The SteelNavy.Com Message Board: Re: When we need 100 replenishment ships,

WHEN YOU NEED 100 TRANSPORT SHIPS AT CURRENT PRODUCTION RATES IT WIL TAKE 50 YEARS- 90% OF MILITARY TRANSPORT IS BY SEA AND 0.13 OF WORLDS SHIPBUILDING IS IN THE USA, THAT IS 1/8 OF ONE PERCENT. GREENLAND BUILDS ALMOST AS MANY SHIPS AS USA!

Previous Message

The Red Sea fracas is an example of asymmetric warfare. We are using million dollar missiles to shoot down thousand dollar drones, and running out of ammo as a result. It is also yet another example of how you can't just bomb your way out of a war. We are substituting bombing for any sort of ground campaign (both because we should not be going in there on the ground, and because the Saudis don't want us to.) We drop a few bombs on them, and think we've dealt some sort of major blow (or fought a "real" war) and wonder "why we're not winning." No connection that I know of to our tanker support.

As for manpower, if you want a 1943-45 fleet, you will have a 1943-45 draft to go with it. And you will have a 1943-45 sized war as well. As soon as that conflict ended, we dumped so much military capability it was staggering. No need to have such a thing in peacetime. And your opening blows in any conflict make a difference. If Japan had made our oil tank farms a priority, and not our battleships, at Pearl Harbor, WWII would have been different. We have the missile ability to ruin China's ports and any logistical supply accumulations we are aware of in the opening salvos ("shock and awe"...) Then, China is also lacking the same things we are. The war starts on a more even footing, and the long term is where your arguments start to have weight, but the situation will not be like the article. Without China, the cartels will want things to ship. And they won't particularly want to be working in a war zone. They will be satisfied enough shipping stuff to us from elsewhere in the world.

Russia is preoccupied with Ukraine. We are most likely in the foreseeable future to end up in a fight with China over Taiwan's sovereignty. (Europe will have Ukraine, we will have Taiwan...) (And, we have allies. If their goals are the same, they can help out.) The Arctic is a more long term situation. Both sides will want military patrols to back territorial claims over natural resources discovered. Certainly friction, but not as imminent a major war as Taiwan is currently. China has openly been saying 2027, and then anytime thereafter if not then.

So, that scenario is what I wrote about. It is the most likely thing that will get us instantly into a large naval war requiring massive logistics.

I would still happily take ten years of peace and good government, though. No argument with you there!

Previous Message

we have only a fraction of this number, we cannot prosecute oceanic warfare, as we recently saw in the Red Sea fracas. Now the US is trying to buy its way out of this situation with civilian tankers. Where are we going to find Americans to man these ships when the merchant marine does not have enough people? Will we use untrained foreign nationals, like the cruise ship industry? Meanwhile, we could not run a war in the Arctic, Baltic, Atlantic, and Pacific, without these essential auxiliaries which is what we would be doing if we had a go at the Russia/China combination right now.

What we need is ten years of peace, and good government, to build a 1943-45 fleet, and man it.