Can Trump’s Navy Match China’s?
At least he’s trying to build more ships, but his new battleship and cutter aren’t enough.
By The Editorial Board
Will the United States counter China’s ambition to become the world’s dominant sea power?
That’s one of the biggest questions for U.S. security in 2026.
The Administration is steering the U.S. Navy in a new direction, and give President Trump credit for focusing on a fleet in troubled waters.
New battleships for the U.S. Navy will “help maintain American military supremacy, revive the American shipbuilding industry, and inspire fear in America’s enemies all over the world,”
Mr. Trump said Monday.
“We’re going to start with two” ships and “quickly morph into 10,” he said, with lasers, guns, missiles and more.
Today’s 296-ship Navy isn’t large or capable enough to prevent a war in the Pacific while deterring bad actors elsewhere.
China is amassing military power with one adversary in mind: the U.S. This threat demands a diverse mix of firepower, including more stealthy submarines, longer-range aircraft, a deep cache of long-range missiles spread across more ships, and an unmanned fleet to deter an invasion across the Taiwan Strait.
Is Mr. Trump’s new battleship right for that threat?
The ship could pack more long-range firepower for the fleet, including hypersonic missiles, albeit at eye-watering cost and perhaps with only roughly 30% or 40% more missile capacity than the latest destroyer.
The battleship won’t be on station until at least the 2030s.
The Administration says we’ll put a sea-launched nuclear cruise missile on the ship, which is good news.
That is the tactical nuclear weapon Joe Biden tried to cancel.
Allies wonder if they can trust the U.S. nuclear umbrella, and pressing ahead with a new traveling tactical nuke shows America won’t be cowed from defending its interests and friends.
But the best delivery vessel for that weapon is a submarine.
History also says the U.S. will struggle to build the Trump battleship.
Case in point is the Constellation-class frigate, which the Administration recently canceled.
The U.S. botched copying and pasting a relatively straightforward warship already in service in Europe.
How?
The Navy’s acquisition bureaucracy demanded so many changes that it defeated the purpose of having a blueprint.
By one report last year, the ship was about 15% similar to the parent design, down from 85%.
The Trump Pentagon is pivoting to adapt a Coast Guard cutter for the Navy and promising a first launch in 2028.
The need for quantity is urgent, and there’s an argument for building whatever we can.
Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Daryl Caudle says the fleet has only a third of the small combatants it needs.
Yet it’s an open question whether a cutter will be capable enough to be useful, as threats in all theaters become more complex.
Meanwhile, yanking the plans for the old frigate class from a Wisconsin shipyard will compound the dysfunction in U.S. shipbuilding, which is driven in part by a fickle Pentagon.
The Administration seems determined to avoid the endless fiddles that torpedoed the frigate.
But then why hasn’t President Trump abolished the Naval Sea Systems Command, which handles the service’s shipbuilding portfolio and mangled the frigate?
Salvage whatever was useful for someone else to run.
The Administration could better defend these new ships if it were putting up the money required to expand U.S. naval power.
But the Trump defense budget is flat.
This matters because the cutter and battleship could divert resources and focus from crucial priorities such as more stealthy submarines.
The Administration is making a worthy run at fixing U.S. sub production, and Mr. Trump heralded America’s “super duper” subs as “at least 15 years ahead” of any adversary.
Good to hear.
But will the U.S. be building even two attack submarines a year before Mr. Trump leaves office?
***
The larger problem is the apparent lack of clear direction for the Navy.
The Trump Administration often invokes Ronald Reagan’s naval buildup, but that effort was rooted in America as a global power with a chief adversary.
The Gipper dedicated sustained presidential leadership and budget increases to build a military that could defeat the Soviet Union.
Then he exercised that fleet to show his willingness to use it.
These are the rudders the U.S. now needs facing China—and its partners Russia, North Korea and Iran.
The Pentagon’s latest report about China’s military power, released this week, says “China expects to be able to fight and win a war on Taiwan by the end of 2027.”
That is a mere 24 months away, which is day trading for building a naval fleet.
Mr. Trump’s battleships and Jeffersonian coastal gunboats are preferable to the military decline Kamala Harris would have offered.
But a few new ships and a flat defense budget are still a bet on peace, and that isn’t the wager America’s enemies are placing.
0 comments:
Publicar un comentario