In his column in the Wall Street Journal Greg Ip sounds a theme I have raised repeatedly around here. Those urging the U. S. increase its military capability are missing something—we don’t have the industrial capability at present to support a larger military:
When the Center for Strategic and International Studies simulated a war between the U.S. and China over Taiwan, the wargame ended with Taiwan still free, at grievous cost. The U.S. loses two aircraft carriers and up to 20 destroyers and cruisers; China sees more than 50 major surface warships sunk.
What looks like a draw, though, becomes a Chinese victory before long. As Eric Labs, a navy analyst for the Congressional Budget Office explains, China can replace lost ships far more quickly. In the past two years, its navy has grown by 17 cruisers and destroyers; it would take the U.S. six years to build the same number under current conditions, he said.
“In terms of industrial competition and shipbuilding, China is where the U.S. was in the early stages of World War II,†Labs said. In the U.S. now, “we just don’t have the industrial capacity to build warships…in large numbers very fast.â€
What’s more with the vast litigation infrastructure in the United States (we have more lawyers than any other country in the world) any industrial build-up would inevitably be fought in the courts, stretching the build-up out even farther.
Mr. Ip continues:
Echoing the quality problems U.S. manufacturers of semiconductors, autos and airliners have experienced, defense manufacturers suffer from endemic cost overruns and delays. On average, a new lead ship costs 40% more than the Navy first estimates, the CBO says. Delivery times for submarines have grown to nine years from six.
These shortcomings matter all the more because China controls entire industrial supply chains, enabling it to deploy capacity quickly to new priorities, such as tests and personal protective equipment during the Covid-19 pandemic.
It has put that capacity to use in expanding its military. A shipyard in Huludao that builds civilian vessels and nuclear submarines boasts annual capacity in excess of all the ships the U.S. has launched since 2014.
I’m not encouraged by the likelihood that any war with China would go nuclear very quickly.
BTW neither do we have the industrial capability to supply Ukraine at the pace the Ukrainians want us to at present (let alone supply Ukraine and Israel and Taiwan simultaneously). Most of what has been sent to them before has been from inventory. All of that is true in spades for Europe.
It’s an especially pressing problem because the Navy shipbuilding programs over the last couple of decades have largely been disasters.
It’s not a new phenomenon. There’s a joke I first heard more than 50 years ago: an elephant is a mouse built to milspec. Has it gotten worse lately?
I thought what was interesting is the title; “The U.S. Can Afford a Bigger Military. We Just Can’t Build It.”
Even if the US could build it, could the US afford it? What’s the required size of the military that can fulfill the tasks that the White House and Congress are asking it to do?
If the goal is “hegemony” as it often appears….
As me auld mither used to say “We can afford anything we want we just can’t afford everything we want”. We can afford it. What are we willing to give up to do it?
At present the answer seems to be “nothing” and that’s why we can’t afford it.
It bears mentioning that I think we should reduce the number of tasks our military is being asked to undertake rather than expand them and I don’t believe U. S. hegemony should be our goal.
For shipbuilding it has gotten worse.
Several of the new ship classes are already being retired while the stalwarts from several decades ago remain in service. The Navy is now buying more Arleigh Burke destroyers, a ship design that entered service in 1991, although newer variants are more advanced.