The number of assets required should be part of a detailed planning process, which should be linked to the Navy component of the National Security Strategy. In addition to the security strategy, other variables should be considered: ship reliability, ship life cycle maintenace plans, deployment cycles, maintaining shipbuilding infrastructure and skill sets, projected ship attrition rates (in war), etc. Of primary concern should be to limit deployments to six months or less. It is difficult to describe the hardship of six months away from home and family, unless you've been out there and experienced it for yourself. But it goes much further than that because deployment cycles (i.e., time between deployments) are also cut down. And, let us not forget about the individual augmentations where sailors rotate ashore only to be deployed again to help the Army in Afghanistan, in jobs for which they are not sufficiently trained. This, because the Army did not plan their numbers correctly. There will be a real recovery in the next few years, and it may be very difficult to attract sufficient numbers of quality people if we continue to issue rations of punishment to our sailors and their families.

The only type ship I believe we need to increase the number of would be for littoral warfare

I'm an Army not a Navy guy, but I think it's having the right type of ships that are important. According to Wiki, we have 9 more active carriers than Russia and China combined with more coming on board (Gerald Ford class) -- each of our carrier strike groups have enough air power to match most country sized air forces and with the F-35B in the works, we gotta watch out that we don't cross the line from being exporters of peace and democracy to starting an unnecessary arms race.

All branches of the service had to do more with less. This policy was pushed down from top levels going back 20 years or so. While we had fewer and fewer mechanics turning wrenches, there were usually more officers than needed to supervise the effort. Really want to help resolve this situation? Start cutting uneccessary brass. A 30% reduction in the O-6 thru O-10 ranks would go along way toward eliminating wasteful spending and duplication of effort. This will free up money for the backbone of the force (enlisted personnel) and some needed equipment. As far as the ship issue is concerned, an aircraft carrier, while an impressive show of force, is a huge slow moving target. I would think subsurface vessels are the pivot needed for the 21st century.

I am retiring out of the Navy and believe that we can do more with less by restructuring the Navy to do missions that are typically held by larger platforms. The Navy does not need more ships just better ships, better training and thinking outside of the box ideas that can meet our needs without undo hardships on the sailors. Right now we have two Carrier battle groups in the gulf all the times doing missions that could be done by smaller platforms. By using Expeditionary Strike groups we can do similar missions without the cost of a carrier battle groups. We use carriers to carry our presence but having two out there at all times is a bit much and puts undo stress on the sailors, families and readiness. We are about to see a mass exodus from the military because of it. Restructure (take a look at the requirements of the mission and look at the basic requirements to complete the mission, Train our sailors to do more with less (Training takes a backseat to operations but when you are always operational our sailors never catch up.), think outside of the box (use drones instead of Raptors. Drones can be launched from smaller platforms and does not endanger American lives where a Raptor has to launch from a big deck.) and finally put more money into R&D rather than try to make what we have better. There are easier solutions out there if we just look at them but by the time we look at them they are already outdated. American cannot afford to be everywhere, doing everything for everyone. We need to focus on what are the needs. The Navys mandate is to keep the shipping lanes open and protect American interests abroad. Focus on that mission and everything becomes simpler.

The military is fat. That goes for the number of ships and pay. Everyone needs to pay for what Bush did to the USA. That includes YOU too. I am prior military as well.

I am a retired USN Chief Petty Officer. Our sailors will pay the price, not that they don't already pay a daily price. Downsizing puts an added burden on them; increased work loads, reduced advancements, forced to go before retention boards and forcing high caliber sailors out the door early. I have had to make decisions in the past when cuts were in place as to what a more important piece of gear is to the mission rather than another piece and the maintenance cost will go up as the sailors are forced to make things last longer. Increasing our Naval presence throughout the world keeps us strong and our commercial shipping lanes unimpeded for trade.

For the past several years Pentagon and other think tanks point to more littoral, costal, conflicts requiring more ships. Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/03/us-usa-asia-defense-idUSBRE8921J120121003 and http://www.defensenews.com/article/20100117/DEFFEAT05/1170302/Failing-Littoral-Challenge. Why? Its not a US v.s. USSR deep sea, blue water, conflict anymore. Far more countries are involved. India is developing nuclear subs and Sweden has the Gotland class super quiet sub. Gotlands are quieter than many of our nuclear subs with a smaller thermal signature. Yes we have fewer horses and bayonets - but we do not have nor need fewer men which preceded the use of horses and bayonets. More ships with various capabilities are needed for littoral conflicts, signal gathering and special missions. Yes this includes the funny ships that sink under the water our President spoke of last night. We call them subs – not to be confused with a “sub” sandwich. Why more ships? Personally I’d rather have three thousand folks as sailors than on welfare. We should be able to fight on two or more fronts. Kindly, Allen

If our forces were not called upon to fight over ten consecutive years we would not be having this conversation. Building more ships costs big bucks. Not only in ship building but in the costs of manpower. The military is drawing down numbers and putting in more difficult requirements for people to qualify for entry. It doesn't appear that the military is trying to grow numbers to require more equipment/ships. Let's say we have a change in direction and open the doors of the military. Where is the money going to come from to pay for salaries and dependent support? We are robbing Peter to pay Paul now. Althought according to many of the talking heads, growing the middle class, which is basically the military, encourages economical growth. So it may work and save the Richey Riches of the world from having to pay more taxes. (sarcasm) If we use technology to its fullest potential we will not need to have the most ships to have the best Navy. Our sub fleet is the best and most powerful in the world. Employing drones and SATCOM erases the needs to have ships all over creation. In the 21st Century our military should be working smarter, not harder.

We don't need more ships and it shouldn't be a surprise since we have been at war for the last decade. If we build more ships then we should close bases overseas. We can easily reduce through attrition, less ships = less recruits. We spend as much as the next 10 largest military budgets combined. We will never face a large scale ground attack or fight traditional armies. The next time a terror cell buys a ship and sinks one of ours then I will change my mind.

The first obvious thing about your question is that it flllows the partisan script put forth by the GOP Candidate for President. The second thing is that it exposes yours and his obvious lack of knowledge with regard to Military operations and Naval operations specifically. Your ridiculous comparation of Naval quantity size of 1917 and 2010 is absolutely absurd. Surely you are not trying to compare naval warfare of muskets, knives, and cannon balls with Cruise Missles. Ship size alone is but a part of the consideration in today's naval warfare planning whether strategic or tactical. It is an important role but it is not the only consideration. I will agree that one of the things that is harmful is the morale [more so of family] that is impacted by long or quick turn around of deployments. However, when you talk with "supposed" concern for the military, it is total hipocrisy when a GOP Congress is continuously purposefully not passing legislation concerning of active military and veterans......action which is done just to oppose the President. I think GOP actions [publicly admitted] to see the Country suffer to attempt defeat of one man [the President] who was unanimously elected by the citizens, is no less that treason. What you must realize is that because of modern technology, most combat vessels today are ten fold those of yesterday. A mega task force or task group, unit or element is not necessary today as the same task can be accomplished with much less individual units. I retired from the Navy in 1975 and in just that nearly 40 year span, the capability of current is light years further. Most everyone reading you emais and blog are more than able to read through the partisan junk. But, a word of advise: before jumping in the water, make sure you know how to swim. And, when you quote senior military persons, leave their comments intact and in context......don't cherry-pick pieces of what they said. ...........Andrew, RMC USN Ret.

The basic point that didn't get mentioned, that I would add, is the number of ships actually went down during the years of George W. Bush and have gone up in the Obama years," Danzig said. "So the notion that Republicans are more effective in building the Navy is not a correct one."

The basic point that didn't get mentioned, that I would add, is the number of ships actually went down during the years of George W. Bush and have gone up in the Obama years," Danzig said. "So the notion that Republicans are more effective in building the Navy is not a correct one."

Instead of using biased websites, I urge my peers to check military figures on how many ships there were in 1917 as stated in the debate my Governor Romney. As stated by the military, there were 342 ships active in the U.S. Navy. It increased with our involvement in WWI and decreased after the war. The problem with having a smaller Navy and Military in whole is that there are less people to handle a situation when it is needed. Today, we need to be prepared more than ever and cutting any of the Military is not something that any of us should be comfortable with. Iran having possible nuclear capabilities, North Korea in the same boat as Iran, Russia on the brink of economic collapse, and uprisings all over the middle east are many reasons NOT to decrease our military. If anyone has ever had a job where it is important to get in, make an appearance, rectify a problem, and get out as quickly as possible with a positive outcome, you would understand that you would need as many people as you can possibly have to get the job done fast, efficiently, and correctly. This has happened throughout our recent history (i.e. Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan, etc). The reasons we have so many casualties and end up being in a region for a long period of time is because we enter a conflict without enough troops to get a handle on the situation right away. This endagers our troops that are sent there because there are not enough troops to support, protect, and replace those who are fighting a war. Basic logistics and common sense shows that decreasing our military is a threat to all of us who sit here at home enjoying those sacrifices that our soldiers give in order to keep the rest of us safe. And yes, I am one who sits here and doesn't have to fight the war. That is why we should stop Congress from playing games with American lives, and just send in enough people to get the job done and keep that region safe until the job is done. Surges have shown to work, so if we surge at the beginning, that would work as well. It is dangerous to think that we can reduce our military and think that the rest of the world won't notice and put us to the test.

I do not feel a downsizing of Naval ships (to a point) is a bad thing. We don't fight wars in the same ways they used to be fought. With the exception of incidents that caused wars, ships have not been a mainstream tool of war since World War II. Today's wars seem to be (for the most part) surgical amd intelligence based. The battleships of the past became engaged directly with other ships and found use in "softening" up islands before an amphibious assault...but due to fortifications used by the Japanese, even the pre invasion shellings left plenty of resistance for our troops to encounter. While ships played an important role, it was two airplanes that finally ended WWII. Today, we have unmanned drones, laser guided missles, supersonic stealth aircraft...and that is what we know of...I'm sure there is classified weaponry to render relatively slow moving ships obselete. We have alternate means to deliver payloads...we are not limited to launching them from battleships. It is important to note that even prior to World War II, Billy Mitchell realized airplanes would render ship warfare obselete. He proved this in multiple tests with arial dropped torpedoes....This is a new Millenium. This became a long winded answer to basically say I can see a point in having a Navy, but think rather than expanding it, we should focus more on how modern wars are fought and focus our defense budgets there.

I would also venture to remind those of you that added comments above that the Bush Administration is not who brought 911 to our front door. If you look at the 1990's, you will see that Usama Bin Laden attacked the same building three times under Clinton's Administration. In addition, Al Gore in the 1980's advised Congress not to go after Usama Bin Laden because he was not a big enough threat to the U.S. Therefore, over a matter of 20 some years, the democrats in Washington have ALLOWED 911 to happen. President Bush was the one who started the correction to the ignorance of previous administrations before him. President Bush is the man who took it upon himself to protect us instead of being so liberal as to not take care of this threat sooner. The same thing is going to happen with Iran if we are not careful..

The President hit it on the head in the debate. We are not playing battleship. This is a new day of success with technology. Let us began to have faith with what we are bless with.

the greatest danger of a reduced Naval force is a shift in battle power, a lag time to play 'catch up', a budget strain to find the funding necessary, and a lack of qualified manpower to execute both the mission and the repairs necessary. All of these things work hand in glove, and ALL of them will be affected if there is a Naval drawdown. without the funding or the manpower or ship power, more than just the Navy will suffer--our whole country and economy will bear the brunt of such a short-sighted decision.

As someone who spent 21 years serving in the U.S. Marine Corps, to include numerous deployments on U.S. Navy ships, I experienced the impact of downsizing our military first hand. Decreased forces caused increased stresses on our serviemen and their families. It means longer deployments for our servicemen. We are able to deploy to fewer places at a time which results in a decrease in effectiveness, response to hardships, and ability to protect our own citizens around the world and at home. It increasesmaintenance costs for the fleet and the taxpayer. It also leaves us vulnerable to attacks. In the past, other countries have not challenged us because of our strong military. However, with a deminisioned military power we can expect other countries and /or groups to challenge us.

Reducing our Naval fleet is akin to removing guns from police officers and giving them tasers instead. The "bad guys" are less fearful and emboldened.

A decreased US Navy seriously hampers the US President's ability to project US policy internationally. The Navy cannot respond rapidly to an international crisis unless it maintains a fleet positioned strategically in the global hot spots. This requires at least a 300 ship US Naval force fully trained. Once a military unit is downsized, it takes a minimum of 3 years to recruit, fully train, and then deploy one naval seaman. The cost of maintaining a smaller US Navy might be realized initially but the long term cost to the US taxpayer will increase due to future higher taxes to maintain a mothballed naval fleet and the added cost to bring a naval recruit to full operational naval status. These are just a few thoughts off the top of my head. If I could think about it for a while I could make a stronger case not to downsize the US Naval fleet.

Reduction of US Military to Unacceptable levels can be argued in a different way than just using force size. It should be argued as to excessive force use while reducing the numbers of forces available. The Navy's carrier strike forces are the "Tip of the Spear" for showing and implementing US policy militarily around the world. Obama claims that composition of the forces changed and we do not need the numbers but rely on technology and killing power. He is right except his administration has downsized the force to such a level that the normal 6 month deployments are now being scheduled to last 7 to 9 month, some even 11 months regularly and if we need more than one carrier present at all times in an area it cannot be done for any length of time without extreme hardship on the people and the ships; ships break and cannot be scheduled for repairs, people "burn out" and their families must endure even more extend separations. This is being done now and not being talked about and needs to be. Ask Panetta and the Admirals directly to answer about the deployment schedules and the hardships on people and materials. The force is being hollowed for political reasons. It is over extended and being reduced at the same time; how can we keep up our commitments if we destroy the fabric of our military?

All one has to do is look at what the Chinese are doing in their creation of super-carriers an increasing their navy to determine their intent. Obama is insane to think that a decreased navy does anything other that to encourage foreign powers to increase theirs. If he has another 4 years, we are no longer a world power and I hate to think where we will be then. Obama is most assuredly the poorest commander in chief that this country has ever had! Period!

Mr. Forbes please correct your inaccuracy concerning the navy ships at an all time low. This is not the truth. Thank you

It is really ignorant and suicidal to cut the size of navy while we meet growing challenge from red China in pacific. The next decade, if we can not maintain a deterring strong navy, we are inviting another pearl harbor disaster . when we will learn from history? I really thinks the current Obama government seems so detached from the reality and absorb in their ivory tower fantasy . How many American lifes will be wasted before they get it, just like the Afanganstan. China only loves peace when they can not win.

It is difficult to decide, which of the first three possible outcomes are more likely to negatively impact a smaller American Navy. In essense, they will all negatively impact our Navy given the state of our world. A negatively impacted sailor, surrounded by the best equipment in the world is only as good as his or her ability to correctly decide and execute the best solution to a problem. Personally, I would like that individual to be as rested, clear headed and as free of outside distractions and worry as is humanly possible. That being said, that sailor with everything else being equal is far better off as is the USA, if he or she is never called on to make that critical decision in a real life threatening situation. That outcome is more likely if the size, strength and the ability of our Navy remains so intimidating, that no nation in the world dare engage her. Just a thought, since China is currently in the process of building the largest and best equiped Navy in the world, might it be prudent to understand, why and how they intend to use that Naval Power?

It is difficult to explain to the "Layperson" who is not associated with the Maritime Industry or Navy, the sacrifices the soldier, sailor or seafarer, and airmen make.I am a Navy Vet and currently a U.S. Merchant Marine, and spend 8 to 9 months away from home and have been doing that for 24 years. Fewer ships will mean longer deployments and time away from families. I have missed most things that a parent and grandparent get to enjoy. First concerts, school plays, a little league games, the birth of a grandson and granddaughter.......Just this past month 2 of our ships spent 48 consecutive days AT SEA and that can get extended any time before they get pierside.... Leaving loved ones at home to manage the every day affairs most people take for granted. It is a hard life, but it has been a good life......We do not need to make it any more difficult than it already is. And yes, in response to the poll, MAINTENANCE COSTS are going to rise and yes, an aircraft carrier has planes but if it does not remain afloat, where will the planes land????? In friendly or enemy hands?????

A strong, well-trained and very well-equiped military is essential to our security in the world. That includes ships, necessary weapons, COMPLETE AND FAITHFUL SUPPORT from our nation and its leaders, planes, etc, etc. It also includes intolerance of people who do things to us (either abroad or HERE WITHIN OUR BORDERS) in the name of religion or disgust and hatred for us as a people. "Whatsoever a man soeth, that shall he also reap" should be our mantra...and not in words only, but in sure and rapid and effective response. We need to not play around with the peoples, the nations of the world.

Depends on mission. What's maybe not as costly but certainly disconcerting is the ratio of flag officers and SES in the Department of the Navy compared to the number of ships. I'll bet that the equivalent is true for the Army and Air Force. Find out the root cause(s) of this trend since WWII and we'll have an answer as to whether or not number of ships is an accurate predictor of "negative impacts".

I find this question the most insulting question ever put forth by congressman Forbes on this blog, and there have been several competitors for that title. Congressman, I hope that your constituents bothered to read your column speaking about compromise and common ground. I found your words far beyond an advocacy for what you do, have done, and what you promise the voters. Please sir, after years of blatant mischaracterizations of the issues before the public we need you to begin to pursue honest dialogue with your associates in congress, the administration you communicate with in public testimony, and most importantly the constituents you have taken an oath sir to serve. I'm sure I am but one of many who are watching what is going on in Washington very closely, and I know I do not speak alone, we have been poorly served during your twelve years of service. You have sanctioned policy adding trillions of dollars to our debt, that have dramatically increased gun violence in America, have acted to harm the private sector by voting to shove the nation into default, supported legislation allowing the import of polar bears into Alaska for the purpose of hunting, misled the nation on the Keystone pipeline, used partisan sources to tilt the argument of the effect of regulations on business, interfered with the non discrimination policy at a major university, opposed middle class tax cuts in order to protect tax cuts for the nation's wealthiest, opposed financial industry regulations supported by the Federal Reserve that risk retirement savings and most objectionable, you deliberately misled senior citizens on Medicare, and you know it sir and you refuse to set the record straight. This isn't an issue of compromise and common ground congressman, it is an issue of your honesty as a member of the Virginian congressional delegation. Your refusal to rescind the Grover Norquist blackmail pledge of obstruction has harmed America sir. You have ignored intellectual analysis that make your voting record appear outright incompetent. You even sent me a letter refusing to apologize to the Attorney General for standing with your party on dubious claims of wrongdoing that were proven wrong by investigation. What honor is there in such a position sir, especially as a member of the congressional prayer caucus? We have seen no action on jobs, no action on the Farm bill, no action on sequestration and no action on the debt. I would urge you sir to face budgetary realities, and if you are going all the way back to 1917 it is blatantly obvious that you wish to run as far away from your own record that coinsides with president Bush's failures and even I can't blame you for that. Cooperate sir, because if the voters don't see it, you can expect attention to the hypocrisy as a result of your recent reassurance to made very clear week after week of a refusal to represent us.

There is a great diffrence between coal powered WWI Drednouts and modern day nuclear powered ships. WWI no radar, no sonar, no anti-aircraft guns. A single modern Air craft carrier could devistate all the navies that existed in WWI. What we need to focus on is the current situation, the capabilities of our Navy compared to real threats and plan accordingly. Don't build ships just to mothball them in the York River. Steve Meadows

Reducing our military to these levels, especially the Navy, is like saying to China, "We don't want our country anymore. Please come and take it from us."

I think it is stupidity to not have the most highly technical ships and subs that we can have to protect ourselves. This is a disgrace, this President is a TRAITOR to our nation and is not interested in the welfare of OUR REPUBLIC!! We must maintain the status quo. It is a shame that we have fewer ships now than at the end of WW I and it proves that Mr. O has no clue how to LEAD A NATION of AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM! Mr. O wants to eliminate the Marine Corp that is why his agenda includes less ships!! ALL his Marxist/Socialist/Communist rules are coming into place. We are on the wrong side with the Muslim Brotherhood. It is time to HOLD MR. HUSSEIN OBAMA ACCOUNTABLE FOR LEAVING OUR MEN BEHIND TO DIE IN LIBYA!! THE MILITARY SHOULD BE OUR PRIORITY!!

We operate in too many areas. Why are we paying for freedom of the seas in our allies back yards? Let them monitor pirate activity. We rarely engage them (pirates) anyways. Most of the time our surface ships are at sea they are not protecting us from anything. They just waste money. Priority is to protect our country. It does not take a 300 ship Navy to protect our country. We only need that many ships to impose our will on other countries. I'm all about a good national defense. Anything over 6 Carrier Battle groups and our current sub fleet is extra. No other navy even operates modern nuclear aircraft carriers right now. Why do we need 12? It's for offense. Call it what it is. Cut the military and balance the budget. Enough of policing the world already. By the way, we could cut our military in half and still outspend the Chinese by a couple hundred billion dollars.

A smaller Navy might mean we will have to pursue Peace and not War. Wee still have the largest and most capable Navy in the world. ++++

Lucille - calling the President a traitor represents exactly the kind of thinking that harms the nation. The statement you have made is also factually incorrect on the number of ships. In that regard you are referring to President Bush.

The Navy could make do with its current funding or even less if it would build a larger number of more cost effective ships. They did this in the 1970's and 80's with the Perry class frigates. Those ships were not top of the line but they were relatively inexpensive and were more than capable of handling low to medium threat environments that account for most Naval activity (convoy escort, anti piracy, anti smuggling, disaster relief) while at the same time could act as a force supplement to the high end ships if they were needed. The Navy does not need to have 100% of its fleet being state of the art.