AHC: Smallest USN the US can live with during the Cold War

You need three times the number of SSNs per SSBN you want to take out so the number will always be in flux.

Even at their max, the Russians could not guarantee more than 12 operational at sea. The fourth added was the insurance pad. Not every attack boat was at sea, nor every Russian boomer in a bastion.
 
It wasn't until the early 1970s or later that the Soviets had sea launched missiles that could reach the USA from a "bastion" area. Prior to that their SSBNs/SSBs had to be in open waters, often relatively close to the US coastline.
 
It wasn't until the early 1970s or later that the Soviets had sea launched missiles that could reach the USA from a "bastion" area. Prior to that their SSBNs/SSBs had to be in open waters, often relatively close to the US coastline.

Early 1970s? More like 1980.

Their Yankees of the era were dead meat; but still required two trackers minimum each.
 
Via NATO and regional allies USN had quite powerful allies too, during the Cold War. RN provided some 12 SSN's in 1980's, JMSDF quite large ASW force etc.

IMHO, the possibility of having a smaller navy was a possible road not taken for the US during the Cold War. With the same budget, it could have also resulted in a Navy more focused on quality rather than quantity. More nuclear ships? (even) better SSN's?
 
Quality is always a good thing, except that even the finest ship can be in only one place at one time. Again, you need 3 to keep one of them at sea on station all the time. The other problem is that higher quality means more expensive, at some point you have absolutely marvelous ships but not enough to do the job.

NATO< ANZUS, Japan, South Korea all made contributions to naval force however all of them together did not equal the USN. Some tasks, like minesweeping for NATO were pretty much farmer out to NATO forces and the USA was not tasked for that. Another issue is that if you want NATO or JMSDF to get involved it is a political thing, if the other folks don't want to play and they have essential resources...
 
If the USN loses the Pentagon Wars that badly to the USAF, then something the size of the Coast Guard plus submarines works.

1. Is provided with SLBMs.

2. I literally cannot think of anywhere the US, with it's alliance system, cannot reach with land based air.

3. Thats a job for the USMC, using Jeep carriers with helicopters.

4. Mostly a job for land-based air.

5. Destroyers to show the flag, especially if B52s etc are slowly orbiting them.
I think this is a good take on it, but potentially you could even eliminate #5 if you swapped out the destroyers for Caspian Sea Monster-style ground effect vehicles which could conceivably fall under the purview of the USAF.

(That seems like it would be tough to pull off, but might have legs if you popularize the concept early enough or create a need for rapid deployment of that kind of force. One POD could be "Alexander Lippisch doesn't get cancer.")
 
@Ninja Bear : While the scenario you posit is the USAF wet dream, it is simply not happening.
1. Land based air is limited even if (and it is a very big if) "alliance" airbases are completely free and open to you. A lot of the oceans have empty spaces a good distance from land, this means lots of refueling for tactical aircraft to get to some naval target and get back. When you motor an aircraft carrier to a hot spot it comes with its battle group and supply train, unless you have units stationed at a lot more land bases than the USA ever had a significant presence at, this means deploying not only the planes and aircrew but also mechanics, armorers, medical personnel etc. AND all their tools and spare parts, and don't forget the weapons that may not be there and more fuel. Sure you can stockpile stuff all overt the place (like POMCUS) but this gets expensive, it needs to be maintained, etc.
2. Your plan has just ceded sea control to the enemy. Our alliance partners simply do not have the naval forces to protect shipping, whether moving troops and military supplies or "ordinary" civilian traffic (like oil tankers for example). Of course if any conflict means full out nuclear war, or no response, this does not matter. Submarines re useful but can't provide convoy escort, and certainly have no use in dealing with air/ASM attacks. In most instances land based air cannot do this - patrol aircraft (like P-3, P-8) are great for hunting subs, and some use against surface targets, they cannot intercept missiles carrying bombers nor can they have any shot at hitting an ASM after launch.
3. The Marines would be very unhappy with the idea that any amphibious assault would need to rely on land based air coming from many hundreds of miles away. This model simply does not work for CAS, something like Harriers from small carriers would be a minimum - but you have said only helicopters.

I could go on, but the reality is that we had the USN we had primarily because of the missions it was tasked to perform. Sure, pork barrel politics, interservice fighting etc had effects on force structure etc, BUT the general force structure was shaped by the missions the USN was tasked to perform. Very few people believe that "air power" can win a war through strategic bombing (unless you use nukes and winning means the enemy homeland is glowing green glass) without boots on the ground. The same applies for warfare at sea.
 
Top