Some things never go out of style. That’s true of good grooming, good fashion, good music—and good ideas. In November 2005 the concept of a “1,000-ship Navy” was first floated in the pages of Proceedings by Vice Admiral John Morgan and Rear Admiral Charles Martoglio. Then-CNO Admiral Mike Mullen was a strong champion of the idea, telling an audience at the Naval War College in June 2006 that a global navy composed of forces from many nations standing watch around the world would enjoy great support. While it may have receded from the public’s consciousness over the intervening years, with attention focused on ground combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and the various budget crises at home, the 1,000-ship Navy idea has enjoyed a lasting influence, as shown by many of our features in this month’s international navies focus.
The concept has gained currency with many other maritime nations as they’ve come to realize that pooling resources will allow them to achieve the most bang for increasingly limited bucks. In our annual question to the heads of the world’s navies, we asked them what trends influence their state’s national-security decisions and how their service addresses these trends. A common thread among the 22 respondents is the importance of cooperation and shared responsibilities to meet today’s maritime threats. As one commander explained: “Maritime security challenges are diverse and transcend national boundaries. No single country has the bandwidth and resources to address them alone.” One of his peers echoed that, saying “it is increasingly necessary for countries to actively collaborate with each other for regional and global stability.”
The 1,000-ship Navy idea has returned to prominence in the U.S. Navy as well, this time from the Navy International Programs Office. Given the austere budgets that are affecting maritime forces around the world, Rear Admiral James J. Shannon and retired Lieutenant Commander Stephen J. Bowdren outline how the Navy is forging trust and partnerships with friendly and allied navies to share the cost of operating ships, aircraft, and weapon systems, thus resulting in “win-win-win” situations for all parties involved. Obviously, effective acquisition is a key component of how all navies function, and the plan advanced in this article should be an attractive one for the United States and other like-minded partners.
In the face of increasingly strained budgets, a navy faces the fiscal chopping block along with its fellow service branches and must reprioritize in order to continue fulfilling its missions. Sound familiar? No, it’s not the U.S. Navy this time, but important NATO partner Italy, whose fleet is undergoing the very sort of financial-resource and force-scaleback issues now being experienced by sailors under many flags. Retired Italian Navy Rear Admiral Michele Cosentino returns to the pages of Proceedings with this timely snapshot we’re sure will resonate with you.
As March arrives with hopeful thoughts of winter’s end (especially with so much of the country repeatedly pummeled by snow and ice storms in early 2014) and the crack of the bat on Opening Day, it also signals a rite of spring much-anticipated in naval circles—the appearance of Eric Wertheim’s detailed, country-by-country “World Navies in Review.” This year’s thorough roundup by Eric also celebrates the Naval Institute Press’ recent publication of the 16th edition of The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World, of which he is the indefatigable editor. It is, of course, an essential volume, and if you haven’t gotten your copy yet, now’s the time.
While cooperation and partnerships offer a viable options for the future, Representative J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) reminds us that the U.S. Navy still shoulders greater global responsibilities than any single or combined allied force. If one inventories the challenges faced by the Navy today, “the scope and scale of future maritime insecurity becomes apparent,” he warns. Given the importance of American sea power to the post-1945 world, he believes “the current trajectory of the U.S. Navy is simply unacceptable.” He makes clear what is at stake if the size of the Fleet continues to dwindle and proposes this panacea: extending the range and capabilities of the carrier air wing, sustaining our undersea-warfare advantage by producing more Virginia-class submarines and continuing to pioneer unmanned underwater vehicle development, honing our surface-warfare capabilities, and protecting naval research-and-development funding. As Representative Forbes often points out, if an ally makes a mistake in force structure or defense planning, the United States will be there as a backstop. But we can’t afford to get it wrong. If we do, who will be there to backstop us?