Asiatic Fleet 1950s

[Gone Asiatic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKJ4NjU-0Mg

Cool video of USN in the 1950s.

[Werner]

What a sunny peacetime feel.

[Guest]

Did 3" replace 40mm bofors by then?

[Werner]

3-inch/50 began to roll out in 1946. The extreme poverty of the period means many ships carried quad 40mm into the 1960s.

[Guest]

...... The extreme poverty of the period...,,.

The pentagon budget during the 1950 through middle of 1960s were consistently above 9% of GDP, touching 11% at times, compared to a maximum of no more than 7% that was ever achieved under Reagan.

To put that in perspective, the US military spending during 1950s were, as percentage of GDP, the highest achieved by any democracy in peacetime, ever.

[JWintjes]

...... The extreme poverty of the period...,,.

The pentagon budget during the 1950 through middle of 1960s were consistently above 9% of GDP, touching 11% at times, compared to a maximum of no more than 7% that was ever achieved under Reagan.

To put that in perspective, the US military spending during 1950s were, as percentage of GDP, the highest achieved by any democracy in peacetime, ever.

The problem is that we're talking about the navy budget and not the pentagon budget as a total.

In 1945, the navy budget was about 29 billion; in 1946 it declined to 24 billion before going extremely sharply downhill for the next four fiscal years when it lingered around at between 3.5 and 4.5 bilion. In 1951 it went up again to 12 billion, but this was effectively a war budget. In 1954 it fell back under 10 billion and only reached the 1951 level again in 1961.

As you have usually a period of one or two years following the budget where the consequences are felt, I think it's safe to say that throughout most of the 1950s the Navy wasn't exactly endowed with riches.

By the way, for the Reagan years we're talking figures in the region of 50 billion and upwards. Of course inflation has to be taken into account here.

Jorit

[JWintjes]

To put that in perspective, the US military spending during 1950s were, as percentage of GDP, the highest achieved by any democracy in peacetime, ever.

Oh, and that's probably not correct either - Themistocles' decision to build an Athenian fleet in 483/482 resulted in committing most of Athens' GDP to naval construction. Any US military spending pales into insignificance compared to that...



Jorit

[Werner]

Besides, most of the postwar budget (up until the Vietnam war) went to strategic bombers, ICBMs and land forces of occupation. The USN was a stepchild for whom a $100,000 upgrade to make each Cleveland an AA cruiser was "prohibitively expensive".

[Guest]

To put that in perspective, the US military spending during 1950s were, as percentage of GDP, the highest achieved by any democracy in peacetime, ever.

Oh, and that's probably not correct either - Themistocles' decision to build an Athenian fleet in 483/482 resulted in committing most of Athens' GDP to naval construction. Any US military spending pales into insignificance compared to that...



Jorit

Anything that transpired before 1776 might well have happened in the before the big Bang for the amount of recognition they might cause in the mind of the people of the whole world - which incidentally is of the exact same size, shape and location as the United States.

[Guest]

......

In 1945, the navy budget was about 29 billion; in 1946 it declined to 24 billion before going extremely sharply downhill for the next four fiscal years when it lingered around at between 3.5 and 4.5 bilion. In 1951 it went up again to 12 billion, but this was effectively a war budget. In 1954 it fell back under 10 billion and only reached the 1951 level again in 1961.

As you have usually a period of one or two years following the budget where the consequences are felt, I think it's safe to say that throughout most of the 1950s the Navy wasn't exactly endowed with riches.....

Jorit

Exactly what would you consider "riches"? During that 1950-1964 period the USN financed 9 completely new super carriers, 21 new missile cruisers, 57 new destroyers, 44 new nuclear attack submarines, 40 new nuclear ballistic missile submarines, 12 new conventional attach submarines, 36 new destroyer escorts, and that's just the new major surface combatants. It does not include large programs to update WWII ships, including full modernization that results in ships more formidable than any new construction, such as the three full Albany CA conversions, nor the large auxiliary ship construction program.

[Guest]

Besides, most of the postwar budget (up until the Vietnam war) went to strategic bombers, ICBMs and land forces of occupation. The USN was a stepchild for whom a $100,000 upgrade to make each Cleveland an AA cruiser was "prohibitively expensive".

The strategic bombers, SSBNs, and ICBM from 1950-1965 remained the backbone and 90% of the delivery vehicles available to the US strategic arsenal through the Reagan era to the end of the cold war. It was the fact that these assets were financed during the 1950-1965 that allowed Reagan to tap around in his dancing shoes and claim contribution to Cold war victory.

[Werner]

Weapons unused are weapons which ought not be built. The plain truth, after reading the memoirs of the principals in the USSR and USA is that the nuclear arms race could have ended at a hundred bombs. That level would have been sufficient deterrence.

The B-36 fleet carried an acquisition cost of $1.4 billion 1949 dollars, excluding R&D costs. The B-47 cost $2.049 billion. Although marginally outside of my analysis, the B-52 fleet cost $11.2 billion. I have no figures for the B-50 program, but it is probably on the order of $1 billion. Except for a few B-52s, none of this equipment was in service more than 10 years.

Forrestal cost $189,463,000; Saratoga cost $214,387,000; Ranger $182,162,000 and Independence $222,796,000. Each served about 30 years.

So, just looking at these acquisitions, and discounting the vast armada of tactical aircraft (The USAF had more than 4 tactical planes for every one in the USN) and small number of destroyers and frigates launched in the 1946-1960 period, the tally is USAF: 15 billion, USN: 8 billion.

It would be fair to assume that USAF outlays in all other areas when compared to the USN were larger than this little study shows.

Another sign of austerity can be seen in the S-2 helicopter program. Beginning life as a single engined utility helicopter, all available airframes were rebuilt twice, first to give them ASW capability as LAMPS-1, and second to convert them from single engine to two engine configuration. (F/G).

God knows how much money went into the Minuteman and Peacemaker systems, when Pentagon analysis indicated they were unnecessary once the Trident submarine was operational. Certainly many tens of billions wasted on a system which was nothing more than an ego trip for Air Force generals.

[Tim Jacobs]

And don't forget all the politicians who brought jobs to their states/districts by building all those planes and missiles, as well as the bases to support them all.

[Pieter]

This was simply keynesian economics while maintaining an official free market ideology. It was rather selectively applied in the Cold War period and the focus on nuclear bombers and missiles instead of classic heavy industry weapons such as warships and tanks led to a shift of the economic and demographic focus to the South and the Midwest. This laid the groundwork for the conservative revolution. Under Reagan the whole show was repeated, Reagan's re-armament has internal US causes and effects. The collapse of the Soviet Union he triggered (he did not cause it, the empire was broke anyway) was probably coincidental.

And don't forget all the politicians who brought jobs to their states/districts by building all those planes and missiles, as well as the bases to support them all.

[Werner]

Cold War tax dollars went to a few important states, mostly California, Washington, Texas, New York, & Massachusetts. The Midwest was certainly not a beneficiary.

As to the fall of Communism, we have the minutes of the various Soviet entities as well as 1990-2000 era interviews with former Soviet officials who assert the opposite of your speculation. The sudden increase in US spending coupled with the Afghan war pushed the USSR over the edge. I'm not saying it's fall might not have been inevitable, but it appears Reagan sped the end by decades at least.

[bengtsson]

Cold War tax dollars went to a few important states, mostly California, Washington, Texas, New York, & Massachusetts. The Midwest was certainly not a beneficiary.

As to the fall of Communism, we have the minutes of the various Soviet entities as well as 1990-2000 era interviews with former Soviet officials who assert the opposite of your speculation. The sudden increase in US spending coupled with the Afghan war pushed the USSR over the edge. I'm not saying it's fall might not have been inevitable, but it appears Reagan sped the end by decades at least.

To some extent true. But the Soviet Union was gonna fall probably on the same day as it did with or without RR. It was not US spending that doomed the USSR, it was the USSR that doomed the USSR. Quite simply, the system collapsed in and of itself due to the obvious shortcomings of the communist social and economic system. The military competetion was a factor, but only one of many. And it's odd how we are told USA military spending was an economic boom for the nation and military spending was an economic disaster for the USSR. Hard to have it both ways. Ronny was fun to have around, but the USSR was doomed just on it's own account. One visit to the USSR in, say 1980, would have made that clear to anyone with eyes. In fact, the only success story of the failed communist state was it's military construction efforts. Russia without communism may prove much more of a threat that any failed soviet state ever was. Ditto for China.

Bob B.