I agree with your first paragrah.Originally posted by: MadRat
Quite frankly the navies of the world are all becoming smaller. Even the merchant fleets are shrinking because bigger but fewer ships can handle trade more efficiently than smaller and more numerous fleets. As components for equipment shrink, both civilian and military ships should decreas from the mid-1980's peak. Numbers of ships do not necessarily mean more capability, as even the lowly destroyers can carry the most sophisticated radars afloat. Computer management of cargo has streamlined the distribution networks and made organizing offloading a relatively non-issue when ships reach their destinations.
Why spend $1 billion+ per warship when a $1 million missile or $100k torpedo can penetrate its defenses and send it to the bottom? Sure the world is covered 70% by water, but its also covered 100% by air. Removing the spending base from the Navy ship building budgets and moving more money into the Air Force and Navy for increasingly capble warplanes just makes sound sense for the long term.
But for the second, I recommend looking up the AEGIS system. With our sonar and the amount of screening our near-invisible subs can do, a torpedo attack is HIGHLY unlikely. Besides, who's gonna attack us?