# NATO at Sea: SHRINKING Allied naval power(American Enterprise Institute article)



## CougarKing (19 Sep 2013)

From: The American Enterprise Institute



> *NATO at sea: Trends in allied naval power*
> Bryan McGrath | American Enterprise Institute
> 
> September 18, 2013



Key Excerpts from much longer article:

UK Royal Navy


> United Kingdom
> 
> *The Royal Navy has dramatically declined in size by a third since 2000, but retains the desire and plans to remain a “balanced force” capable of naval airpower projection, limited amphibious operations, strategic nuclear deterrence, and sea control *  (see figure 1). This goal remains even in view of the 2010 UK Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) 8 percent defense budget reduction.[16]
> 
> (...)



France


> France
> 
> French defense policy in the post–Cold War era has tended toward greater equity among its armed services, what one analyst called the “gradual equalization” between French ground power and air and naval power.[21]* Nevertheless, the overall downward trend in fleet size is clear (see figure 2). In 2001, Admiral Jean-Louis Battet, chief of staff of the French Navy, identified a “2015 model” for the navy with a target fleet of 80 warships; the current trajectory is far more limited.[22]*
> (...)




Germany


> Unlike the Royal Navy and French Navy, Germany lacks a history and culture (since World War II) of a “balanced” fleet capable of the full range of modern naval operations. With no carrier or amphibious fleet to speak of, and without a sea-based nuclear deterrent, the German Navy has historically focused on sea-control missions centered around ASW, ASUW, and maritime security. *And while the number of ships devoted to these missions has fallen from 28 to 23 since 2000, the most precipitous decline has occurred within the submarine force, with older submarines having been replaced by four more-sophisticated submarines * (Type 212As), and with two on order. (See figure 3.)
> 
> (...)



Spain


> Spain appeared in the last decade to be a nation putting its best defense (and naval) foot forward. With a moderately rising defense budget in the first half of the decade and a number of international shipbuilding partnerships underway, the Spanish Navy was quantitatively and qualitatively improving.* This progress was halted by the global economic crisis that has caused Spain to cut defense spending three times since 2008: by 3 percent in 2009, by 6.2 percent in 2010, and by nearly 17.6 percent in 2012.[32] Interestingly, Spain has not announced any plan to reduce commitments, missions, or capabilities, deciding instead to go the route of other European nations, which is to favor cuts in capacity rather than capability*.[33]
> 
> The financial crisis–induced cuts were made to a budget that was already one of the worst within NATO in terms of meeting the 2 percent-of-GDP defense-spending goal agreed to by NATO members in 2002. In 2010, Spain spent just 0.72 percent of its GDP on defense, with no year in the previous five even coming close to approaching 1 percent.[34]



Italy


> Italy historically fields a balanced fleet with aircraft carriers, diesel submarines, surface combatants, and amphibious ships. Without an undersea strategic deterrent, its navy resembles that of Spain, though somewhat larger and more powerful. *Like the other navies surveyed, it is getting smaller. Its shrinking predates the global financial crisis, but financial restraints have clearly accelerated the condition.*
> The Italian Navy has a goal of allocating 50 percent of its budget to personnel costs; 25 percent to investment and procurement; and 25 percent to operations, maintenance and training. However, personnel costs have consumed upward of 70 percent of the budget in recent years, even as the navy strove to keep important acquisition programs going. This has inevitably squeezed the operations, maintenance, and training budget, which was allotted only 11.2 percent of the 2012 budget.[40]
> 
> (...)



NATO overall:


> Where Stands NATO?
> 
> The major navies of the NATO alliance (including the US Navy) have much in common. *With the exception of Germany, the focus remains on having a “balanced fleet” capable of the spectrum of naval operations from cooperative security through war at sea and power projection. And, of course, France and the United Kingdom continue to maintain a strategic nuclear deterrent through ballistic missile submarines*.
> 
> ...


----------



## pbi (24 Oct 2013)

I've often thought that when it comes to the defence of Canada, a strong and capable RCN, with a full range of surface-, sub-surface- and naval air- combatant capabilities is ctually more important than the Army. (Heresy, I know).

Given the worlds' longest coastline on three oceans, our status as a maritime trading nation, our global involvement, our engagement in the Atlantic and the Pacific, and our long history of expeditionary operations, it seems odd to me that the RCN is not a much more powerful force.


----------



## Lightguns (24 Oct 2013)

Not heresay per say but, the Canadian people will never be convinced because they believe they will always live under and American umbrella (as mcuh as they openly hate it, they love it come tax time or free health care time).  I think we are in the end times of the projected American power and we will need much more military resources domestically and littorally in the next 2 decades.  We have unorganized enemies within and prowling enemies without.  Only the spark remains to lit.


----------

