Here is the video from the May 9th Panel. About an hour.
U.S. Navy for the 21st Century
Sunday, May 18, 2024
Saturday, May 17, 2024
Mediocre Carriers Are Sometimes Enough
Australia giving some thought to the F-35B:
Defence Minister David Johnston told The Weekend West _the Government was considering buying the "B" model of the F-35 - a specialised variant of the stealth jet being built to operate from aircraft carriers. Last month, Australia committed to buying 72 of the conventional model F-35s from US aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin at a cost of almost $20 billion. But the Government has left the door open to buying more F-35s and the minister says the F-35B will be considered. "Now that aircraft is more expensive, does not have the range but it's an option that has been considered from day one," Senator Johnston said.Here's a piece I wrote a couple weeks ago on the suitability of the Canberra class as F-35B platform:
To be clear, effectively operating the high-tech JSF takes more than just a flat deck. The Canberras are amphibious warships first. They can support helicopters just fine, but they lack the munitions and aviation fuel storage to support intensive fixed-wing flight operations. Training, deck organization and personnel for helicopters differ significantly compared to those for fighters. Moreover, flying JSFs from the Canberras would impair the vessels’ ability to carry out their primary mission by taking up deck space and storage and splitting training time... The Canberras wouldn’t make great carriers or even good carriers. But in the right circumstances, Australia might only need a mediocre carrier.
I'm an assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce, University of Kentucky.
Friday, May 16, 2024
The Gift of American Power
Only occasionally does someone write something that causes me to smile broadly and do a little fist-pump. Robert Kaplan's piece yesterday in Real Clear World was just such an occasion. Coming as it did on the same day as Usha Sahay's piece at War on the Rocks entitled "No, America is Not in Retreat" made for two interesting and somewhat orthogonal views. Kaplan stakes his claim here:
"But what about all those new global and regional institutions and organizations, to say nothing about the growth and opportunity that has come from financial markets? Aren't they the other, more positive half of reality? They are. But then the question arises: Why have they been able to come into being in the first place? What ultimately undergirds them? The answer is one that many members of the global political and financial aristocracy do not want to hear: raw American power."
And then speaks clearly to the nature of that power here:
"It is the various U.S. Navy fleets and numbered air forces that are the ultimate guarantor of stability in the key theaters of the globe...The U.S. Navy calls itself a global force for good. That claim would pass the most stringent editorial fact-checking process. Without that very naked American ambition, which allows the Navy and the Air Force to patrol the global commons, the world is reduced to the sum of its parts: a Japan and China, and a China and India, dangerously at odds and on the brink of war; a Middle East in far wider war and chaos; a Europe neutralized and emasculated by Russian Revanchism; and an Africa in even greater disarray."
Contrast this with Sahay's piece:
"It’s certainly true that America is changing its role on the world stage. But that’s not the same as retreating from that stage altogether. In fact, the opposite is true: by many measures, the Obama administration has increased American engagement with the world. What has changed is not the amount of engagement, but its nature. Obama has sought to re-orient our foreign policy away from a military-first approach, and toward a more comprehensive approach that leans more on diplomatic and economic tools."
And:
"Critics who believe that Obama has pulled back from the world stage are confusing quantitative changes in the nature of U.S. engagement with a qualitative decline in that engagement."
Read both articles. For Kaplan, it is hard power that ultimately backs up diplomatic engagement. For Sahay-who not once, but twice, refers to pre-Obama foreign policy is terms of "militarism", engagement is self-perpetuating.
Bryan McGrath
"But what about all those new global and regional institutions and organizations, to say nothing about the growth and opportunity that has come from financial markets? Aren't they the other, more positive half of reality? They are. But then the question arises: Why have they been able to come into being in the first place? What ultimately undergirds them? The answer is one that many members of the global political and financial aristocracy do not want to hear: raw American power."
And then speaks clearly to the nature of that power here:
"It is the various U.S. Navy fleets and numbered air forces that are the ultimate guarantor of stability in the key theaters of the globe...The U.S. Navy calls itself a global force for good. That claim would pass the most stringent editorial fact-checking process. Without that very naked American ambition, which allows the Navy and the Air Force to patrol the global commons, the world is reduced to the sum of its parts: a Japan and China, and a China and India, dangerously at odds and on the brink of war; a Middle East in far wider war and chaos; a Europe neutralized and emasculated by Russian Revanchism; and an Africa in even greater disarray."
Contrast this with Sahay's piece:
"It’s certainly true that America is changing its role on the world stage. But that’s not the same as retreating from that stage altogether. In fact, the opposite is true: by many measures, the Obama administration has increased American engagement with the world. What has changed is not the amount of engagement, but its nature. Obama has sought to re-orient our foreign policy away from a military-first approach, and toward a more comprehensive approach that leans more on diplomatic and economic tools."
And:
"Critics who believe that Obama has pulled back from the world stage are confusing quantitative changes in the nature of U.S. engagement with a qualitative decline in that engagement."
Read both articles. For Kaplan, it is hard power that ultimately backs up diplomatic engagement. For Sahay-who not once, but twice, refers to pre-Obama foreign policy is terms of "militarism", engagement is self-perpetuating.
Bryan McGrath
Wednesday, May 14, 2024
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)