Waco Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 So, how do you lay the foundation for changing the strategic numeric planning of one of the US' uniformed services? Spell it out directly in a speech. Gates' Speech Some additional quotes from the full script of the speech: We know other nations are working on asymmetric ways to thwart the reach and striking power of the U.S. battle fleet. At the low end, Hezbollah, a non-state actor, used anti-ship missiles against the Israeli navy in 2006. And Iran is combining ballistic and cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, mines, and swarming speedboats in order to challenge our naval power in that region. At the higher end of the access-denial spectrum, the virtual monopoly the U.S. has enjoyed with precision guided weapons is eroding – especially with long-range, accurate anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles that can potentially strike from over the horizon. This is a particular concern with aircraft carriers and other large, multi-billion-dollar blue-water surface combatants, where, for example, a Ford-class carrier plus its full complement of the latest aircraft would represent potentially a $15 to $20 billion set of hardware at risk. The U.S. will also face increasingly sophisticated underwater combat systems – including numbers of stealthy subs – all of which could end the operational sanctuary our Navy has enjoyed in the Western Pacific for the better part of six decades. Second – aircraft carriers. Our current plan is to have eleven carrier strike groups through 2040 and it's in the budget. And to be sure, the need to project power across the oceans will never go away. But, consider the massive over-match the U.S. already enjoys. Consider, too, the growing anti-ship capabilities of adversaries. Do we really need eleven carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one? Any future plans must address these realities. Sounds like the beginnings of a reduction in the size of the carrier fleet to me. Couple that with some of the proposed paradigm shifts on the composition of maritime forces, and I guess folks ought to be snapping all the pictures of carrier operations they can. Like for the battle line of dreadnoughts, the winds of change are blowing.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
richter111 Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 Thankfully the new carriers are supposed to be considerably more effective than the ones they are replacing. I wonder what our counterplan to the underwater assets will be? More Virginia class subs? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Waco Posted May 5, 2010 Author Share Posted May 5, 2010 Thankfully the new carriers are supposed to be considerably more effective than the ones they are replacing. Assuming they ever get built, that is. That statement is dangerous territory too. Recall that B-2s were supposed to be "several times more effective, so we can afford to buy less of them." Similarly, because the F-22 is claimed to be "4 times as effective as the F-15," we can afford to buy less of them. Quality vs. quantity only goes so far. And, as they say, quantity has a quality all its own. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 Well, I hope another major FUBAR doesn't happen while Gates is still SecDef because the first thing a President asks is"Where are the Carriers ?" ... Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rapier01 Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 Gates needs to go. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zerosystem Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 one really has to question gates motives...if he truly understands big and small pictures, if he is just focused on one or if hes a bean counter like mcnamara Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sunliner Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 I'm just a dumb*** civilian, but it seems that the number of carriers we do or do not need has nothing to do with how many our adversaries have. We haven't had a 'carrier to carrier' war since the early 1940's. The advantage of a CVN is that we can move the equivalent of a small air force almost anywhere in the world without having to negotiate with a host country, and move the airfield at will. The number of carriers needed is more related to how many conflicts there are going on, figuring in the downtime needed for maintenance, refitting, crew rotation etc. I think we have about 5-6 carriers actually deployed at any one time and when the poo hits the fan somewhere, the men and machinery can get stretched pretty thin pretty quickly. The thing he mentions that I do get is the carriers' vulnerability. I remember seeing somewhere that a Chinese sub got close enough to one of our CVN's that they had to take 3 or 4 pictures of the boat to get one image. Losing a carrier would be a disaster on a couple levels. I trust that better minds than mine are working on a defense. Scary times we're in. -Mike Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 Man that confused me... More people are working on anti ship weaponry so the solution is fewer ships? That solution didn't hold water against the Russians, it seemed like we just built in more defense capabilities, improved weapons, and of course more ships. Hard to show the flag with a submarine. I guess we say the sun is setting, so it is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Horrido Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 The problem with "four times as effective" is that you're reduced "four times the effectiveness" if only one is lost. Raptors fair equally as any other aircraft if caught on the runway. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spongebob Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 and... CNA Analysis Spongebob Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 Welcome to the future, where wars are fought entirely with RPVs, IEDs, and RPGs. Regards, Murph Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IrishGreek Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 and... CNA Analysis Spongebob Oh, and they cancelled the destroyer in this image... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jpk Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 Oh, and they cancelled the destroyer in this image... Well......they are building three. At least that's what I last heard. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IrishGreek Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 Well......they are building three. At least that's what I last heard. That's the last I heard too. They started saying they needed/wanted low 30's count of them, then got 3. So I guess like the Carriers, Raptors, etc. They are much more effective, so don't need as many. No, I know they were getting god-awful expensive and they couldn't be justified. But man, they are cool looking ships! The Navy also cancelled the CG(X) which was going to use the same type of hull as the Zumwalts. BTW, this CG(X) was to be the successor to the Tico's. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mhoupt Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 Gates needs to go. I agree, but what worse SecDef is in waiting? Remember, the one who will appoint the new SecDef is the one to be concerned about. He is the one pulling the military to it's bare bones - hey, maybe the only squadron left will be the Jolly Rogers. Mark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RedHeadKevin Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 (edited) So, essentially Gates is saying "We can't keep up with the weapons that other countries are building, and we can't protect our assets against those weapons, so we're going to reduce the number of assets." I guess "we lost 3 carriers to Iranian speedboat-bombs" means the same whether you have 3 carriers or 30 carriers. Edited May 5, 2010 by RedHeadKevin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zerosystem Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 Well......they are building three. At least that's what I last heard. ddx has been canceled. the littoral combat ship is what they are planning on building a few more of Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 (edited) I think what scares me about this whole thing beyond the idea that we will always be fighting peasants with RPGs and IEDs like Murph said is this: Many Americans seem to be determined that America no longer be the "world police" But the American proclivity to "call the cops" has been especially prevalent the last 20 years. A smaller, less powerful military will not stop American leaders from using it on everything from hurricane relief to full scale war... but the people in uniform will be the ones who pay the price for Gates "extreme foresight." We have been doing so much with so little for so long, people expect us to do everything forever with nothing. Edited May 5, 2010 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Waco Posted May 5, 2010 Author Share Posted May 5, 2010 While I know Secretary Gates' opinion is based on a variety of different metrics (budget, acquisition woes, changing global landscape, etc.), I definitely think there is some validity to the changing threat argument. When you consider things like this: On the verge of a game changer It might be time to look at some new options for Naval power projection. I'm not saying DDG-1000, SSGNs, or long range UAVs are the answer, but there are indications that the carrier as the centerpiece of naval might is a waning concept. After all, even into the start of WWII, most US planners assumed the battleship was going to be the central planning piece of a war in the Pacific. Most of the IJN believed the same. The US was forced to push the carrier to the forefront out of necessity; fortunately there'd been a few far sighted individuals who'd thought the challenges of carrier warfare through. I'm not saying an immediate slash in the numbers of carriers is the immediate answer, but thinking through potential new concepts might be necessary. A multi-layered anti-access defense of ASBMs, ASCMs, supersonic cruise missiles, advanced IADS, diesel submarines, and advanced sea mines is a really lethal problem for a CSG. If you have to park the carrier so far away that it can't project power, what good does it do you? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Joe Hegedus Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 We have been doing so much with so little for so long, people expect us to do everything forever with nothing. All while not causing any collateral damage or injury to "innocent civilians" and also not incurring any friendly casualties. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
grandadjohn Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) is slated to be de-comm'ed in 2013 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Les / Creative Edge Photo Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 Well with the pending Global monetary/economic melt down to bankrupt treasuries, does it all matter? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mark S. Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 Waco, Before 911 and Afghanistan there were a few papers that stated that the carrier was a "Sunset" system. Might be able to find something in Parameters or the like from the late 90's. Would be interesting to see if the rationale broken only by their use in a conflict is repeating itself. Regards, Mark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zerosystem Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 Waco,Before 911 and Afghanistan there were a few papers that stated that the carrier was a "Sunset" system. Might be able to find something in Parameters or the like from the late 90's. Would be interesting to see if the rationale broken only by their use in a conflict is repeating itself. Regards, Mark you know it will, how many time have we seen systems dubbed outdated for the conflict come back and save the very asses that condemned them in the first place? versatility and the big picture are things that the critics of these systems seem to miss, sometimes even by just trying to make every system so versatile that they let the numbers of such fall too low. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 ICBMs have been targeting land bases for over 50 years, we should get rid of them too ... Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.