In fact seen in a bigger canvas, the present Indo-US naval honeymoon could be interpreted as an extension of the growth from the views of the US Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Michael Mullen, which signifies the most dramatic transformation in which virtually every ship’s location, position, movement and action, along with their inventory and intention will be at the finger tips of the Pentagon. Although it may be counter-argued as to “what is new about it” by arm-chair experts, the present print has only been a broad assessment of the three main points widening the US Navy’s official concept of “Seapower beyond solely warfighting.”

“Navy will influence the world by spreading the benefits of free markets and free societies.” Ironically, there perhaps is remote possibility on the part of the “world” to be “influenced” by a super power Navy taking the role of the economists and non-naval institutions to “spread the benefits of free markets and free societies.” Whether, by their gun power or lung power, only time will tell.

The second point pertaining to “ability of Seapower to respond with flexibility”, appears an achievable and a fair goal as is expected of a Navy, especially that of the US Navy. In an era of uncertainty and fear gripping the world at large, the flexibility and quick silver reflexes of a “world navy” is the sine-qua-non. And the USA just cannot do without it owing to its global economic interest and ever increasing hostile political climate.
The most significant and the long term perspective, however, is the third point pertaining to “enduring quality of seapower strategy which is to forge partnership with foreign navies, a concept the Admiral has billed as the 1000 ship navy.”

Question may be raised as to how and why is the sole Superpower interested in “partnership” when its own flotilla is more than capable of taking anything and anyone at any time and any place? Why does the US Navy want this cooperation from smaller mortals with comparatively poor quality and lesser quantity vessels? With 14 strategic missile submarines; 54 attack submarines; 12 aircraft carriers; 25 guided missile cruisers; 50 guided missile destroyers; 30 guided missile frigates; 08 coastal defence patrol ships and plethora of command ships, amphibious warfare and mine warfare forces, auxiliaries, military sealift command, special mission ships, prepositioning programme and ready reserve force, does one really require anything more?
On top of all these, the capacity and capability of the US Navy extend to include naval air and naval stations and bases in Keflavik (Iceland); Sigonella (Italy); Misawa, Okinawa, Sasebo and Yokosuka (Japan); Mildenhall (UK); Guantanamo Bay (Cuba); Chinhae (South Korea) and Rota (Spain).
Despite this omnipresence of the omnipotent Navy the present GWOT (global war on terror) does not make Washington DC confident enough to take on an invisible (and apparently indivisible) enemy the annihilation of which is becoming more difficult than ever before as was thought of earlier.

In fact, the US concern is understandable. No power on earth today, including the sole super power of the universe, can fight the terrorism unleashed by the fundamentalists and lunatics of the Orient or the Atlantic. Added to this high-tension, high-cost and long-drawn war of attrition came the hard and harsh reality when the US Navy found itself in troubled waters in early 2005 as “Financial Year 2006 budget enforced some difficult decisions.” According to the Jane’s Fighting Ships 2005-06 – “The high profile aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy is to retire.” Although the second “complex overhaul” of the ship was planned, thereby enabling it to complete 50 years of service on September 07, 2018, the scheme was aborted owing to economics.

Back<> Feature News