Reagan gets his 600 ship navy

So let's say that the Cold War is more intense in the '80s and Congress is more willing to find the money for the Reagan administration's naval build-up. What effect does a larger navy have on the US ship-building industry, on the course of the cold war if the USSR survives into the 1990s and 2000s and does having more ships appreciably change America's ability to project power into 3rd World crisis zones or into the South China Sea?

fasquardon
 

Driftless

Donor
I don't know the answer to this part of the question. A 600 ship fleet would also require a comparable boost in the number of sailors and in support staff and logistical tail. That staffing and supply is going to have a huge economic impact all on it's own. The pay and benefits would impact both active duty and eventually probably a big boost in pension head count too.
 
Just keep the build-up going a few more years, say by keeping the deficit from rampaging out of control, say by not lowering taxes so much.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/scn-1981-reagan.htm said:
At the end of fiscal year (FY) 1988, the Navy had a total battle force of 566 ships
also
ibid said:
By 1985, that number reached 542. The increase was mainly attributed to the addition to the fleet of frigates, nuclear attack submarines, and surface support ships (transport ships similar in construction to commercial ships). At the rate of 20 to 25 new deployable ships per year (new construction and conversions) throughout the remainder of the decade, the 600-ship goal could be attained.
 
Everything would depend not just how many ships there are but also what ships you have. That 566-ship force includes a whole bunch of one-off vessels, the submarine fleet (which included three diesel-electric SSKs and at least two unique submarines, as well as the Ohio-class SSBNs which aren't going to see use in any combat scenario that doesn't involve ending the world) and a whole fleet of older vessels that were at best dealing with mechanical issues as a result of old age and in some cases simply obsolete.
 
and a whole fleet of older vessels that were at best dealing with mechanical issues as a result of old age and in some cases simply obsolete.
Reminds of the RN before the Fisher-led reforms. Per Wikipedia "when appointed First Sea Lord in 1904, he removed 150 ships then on active service which were no longer useful"
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Realistically it makes no difference at all. IOTL the fleet wound up with 588 ships. The Navy didn't get quite what it wanted (there was a plan to replace the old mine hunter/minelayer fleet of 25 ships with a new class of 32 ships, and there a plan to construct 20 more Spruance to the original design i.e the Kidd subclass to bring the fleet to 137 DDG) but the difference, in any way that could be considered noteworthy short of an actual major power war was insignificant.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
How many ships does the USN have now?
306 and dropping.

The USN couldn't even absorb the cost of mothballing the Spruance class DDG when they were replaced by the DDG 51 class, despited the fact they had ALL been updated and were ready to go through 2019, even without another refit. They were all either broken up or expended in ShootEx, except one in use as a testbed.
 
might they have squeezed out a few more ships out of the budget if they hadn't reactivated the 4 Iowa class BBs? IIRC, they took up a lot of money and required a huge number of sailors for each one...
 
306 and dropping.

The USN couldn't even absorb the cost of mothballing the Spruance class DDG when they were replaced by the DDG 51 class, despited the fact they had ALL been updated and were ready to go through 2019, even without another refit. They were all either broken up or expended in ShootEx, except one in use as a testbed.

Wasn't that at least somewhat political rather than just the straight up cost?
 
306 and dropping.

The USN couldn't even absorb the cost of mothballing the Spruance class DDG when they were replaced by the DDG 51 class, despited the fact they had ALL been updated and were ready to go through 2019, even without another refit. They were all either broken up or expended in ShootEx, except one in use as a testbed.

How big was USN in August 1945?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Wasn't that at least somewhat political rather than just the straight up cost?
The budget issue was, in large part, political. There was also some concern that the only way to get the DDG 51 in sufficient quantities was to put the Spruances on the bottom of the sea.
 
Goes to show you what a strong economy can give you. The Royal Navy, the largest naval force in 1939 with 332 ships, had a comparatively small 553 ships in service in 1945 (not including 278 ships lost in wartime service).

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignRoyalNavy.htm

Well from what I see, that just refers to the active surface ships and submarines, while the list I provided referred to all commissioned vessels by the Navy, which included the amphibious vessels, patrol vessels, mine warfare, and auxiliary vessels.

Counting surface vessels and submarines, the US had 1,065 warships. So, about twice as large as the RN in comparison at that point in 1945.
 
Thanks for make apples to apples.

We often think the RN of WW1 was much larger than WW2's RN. However, The RN of 1914 was only 448 vessels, including per Wikipedia; 18 modern dreadnoughts (6 more under construction), 10 battlecruisers, 20 town cruisers, 15 scout cruisers, 200 destroyers, 29 battleships (pre-dreadnought design) and 150 cruisers built before 1907.
 
306 and dropping.

The USN couldn't even absorb the cost of mothballing the Spruance class DDG when they were replaced by the DDG 51 class, despited the fact they had ALL been updated and were ready to go through 2019, even without another refit. They were all either broken up or expended in ShootEx, except one in use as a testbed.

Cripes, they've been retiring the Tico class cruisers for several years now.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Cripes, they've been retiring the Tico class cruisers for several years now.
True, but those are the non-VLS ships with the Mark 26 launcher and 88 missile load-out. It was decided that it was too expensive to more or less completely rebuild the ships to handle VLS cells.
 
Cripes, they've been retiring the Tico class cruisers for several years now.

They only retired the twin-arm Mk. 26 ones; beyond that, the Navy's basically planning to upgrade eleven Ticonderogas which would gradually replace the eleven not being upgraded. Congress is opposed to that and wants to keep all of them in operation arguing the Navy could retire them all at once, so we'll have to see if anything further comes from that, and which decision will be chosen.
 
Hmm. Very interesting. Thanks to everyone for the replies.

It sounds like getting the 600-ship navy would be fairly easy, but keeping it (even if the cold war continued) would be more difficult, due to the need to upgrade or replace aging ships...

It also sounds like the consensus is that Reagan's navy wouldn't have that big an effect on American power, which is interesting.

fasquardon
 
Top