there. The mission has changed and the vessels need adapted to fight piracy and protect cargo. The UN wants control of the high seas, with the LOST treaty, and we would lose our sovereign control if they do.

Posted by Thealing Borgia122 2009-03-21 13:19|| 2009-03-21 13:19|| Front Page Top

#24 I had a cousin that worked for Todd Shipyard in Houston in 1963. The Union managed to force through a 13-week vacation every third year for its workforce. Within five years, IIRC, Todd Shipyard was bankrupt.

The United States no longer uses its Navy for protection of a merchant fleet that hardly exists, but for force projection. A Carrier Battle Group is an awesome sight, and the damage (or rescue - see Indonesia) that a US carrier can do is phenomenal.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2009-03-21 15:23|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2009-03-21 15:23|| Front Page Top

23:58 JosephMendiola
23:57 JosephMendiola
23:53 JosephMendiola
23:48 JosephMendiola
23:40 ed
23:35 trailing wife
23:30 Mike N.
23:20 Tiny Shons6378
23:19 Barbara Skolaut
23:11 ed
22:59 Grunter
22:59 M. Murcek
22:43 Pappy
22:41 Barbara Skolaut
22:40 Redneck Jim
22:35 Barbara Skolaut
22:34 Barbara Skolaut
22:33 ed
22:33 ed
22:32 ed
22:31 Alaska Paul
22:29 Barbara Skolaut
22:28 ed
22:27 Pappy