Talk:600-ship Navy

Lehman's book

In Lehman's book, Command of the Seas, he stated that the 600-ship Navy was mainly his idea. This article states otherwise. Does anyone have any source for where the idea originated other than Lehman's (admittedly biased) book? -Joseph (Talk) 17:36, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Ronnie was not exactly a naval expert in his own right, he would have gotten it from somebody else. I think it's reasonable to take Lehman at his word, at least until we get the name of the staff flunky who really came up with the number. :-) Stan 02:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Purpose?

What was the purpose of this plan? Gdr 00:08, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Keeping up with the JonesesSoviets - Googling '"600-ship navy" purpose' turns up [1], a 26-page PDF with CBO's understanding of the official rationale. Somebody interested in Reagan-era politicking (not me) could make an extensive article out of this; it was a source of contention between Prez and Congress at the time. Stan 02:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The additions by TomStar81 are good (module mispelings :-) ), but I would suggest pruning by about half; we have plenty of Vietnam material elsewhere, so can xref rather than repeat it. Similarly for overall Reagan military buildup, although I'm not sure where it's best documented (each administration should have an article focusing specifically on their policies). Also, while it's tempting to say "everybody knows" that post-Vietnam malaise was a factor in the proposal, it would be good to get a reference that says that in so many words, for the benefit of our grandchildren who will lack context. Stan 06:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I know of at least one childrens book that reflects the attitude americans had about vietnam veterans, and plenty of TV/movie material on the subject; however I've no idea where to look for written material. Sorry.
  P.S.- you're right about the pruning, after rereading it today I would definatly admit it's a little "fat". ^_^ TomStar81

600 ships?

Just an idle thought - does anyone know a rough breakdown of what these 600 ships were? I mean, is it about 600 including support vessels, or just combat vessels, or...? Shimgray | talk | 22:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

@Shimgray US Navy unclassified miscellaneous ships and yard ships are not included in the ship count Telecine Guy (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I've yet to find an actual breakdown of the kinds of vessels, but it included an increase in support vessels as well, from fleet oilers to ammunition supply vessels.DesScorp 19:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This study from ~1983 [2] gives a figure of around 330 combat vessels, so "six hundred including support" looks plausible. Shimgray | talk | 19:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Aha! [3] In 1980, strength was 530ish; by 1987, it peaked at 594. But I don't know what the 600-ship plan specifically called for, over and above already-existing replacement plans - bear in mind that a surprising number of Reagan-era military programs were already simmering away before he took office, so a small increase "in the pipeline" already is possible.

The 600-ship navy called for 16 carrier battle groups as well as a "surface action group" centered around the 4 Iowa-class battleships. Lehman also toyed with the idea of recommisioning the Essex class carriers USS Bohommne Richard and USS Oriskany, but after seeing the condition they were in decided it wouldn't be worth the money.NavyAO2(AW) 16:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

James H. Webb?

What happened to the suggestion here about including the James H. Webb resignation? When the Secretary of the Navy resigns his post in protest at fleet cutbacks (and the end of the 600 ship Navy philosophy), isn't that relevant to the subject? DesScorp 20:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added references to both Webb and Caspar Weinberger, two important pieces of the 600 ship Navy effort. --DesScorp 03:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph with Webb needs rewritten. It describes events being from the early 1990's and then says that these events caused Webb to resign in 1988. Jvbishop 18:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Over statements

This article appears to be full of over-statements. For instance, it appears to attribute the deployment of weapons such as the F/A-18 and various classes of ships to the naval build up, when these were programs which had begun prior to the build up. In addition, the claim that "Up till now, the U.S. fleet's primary job was to passively defend America's coast and protect its Sea lines of communication (SLOC) to and from Europe" appears to be incorrect - US Carrier battlegroups had previously had the mission of agressively attacking the enemy, and in fact did so for several years during the Vietnam War. --Nick Dowling 08:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats the problem with one source citing, and the reason why information here is editted mericilessly. TomStar81 08:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There are major omissions here. Certainly the whole concept dates back to the Team B era, and it came from the Republican party, not the Navy -- which actually resisted the plan, especially in specifics, even if they liked the prestige aspects. The battleship reactivations were a not-very-implicit criticism of the strategic use of CBGs, and the Navy really didn't know what to do with the damn things half the time; I think other than support operations during e.g. Grenada, there were only a couple of actual uses of the battleships for bombardment, such as the Bekaa Valley during the Lebanon hostage crisis/embassy bombing era. There were ongoing major tussles at the SECDEF/SECNAV level, as noted in the Webb comments above, and it was under Carlucci that the 600-ship idea lost steam. Though Reagan sold Congress on the idea, Gramm-Rudman then created a budget crunch that left the Navy scrambling to meet the 600-ship numbers while cutting back on logistics, personnel, and weapons systems in order to pay for hulls, and there were "hollow Navy" criticisms raised. So, big gaps in the article right now. --Dhartung | Talk 09:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Up till now, the U.S. fleet's primary job was to passively defend America's coast and protect its Sea lines of communication (SLOC) to and from Europe". I am pretty sure we didn't abandon the Pacific Ocean before Reagan took over - 7th Fleet didn't stay by the coast. (And the battleships also made an appearance in the Gulf War.) Rmhermen 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, wasn't there a late push to rebrand them as conventional cruise missile platforms (which didn't really need that size of a ship)? Then the Iowa explosion pretty much exposed them as dangerous albatrosses in peacetime. (At least there were some Navy brass that thought the big guns were museum pieces.) That's long after the 600-ship angle was scotched, though.

As I was saying, though, there was definitely an argument regarding strategic force deployment but putting it that way is inappropriate rhetoric (what's next, calling the Navy cowards?). As I recall, it was more of an issue where you had right-wing outsiders arguing that the CBGs were sitting ducks in a nuclear war and that we needed to have a multi-pronged fleet. But then we ended up with more CBGs anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 15:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

An important missing link in this article is that while it is stated several times that the 600 ship navy had public support, this is not proven. While the election and re-election of President Reagan do indicate that the arms build up he oversaw had public support, it seems risky to state that "the nation" was sold on the "necessity" of the plan on this basis. --Nick Dowling 08:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Seven seas?

Building on this gain, Soviet vessels began to sail in all seven seas with increased vigor, and even ventured into the Gulf of Mexico.

Ok, is it really fitting or encyclopedic to describe late-20th Century Soviet military buildup in terms of the medieval Seven Seas, whose membership and Geographic authority and relevance are in modern times questionable?? - Eric 08:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It actually sounds a bit like a quote to me. It's a bit flowery, but there is a modern meaning and especially in "all seven seas" seems pretty clear. I did find a citation for the GoM bit, though. --Dhartung | Talk 17:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the implication was of the "modern" seven seas: North Atlantic, South Atlantic, North Pacific, South Pacific, Indian Ocean, Southern Ocean, and the Arctic Ocean. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.216.96.14 (talk • contribs).

Right. As I said, a modern meaning. The phrase is infrequently used by the Navy, which has viewed itself since roughly the Spanish-American War as a "Seven Seas navy", i.e. capable of regular operations anywhere, so the idea that the Soviet navy was even considering that must have been unsettling. During the 1970s Haiphong was the first and only Soviet-controlled deep water port outside the Warsaw Pact. But the real point as I also said is that it reads like a quote, except I haven't found the source. --Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Bear in the Woods

The "Bear in the Woods" ad was not part of Reagan's 1980 campaign. It was part of his 1984 re-election campaign. This article incorrectly claims the ad was part of the 1980 campaign.

Reagan Plan/Ships and weapons systems deployed during the plan era

I notice several statements which are refuted elsewhere in Wikipedia; among them are "Under the programs put forth by Reagan ... the Bradley fighting vehicle, and the Abrams tank was completed and they were put into production." The Bradley came out in 1981, so it might, technically, be considered to have something to do with RWR -- it came out during his first year. But "The M1 Abrams entered U.S. service in 1980," according to the article that this one links to.

Similarly, the next sections states "Under the Reagan Administration, the first of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines was completed" although Ohio was launched on 7 April 1979.

Or am I missing something?

Geoffrey Pruitt (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

References

I just was looking at the references on this page and was wondering about the fitnessnews.com source I am not sure how credible this site is and was wondering if anyone could vouch for it. Sunfishtommy (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Suggested Reading

I added this section for anyone who wants to delve into the 600-ship Navy and the Maritime Strategy that this program supported.§Marcd30319 (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this a math error?

In the list of ship types and numbers, there is a subtotal entry that contains the follownig numbers.

Years 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

Total Amphibious Active 67 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

If you add up the numbers above this subtotal what you actually get is:

Total Amphibious Active 67 67 67 65 63 63 63 66 68 67 67 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.21.149 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Research For Holloway's Role Advocating 600 Ship Navy

In doing some research for the Background section, I turned up some interesting information, notably that as early as March 1977, Adm Holloway was advocating openly for a 600 ship navy. See the top of the second column of the following newspaper clip: Holloway was pushing a 600 ship navy in March 1977 This is at least a year earlier than the current text indicates Holloway was involved, although in my limited time, I can't find a quote related to the challenged statements about Holloway's concerns about the Soviet Navy. I'm putting this here so that someone with the time can continue to determine the timeline of the cold warrior push for mo' money & mo' ships. —--Srwalden (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)