Sea Fighter Reporting for Duty

I love the Sea Fighter, about the only earmark that was ever worth something, and what the littoral combat ship should have been. From Defense Industry Daily:

May 2/08: International Systems LLC, DBA L-3 Communications
Advanced Systems Division in San Diego, CA received a $20 million cost plus
fixed fee contract to modify the FSF-1 Sea Fighter experimental ship. They will
design, integrate, and implement modifications that will improve ship
survivability, and also improve various hull, mechanical and electrical
capabilities. This award stems from one of Rep. Duncan Hunter’s [R-CA-52,
ranking Republican on House Armed Services Committee] FY 2008 earmark initiatives, which passed through
the appropriations committee process.
Work will be performed in San Diego,
CA and is expected to be complete in April 2009.

Sounds like somethings in the works. Someone correct me on the price, but I believe the Sea Fighter costs about $50 million to build, or about 10% the tag of the LCS. (below)

Bigger Ain't Always Better

The old "David versus Goliath" scenario from Martin Sieff:

U.S. aircraft carriers were designed to carry more and better
aircraft than any other carrier force afloat, and for 65 years, as they have
gotten bigger and bigger, they have become and more dominant until today, no
other nation in the world has plans to build enough surface aircraft carriers to
even dream of challenging the dominant U.S. ones.

But instead, the
gigantic U.S. ships must face the looming 21st century threat to their survival
from lots of cheap, easily built diesel submarines. Russia and China have bet
big on this option, as we have repeatedly noted in these columns, and other
countries like Iran and Indonesia are trying to follow in their paths, too.

Similarly, the main challenge in the first wars of the 21st century to
the mighty General Dynamics M1 Abrams MBT comes not from its supposed arch
rival, the Russian T-90, nor even from rocket-powered grenade launchers. And
they were already a formidable presence in the Nazi Wehrmacht of 1944-45 as the
familiar Panzerfaust.

Instead, the main threat to the U.S. land
leviathans in urban environments has come from the simple shaped-charge
improvised explosive device that has been used so effectively by Sunni Muslim
insurgents in central Iraq.

Of course. we have all heard the saying "the bigger they are the harder they fall", which seems to be the usual justification for these high tech giants, but I fear our military leaders have been lulled into a false sense of security thinking our mighty land, air, and sea behemoths are invincible. Earlier, I studied this problem of controlling size in weapons systems, concerning our new DDG-1000 destroyers, and created this chart:

• Fletcher (1942)-2050 tons


• Gearing (1944)-2616 tons


• Charles F. Adams (1958)-3277 tons


• Spruance (1973)-6600 tons


• Arleigh Burke (1989)-8230 tons
  
• Zumwalt (2012?)-12,000 tons

Notice how the DDG-1000 is over a 5-fold increase in size of its war era counterpart. The seemingly endless and absurd reasoning for ever costlier, larger in size, while fewer in numbers weapons platforms reminds us of another period in history when super-size was in vogue:

History details the account of a great naval race in the
ancient world which transpired between the Greek nations that arose following
the death of Alexander the Great. The navies of Macedonia, Syracuse, and Egypt
built ever larger and more absurd vessels which were for little more than show.
One great galley with 40 banks of oars and 4000 rowers was so large it could
barely put to sea. Finally the Carthaginians and Romans put an end to the
madness, by producing vast numbers of similar galleys which could be easily
massed produced.

We see then while the Greeks were distracted impressing one another with these sea-going marvels, younger nations were preparing to seize the mantel of power from them. Food for thought to our stubborn leaders who still look to the weapons of the past to fight our future wars.

Why Submarines Rule

David Axe at Danger Room weighs in on the "Subs vs Carriers" debate, and points to an earlier posting I missed with this comment:

...despite the best efforts of naval technologists over the
past 100 years, submarines are still by far the most powerful seaborne weapons
ever developed. Nothing's better for winning a full-scale sea war. Need proof?
See here and here. Forget $5-billion
DDG-1000 battleships. Submarines rule the
waves.

Though Galrahn would disagree with yours truly, I contend that no matter how useful our magnificent force of strike carriers are and unmatched by any other seapower, if the submarine can sink our entire force of huge flattops or chase the survivors into port, then by default the boats are the new capital ships, whether they can bombard a shoreline, launch scout planes, or show the flag.

The aircraft carrier never was a perfect substitute for the battleship, as we see from constant calls for improvements in our Marine fire support. A fragile flattop could not be expected to survive long in a surface duel, a mission which the battlewagons, with their thick armor layer, excelled at. Yet, the carrier prevailed despite their flaws, for the simple fact that they prevented the dreadnoughts from performing the essential mission of sea control. And though there has yet to be a full-scale war at sea involving carriers versus submarines, we may get a glimpse of the future in this incident from the Falklands Island Conflict of 1982.

On the afternoon of May 2, and in the only such incident so far in history, the nuclear powered attack submarine HMS Conqueror sank one of Argentina's prime battle force ships, the cruiser General Belgrano. The 2 escorting ASW destroyers fled the scene, leaving the stricken ship's crew to fend for themselves. In its only sortie during the war, the Argentine carrier fled back to port after the Belgrano sinking, never to pose a threat to the British task force. Imagine this on a grand scale as a sign of a future war between subs and surface ships!

Who Needed the Arrow?

The Canadians are a might touchy over their beloved but ultimately doomed Avro Arrow jet interceptor, likely the best and most costly warplane of the 1950's. Here's another view that declares the demise of the $12 million fighter a plus for the country's armed forces:

By astute bargaining, Pearkes obtained almost new supersonic
interceptors, with triple the Arrow's range, for $750,000 each, plus the
takeover of all Canadian DEW line radar sites built and operated by the U.S. The
supersonic Voodoo covered both continental defence and the surveillance of
Soviet long-range aircraft.
The displaced Avro workers were soon rehired by
Canadair to produce new CF-104 Starfighters at a savings of nine Starfighters
for each Arrow. These Starfighters countered the threat of a Soviet nuclear and
land attack in Europe.
Each of the eight Arrows cancelled paid for one new
gas-turbine destroyer to counter the Soviet submarines.
A new Canadian specialty, submarine hunting, formed around the
light carrier Bonaventure and the new high-speed destroyers. During the Cuban
missile crisis in October 1962, a renewed
Canadian fleet secured the North
Atlantic convoy routes.

Still, it would have been pretty cool, and America might have bought a few as well. Perish the thought!

Compromising Defense

Military leaders often justify the cost of new ultra-sophisticated weapons with the notion that "American soldiers should never have to fight fair". Thus they silence all debate on the astonishing cost of these whiz bang and overly complicated arms, and the ever aging, ever shrinking numbers available to the troops.

We are left then with equipment too costly to risk in the lo-tech insurgency conflicts we always end up fighting, and too few for the large scale conventional wars the military plans for. When they are used in the unconventional environment of the Third World, the results are often embarrassing:

• Giant supercarriers built to carry million dollar jets are called on as troops transports to invade the tiny island of Haiti.
• The super destroyer USS Cole, designed to fight Russian or Chinese nuclear submarines on the high seas is attacked by a terrorist speed boat armed with dynamite and forced out of commission for a year.
• Stealthy and marvelously engineered B-2 bombers, specially geared to penetrate the world's toughest air defenses are used to bomb Taliban targets in Afghanistan that often include mud huts.

Obviously a compromise must be found between the irregular and the conventional military. One way out might be our increasing use of robots weapons on the battlefield, like unmanned air, sea, and land vehicles. These hi-tech but still affordable equipment have evolved from the remote controlled toys of civilian amateurs to become life saving assets for the troops. In the Middle East conflict, they are often substituted and will increasingly be the norm for old style traditional arms, like the tank, manned fighters, and even warships at sea.

USN Plans More Super Hornets

Information Dissemination reports:

In the testimony before the Senate last week Roughead's prepared statement (PDF) had some
interesting comments under the section labeled "Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)". The
comments actually are intended to float an idea to buy 69 more F/A-18E/F Super
Hornet fighters.

And I love this comment by the admiral, which sums up the dire need:

The increased operational tempo...of our legacy aircraft is
consuming service life at an accelerated rate. The recent groundings of high
demand P-3 aircraft highlight the need to bring the next generation of aircraft
in service and retire our aging aircraft.

This is a good idea. Between the First Gulf War and Gulf War 2, the US Military deployed 10 new UAV platforms, but only a single new jet fighter, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Super Hornet went from concept to prototype; from trials to frontline service in a remarkably short time for a military jet (1992-2002). Since the plane was not a totally new design, but based on the proven F/A-18 Hornet, it was allowed to skip some Congressional mandated flyoff trials, thus cutting years off its entry into service.

The F/A-18E/F is a so-so fighter when compared to the futuristic F-22 Raptor. As a bomber, the plane cannot match the stealth of even the first generation F-117 Night Hawk. Where the new plane does excel is its low cost compared to modern super fighters, but especially because IT IS A NEW PLANE, compared to the archaic jets the USAF is forced to make due with in Iraq and Afghanistan. The power of modern weapons such as precision bombs, cruise missiles, and AMRAAM air to air missiles don't necessarily need a super fighter or stealth bomber for its effect to be felt upon the enemy. They just need a ride!

Platforms then, have become near irrelevant in the new warfare, since an unmanned aerial vehicle little different than the model airplanes flown by amateur civilian enthusiasts have become the future of airpower. Skipping a generation like the off-delayed, $100 million F-35 Lightning II and purchasing more $60 million Super Hornets would bridge the gap until the new robot fighters reach their peak capability.

Fixing the Nation's Antiquated Airpower

F-16XL-1 Testbed Aircraft

My new friend Peter, the Bayou Renaissance man, has a follow up to a previous article posted here on Military Aircraft Cost Effectiveness:

The latest-generation F-16 has systems fully as capable as those on
the F-35, and is available today for a fly-away cost of approximately $50-$55
million. (Development costs no longer apply, as the USAF completed its purchases
of older-model F-16's and ended the program years ago.) They offer the very
latest radars, missiles and weapons, and they're available hot off the
production line where we're building them for our allies. Further improvements
such as the F-16XL's larger wing (providing double the
weapons capacity and much longer range, as well as supercruise capability even
with an engine of lower power than that in current-production F-16's) and thrust-vectoring have already been flight-tested
and proven, and could be incorporated on the latest model F-16's with minimal
difficulty and expense. An aircraft so equipped would be at least a match for,
and probably superior to, the very latest overseas designs. Furthermore, the enormous cost of upgrading and maintaining the USAF's aging F-15 and
F-16 fleet (which is over and above F-35 procurement
costs) could instead be applied to the purchase of new aircraft needing much
less upgrading and maintenance. Overall, I expect the USAF could significantly
improve its operational capability and save an enormous amount of money by
canceling the F-35, ordering a large number of new F-16XL's and coupling these
with a fleet of up to 400 F-22's.

Here Peter echoes what I've been saying, that we should buy and build tried-and-true aircraft (plus ships and armored vehicles) off the shelf, updating them as needed, instead of spending decades trying to invent new whiz bang platforms to fight some future unspecified foe. Computer technology is advancing far more rapidly than our old industrial age tactics can keep up. The new precision weapons are stealthy and fast enough, all they need are battle taxis to get them where they need to be, defending our nation.

I also agree the F-35 Lightning II, as badly as we and our allies need this plane, is likely going to balloon in cost in the next decade, when it finally enters service, and even more of our battle worn fighters will have crashed and burned. These latter planes, the F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s have been fighting and winning all our nations wars for decades now, and are more capable and far superior to any thing yet fielded by our enemies or allies. Plus they are AVAILABLE NOW! Even if individually the late model F-16s might be outclassed, we should be able to build them in sufficient numbers, coupled with a new and aggressive pilot training, that no peer would dare challenge us for decades.

C'mon Congress and the DoD! Get off your duff and do what's right for our country and the troops, not just for the voters and defense lobbyists.

Also, our allies the British are under the hi-tech yoke as well. Please read "Lovely new aircraft carrier, sir, but we’re fighting in the desert".

Putin says satellite shoot-down a Missile Defense test

The Bear is growing nervous. From Reuters:

Russia's Defence Ministry said on Saturday a U.S. plan to shoot
down an ailing spy satellite could be used as a cover to test a new space
weapon.The ministry said there was insufficient proof that Washington's decision
to fire a missile at the disabled satellite was to prevent a potentially deadly
leak of toxic gas as it re-entered Earth's atmosphere."In our opinion, the
decision to destroy the U.S. satellite is not as harmless as it is being
presented. Especially as the United States has been avoiding talks on
restricting a space arms race for quite a long time," the ministry's information
department said in a statement.

Actually I don't believe this a test so much as a message. The US probably wouldn't attempt such an audacious maneuver unless they felt certain they could shoot the satellite down. Of course there's no denying the object is falling to earth anyway, so Putin's insinuation doesn't hold much water.

As for a message sender: to pull off such a tremendous technological feat will doubtless send a message to rogue states desiring to possess WMD's, and also to those states who attempt to blackmail their neighbors which such weapons.

Stryker MGS in Action!

H/T to Defense Tech.

Strykers mean business

Paul McLeary on the frontlines in Iraq writes via Ares:

The Stryker vehicles I've tooled around in ride like the Cadillac
of combat vehicles--their maneuverability around the HESCO barriers and blast
walls the Iraqi CLC groups have erected all over the roads in this rural region
is remarkable, and their speed, range and force protection is
unmatched...Earlier in the week, an officer stressed to me that the Stryker is
"not an infantry carrier, it's more of a capabilities platform." Well sure,
except that out in the field, the Stryker is being used primarily as an infantry
carrier. While at Combat Outpost Courage, Captain Glen Helberg of Charlie
Company told me that the vehicles themselves, while great, are "really a ride to
where we need to go. We're not gonna win this thing just driving through the
towns." Helberg's First Sergeant Kenny Clayborne chimed in that "as far as
operations go, it's kind of just a ride. But the soldiers feel safer, and the
guys around here know that the Strykers mean business."

I think of the Stryker combat vehicles as battle taxis, and this post backs up my theory. It's not about the platforms themselves, as the hi-tech proponents in the Pentagon would insist, but what's being carried that is the future of warfare, in this case, our indispensable boots on the ground.

Afghan Rescue!

An older picture of US forces on an Afghan roof top. The CH-47 Chinook is a great plane dating from the Vietnam era, still battling on.

Super Cruise F-16

No secret we are a big fan here at New Wars of the John Boyd inspired warplane, the mighty F-16 Falcon, which has kept America supreme in the skies through 2 World Wars (The Cold War and the ongoing GWOT)! Here's some good news on its continued versatility from Strategypage:

The U.S. is offering to sell India a special F-16 that can do
supercruise. Thirty years ago, the manufacturer of the F-16 modified the design
a bit, and created a version (F-16XL) that could supercruise. That means it
could travel faster than the speed of sound ("supersonic", or about 1,000
kilometers an hour) without using the fuel guzzling afterburner. The concept was
put aside, because it wasn't really worth the effort at the time. A decade
later, when the F-22 and F-35 were in development, supercruise was reintroduced.

The F-16XL

Cost is expected at $100 million per aircraft, or about half the price of the latest F-22 Raptor Jet. USAF take notice, since the Falcon will likely still be in service somewhere for the next global conflict.

Aussies Plan New "Super Subs"

It is apparent that the Royal Australian Navy "gets it", when it comes to the future of war at sea. In the past few years they have constructed what many consider the finest conventional submarines in the world, the large and powerful Collins class. As a small but technically capable minor power, Navy planners focused on what might give the country an edge over larger powers without bankrupting the defense budget. It is interesting that they skipped plans for fielding too costly supercarriers to the real capital ship at sea in the 21st Century.

Collins class sub HMAS Rankin

Now plans are ongoing to replace the 6 Collins with even more powerful undersea boats fitted with the latest nautical technology. From The Australian comes new details on these potent new warships:

New Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has ordered planning to begin on the next generation of submarines to replace the Royal Australian Navy's Collins-class fleet with the aim of gaining "first pass" approval for the design phase from cabinet's National Security Committee in 2011.

The 17-year project will be the largest, longest and most expensive defence acquisition since Federation, potentially costing up to $25 billion.

The article further details the amount of new weapons and equipment these new superships will carry, including:

• The possibility, but unlikelihood of the new ships being fueled by nuclear power.
• They will carry small unmanned mini-subs that can be launched from the "mother" submarines.
• Air-independent propulsion systems (AIP), which allow them to stay underwater for longer periods.
• Long-range weapons such as cruise missiles as well as short-range tactical land-strike missiles.
• They will also be capable of transporting SAS squads (Australian Special Forces) into regional hot spots.

Such craft then, will maintain a regional superiority that Australia already possesses with the Collins subs. Remember that these fine Aussie boats often trounce US warships in wargames, as revealed in a much publicized episode from a few years back, where the HMAS Sheean "sank" the state-of-the-art nucear sub USS Olympia in a naval exercise.

We are reminded then of the recent Chinese Song class submarine that shadowed the carrier USS Kitty Hawk undetected. Such routine occurrences are placing at risk the expeditionary strategy which Western naval forces have been so dependent on. In a case of "having your cake and eating it too", the Aussies are going the expeditionary rout themselves, as they construct giant new carrier-like helicopter ships, and expensive Aegis destroyers to escort them.

The new subs will be expensive enough though, involving a program costing $25 billion. As I've written before, can even the richest nations afford such grandiose construction plans, also rebuilding their air forces and rearming the ground troops, while still providing generous social benefits for their citizens? Likely something will have to give.

Update-More proof of the dominance of the submarine in Australian naval thought, a former defense minister declares "Sub fleet should be doubled".

Not More, But Smarter Defense Spending

Here's Kim Holmes and Mackenzie Eaglen writing in the Washington Times calling for a increase to 4% of the GDP on Defense:

The 3.9 percent of GDP we now spend on the core defense budget is far lower than during the Cold War and almost a full percentage point below defense spending in 1950. The defense budget is expected to drop even further to less than 3.2 percent of GDP by 2012.

People here and around the world count on a strong U.S. military for their security. We can't afford any more North Korean-style disasters. Our leaders should agree to spend at least "4 percent for Freedom" each year to ensure that our forces remain capable and ready.

Critics of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan bemoan the fact that the expense of the War on Terror is delaying the Pentagon's long overdue modernization of the post Cold War military. This is a puzzling assertion since America's past wars have always provided a boon in extra military equipment for our armed forces.

The massive naval buildup of World War 2 provided the US Navy with a huge superiority in warships for decades, as it transfered from the gun to the missile age. Likewise did the Vietnam Conflict spur the fielding of our current hi-tech and precision weaponry which overcame the Soviet Union and is currently forming the backbone of our fighting forces in the Middle East.

It is not so much the overseas conflict or America's lack of military spending (more than all the world combined!) which are stifling our rearming efforts, but the Pentagon's obsession over hi-tech warfare, weaponry which is often obsolete before it is handed over to the troops. They forget that the armed forces' principle mission is to fight, with many in Washington thinking only whiz-bang wonder weapons are required to deter the nation' foes and maintain peace.

Yet, it was Clinton Era Secretary of State Madeline Albright who once said "What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it?" (she was for war before she was against it)As likely she would deny this primary purpose of military power today, the Secretary hit on the correct strategy for the post Soviet Era, with the armed forces filling the vacuum that created rogue states and radical regimes, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan. These are missions where giant supercarriers, stealth fighters, and main battle tanks are less required.

Twenty-five year old designs like the F-22 Raptor jet or uncertain technology as the V-22 Osprey tiltroter are now kept in the production stages for decades, with only a handful eventually built, while are troops fight our nation's conflicts with ancient and continually patched weapons. In contrast, we arm our allies such as Iraq and Afghanistan with lo-tech Russian weapons, like AK-47s guns and T-72 tanks. These same arms which once fought against democracy are now being used overseas to further the aims of freedom. If lo-tech is good enough for our friends, it should be adequate for America too!

As much as I do support an increase in our defense budget, it would be more desirable to have wiser spending than is currently happening. For the price of a single supercarrier, a whole fleet of littoral ships could be bought to tackle Al Qaeda pirates and contend with Third World submarines. For the cost of one F-22 superfighter, a whole squadron of counter-insurgency (COIN) aircraft could be bought to support the army's efforts in Iraq and elsewhere.

With so much extra weapons on hand, we might finally have the military we need, rather than the one the admirals, generals, and politicians wish for. I consider 4% of the GDP for the military to be desirable, but 3.2% or less adequate, and not "just enough" for our defense as the Left or Ron Paul might contend, but for a superior and dominant armed force, if spent in the correct manner.

Common Hulls for Navy, Coast Guard

The time is ripe. From Norman Polmar:

The massive cost overruns and some technical problems with the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the Coast Guard's new cutters of the Deepwater Project led a key member of Congress to propose a merger of the two programs. Representative Gene Taylor (Democrat-Mississippi) has told Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead and Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad Allen that the two services should look to pursue a "common hull" for LCS and the Coast Guard's National Security Cutter program.

Representative Taylor said "We can't afford to keep repeating mistakes," referring to the massive ship acquisition and development problems that both services have had with key shipbuilding initiatives.

Building warships to fight Al Qaeda pirates and watch the navies of potential Third World adversaries should be a no-brainer, but Washington has caused each program to be over-complicated and hardly affordable. If there's anything we should learn from the Army's successful counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq, is that numbers count as well as strategy. The Navy has the plan, now let them build the ships to support it.

Galrahn at Information Dissemination has more on the Navy COIN strategy, or lack thereof.

The F-16's Staying Power

Here is another article (after this one) on America's hardest working jet fighter, the venerable F-16 Freedom Fighter, and why we might should keep it around:

Some skeptics have wondered why U.S. officials are investing nearly $300 billion to develop and buy the F-35 when the F-16, which costs about $40 million per jet, has proven so popular and easily upgradeable that 24 countries have bought them, many as repeat customers.

"There's a pretty good argument to keep building new F-16s forever," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow and military analyst at the Brookings Institution. "It's hard to say you can get a better bang for your buck."

Reason for its staying power? Besides the low cost compared to modern stealth planes, it has become extremely adaptable to new roles:

Bill McHenry is in charge of selling them for Lockheed. As he puts it, "This is not your father's F-16." Asked why, he ticks off a slew of technological upgrades. The F-16 has gone from having minimal radar ability in the 1970s to having some of the latest air-to-air and air-to-ground radars. Countries such as Greece, which doesn't have in-air fuel tankers, have requested that extra gas tanks be fitted on top of the planes. Lockheed obliged. The F-16 now has helmet mounted cueing, which displays targeting information on the visor of the pilot's helmet.

Today's warfare is not so much about the platform itself, but what the plane is carrying. This is why UAVs are so crucial despite being basically model airplanes for military use: the new advanced sensors and precision weapons they carry. The F-16 could easily load the same new smart bombs and air-to-air missiles which the increasingly unaffordable, F-35s and F-22 Raptor carry, at about 1/2 to 1/4 the price tag.

New Aussie PM Plans Defense Hike

Being against the war in Iraq might make for good politics, but not good common sense when faced with the threat from Radical Islam. US Democrats have found it easier to be against the war vocally than actually abandoning our troops on the frontlines, since their takeover of Congress last November. Likewise is the new Australian Prime Minister mulling staying the course of his predecessor John Howard's tough defense policies, as this from Aviation Week hints:

The government of incoming Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who won a landslide Nov. 24 election victory, is showing a commitment to the armed forces at least as strong as its predecessor’s, with a defense policy that calls for greater readiness for the Australian Defense Force (ADF), not cutbacks.

Australian defense analysts expect Labor to back the main procurement decisions of the former Liberal-National government of John Howard, although the new administration plans a policy review and might face a budget shortfall in a few years.

While in opposition, new Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon repeatedly called for Australia to consider the F-22 instead of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning, the previous government’s preferred next fighter.

What this reveals is that we shouldn't expect big changes in the West's commitment to the infant Middle East democracies, as some on the radical Left, and rogue states like Iran might be hoping for. With a new political generation taking hold in the future, politicians on the Left and Right will likely find it easier to maintain the proven strategy already set by these post Cold War pioneers: Bush, Blair, and Howard.

The Navy is Sinking Itself

That's the title of an article I wrote a while back, and it still holds for America as well as Britain. From the UK Times we get this concerning the Royal Navy's First Sea lord, who is bemoaning cuts in the fleet:

The head of the Royal Navy gave warning yesterday that the fleet would lose its flexibility if the Government cut back too far on warships and manpower. Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, said that there was a risk that the Navy would not be able to fulfil many of its duties.

Then goes on to reveal that "he" is the problem:

He envisaged a different style of Navy emerging in which vessels would no longer have anti-air or anti-submarine roles but would be multipurpose. With tight resources, the emphasis, he said, would have to focus on “quality, not quantity”.

Multipurpose is the reason we currently have a less than 300 ship fleet, the Royal Navy far less and both shrinking fast ( just follow the travails of the multi-mission littoral combat ship in the news). It has also given us many hi-tech wonders, like the new DDG-1000 destroyer of which we are buying only 8,and which are too costly to afford in any numbers that the services feel are adequate for our countries self-defense. There's something to be said about quantity, which has a quality all its own, as I'll discuss later today.

More-A related story from the Virginia Pilot, "Navy faces battle of the bulge in shipbuilding costs".

Galrahn comments on this article as well, and catches the Sea Lord's apparent contradiction.

Worse Decade for Shipbuilding

The Carter era with its 450 ship Navy is looking better than ever, especially considering the number of ships constructed these past few years. Here are some figures for the Carter era:

• 1977-12 ships
  
• 1978-14 ships
  
• 1979-16 ships
  
• 1980-19 ships
  

And now for the Bush Administration

• 2001-8 ships
  
• 2002-6 ships
  
• 2003-4 ships
  
• 2004-7 ships
  
• 2005-4 ships
  
• 2006-7 ships
  

Admittedly, we are at war with most of the fighting undertaken by the Land Forces, but generally in all past US Conflicts naval shipbuilding increased, sometimes dramatically. Not so in the War on Terror. I think the principle reason is the dramatically increased costs of new hulls due to over reliance on technology. I agree with Robert Kaplan who said recently "Hulls in the water could soon displace boots on the ground as the most important military catchphrase of our time." Especially if we have to fight future Blue Water navies in a war of attrition, as the USN would prefer.

Figures from the Colton Company.

Mahan Against the Little Ship Navy

Galrahn at Information Dissemination has a great post about the US Navy chasing pirates in Somali waters, but I was a little distracted by this statement:

"More interesting is news that the Somalian government has given permission to the USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) to enter Somalian waters to pursue the hijacked vessel."

Thats great, but I still cringe everytime I hear of one of these 9000 ton destroyers built to fight Soviet nuclear subs in the North Atlantic chasing pirates in wooden dhows or tiny speed boats. This is comparable to using an M-16 rifle to swat mosquitoes. I am fearful that if one of these little "Davids" were to launch a mine, torpedo, or missile and damage one of our naval Goliaths, it may be viewed as a great propaganda victory for the terrorists, as seen in the 2000 USS Cole incident.


William Lind might have the answer with this post titled A 'little ship' Navy:

Today as throughout the Cold War, the U.S. Navy is building a fleet perfectly designed to fight the navy of Imperial Japan. If someone wants to contest control of the Pacific Ocean in a war between aircraft carrier task forces, we are ready. Unfortunately, no one does, absent that general resurrection when Shokaku and Zuikaku, Soryu and Hiryu -- the four Japanese aircraft carriers sunk at the Battle of Midway in 1942 -- will rise from their watery graves.

Were the U.S. Navy really to turn to Corbett, it would build lots of ships designed for operations in coastal waters and on rivers, often with troops on board. But such ships are small ships, and the U.S. Navy hates small ships. Some 30 years ago, when the senator I worked for was trying to push the Navy into buying some small, fast missile boats, the PHMs, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. James L. Holloway III said contemptuously in testimony, "The U.S. Navy has no place for little ships."

That last comment is evident from this article titled The Boat Nobody Wanted, but getting back to Lind, he was discussing the difference between 2 schools of naval thought, one led by the famed Alfred Thayer Mahan and the other by the less well known Julian Corbett. Mahan was an advocate of big ship, battlefleet type warfare, the kind our Navy continues to practice long after the Cold War, while Corbett was more flexible, concentrating on operations like commerce protection and amphibious warfare. The latter 2 are sadly neglected by the USN except when it is forced on them during wartime.

I see where Mahan theory failed at the battle of Jutland in 1916, and when the British were so reluctant to deal with the submarine threat in that war. Again in the second world war, the Navy was dilatory in applying new weapons to fight the sub, especially aircraft. At late as the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Halsey left the invasions forces on their own to chase Japanese carriers dearth of aircraft, in a desperate attempt to fight Mahan's "decisive battle", almost incurring disaster.

I give credit, though, to Mahan for bringing America out its its Post-Civil War doldrums, and setting the Navy and the nation on the path to world power and greatness. I fear though, that our obsession with his inflexible and unimaginative strategy may be steering us toward disaster, especially with insurgents eager to bypass our hidebound theories of war fighting, as we have seen consistently since 9/11.

Some good news- Galrahn also posted on using the new LCS to ferry Marines, recalling the fast destroyers transports of the war era.

For more on Julian Corbett, you can read his masterpiece of naval strategy for free here: Some Principles of Maritime Strategy.