Do you remember the Thousand Ship Navy concept?[2] To refresh your memory,
In
the fall of 2005, Admiral Michael G. Mullen, the U.S. Navy’s Chief of Naval
Operations, challenged the world’s maritime nations to raise what he called a
“thousand-ship navy” to provide for the security of the maritime domain in the
twenty-first century. Speaking at the Seventeenth International Seapower
Symposium at the Naval War College, in Newport, Rhode Island, Admiral Mullen
candidly admitted to the assembled chiefs of navy and their representatives
from seventy-five countries that “the United States Navy cannot, by itself,
preserve the freedom and security of the entire maritime domain. It must count
on assistance from like-minded nations interested in using the sea for lawful
purposes and precluding its use for others that threaten national, regional, or
global security.” He had voiced the idea
a month earlier in an address to students at the College, but he now elaborated
the concept:
Because
today’s challenges are global in nature, we must be collective in our response.
We are bound together in our dependence on the seas and in our need for
security of this vast commons. This is a requisite for national security,
global stability, and economic prosperity. As navies, we have successfully
learned how to leverage the advantages of the sea . . . advantages such as
mobility, access, and sovereignty. . . . We must now leverage these same
advantages of our profession to close seams, reduce vulnerabilities, and ensure
the security of the domain, we collectively, are responsible for. As we combine
our advantages, I envision a 1,000-ship Navy—a fleet-in-being, if you will,
made up of the best capabilities of all freedom-loving navies of the world.[1]
Consider this excerpt from Mullen’s speech:
“…leverage the
advantages of the sea . . . advantages such as mobility, access, and
sovereignty. . . . We must now leverage these same advantages of our profession
to close seams, reduce vulnerabilities, and ensure the security of the domain …
What a bunch of verbal garbage! No wonder this concept didn’t go anywhere or
amount to anything. Mullen’s Thousand
Ship Navy proposal was just vague fantasy for the purposes of public
relations. It was tantamount to calling
for world peace – a fine sentiment that is totally divorced from reality or
action.
Okay, so is this post just a quick shot at Mullen and we’re
done? No! While Mullen had nothing worthwhile to offer,
the idea of an international, thousand ship navy has enormous potential though
not in any way that Mullen would ever have imagined. Let’s examine a better Thousand Ship Navy.
Consider the following truths:
- Reality is that the US Navy is the biggest and only truly
significant friendly naval force in the world.
- Reality is that the US Navy, through its own incompetence
and mismanagement, has glaring gaps and weaknesses in its force structure.
Now, let’s lean back in our chairs, close our eyes, and
think fairy dust thoughts:
- Wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t have those gaps and
weaknesses?
- Wouldn’t it be nice if those gaps and weaknesses could be
magically filled without us having to spend any money or resources?
Opening our eyes, we realize that those things can’t happen,
right? I mean, the only way we could
fill those gaps and weaknesses without spending money or resources would be if
someone else built the missing assets and gave them to us and that’s not going
to happen. It can’t happen … could it?
Well … what if other navies around the world focused their
efforts and force structures on the assets we’re missing. What if they built the minesweepers and SSKs,
among other needs, that could fill the gaps and weaknesses in our Navy and we
could call on those assets as needed?
Think about it. As an
example, when the global war with China comes, and it will, will the UK’s one
carrier with a couple dozen short-legged F-35Bs make any difference? Not much.
However, a couple of squadrons of highly effective mine countermeasure
ships would be invaluable to the war effort.
Will some country’s couple of underarmed frigates make any
difference? No, but large numbers of small
ASW corvettes would be a big help.
And so on.
The idea is that other countries would partner with the US
to fill the gaps and weaknesses in our Navy.
Of course, this is easier said than done. Consider the following challenges.
Command and Control – This is a challenge in peace and in
war. Who commands these fill-in
assets? No country wants to give up
command and yet a single, central command, the US, is necessary.
Agendas – Every country has their own geopolitical agendas
and, often, those don’t perfectly align with the US. A fill-in force can’t be subject to the whims
of each individual country. A NATO-like
imperative is needed that would compel every participating country to actively
contribute their eligible assets to meeting certain defined needs such as mines
in international waters, war with China (with the US required to formally
declare war on China). It is the defined
nature of the compelling threats that allows countries to still pursue their
own agendas outside the bounds of the defined threats and ensure that the
assets are available in the face of the defined threats. What can’t happen is, for example, a Spanish
frigate pulling out of a task force because their country doesn’t perfectly
agree with the task force’s mission. If
the mission is a response to a defined threat then the assets are in, pure and
simple.
Force Structure – Which country would build which
assets? That can’t be left up to the
individual countries. The individual
contributions must come from analysis of the US Navy’s needs and, ultimately, be
subject to US dictation. Otherwise, each
country will build whatever suits them and the US gaps won’t be filled other
than haphazardly, if at all.
Reciprocity – In return for, say, building mine warfare
ships instead of frigates, participating countries must be supported by the US
Navy for any legitimate defense needs.
In other words, the US becomes the participating country’s navy against
defined threats.
Discussion
Ideally, this shouldn’t be necessary. The US Navy is big enough and well funded
enough that it should be able to build its own complete naval force without any
gaps or weaknesses. However, until we
clean house and fire every flag officer, that won’t happen. We’ll continue to obsolete Burkes for the
next two hundred years and bigger carriers as our air wings shrink ever
smaller. This NATO-ish concept at least
provides a work around to the Navy’s abject stupidity for the foreseeable
future.
The key to making this work is a set of very specific, well
defined, major international threats that would trigger the combining of
assets. This precludes, as an example,
other countries being forced to go along with, say, a US strike on an aspirin factory
in the middle of nowhere for political messaging purposes.
It should be made crystal clear that any country that opts
not to participate is on their own if they find themselves threatened by an
enemy. Participate and share or stand
alone. A simple choice.
In order for this concept to work, it has to be divorced
from any of the political maneuverings of the type that prioritized the F-35 as
an international jobs program rather than a lean, focused production program. Ship types can’t be assigned based on
politics or jobs or whatever. Of course,
the individual countries can build their assigned vessels any way they like but
the assignments have to be based strictly on naval combat needs.
Finally, note that none of the above precludes any country
from still building their own ships of whatever type as long as they meet their
assigned gap-filling quota.
___________________________
