In a recent post/comment, a reader offered a thought about the US as a maritime power:
… we are no longer a maritime power in the traditional sense.(3)
Such a simple statement has enormous implications and this led me to consider … are we still a maritime power?
The knee-jerk response is, of course we are! But … are we really?
Answering the question requires that we set some criteria for what constitutes a maritime power. Setting aside any definitions from anyone else, here are the common sense requirements for a nation to be considered a maritime power:
Extensive Merchant Fleet - We don’t have many US flagged ships but the US is the central node in an extensive international shipping ‘fleet’. From Wikipedia,
As of October 1, 2018, the United States merchant fleet had 181 privately owned, oceangoing, self-propelled vessels of 1,000 gross register tons and above that carry cargo from port to port. Nearly 800 American-owned ships are flagged in other nations. (1)
So, while it is disturbing that the US flagged merchant fleet is almost non-existent, the US does have a very substantial merchant fleet supporting the nation.
Extensive Shipbuilding Capacity – The US has a pitifully small shipbuilding capacity, bordering on non-existent. This was not always the case. The US built around 77 commercial ships in 1975.(2) In 2000, the US built around 17 commercial ships.(2) The WWII Emergency Shipbuilding Program (US Maritime Commission) produced around 6000 general purpose cargo ships for the war effort. The causes of the decline of US shipbuilding are well known and the reader can research the subject, if they wish. Suffice it to say that the decline was largely self-inflicted and that the current situation has resulted in nearly non-existent shipbuilding capacity for the US.
Powerful Navy – It should go without saying that a powerful maritime nation requires a powerful navy to protect its maritime interests. The US has a large navy relative to the rest of the world, however, that navy is steadily shrinking, aging, and has become woefully hollow, demonstrably incompetent, and lacks support in terms of shipbuilding capacity, repair facilities, drydocks, logistics, and foreign bases/ports. For example, in the Pacific/China theater, we have almost no relevant bases/ports.
Given the above, can we still be considered a maritime power?
 |
| Maritime Power? |
I’m not going to offer an answer. Instead I’ll leave it to you to answer the question for yourself. You might, however, consider the following:
If we are still a maritime power,
- Why are we allowing our navy to decline so precipitously?
- Why have we allowed our shipbuilding industry to decline so precipitously?
- Why have we created the legal/regulatory conditions that prevent our merchant fleet from being US-flagged?
If we are not still a maritime power,
- How can we assure our continued unhindered access to global shipping?
- Who will defend our global maritime interests as our navy fades?
- Can we continue to remain a powerful nation if our access to global shipping is threatened or reduced?
- How will we compete economically with other countries if our maritime access is further reduced?
- Can a country with reduced maritime access and capability even be an economic power in the long term?
____________________________
(1)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Merchant_Marine
(3)AndyM, November 8, 2021 at 8:19 AM
There are so many dimensions to this. Our yacht building has fallen off a cliff since the financial crisis and I don't see where anything has improved with Covid. Westport is still around. I think Christensen moved only in their imagination. Delta Marine doesn't really make their work public.
ReplyDeleteThe environemntalists are at war with the the offshore industry which is really the last hope. Given the number of boats laid up, there isn't much of a driver for new builds.
In both instances they both get lifelines from Uncle Sam. MUSV being built at Swiftships will draw work from the nearby offshore build yards. At 2 ships a year, that's actually an exciting volume at this point. Christensen's old yard got bought by Vigor to use the yard for construction of MSVL.
We don't build LNG ships and we are finally getting one new bunker in the great lakes. Of yards building container ships non can build one to new Panamax let alone 400 meter. We can build a Suezmax tanker, but nothing more without grabbing the NNS dock from the carriers. We do build car carriers. We do build dredges. Obviously none of this gets built near the capacity of the world leaders and it all costs more which is largely the problem. That starts with cost of material and then includes having volume to afford more automation. I can't tell the protected market gets us anything except cheap stuff from somewhere else. Cheap and from somewhere else is something interior transport of goods has always competed with. Rome getting wheat from Egypt cheaper than it could from its own countryside. Nothing new there except now we import advanced products and are starting to export the raw material.
Given the USA's geography, it can either be a strong maritime power or a regional power.
ReplyDeleteCan be … yes … but is it either in actuality? Make a case one way or the other.
DeleteI don't have time to write a book about this, so I'll summarise the key stuff.
DeleteLong story short, the USA still is a maritime power, although in decline.
There are some fundamental points to discuss, so let's list them:
- Unrestricted access to the open oceans.
America has this and will always have, as long as it stays is one piece.
Worth noting that China does not.
- A strong navy.
The USN is in serious decline but still unmatched (probably) on the open ocean.
With current assets, it would be possible to assemble (barely) three 3-CVN carrier groups.
No other country can even do one. For now.
- A large merchant fleet.
Your post already went through that.
It is not clear, whether an US-owned foreign-flagged ship would be available in wartime, although I think it could.
- Political will.
China could have become a naval power 2000 years ago, they simply didn't care.
Does US leadership (or what passes for such nowadays) care, or would they rather focus inwards?
- Logistics, as in ship building and repairing capabilities.
Right now, USA just relies on JAP/S.KOR/EUR for a good chunk of this, and in peacetime it's fine (?).
Still a major vulnerability, and a self-inflicted one.
- Presence or absence of rivals.
Japan is an ally/protectorate of the USA.
Europe doesn't care.
Russia lost appetite for naval competition decades ago.
China is on a very worrying track, but for now their navy is mostly defensive/A2AD/regional focused, and it'll take a while for that to change.
Seems like a pretty clear verdict to me.
It's just that most of those indicators are trending the wrong way, and have been for a while.
"write a book about this"
DeleteNo doubt, no doubt! Thus, the challenge of writing in post/comment size blocks! :)
"Unrestricted access to the open oceans.
America has this and will always have, as long as it stays is one piece.
Worth noting that China does not."
Depends on your definition of unrestricted. A few Chinese subs with a handful of mines dropped in several key harbors would paralyze our shipping given our almost total lack of mine clearing capability and capacity. Conversely, China has unrestricted access to the ocean IF THEY'RE WILLING TO FIGHT TO MAINTAIN IT - and I certainly see them doing exactly that. Just a bit of reverse perspective for your consideration.
"it would be possible to assemble (barely) three 3-CVN carrier groups."
On day one of a war, yes. On day xxx, after several sinkings and with no shipbuilding capacity to replace them … Again, the opposite perspective for your consideration.
"Long story short, the USA still is a maritime power, although in decline."
Agree completely.
"It's just that most of those indicators are trending the wrong way, "
Again, agree completely.
As King For A Day, what one thing would you do first to remedy the negative trend(s)?
Nice comment!
Thank you!
DeleteRegarding Chinese mining, they'd have to target Atlantic harbours as well, which would be extremely daring, but good job on challenging my assumptions: not even the USA should consider unrestrained access to the open oceans as birthright.
"As King For A Day, what one thing would you do first to remedy the negative trend(s)?"
Now you're asking for several books, or perhaps a presidential run?
Jokes aside, the number one issue with the military (and not just that) is the decline in "human quality".
There is a major need to bring back tough, challenging standards and get rid of anyone who can't meet them.
(Yes, this would mean no women in combat. That was never a good idea anyway.)
Reward guts and excellent performance rather than manners and yes-manning: the military's job is to kill, not to avoid hurt feeling.
Create an environment that appeals to the right kind of young men (the Marines knew how to do that!), and they will come instead of being repelled.
Let them know that they won't be scolded for swearing or even (gasp!) drinking, as long as they're able to do their job at outstanding levels.
By the way, since most/all top spots would end up being vacant, you'd have an extra motivation for the new guys to really be excellent.
Oh, and "sensitivity training" and the like need to go ASAP, possibly replaced by "kill-the-enemy training": one advantage the USA had over the Norks was that they had to spend lots of time studying Maoist tripe instead of training, and Americans did not.
Once you have fixed the people, you can start fixing things.
And this is also why you said "King for a day", because they'd rid of me on day two.
China is 35% of global ship building followed by South Korea 27% and Japan 21%.
ReplyDeleteIf China wants to cut off US and European access to new ships it won't be difficult though the EU is a large part of that remaining 17% so maybe they can expand enough.
So what should we do about the situation, if anything?
DeleteThe traditional way of encouraging your own merchant marine was to require a certain amount, or all, of cargo you can control to be carried in own-flagged ships. The US actually does this (to a tiny extent) right now, or at least as of 2017.
Deletehttps://www.maritime.dot.gov/ports/cargo-preference/cargo-preference
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-aid-exclusive-idUSKBN19K33S
The law states that 50% of US food aid must be carried in US flagged ships. And even this minimal requirement is strongly contested by various groups. Increasing this to 100% would be a small start, and importantly one that does not need to increase total taxpayer expenditure or cost. It is still a drop in the bucket next to the vast subsidies China provides to it's merchant marine.
100% of US military cargo is required to be carried in US flagged shipping. So it could be worse, the US could have out-sourced that to COSCO (the largest Chinese shipping company) already!
The downfall of US shipbuilding has the same cause as the downfall of US manufacturing. US companies think they'll make more profit that way. If they find themselves wrong, they go bust. But the capability departs anyway.
ReplyDelete"US companies think they'll make more profit that way"
DeleteI'm not quite sure what you're referring to. Do you mean that shipping companies see more profit (reduced costs) by buying vessels from foreign yards?
US companies shipped all our manufacturing over seas. This reduced cost and got rid of things like labor laws and environmental laws. The boon for the investors was massive same for the end point consumer...for a time. Now we are in a hole.
DeleteThe US lost shipping because it became much cheaper to buy tonnage on foreign flagged ships. Hell our laws make it more expensive to ship from American port to American port but not for the foreign flagged vessels.
No one wants our ships because they are prohibitively expensive.
Globalism is eating all of this.
Yup, that's what I meant.
Delete"Yup, that's what I meant."
DeleteOkay … so whose fault is that? Isn't it the responsibility of companies to pursue profits for their shareholders?
Companies go where the profits are. There's nothing wrong with that.
More to the point, what caused profits to lie outside the US?
My understanding is that a major driver of the loss of commercial shipbuilding in the US was/is the subsidies that other countries lavish on their shipbuilding industries, which leaves our shipbuilding industries at a substantial cost disadvantage.
DeleteNaturally, the US is going to be reluctant to pitchfork piles of money into private shipyards, that's not how we roll (unless it's something really important like a football stadium, of course).
So how to revitalize domestic shipbuilding and US merchant marine?
I would approach it from a different angle:
Charge heavy fees for unloading of ships at US ports that were not constructed in the US.
Charge heavy fees for unloading of ships that aren't US flagged.
Tariff heavily goods that are attempting to avoid these fees by unloading in Canada or Mexico and then brought to the US across our land borders.
People will scream "Smoot-Hawley", of course.
But this isn't 1930.
In 1930 we were a net exporter, the tariff war hurt us badly.
But now we are a massive net importer.
Besides the costs being passed onto consumers, I don't think we will be badly injured ecomically by this.
And this has become less of an economic issue, and more of a national security issue. CNO's post lays it out systematically (and the issue with domestic manufacturing is quite similar).
I don't pretend to be an expert on these matters so I would welcome comments on this idea.
Lutefisk
@Lutefisk: "CNO's post lays it out systematically (and the issue with domestic manufacturing is quite similar)."
DeleteShipbuilding is literally part of the crisis in U.S. manufacturing and industry. Our industrial strategy (which should include power generation/distribution, ports, education, telecom, etc.) has devolved into a food fight over consumer highways and gas taxes.
Anonymous. you're correct about ship building subsidies. Both Japan and South Korea (and then China) heavily subsidised their shipyards to destroy competitors in USA, UK, Australia etc.
DeleteThey all operated at a loss to gain market share.
Stupid westerners played the "free trade" game and allowed their own ship building to die.
"Why have we allowed our shipbuilding industry to decline so precipitously?"
ReplyDeleteSorry to say and it sounds political but its because the Republican party back in the day allowed flags of convenience and critically in 1980 killed US ship building subsidies unilaterally. Japan, China the ROK Norway did not.
I mean I suppose your Carnival cruise is a bit less expensive and imports to the Walmart as well cheaper but that is the benefit you get for gutting your ship building and merchant marine.
In the longer run the US also had the problem that it by the end of WW2 it simply had produced a vast ton of ships. With the war over ships not being sunk or damaged the US had a vast over capacity. But still even with the painful contractions that created the US was a significant ship producer vs today.
"the Republican party back in the day allowed flags of convenience"
DeleteI don't know the history of flags of convenience but at a quick glance I've not found any evidence that they were implemented as a political action. From Wiki,
"The modern practice of ships being registered in a foreign country began in the 1920s in the United States when shipowners seeking to serve alcohol to passengers during Prohibition registered their ships in Panama."
Economic advantage was another reason. From Wiki,
"Another aspect of the Seamen's Act was enforcement of safety standards, with requirements on lifeboats, the number of qualified able seamen on board, and that officers and seamen be able to speak the same language.[27] These laws put U.S.-flagged vessels at an economic disadvantage against countries lacking such safeguards, and ships started to be re-registered in Panama's open registry from 1919."
Perhaps you could explain the political history of flags of convenience?
From an article by Colin Grabow at https://www.cato.org/blog/are-shipyard-subsidies-good-idea:
Delete"So should shipbuilding subsidies be adopted? Perhaps. But only with a clear national security rationale, a realistic understanding of what they can accomplish, and reform of the Jones Act’s U.S.-built requirement as part of the deal. Any hope of making the United States a commercial maritime power must include a marked departure from protectionist policies that have failed the industry—and country—so badly."
It might be good to start with funding the difference to make a commercial Jones Act ship dual use although I question the dual use of Chinese efforts. If you start to look at them I see military ships painted civilian.
Delete"Extensive Merchant Fleet"
ReplyDeleteNo and Yes. There are many ships owned by American companies but they are registered in Panama for lower tax plus ... they are then not under US jurisdiction. US government cannot draft them.
"Extensive Shipbuilding Capacity"
The nation's ship building is almost same military ship building thus positive feedback loop from civilian ship building doesn't exist. Naval ship building will be more and more expensive and losing technological edge.
"Powerful Navy"
Key to a powerful navy is economical strength and technology competency. It doesn't depend on people's will and sternness. Lots of "patriotic" people in a nation's economy in decline cannot maintain a large navy. Can a poor family maintain many expensive cars? They can borrow to do so for a while but not lasting.
"If we are still a maritime power,
ReplyDeleteWhy are we allowing our navy to decline so precipitously?
Why have we allowed our shipbuilding industry to decline so precipitously?
Why have we created the legal/regulatory conditions that prevent our merchant fleet from being US-flagged?
If we are not still a maritime power,
How can we assure our continued unhindered access to global shipping?
Who will defend our global maritime interests as our navy fades?
Can we continue to remain a powerful nation if our access to global shipping is threatened or reduced?
How will we compete economically with other countries if our maritime access is further reduced?
Can a country with reduced maritime access and capability even be an economic power in the long term?"
The answer from the Navy side is not to allow our Navy to continue to decline but to rebuild it. I think the 600 ship target is a reasonable one, we clearly did it (or nearly so) in the 1980s, but it will take a lot of doing. As discussed before, we can get a lot of sailors to crew those ships by cutting out a lot of shore-based admin and overhead functions. We do need to revive the shipbuilding industry in order to achieve anything like those numbers. Per the Grabow article (1), from the 1950s to the 1970s US shipyards averaged 19 new commercial ships a year, down to 2-3 now. Just doing the math, maintaining a 600-ship fleet with an average life of 30 years (ranging from 20-50 depending on ship type) would require 20 new ships per year, so the Navy alone could pretty much keep a fairly decent revival going. Grabow asks questions rather than making specific recommendations, but seems to come down on the side of resuming shipyard subsidies in exchange for getting rid of the Jones Act prohibitions against foreign-flag vessels carrying cargo between US ports. I would link that to some sort of a concurrence regarding the availability for military needs of flag-of-convenience shipping owned by US companies. The Brits don't have that problem, and didn't in the Falklands, because basically the crown has a lien on British flag merchant shipping, and can call so many of them into the STUFT program (ships taken up from trade) at any time. Given that our legal tradition is different from that of a monarchy, I'm not sure we could go that far, but I would think we might be able to work out some arrangements. Certainly, any US shipowner with significant numbers of flag-of-convenience shipping would very likely be amenable to some sort of dedication to military use in an emergency in exchange for the opportunity to use them in US-to-US trade. As Grabow points out, use of flag-of-convenience shipping for transport to Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico would have the potential to reduce greatly the cost of living in those areas, and would also expand greatly the pool of shipping available to haul emergency supplies in case of hurricanes or other disasters. I would also consider requiring any ship that calls on US ports to meet at least some version of USCG standards for US-flag shipping.
(1) https://www.cato.org/blog/are-shipyard-subsidies-good-idea
"We do need to revive the shipbuilding industry in order to achieve anything like those numbers."
DeleteNo! … or at least shipbuilding is almost the last and least important piece of the puzzle.
It doesn't matter how many shipyards we have and how many ships we build if we refuse to maintain them, retire them early, allow them to rot, can't sail without grounding or colliding, can't keep aircraft above 50% mission capable, have no tactical or doctrinal training, refuse to conduct realistic and stressful exercises, and so on. More ships is the least of our challenges.
If we solved all of the above and merely kept all the early retired ships from the last few decades think about all the ships we'd have: the entire Spruance class, the entire Perry class, the entire Tarawa class, dozens of Los Angeles class subs, and so on. We don't need shipbuilding - we need everything else, first.
I'm all for expanded shipbuilding but ONLY as the last piece of the puzzle. Again, don't get caught up in the spreadsheet aspect of this. It's not about ship numbers. I'd rather have a 200 ship fleet that was meticulously maintained, combat ready, fully exercised and trained, and mentally ready to fight than a 600 ship fleet that can't sail straight and is rotting pierside or wasting away on endless, pointless deployments and surrenders to three Iranians with a squirt gun.
The same thinking applies to the merchant side of things. We need to modify a lot of laws (not just shipping laws) before we get around to more shipyards. In fact, if we correct the other problems then the shipyards will expand of their own accord.
"It doesn't matter how many shipyards we have"
DeleteWell, to a point. Although we do need more shipyard capacity just to maintain our existing ships properly.
"It doesn't matter how many shipyards we have"
DeleteWell, to a point. Although we do need more shipyard capacity just to maintain our existing ships properly.
We can get to 600 with what we already have on the table, if we don't take chances. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DOTBSdKsDoQeuZQz--qyTiHqAkA3DX-RAuU_xZCYaWY/edit#gid=0
DeleteYou can have thousands of shipyards, but a shipyard without skilled workers is nothing. It takes a wide range of equipment, support systems, specialized knowledge. With the kids today, I think we are in trouble.
DeleteAlso, it takes a crew of 140 or so to run a submarine on a patrol.
"No! … or at least shipbuilding is almost the last and least important piece of the puzzle."
DeleteI have to admit, that was almost the last part of my post that I thought you'd take exception to, particularly since your big three were Extensive Merchant Fleet, Extensive Shipbuilding Capacity, and Powerful Navy.
Here's how I would address all three of them:
Extensive Merchant Fleet--As you noted, we have an extensive US-owned merchant fleet, it's just that most of it operates under flags of convenience. It seems to me that a deal could be struck where we amend the Jones Act to allow those flag-of-convenience ships to operate between USA ports in exchange for agreement to support USA military needs if called upon. I don't know if we can go as far as the Brits legally and impose a lien in favor of the military on those ships, but it would be worth investigating. There is a huge pot of gold on offer in terms of profits to be made from shipping between ports on the east and west coasts, and with Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico. And residents of those states/territories would benefit hugely from reduced consumer prices almost across the board. That's one of those win-win deals that seems almost too good to even consider passing up. I would impose some requirements that such flag-of-convenience shipping that is granted access to domestic movement be required to conform to at least a significant portion of USCG regulations.
Powerful Navy--I think we need to set a goal of 600 ships and a plan to achieve it as quickly as possible. An average life of 30 years (20 minimum up to 50 for carriers) would require 20 ships per year to build and maintain a 600-ship USN. At an average cost of $1.4B per ship, that would be a shipbuilding budget of $28B per year. That's a substantial increase over past levels, but if the right strategy and CONOPS can be sold, it is doable. The problem with the Navy's approach is that, per CBO, the average cost/ship is $2.8B in 2020 dollars, and that simply can't be done. So we need cheaper ships--Nimitzes instead of Fords, some conventional CVs, cheaper amphibs instead of LHAs/LHDs/San Antonios, cheaper SSGNs, smaller and cheaper SSNs to build out the nubmers, and so forth. As you note, we have to increase numbers long before the 30-year point, and that is where your point about proper maintenance comes into play. If we simply held on to the Los Angeles, Spruance, Perry, and Ticonderoga (or even Knox) classes until the ends of their respective service lives, we would be way ahead of where we are today in terms of fleet numbers, and particularly better prepared to deal with the growing need for ASW.
Extensive Shipbuilding Capacity--I really can't believe you disagreed with my point after making it yourself. Building 20 Navy ships a year would clearly provide a significant incentive to jump start some shipbuilding activity. In looking at future fleet options, I have looked at a number of foreign designs/concepts. Perhaps we could do deals like Brazil did with Naval Group, were we adopt a foreign design in exchange for the builder agreeing to build or revive or do a joint venture with a USA yard so the ships can be built here. Restoring shipbuilding subsidies (which I would exchange for lifting the Jones Act prohibitions) would seem to be another piece that could help. As John Dallman pointed out above, "The downfall of US shipbuilding has the same cause as the downfall of US manufacturing. US companies think they'll make more profit that way." So if we want more USA shipyards (and I think we do) then change things to make it more profitable to build ships here. It's pretty simple.
"I really can't believe you disagreed with my point after making it yourself."
DeleteNooooo … I disagreed with your numerical approach. Simply building more ships won't solve anything until all the other problems I listed are addressed. As I said, more new construction is the LAST piece of the puzzle. Numbers won't solve anything. The quality and competency has to be in place, first - then we can worry about numbers. More shipyards are not the immediate solution.
When we retire LCS'es after just a few years of service, shipyard construction capacity is clearly not the problem.
"I disagreed with your numerical approach."
DeleteSooner or later, it has to come down to numbers. But I've never insisted that it be just numbers. I'm really not understanding our differences, unless you are reading something into my comments that I'm not saying.
Power: legal or official authority, capacity, or right; possession of control, authority, or influence over others…
ReplyDeleteThe USA is not a maritime power, and we should not confuse consumerism with power. Although 95% or more of our goods are moved by sea, most goods are imports, that are overwhelming carried by third nation carriers, on ships manufactured overseas, mostly in Asia.
In the 21st century, a global merchant fleet is defined by the container ships or oil tankers, of which we have very few. Do not look at raw numbers, count the number of U.S. ships of PANAMAX or larger size. Our merchant marine is mostly a coastal fleet of barges, refined product tankers, and tugs primarily designed to support our offshore oil industry.
CNO touched on ship building, but our port infrastructure is very poor, and not well integrated with our rail and truck networks. Look at the ports of Antwerp, Taipei, or Rotterdam for comparison.
Very nice blog! I'm glad I found out relatively late so I have a lot of material to read! Greetings from Greece.
ReplyDelete@ForMimakos
Our primary product of production in this country, and the majority component of our GNP, are the US Federal Reserve notes called "dollars" printed by stroke of central bank keyboards. These dollars, due to a temporary quirk of market psychology, currently hold fiat value to our trading partners throughout the world (one of which, China, is our primary rival)who actually produce tangible goods and services. When this market psychology disappears....we will come to sadly understand our true betrayal of the power, maritime and otherwise, that our forefathers bequeathed to us by their hard work, dedication to free markets, and rejection of collectivist rhetoric. Gentleman, we are ph--cked. So sad, so unnecessary.....
ReplyDelete"Flags of Convenience"
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should make it somewhat INCONVENIENT to not be flagged in the US.
IMHO the only real maritime power is China. PLAN is growing at a much faster rate, + the Chinese Coast Guard with 160+ vessels + their "fishing Fleet". Versus the USN/USA, which is too few ports, a maintenance backlog from hell + a Congress that is too partisan to care.
ReplyDeleteGAB is correct about the composition of our "merchant fleet", of course, but I am surprised that ComNavOps even asked the question. In one of his previous blogs about why the USN had abandoned ASW convoy escorts in the 90s, the answer was "because there were NO appreciable US reserves to convoy to allied countries abroad, few/no allies willing to fight our wars (and suffer our consequences) with, and no US-controlled merchant ships to convoy them with". Besides, the USAF and Congress believes that they can all be sent via air transport.
ReplyDeleteAre you going to ask if we are still an airborne power?
Why did a ships captain allow an Iranian helicopter to fly circles around his amphib??? Why didn't he blow the bastard out of the air?? Is this Captain still in command?? The X.O.??
ReplyDeleteThis scares the hell out of this old civilian..