In the current debate about American defense policy, there is one element upon which both protagonists can usually agree if they review past history — that sea power always plays the pivotal role in shaping the outcome of potentially dangerous situations throughout the world. Today, with aggressive actions in the South China Sea, the Baltic and Black Sea areas, this has never been truer.

Surprisingly, the Democrats and Republicans find common ground. From what one reads, both agree that maintaining freedom of the seas preserves American access to vital raw materials abroad and prevents the economic exploitation of allied countries. There is also agreement that the presence of U.S. Navy ships in these volatile areas acts to deter a possible escalating situation. But when pressed to articulate a navy sized to accomplish the task, the common ground becomes murky. The 600 ship navy envisioned by the Reagan administration to fill this mission has now shrunk to 272 — the lowest level in over 100 years. We do not need 600 ships today but we need at least 350 to respond to the continuing requests for a U.S. Naval presence.

The argument for and against the right number of vessels has been stuck in the bureaucratic bloat. I don’t think it is constructive to review the circular argument of the opportunity costs of spending money on more warships rather than investing in other technologies or military hardware or the argument that newer ships are more capable than the ones they replace, etc. Anyone who has spent time in the gray areas of analysis knows that one can achieve whatever result is desired. Simply stated, the size of the Navy should reflect a strategy to deter volatile situations from escalating into a serious crisis.

The U.S. Navy possesses some of the most advanced fighter aircraft and submarine forces in the world. These are magnificent platforms but come at a very high cost. The aircraft carrier loaded with F-35s and supported by Aegis Cruisers, Destroyers and the submarine force will be the principal offensive weapon if war breaks out. But for obvious reasons, these large and expensive ships are not the choice of platforms for what is going on today in the South China Sea and elsewhere.


What is needed in these volatile areas are sufficient and less expensive surface warships, both in numbers and capability, to send a clear message that there is a risk associated with bullying and harassment on international waters. However, the Navy has not kept pace both in numbers of ships and with credible offensive weapon systems to meet this challenge.

The newest surface ships rolling out to the fleet are largely the new LCS (littoral combat ship) which are lacking in both offensive and defensive systems and place the ships in the untenable situation of being outgunned in addition to their limited capability to put ordinance on target. At the same time, our adversaries — Russian, Chinese and Iranian surface ships have been watching us and have increased their surface to surface offensive capability to ensure an advantage. And that is disturbing because U.S. technology has developed the requisite weapons systems to reverse this disadvantage and offensively counter any adversary. We must crash through the bureaucracy and either strap on these new weapon systems or wait until some belligerent rogue state makes a mistake and the situation escalates to an all-out crisis.

And equally important, numbers still count. The call for surface warfare ships to be on station around the world and in areas that are being contested will not stop — the call for help was loud and clear when I was a young ensign on my first Destroyer. To meet these commitments, the Surface Warfare Navy has essentially been on port and starboard for the past 40 years guaranteeing freedom of the seas for vital economic trade and support for threatened allies. The cost has been high with the readiness of the surface navy fragile. Deployments are longer and the opportunities for maintenance fewer. Hollow promises from the House Seapower Committee to increase the number of surface warfare ships continue to slip to the out-years while our national security is compromised.

Time has run out to make light of the increasing threat. The apparent willingness of our adversaries to risk escalating a potential conflict in the South China Sea should be the catalyst to concentrate our efforts with the highest priority to correct the shortfalls. The solution is clear and achievable and the time to act on it is now.


McCauley, a Coronado resident, is a retired U.S. Navy vice admiral who spent over 30 years in the Surface Warfare Navy.