Infographic: Horses And Bayonets? Guns And Butter?

I think MSNBC is doing the fact checking for the debate, Not sure though. Thanks for this, I was beginning to think this was a science magazine.

Another biased, useless popsci article. You dont seriously believe that Romney believe's that our 1917 forces can take on and defeat our modern forces do you? I think the point he was trying to make is peace through strength and not that our current technology is still back in 1917. You actually reasearched all these stats????? I'd like to put the writer of this article and popsci in a small room in a life or death struggle with a marine. I'll even give the writer a gun and the marine gets only a bayonet, which are still standard issue by the way. Lets do some science popsci!!!!! And leave the politics to the politicians. I get enough spin and nonsense from the so called news sites. One more political story out of your stupid sorry arses and you lose at least one reader .... me! I'm sure your competitors wouldnt mind adding a reader. Holy shitzva, ya give these guys an ear and they gotta spew nonsense all the time. GET SOME SCIENCE DONE!!!!!

Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.

What is this garbage? I made an account just so I could let the popsci world know that I will no longer be visiting this website because time after time I keep seeing politics come up where it has no place. I've had enough of it this time.

Sincerely,

a faithful reader for 3 years.

If there is anyone I'd want doing my fact-checking, it's the nerds a Popsci. Besides, It is possible to read this article for the sheer enjoyment of LEARNING SOMETHING!! That's really why I come to Popsci. To learn. Thank you, other commenters, for ruining even that for me.

Looking past the horrible grammar, image compression artifacts, and the fact that nothing in the article or the infographic makes any kind of meaningful comparison between the strength of the U.S. Navy now as compared to the U.S. Navy in 1916 or any other country, this article does not answer the question it's trying to ask.

Let's start with the random question that pops up in the middle of the article (which is NOT the question in the subtitle). Is the U.S. Navy underpowered?

Maybe.

The article and infographics say no by comparing the size of the U.S. Navy to that of the 1916 U.S. Navy and by comparing the number of U.S. aircraft carriers with all of those around the world. Neither answer the question. The modern U.S. Navy is tasked with projecting U.S. military power everywhere in the world, which neither the 1916 U.S. Navy nor any other country in the world needs to do. Comparing them is useless.

Then, the article tries to explain how modern technology has allowed the Navy to be more effective at its mission with fewer ships and aircraft. This doesn't answer the question of whether or not the Navy is underpowered. All this shows is that technology has made the Navy more effective.

A modern carrier strike group could take out the entire 1916 U.S. Navy? Who would have known? Let's go build a 2108 aircraft carrier so we can replace our current navy. If you can't, that comparison serves no purpose.

The question at the heart of the presidential debate is whether or not the U.S. military has the resources it needs to do what it needs to do. Comparing the number of ships, the capabilities of each ship, or the trends in naval warfare DOES NOT answer this question.

Romney is saying that the Navy isn't as big as it was planned to be or as big as it needs to be to respond to threats. He's right on the first one and maybe right on the second one. That's what the presidential debate was talking about yesterday—the question of whether or not the navy has the resources to do its job today, after a round of cuts. All this article says is that the U.S. Navy is big (compared to other countries) and it is more technologically advanced compared to the 1916 U.S. Navy.

Oh no, what are they going to do if they lose if they lose two or three readers? Those 300 and something thousand other people just might fill the void if they are lucky.

some interesting facts but really popsci? this is ridiculously biased

@GGenua
You are SO right. I don't think a non biased SCIENCE site should have ANYTHING to do with the election. Period. I hope the backlash from this article cuts the sites viewership just so it gets through their thick skull that whatever idiot put this up deserves to be fired or at least punished. Science DOESN'T equal polotics.

First off, this honestly doesn't belong here.

Since it is.. Actually, I had something else typed out, but I'll just refer to madscientist8. He said it better than I did.

I had to make an account to answer all these greedy old people's comments, to many Romney fanatics. Anyways this was an awesome Article outlining the difference in military power between two time periods.

Science is about empowering people with knowledge and getting the facts straight. That's what the author did.

I don't get how this was biased, if someone of authority compares something outrageously stupid, would I want to sit around and agree without any doubt. Heck no, I'd want the facts! So I appreciate the author for doing research.

@evicfinite
That wasn't the point, for me at least. The point was that this is a SCIENCE website not a political blog. In my mind every article should be rotted in science not someones own tool to put out their political views.

What's it to you if I believe in God? If you're right it doesn't matter, but if I'm right it matters more than the world.
How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? - Athiest Penn Jillette

A ship can only be in one place at a time... the number of ships is equal in importance to the technology on board... a point that the pundits missed.
And no, PopSci should not be writing politically charged articles or expressing political opinions. But I guess we're gonna have to live with it and skip past the drivel.

China launches new carrier. Did the US carrier force get 9% less capable in a relative sense?

While an F22 with smart weapons has a much higher capability than a Tomcat with a belly bomb, it also costs a little bit more.

Britain and France have some sophisticate weapons systems but they couldn't handle Gaddafi w/o US help.

If you go to war with the second best weapons you usually lose.

GGenua, etc. The fact is the US Navy as it stands today is stronger than any of the worlds navy's many times over. China for example has only one carrier, a ship retrofitted to become a carrier. Romney wants to spend far more money than the Pentagon has requested. He also lives in the past, the real threat these days is cyber-terror. This article simply is pointing out it is not about the number of ships but what their capabilities are. If you are concerned about "peace through strength" rest assured we are the strongest military the world has ever seen and more powerful than any other military on earth. We spend more on our military than the GNP of most countries, and more than the top 10 countries that follow us in spending combined.

Sincerely,

a PopSci reader of over 30 years

What's really fascinating about this article is that although the title contains the word "bayonet", the body of the article does not. Why? Could it be that that aspect of the story doesn't cast POTUS in a favorable light? See, Presidnet Obama's comment notwithstanding, the two infantry services, US Army and US Marine Corps, each separately and both together, currently issue more bayonets than their respective incarnations did in the year 1916. Here's the research: www.nationalreview.com/corner/331392/bayonets-and-submarines-charles-c-w-cooke#

To me, this ommission constitutes direct and convincing evidence of bias. Shame on you, Martha Harbison, Emily Elert, Clay Dillow.

As for the other stats, even though Pres. Obama did speak to the correct criteria for evaluating the adequacy of the forces at our disposal (capability, not numbers), that is only half of the story. The US deploys multiple Naval task forces around the world. Each one has to be able to project adequate power to accomplish its mission while defending itself from all the relevant threats. The number 313 (ships that the Navy wanted) is based on the Naval Staff looking at the deployment commitments, maintenance schedules, training requirements, surge requirements, and a number of other criteria.

If the Navy is hit hard by the sequestration, as Gov. Romney argues, they will not have the budget and the ship counts to fulfill their projected deployment commitments, maintain the fleet in a combat ready condition, and to train the sailors, airmen, Marines, and their commanding officers to the keen edge of combat readiness required to win on the modern battlefield.

And so one of two things will happen. Either the US will have to forgo one or more missions, or we will deploy insufficient forces, insufficeintly supplied, trained or led. In the former case, the US will lose strategically, in the latter, we will lose our warriors needlessly and may not accomplish the mission anyway.

Neither alternative is acceptable to the Romney/Ryan team, and it shouldn't be accaptable to any patriotic American.

PS. It really is true that those who don't know (or choose to ignore) history, are doomed to repeat it. Remember Jimmy Carter, and how he hollowed out the DoD? And the consequences thereof? Well, judging by his performance last night, Pres. Obama looks to outdo Pres. Carter in this department by a country mile.

@rcc_2000. As I argue above, just "capability" understates the challenge by a large margin. If the US Navy was pitted one-on-one against any other, we will win decisively, quickly, and with low casualties. The problem with this argument is that this is not what the mission of the US NAvy is. It is highly unlikely that the entire US Navy be deployed in any particular area of the world to fight just one opponent. We just have too many fires to tend around the world.

What is far more likely, is that a small sub-group of the Navy, such as a single Carrier Battle Group, or an even smaller task force, will be attacked by someone and will have to deal with the issues at hand before reinforcements arrive from Honolulu, Okinawa, Seattle, or Virginia. In that scenario, the taskforce having just one or two extra hulls might make the difference between winning and losing.

For example, the Chinese People's Liberation Army-Navy now fields anti-ship ballistic misslies with terminal guidance and satellite control systems. These are huge ship-killers targeted specifically at the US carriers. If they let loose a salvo, then even a Carrier Battle Group, let alone a smaller task force, will have a hard time surviving. An extra Ticonderoga or two or a 3-4 Arleigh Burkes would make a difference between being able to withstand such an attack and losing a big-deck nuclear carrier.

For another example, Iran currently fields several very quiet Russian diesel subs (Kilo class). If Iranians ever figure out how to use them properly, our guys could be in real trouble in the Gulf. A few extra anti-submarine and anti-mine platforms would be a real godsend in that situation.

In general, cutting the Navy seems like a penny wise but depply poound foolish idea.

If you're still not convinced, please read Alfred Thayer Mahan's (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan) classic book on Naval Strategy (www.amazon.com/Influence-Power-upon-History-1660-1805/dp/0831757248/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1351043563&sr=8-7&keywords=alfred+thayer+mahan), and it's effect on world history. Written over a hundred years ago, it's still required reading in most of the Naval Academies of the world.

Romney is simply echoing what many military leaders and geoplical stratagists have noted. I've read lots of books that reminded me that the US Navy keeps the worlds sea lanes open. The only reason international trade happens between most nations of the world is because of the US navy. It also helps us to have allies accessible when the next enemy tries to start gathering allies throughout the world. For this, you have to have enough boats to cover the earth. Asia is threatening to fall into the control of our enemies because we do not have enough navy presence there. There is no other way to do it besides having more boats.

Romney's point is real and no thanks for noting that a simple count of boats does not reflect the whole picture. We already knew that.

Jason

@ brtbrt
why do you guys get so anal about semantics. The point president Obama was trying to make was that certain technologies like bayonets get out of date therefore they are no longer needed. That there may be more bayonets in the army today is of no import. I'm sure you had to look that up and if you didn't notice Pres Obama didn't have a computer in front of him during the debate. rcc_2000 said it right. Our navy is many times stronger than anyone other countries. Our military is so ridiculously strong it seems more like we are planning to take over the world. We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined. I don't understand why all these other people are saying the navy has to be able to project power throughout the world. Where does it say the responsibility of the US is to dominate the world! And for anyone criticizing the author since when does science have to be separate from politics. Should we stop reporting on global warming because some republicans say it isn't true? What about evolution? Science transcends politics and when some one makes such an idiotic statement it is scientist responsibility to call them out. It is not their fault that these idiots are usually republican.

I'm not sure who the "you guys" are, @adwuga. Me, I'm just correcting the misleading and biased info in this article and in one of the comments. What's wrong with that?

Re: bayonets: and my whole point is that POTUS is wrong about bayonets. They are not outmoded. They are still, well, the cutting edge of infantry weapons, if you will. And the fact that our Commander in Chief thinks otherwise, even in a political context, is a strong indicator of his cluelessness and incompetence about the Armed Forces and the technoogy currently used.

Re: Navy around the world: do please educate yourself about the consequences of not doing so. In the previous message, I provided the link to the seminal work on Naval Strategy by AT. Mahan, where he argues most convincingly that failiure to appreciate the influence of a strong Navy for a maritime economic power is usually followed, and very swiftly, by its economic and political decline. If you think AT. Mahan is wrong, do please share your argument. Please be aware that most countries that bother to have Navay and a Naval institution of higher learning believe his arguments to such an extent that the book is required reading for all of theyr Naval officers. If you think that America could use some declining, I would respectfully disagree. And I hope so would most Americans. Perhaps some folks in the WHite House might agree, but that's the point of this election, isn't it?

Arm waving about what other countries do or do not spend, without first addressing the actual arguments advanced by me and others in this thread is not very convicing. Just taking the President at his word, and focusing on "capabilities", in the context of my argument above, should make clear that "capabilities" must include numbers. Otherwise they are meaningless. Just think about it for a second, and follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion. If we just build one huge ship that has more missles that all the other naval vessels of the world combined, do you really think that it alone would be able to accomplish all the various missions the US Navy faces? No? Why not?

And if the President wishes to draw down the Navy by 100 ships, as he does under the sequestration, which he signed into law without protest, then his competence in leading this country can and will be quetioned. See my argument above.

Finally, re "anal about semantics" (AAS): I won't even go as far as to argue about the semantics (or lack thereof) of that statement. Please see the definition of the word semantics in any dictionary or Wiki you happen to have at hand. I don't think this word means what you think it means. I'll just mention that you seem to think it's OK to be AAS as long as it's agains Gov. Romney (as the above article attempts, unsuccessfully, to do), but as soon as the tables are turned, it's no longer OK.

Pfeh. Rubbish.

ps. Oh, sorry, forgot your last point. Yeah, I'm not the one arguing against PopSci jumping into politics. I have no problem with them doing so. I just wish they did it impartially, or at least competently. They did neither.

@brtbrt It is highly unlikely that a small force attack that you describe would ever occur. It would be suicide on the part of the aggressor nation. In the case of China doing a "peal Harbor" attack, the response would be the air-sea battle strategy. If Iran were stupid enough to attack a US warship the result would be a very decisive counter strike that would cripple Iran. A few more hulls, as you say will have no consequence on the outcome. Additionally, in the 2013 budget we have $12.8 Billion for ship building they include

• John F. Kennedy (CVN 79), the second CVN 78 Ford-class aircraft carrier.

• Two SSN 774 Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines.

• Two DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class Flight IIA Aegis destroyers.

• Four Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), split evenly between both types being built.

• One Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV).

Ships are being built.

It is far more likely an aggressor nation would launch a cyber attack on the US rather than a conventional attack. We need to stop the "fighting the last war" mentality and start thinking about the next conflicts. If history teaches us anything it is that those who prepare for the strategies of the last war are left at a disadvantage. Before WWII the naval powers raced to build larger "dreadnoughts" battleships, which at the time were the centerpiece of most modern navies. But by the end of that war it was the aircraft carrier that was the jewel of the navy. The issue is that these ships cost a lot of money, and it does not make sense to build ships that we do not need. As we stand now and for the foreseeable future, our Navy is leagues ahead of its next closest rival. There has never been a time in modern history that the disparity between the #1 and #2 navies.

The bottom line is I advocate a strong navy, but I believe that is exactly what we have. Spending trillions for what we do not need will not make us stronger, it will make us poorer. The last thing we need is an arms race against ourselves.

First off, I think the article is appropriate here and I appreciated it. I've been a reader for 30+ years. Secondly, as a Marine I have to clear up one point, bayonets are trained with in boot camp. You won't see them in the fleet. They are not a part of our combat load out. As far as I know, the Army hasn't used them since before Iraq. So I'm sorry brtbrt, but its not the Commander in Chief that is wrong, it is you. " The cutting edge of infantry weapons" is cute and all, but its completely wrong. Try telling that to a group of veterans and let me know how it turns out.

PS the President does not want to draw down the Navy by 100 ships under the sequestration. Sequestration was a bipartisan mechanism to get both sides to agree on a budget. Sequestration, is political brinkmanship and likely to be resolved in the 11th hour. The question is do we devote resources to build up our military with assets it does not want our need because the politicians want it but the military does not? This reminds me of the point in the Afghan war In 2011, Rep Young (FL) resisted a request by the Pentagon to transfer $863 million in funds from Humvee production to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance for the conflict in Afghanistan. AM General, which makes the Humvee, has been a contributor to Young's campaigns. The military noted they did not need the Humvees but needed the money for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and body armor. Of course the Representative got his way.

BTW what Obama said about Horses and Bayonets: "We Have Fewer Horses and Bayonets” Than We Did in 1916. He did not say we did not have any.

I have been a faithful reader for 2 years now. Recently, Popsci is posting non science related articles which makes me think they are loosing money so they hire cheap writers and researchers to create political, etc articles to trigger nerves and make people come to this site and just to comment...This is a myopic strategy and in the long run you will lose....Popsci, please fire these writers of yours....I read a lot of scientific websites and you are forcing me to not visit here anymore.....

Just to comment on the "100 sortie" phrase...if it was an atomic bomb which we used before...1 sortie carrying that atomic bomb can destroy 1 target and it's neighboring areas (which I can assume is enemy territory), fortunately now, we don't use those anymore....so Martha Harbison, Emily Elert, Clay Dillow your argument has holes....I hope Popsci will review the articles you wrote and then hopefully decide along with the readers interests....

I have never understood why when an article or story comes out which contradicts a political candidate, it is immediately biased. Just the other day I was speaking to someone who thought the BLS was biased because the unemployment rate dropped. Though when in late 2011 when the unemployment rate spiked for one month, he was throwing the BLS around praising the facts. It is unbelievable.

Having said that, what I got from this article was that the US Navy has far more capabilities and is more efficient than it was in 1917. I believe everyone knows that is a no brainer. It also, though in a rather weak way, explains that in just 40-60 years, our effectiveness has greatly increased. I got that from the WWII style planes vs the F-15. In addition, it explains that with greater efficiency, the military is able to do more with less. One commenter pointed out that one ship cannot be in two places at once. True, but our vessels and planes today have greater range and there for be spread out more. They are able to cover 100% of the planet with 20% less. Efficiency is the goal we should be perusing.

Lastly, I whole heartily agree with rcc_2000 that the next greatest threat this nation is going to encounter is cyber warfare. The world already knows they cannot match our military might, but they now understand they have a chance if they can cut off our cyber network. That is our weakness as well as our over confidence in traditional warfare.

I should also point out that even though the information in this article has many interesting points, you also have to look at additional information not included. It is called doing research. Themarksman points out the difference in efficieny with the use of the atomic bomb. That is an example of technology change. Good or bad, it makes a difference. Before you condemn an article, I advise you step back and ask "Is the article biased, or am I?"

For those claiming this is not a science article, it should be noted that it was talking about the change in military technology over the past 100+ years.

I always find it amusing how people get so worked up over a little bit of politics... just plan silly. Also bayonets are not a big part of the military anymore and have no idea why people would think they are still widely used.

@ madscientist8
well put!!! +10 to you sir

BTW PopSci could we get a point/forum system liek reddit/imgur ?

To everyone that responds with "there is a problem with the US spending more than the next 10 countries combined in military spending" i say there is nothing wrong with that....as long as we can afford it....there is the kicker.

@brtbrt
"bayonet" are not "cutting edge" neither are they essential to infantry warfare, yes there is nothing better for CQB (close quarter battle) hand to hand, but a butt stroke works just as well.

@adwuga no one says we need to dominate, but the constitution specifically outlines the defense of our maritime trade, specifically article 1 section 8.

I think the point of this article is that in today's modern age the size of a naval fleet is less important than the capabilities of the ships in the fleet. Compared to the ships of the past our current naval ships have much greater range, accuracy and sophistication. A ship from 30 years ago would have to get very close to a target to engage it. Today a ship can track a target from 100s of miles away with a number of methods and launch a cruise missile to destroy it. You really don't need lots of ships when you have a those capabilities. As for the political undertones I think there is more of that in some of these comments than in the article. Popsci is simply pointing out that the comment made in the debate about the number of ships in the fleet does not have much bearing on the strength of the US Navy.

@Eucman: firstly, thank you for your service to this country, sir. I very much appreciate it, personally.

I made my argument about the bayonet based on first checking with an acquaintance, who served in a Stryker Brigade Combat Team (I don't know which one, but something in the 25th ID, I think). He confirmed that the bayonet was part of his load out. I also used a WSJ article as basic research material. If that information turns out to be incorrect, or not generically applicable, my apologies. I will then withdraw that part of my argument. However, based on your confirmation of use of bayonet in training, I still think that Pres. Obama statement was at best misleading, and PopSci not including this analysis in this article an expression of their bias.

@rcc_2000: The President signed the Debt bill that included sequestration without objection and without even attempting to veto it. Ergo, he did endorse the process of sequestration, and the hull number reduction that comes along with it. At the time, I was absolutely furious with the Republicans who signed on to the deal – it was a mistake then, and I think it is a mistake now, no matter who signs on to it. That it might not happen is completely besides the point.

Re: Rep Young Humvee incident: it is despicable. Examples of this abound in Congress. In my patch, the Senate Rocket System is an even bigger boondoggle that was crammed down the throat of an unwilling NASA (and the President, whose policies in this regard I support and defend to my conservative friends) by a few powerful Senators in a truly bi-partisan effort to swindle the American taxpayers out of 3BB/year. It is outrageous!

But the case of the Navy is drastically different. Just numbers don't tell the whole story and neither do “capabilities”. The Navy is tasked by the civilian leadership with a large number of tasks world-wide. The servicemen and women are expected to deploy far away from their families for many months at a time, and do so willingly and serve with honor in circumstances that most of us civilians will never understand. It is NOT ok with me to heap more risk and more sacrifice on to them just to score political points with a bunch of Occupiers. The Naval operations staff made a clear statement that more, not fewer, hulls are currently required to safely and reliably executes all the missions on the Navy's plate. I'll go with that judgment against the White House election-year politicking any day. And, IMNHO, it is his politically motivated disregard for the professional opinion of the Navy leadership that makes this President unfit for command.

@rec_2000: he did say “fewer”, not “none”, true. But that is misleading, as pointed out above by a number of people, including myself.

@silverbird: this article is not biased because it contradicts Gov. Romney. It's biased because while doing so it completely ignored an issues that also contradicts POTUS while using that very issue in the title. That is clear and unambiguous expression of bias.

Re: capabilities: please read the earlier posts in this thread. Capabilities are essential, but without sufficient number of hulls they will not be sufficient to carry out all the missions the Navy is tasked with by the civilian leadership. And thus the 313 hull request by the Navy staff.

@Technodude0022: And that point is only part of the picture. See para above.

I smell a whole lot of butthurt in this article. PopSci can create an article about anything they want. If you don't like it or don't agree, don't come back. You won't be missed and no one cares, especially PopSci. Take your butthurt and move it along.

PopSci admin, you keep posting what you want, this is your right. Absolutely no one is to be censored.

Lol at all the right wingers whining about being fact checked by PopSci with this article. Keep crying, your butthurt sustains the rest of us. It's like "no no please no more facts!" lol you people are sad, go cry in a corner.

As a former US Sailor who had the unpleasant experience of being on the longest deployment since the height of the Cold War in the 70s (USS Whidbey Island, April 2011-February 2012), the US Navy is terribly under-manned and under-equipped for the job that our leaders are asking us to do. There's something wrong when our normal 6 month deployments start becoming 9 and 10 month deployments, and our ships and crews are being pushed well past their limits. (The Whidbey Island was scheduled to be retired years ago, but was put through an extended 9 month refitting and a 2 month repair cycle after a major fire since we couldn't afford to replace it. We were also horribly understaffed, at about 260 sailors instead of the normal complement of 350, leaving us with miserable hours and watch rotations even while in port.)

Unless and until the other countries are willing to step up to patrol the seas, the US Navy will continue to supply this valuable service. But our ships and crews are being pushed to the breaking point. Anyone who refuses to see that is willfully blind.

Also, shame on PopSci for arguing politics on a supposedly un-biased news site.

Federal Debt Hits $16 Trillion Tue, Sep 11, 2012.

Say, let’s talk about anything or argue about anything except the impending doom of the debt.
Since we can't fix it anyways....

....often I end with lol, but really, nothing funny here.

I'm not sure how presenting factual military capability is equal to political bias on popsci's part. I guess if you don't agree that the modern navy is far more capable than the navy of 1916 you should be charging into political battle alongside Romney with your horse and bayonnet. :D

@brtbrt The article clearly seeks to prove the point that are military is much stronger than it was in 1917 or 1916 and that comparing the different time periods based on numbers alone isn't valid. The article does show that the number of certain types of ships reflects negatively on the United States' strength. I'm guessing the omission of bayonet was more a lack of capability to find such data and less ommitting it because it doesn't support their argument. You can argue bias on the part of the candidates, but I only see bias on the issue. The article clearly emphasizes that capability and not numbers is the core measurement of military strength.

The one point where the concept falls short is that it doesn't compare the united states current military capability in comparison with other nations military capability in both time periods. As a simple example using the number of planes comparison you could take the number planes during at the end of WWII (I'm using that time period because there were very few planes in 1916) and divide it by 100 to get reachable targets. Then you could do the same using the current number of planes except multiply it by four to get maximum number of targets now. This is a very simple formula that ignores a lot of details like fuel and number of pilots or the capability of coordinating simultaneous missions and a lot of other logistics. Comparing capabilities numbers versus other nations capabilites would be the only way to truly estimate whether our military strength has increased or declined.

Harping on a number of ships comparison that is really meaningless is trying to gather public support through fear. I doubt the Romney campaign has done a valid assessment of our military capability compared to other nations. I doubt he even has access to the information required to do that assessment as it would be a massive security threat for someone in his position to be able to acquire such information. The Romney campaign does this constantly. Another example of it is the "Iran is four years closer to a nuclear bomb comment." What is four years closer? Have they enriched to a higher level? They could be four years closer but their goal could be 5 years further off then when they started. Their are plenty of actual statistics about the Obama administration to go after, but the Romney campaign repeats over and over on random ones that mean nothing.

Finally the last point after this very long post. They Economic gain and debt reduction capability we get from lowering military spending at this point in time is a greater boon to our national security than more ships would be. Our comparative capabilities versus other nations is much stronger right now but our economic strength is weakening and if we don't address this we won't have the economic strength to back our military spending. This is money that could be spent on paying down the debt which lowers the governments operating costs and can allow for more military spending or decreasing taxes in the future.

My above comment references what our Political Presidential candidates, since this article seems to be in part politically motivated.

That made me laugh "A single modern carrier group consisting of fewer than ten ships could easily sink the entire 1916 U.S. fleet." that's funny as hell when you think about it. 10 modern ships can over power thousands of ships from 1916. That actually sounds correct too.

Couple of quick points.
1. A carrier task force is made up of several ships/boats, who's primary purpose is to protect the carrier. Yes each carrier has more fire power than the entire navy of 1916, but the carrier task force can only be in one place at any given time.
2. The number of ships the navy requested is based on "the" mission the politicians assign it. See "1." above. The navy also needs ships/boats for training and to replace ships/boats out of action for re-fitting/repairs.
3. The navy is stretched, sailors and ships are asked to make longer deployments to fill the gaps.
4. It takes a longer lead time to build new high tec ships/boats and train its crews than in the past.
So yes we can accomplsh the mission with fewer high tec ships, but numbers and geography matters.
After 40 plus years reading Pop Science this is one of the most poorly written and misleading articles to "grace" the pages of this magazine.

Yea but one lucky hit from any one of the thousand on a carrier can ruin your whole day. Some times "size" matters.

The Navy doesn't need to be equivalent to the 1916 Navy. Since that date the Air Force has been included to the US Military. Additionally bases have been established all over the world. Regardless of technological improvements it still takes a considerable amount of time for a large ship to travel long distances. What percentage of supplies for forward military bases are delivered by sea compared to air? I think the overall topic of the article is fine, as it is simply a focus on how technology has improved military effeciency and combat effectiveness. As for the US Military not having the funding to do the job, what job? Defending the US or the entire world? In defending the entire world is the US military not defending American interests? In which case can't it be said that defending American interests is the same as defending America? Couldn't we also share the responsibility with the rest of the world as recent economic strife has clearly shown that any disruptions do infact affect all economic powers? In the end this isn't a political site, but the base reasoning for this article I believe is justified. It is an interesting topic with multiple perspectives to consider.

@brtbrt - I fail to see your point. What issue is missing here? Are you saying that all articles have to have a bias toward fairness? Romney's comparison of modern military power to that of the military over 95 years ago had no reasonable correlation. Why not compare it to the military of WWII or more relative 1980's. He probably did not because the numbers would have not looked as impressive. Comparing 1917 to 2012 in military terms is like comparing a M1- Abrams tank to a starter pistol. That is what this article was trying to portray. Obama's statements were rational and were at least relative to today's military.

If you control the sea lanes you control the world. Very little of base supplies are delivered by air, the majority can be traced back to a container or tanker ship. The subject of the argument been changed, its not about quality its the quanity. There is a minimun size navy needed to protect "Our" interest. Thats the argument, we have fewer and fewer fixed base's that we can operate without asking permission of a foreign power. A ship at sea answers only to the "US". If you study history the US navy was stretched before WW1, with long deployments and defered maintance. It was never an argument about throw weight; the argument was that you need x number of ships to cover y amount of oceans. The navy says we need x, Romney agreed, the president disagrees. We will decide in November, and popular Science is wrong, and they did try to make a political statement by changing the argument. Yea we can burn the forest down, but we don't have enough lumber jacks to keep all the camp fires burning.

lol keep whining right wingers :*(

There's nothing wrong with this article. If the RAND corporation did this survey nobody would bat an eye - but who makes up RAND? Scientists. An analysis of empirical data is perfectly within the realm of scientific journalism.

Anyway, a few points.

1) The bayonets thing. As was mentioned, bayonets are issued in Marine and Army training. It's a way of building confidence with the weapon if you need it, and confidence against a close up target. You do not, however, get issued a bayonet anymore in the field. I wasn't given one in Afghanistan, nobody was walking around with them on the ends of their M4s in Iraq... the bayonet probably hasn't been mounted to a rifle in anger since Vietnam.

2) Size vs. capability. Yes, it's true that a smaller navy can cover less area, but what's failed to be considered here is that a large Navy in 1917 - or even 1945 - could only cover a relatively small area. With ballistic missile submarines, Arleigh Burke-class destroyers that can send tactical missile strikes hundreds of miles away, as well as Nimitz-class carriers that can carry more aircraft than most countries' entire air forces, means that with fewer ships we can cover vastly more ground. In WW2, an Iowa-class Battleship and its support group would be needed within 40 miles of a target and shell indiscriminently, and could only work to that purpose. Now a single Destroyer can hit precision targets over three times that distance away, and a carrier strike group can wage war against an entire nation as long as supplies last.

3) The only people who are in position to decide that the Navy isn't big enough is the Navy itself, and Romney not only has absolutely zero access to the Joint Chiefs to make this call, but the Navy hasn't even been expressing alarm at a lack of fleet size and capabilities. Romney wants to pass $2 trillion of military spending through that the military has not asked for, nor needs. As an active-duty member, from where I stand, we can definitely still stand to lose a few million dollars without affecting capabilities.

Oh, and we definitely spent more time learning rifle-fighting techniques like butt strokes than we did bayonet training. A butt-stroke is more likely to disable a target than a stab. A bayonet would will most certainly kill a guy, but it won't kill him right away unless you drive it right into his heart. People with stab wounds, with the adrenalin going, can most certainly still fight back until they bleed out into shock. If you're close enough to someone for hand-to-hand combat, you're taught to strike them with the rifle and then fire, because a butt stroke to the face is going to disable someone faster.

PS: All of you people saying "I'm not reading Popsci again"... don't be butthurt that 'your' candidate said something silly and factually wrong. This article isn't biased anymore than Romney could say that the sun will explode in the next three hundred years and being told he was wrong would be biased. The best part is that the people who say they're "never reading again" will be right back here next time saying they're never going to read it again.

I created a profile just to tell Popsci to keep this liberal, biased crap out of a magazine/website predicated on science. Thanks.

The authors of this article act like the technology amongst other countries isn't burgeoning as well. That being said our aid through the Navy and other military means is the highest in the world..meaning madscientist18 was right: our demands internationally have exponentially grown, ESPECIALLY since the beginning of the 20th century.

I like to have faith in this country and our overall purpose amongst those countries. If you are so seditious about the U.S....then move to another country. Maybe move to Afghanistan or Pakistan where the Taliban can impede on your right to live a free and happy life. Don't know if you've heard about the poor teen girl shot recently by the Taliban for wanting an adequate education for women in the middle east but I'm sure she would agree with me.

...and if you really would like to get into politics, let's talk about the $787 billion Mr. Obama spent for the ARRA (the biggest stimulus since the Great Depression Era), or how Mr. Obama outspent all 8 YEARS of President Bush during the first 3.5 years being in office. And what do we have to show for it? Nothing. YOU DO THE MATH. liberals...

All I saw was fact in this article. And NerdsSuck, if you want to talk about the money Obama spent you should look out the window and realize we could have been in a great depression right now without the stimulus. Let's also forget this recession was caused by the prior presidents. Do you really believe Obama created the recession? Ridiculous! Or maybe if you were president we should have done nothing right? You also ignored the fact that Bush started the wars that increased debt into Obama's term. Stop spinning it.

Not to mention Romney wants to increase military spending and cut domestic spending in spite of this enormous debt. Since when do people vote for less domestic spending and more bloated military spending? Beyond me.

Yet with that primative technology we ended each world war in under 4 years (yet after 10 we are still chasing our tails in Afghanistan against people who use HORSES and make ak-47s in woodshed workshops). Perhaps 4 year politicians (who have never served) should stay out of military decisiOns and let the career people in the armed services do their job. Leave the domestic political crap out of war.

That being said:
1) PopSci shame on you for running this political crap (is this wired.com?). This is just as bad as your anti-old testiment creationist story you did a while back. Stick to SCIENCE. If I want politics I'll turn on the news and if I want religion I'll go to church. Perhaps you plan on changing your name to popular politics?

2) In Iraq we had bayonets so yes we still use them (not like Obama would know about military service...).

@frostiken

While the fact that the new destroyers can shoot a 5" round 100+ miles is impressive, you cannot even remotely compare it to a battleship. It's not like the marines would do a amphibious landing with 5" guns providing support. The ordinance volume just isn't there. Either way, the battleships are museums now and we are left with tin can ships.

Oh well, such is progress

@Crazy151drinker

If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you choose a better username than one that makes you look like a raging alcoholic.

Umm, the whole WW2 100 sorties bit boughters me, a lot. That is exaggerated and screams of some awful statistic calculated from like "All bomber craft across the whole war" which varied by size, purpose, payload, target, etc. Yes efficiency is better now, but don't compare something like carpet bombing cities to a jet taking out a building or 2 and state it's 400x better.

Infographics are fun, if they aren't stupid. Stick with the polar bears and movies.

Look, the simple fact is, anyone 12 years of age and older knows our naval ships can do far more than 10, 20, or even 30 of our older ships. Romney obviously wasn't comparing our naval ships capabilites with our older ships, he was stating that we have "fewer" ships than we had before. Of course he knows current vessels are far more superior, but the point was that we need to make sure we have an "elite" military apparatus, and he fears slashing cuts will have negative consequences on our military force. POPSCI comes out every once in a while with highly political articles like this one, not usually, but enough to be inappropriate.

@ silverbird

So a user name of a non-existent all silver flying creature somehow imparts intelligence?

I'll change my name to goldbird or flying emerald.

Regardless, I dont go to meetings.

Just stiring the pot with some historical perspective; at the turn of the 20th century (1907),the circumnavigation of the "Great White Fleet" was a huge deal.
Today, the Navy's mission is highly focused on global force projection. The 1916 Navy was that of a more isolationist nation.
The questions then: Do we want to be isolationist? Can we be isolationist? To the first question, maybe, but we will have to give up all the stuff we import - driving up costs and eliminating some items that we currently find in our stores year round. To the second, I don't think so, since we have been ecconomicly global, we have been dragged into many engagements - Tripoli (our first), WWI, WWII, etc. The cost of prevention is typically less than the cost of cure; so, the cost of a globally capable Navy is cheeper in the long run.
The above article speaks of tactical capability, not stratigic; it is acurate in providing facts to promote Mr. Obama's claim, but it ignores the stratigic capabilities. There is a difference. We are not going to ever fight our 1916 Navy with our Navy, but we will have to simultainiously have F-18's (from a carrier in the Indian Ocean) loitering over Kandahar to provide CAS, enforce a No-Fly Zone to prevent a dictator from harming civilians, all the while performing half a dozen other tasks arround the world - not mentioning maitenence etc. I do not think that PopSci is biased on this; it's Popular Science, not Military Science. The authors are likely ignorant to the difference between tactical, operational, and stategic levels. Either Mr. Obama was ignorant of the difference as well, or he purposefully mislead the American people by focusing on the nice, horses and bayonetts, tactical capabilities.

@ rcc_2000; China's carrier was indeed a carrier from day one. She was laid down by Russia as the Riga.

@ brtbrt; Like you, I don't like the idea of a Navy that can't do what it needs to, but you'd agree that now is kind of a critical time for the correct choices to be implemented? A President down the road can always choose to start spending on numbers of ships again, so it's not like we are losing something here. As for being spread thin right now, we won't be once we aren't engaged on the ground. So, correct choices. We have real naval issues coming to a head right now. Carrier upgrade cycle is kinda now or never. The F-35 and the Littoral ships are not cost effective; just for building them. The new age fighters are all cash cows, but the F-35 has real problems on top of being a pork project. Now granted, we could very well save a lot of treasure in being able to get away with continued use of the Littorals, but somehow I don't think they are going to rule developed coastlines for long. We'll see. I don't see as how we are losing anything right now by taking a step back and considering what nation has been picking up our tab. We are now building up almost all military zones around the entire Pacific Rim, including especially the entire West Coast and Hawaii. All services. So China is going to respond in a big way, and we damn well better be sure we are backing the right technologies. As of today, we can't be positive that we are even though our financial situation demands it be right the first time.

This is one of those cases where I realize that most of the commenters are looking at a different article from the one I read.

Because the one I read isn't political or partisan, but rather is an attempt to examine the question of military parity in the same terms that were proposed by Governor Romney: Quantities of units.

The article I read also did in fact shift to illustrating a means of comparing earlier and later effectiveness. I suggest people who saw this as purely an apples to bowling balls comparison actually look at the Strike Efficiency chart, the POINT of which is to find a valid metric for comparison. True, it doesn't refer to 1916 -- instead, it refers to the Second World War, which is after all a much more apt comparison. Let's recap that chart: 100:1 versus 1:4. I'm not even sure how to calculate the percent of increase, there -- I make it as a factor of 400, which is about a 4,000% improvement in targeting efficiency.

Now, to be sure, there's also an improvement in the efficiency of opposing forces. The problem with that factoid is that our strike efficiency is still going to be the best in the world: we have more practice and better technology. The British and Russians could probably come close, but they would not match us, and neither has more than a single carrier-group.

Seriously, guys, look past the partisan ends of your partisan noses for just 30 seconds.

... the F-35 has real problems on top of being a pork project...

You can say that again. There was a fascinating Nova episode about the JSF competition, comparing the Lockheed & Boeing entries. The Lockheed team was basically choosing the most expensive and error-prone option at each turn. E.g., the whole plane is built around this massive, precision-machined hunk of titanium. If that one keystone piece cracks or warps, the entire plane is junk. And it's VTOL capability was achieved by incorporating a heavy, complex ducted-fan apparatus in preference to the proven, cheap and radically less complex alternative of ducted jet exhaust -- i.e., essentially choosing a more complex solution because it was cooler, not because it actually solved a serious problem. And finally, the whole idea of the teams choosing the fighters based on looks: the yf-35 *looked* faster, sexier -- so that's what they pick.

Pathetic.

@escoles
could you sight the requirements document, and where in the Section L&M of the solicitation where the source selection criteria is "aesthetics"? I'd be curious to see that.....also the "proven' exhaust system was tested and shown to have serious problems like that it sucked up its own exhaust causing over heating of the engines and triggered automatic shutdowns.....hell it was in a documentary. How about the Northrup version that huge pieces of carbon fiber, which had extensive cost overuns, and overly high failure rates.....yeah nothing wrong with that design either.....