The Ship That's Sinking the Navy

[HawkerHurricane]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/23/opinion/23sat1.html?ex=1114920000&en=39ca7edf5bf835b0&ei=5070

Given the huge sums the Bush administration has lavished on the military, it is astonishing to learn that the Navy may not be able to buy all the new ships it needs. The Navy has no one to blame but itself, and its appetite for overequipped ships.

The most glaring example of that is the DD(X) destroyer program. The DD(X) is a marvel of advanced technology. But its most costly features are not relevant to the battles the Navy is likely to fight, and its outsized price tag of well over $3 billion per ship leaves dangerously little for the aircraft carriers, submarines and fast coastal-combat vessels that will be needed in the years ahead.

In the post-9/11 world, the Navy must prepare for combat against terrorists who melt in and out of rivers and harbors and ram explosives-packed boats into sitting warships. This will require more light and cheap craft, suitable for fast pursuit and patrol missions, and fewer megaships, designed for traditional warfare. Earlier designs of the DD(X) might have served these needs, had the Navy not insisted on layers of technology that needlessly added to the ship's weight and cost.

and more at link

My comment:
The U.S. Military is compartmentalized: the guys who use the weapons rarely have any voice in what weapons to buy.

[dcfirefighter]

1. A good source of mil related reforms

is www.g2mil.com

the way we buy weapons programs is broken, and needs fixed now.

The high-low mix isn't a bad idea, but we need a lot more 'low' than high, for redundancy and distributed power (rather than critical node) force projection networks.

For the navy: forget the JSF-Navy version and buy the STOVL (USMC) version, for a future navy consisting of 25 or so 'pocket' carriers and 4 or so legacy super carriers.

Also, a common hull (SeaSlice?) platform for ships of various roles: ASW, Missle / Air Defense, Amphibious, and Amphibious support.

The Littoral Combat Ship is a good direction.

[hack89]

5. The pocket carrier concept won't work.

Carrier combat power is calculated in terms of sortie rate (number of aircraft in the air per day) over an extended time frame. This boils down to supplies - number of bombs and amount of gas. The problem with a bunch of small carriers is that they can't carry large amounts of either and therefore need to be resupplied at sea very frequently. This in turn requires a large number of supply ships which in turn requires a large number of war ships to escort them into the combat zone. It might work but it won't save any money or reduce the number of sailors required. It would certainly complicate the logistical planning of any operation. The beauty of a big carrier is that they can generate sustained combat power with a relatively small logistics 'tail".

[blindpig]

11. the problem with any carrier

is that they are big, sweet targets. Modern munitions and delivery systems make them vunerable to any opponent with at least moderate capabilities.

They're great for stomping on the pathetic, the halfassed, the poor. The tool par excellance for projecting imperial power worldwide. I don't think Washington and Jefferson would approve. If our purpose is to defend this country then they are money poorly and wrongly spent.

[hack89]

13. There is some truth to what you say...

but replacing big with small is not the answer. Carriers are the ultimate offensive weapons so if your attitude is that our navy exist only to protect our coast lines, then it may make sense to get rid of carriers.

[Hello_Kitty]

2. Military Industrial Complex

You are so right about the compartmentalization. Troops go without basic armor and Navy ships are big sitting targets for terrorists. Meanwhile, fatcat defense contractors continue to pad their pockets by selling useless gizmos.

[megatherium]

3. Is this thing still going to have rail guns?

That was the original design, I gather; a low, stealth platform without much above the water line but gun platforms. Not just any gun, but rail guns, capable of sending shells 100 miles inland at hypersonic velocities, a weapon that would be very difficult for an adversary to defend against since the time to target would be small.

[hack89]

6. No rail guns to start with...

They will be built with 2 155mm Advanced Gun Systems (AGS). However, their all electric power plant makes it very easy to refit them with rail guns (and lasers for that matter) when that technology is mature enough to send out to the fleet.

[wakeme2008]

4. Kelly Johnson's Unwritten Rule # 15

Kelly of the Skunk Works (U2 / SR71 ++) had 14 written rules. But #15 was only passed down by word of mouth...

15

"Starve before doing business with the damned Navy. They don't know what in hell they want and will drive you up a wall before they break either your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy"

From Skunk Works chapter The ship that never was.....

Meet the Sea Shadow.... built in the late 80s based on the FB-117 principals for Stealth...

[CatholicEdHead]

7. Looks like that boat in "Tomorrow Never Dies"

one of the late 90's Bond films.

[HawkerHurricane]

8. The 'Bond' boat was based on it.

with much more capabilities (combat wise) than the Sea Shadow.

[wakeme2008]

9. Right the Sea Shadow was just a "demo" craft to

show that it was stealthy for both radar and sonar... They had a drawing for a sub that would not be detected by sonar but the Navy laft at it's shape....

But the Sea Shadow could have been enlarged to add requirements...

[HawkerHurricane]

10. I've seen sketches

of a 'real' warship based of the Sea Shadow concept. Let's see...

Shoot, can't find it. Let's just say that the 'Bond' ship had a lot of the proposed capabilities of a 'stealth' destroyer.

[Democrats_win]

12. 9/11 is the Glaring proof of the failure.--huge navy, no protection.

[gordianot]

14. Actually there was a lot of potential protection that day.

Simulating an attack while there was a real attack. Pure confusion. No chain of command etc. etc. etc..

[hack89]

15. I guess I missed the naval attack on the US...

just how would you expect ships at sea to prevent a domestic high jacking? Don't you think that perhaps national defense is a multi-faceted thing. There were many failures on 9/11 but it is hard to see how you can pin it on the Navy.

[yurbud]

16. stop revolving door from Pentagon to industry

Once you hit the five sided building, your next job should be retirement or the public sector.

That would cut some of these boondoggles.