But he looked so Presidential while all these military guys are just petulant and snarky.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...idential-debate-navy-20121022,0,4243678.story
Critics jumped on
Mitt Romney’s statement in the debate that “our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917.”
Lawrence Korb, a former assistant Defense secretary in the
Reagan administration, said on Twitter that it showed a
“staggering lack of knowledge.”
According to Romney, the Navy needs 313 ships to carry out its mission. But that figure was based on a 2005 review of force structure that Navy officials have since revised.
In April, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said that the Navy could carry out its mission with 300 ships, a reduction [sic increase] in fleet size that he expected to reach by 2019, based on a new defense strategy that focuses more on the Middle East and the Pacific.
“I think that a lot of this criticism [of the number of ships] is based on either incomplete or inaccurate or outdated information, or a failure to see beyond the short term, or a willingness to protect the status quo in spite of the changing world,” Mabus said.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...e-iraq-afghanistan-bayonets/story?id=17540714
ROMNEY: Our Navy is old - excuse me, our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now under 285. We're headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That's unacceptable to me.
The Washington Post gave this claim
three Pinocchios.
...
Beginning in 2011 the U.S. Navy began adding two new submarines a year instead of the one a year it had been buying. The Navy is expected to add two Virginia Class attack submarines a year through fiscal year 2016. Romney aides have said he would like to see three new Virginia attack submarines added per year.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/politics/fact-check-romney-navy/index.html
The U.S. Navy of 1916 utilized ships in which each platform played a single role, according to Navy spokesman Lt. Cdr. Chris Servello. The fleet was this size and makeup to meet the threats of its day.
Today, a single Navy ship can serve many roles. Because of this, the military branch does not need as many ships as it did in 1916, because technology has advanced to such a point one ship can be used in numerous battle scenarios.
In short, Servello said you cannot compare the two generations: It's like comparing apples to oranges.
The U.S. Navy of 1916 utilized ships in which each platform played a single role, according to Navy spokesman Lt. Cdr. Chris Servello. The fleet was this size and makeup to meet the threats of its day.
Today, a single Navy ship can serve many roles. Because of this, the military branch does not need as many ships as it did in 1916, because technology has advanced to such a point one ship can be used in numerous battle scenarios.
In short, Servello said you cannot compare the two generations: It's like comparing apples to oranges.
...
Lastly, there is the matter of whether the United States can actually produce 15 naval ships a year, as Romney said Monday is needed to "restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions."
According to Servello, it would be next to impossible to make that many vessels given the current industrial base of shipyards in the United States.
