The 150 Ship Navy?

That's what former Navy Secretary John Lehman warns is going to happen if the US doesn't build more ships than its current five per year.

Bubbleheads had previously commented on the declining number of submarines, and its effects on our capabilities to project power around the world at a time when threats can pop up just about anywhere in the world. The Navy is often the first to be on the scene, with the aircraft carriers being the most visible show of force that the US has. Yet, submarines are often called upon to project power through their use of sub-launched cruise missiles. Submarines are also now called upon to do more missions, including special forces insertions and other operations in littoral waters.

There was a time when the US would not make due with anything less than 600 ships. Then 500, 400, 300, and now we're seeing that 150 ships may be in the cards. One CBO estimate showed that the Navy funding is short nearly $17 billion per year for the foreseeable future, which translates into further reductions in fleet size.

For most of the 1990s, the Navy built far fewer ships, on average, than required to maintain a force of 300 in a steady state. Between fiscal years 1992 and 1999, the Navy ordered an average of 4.5 ships per year, about half the steady-state requirement. That low level of shipbuilding was possible because the Navy had many more ships than it needed to fulfill its force goal at the conclusion of the Cold War and was even retiring ships before the end of their useful service life. The shipbuilding plan under the 2001 FYDP would allow the Navy to meet its force goal for the next 10 years or so. Eventually, however, the Navy would have to buy more ships or the attrition that occurs as vessels reach the end of their service life would lead to a smaller fleet.

Decisions made during the 1990s will continue to affect Navy procurement and size since service life of ships comes in cycles and if replacement of older ships does not occur regularly, the size of the active navy will shrink further.

That has serious repercussions. Not only will fewer ships make power projection more difficult, but should there be a crisis, the loss of any of those ships to enemy action or mechanical difficulty would seriously harm US tactical and strategic means because each individual ship takes on that much more importance.

The declining size of the Navy is also coming at a time when the Chinese Navy is bulking up in a huge way, and even navies like Iran are building up brown water fleets that can threaten US interests in the littoral waters of the Persian Gulf, Mediteranean Sea, and other coastal areas.

For those keeping track of how the Navy ships are named, see here. I personally liked the old system, but know that getting ships built in today's environment requires far more political backscratching than it used to - so we get ships named for politicians, famous people, and navy personnel instead of fish (submarines), cities (submarines), states (battleships), and famous ships/battles (aircraft carriers).

UPDATE:
It isn't just the Navy that needs additional funding. The Army and Marines need funds to make sure that they meet not only current needs, but future needs. The size of the military needs to be grown. The size were permitted to shrink during the 1990s and our enemies may perceive that the miltiary is too small to deal with current threats outside Iraq.