| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| US To Sacrifice a Carrier for Brown Water Navy? |
| 2005-07-11 |
| July 10, 2005: After sixty years of dominating U.S. Navy policy, the carrier admirals are getting some serious competition from what is coming to be called the âbrown water navy.â This is the gang that advocates more attention be paid to coastal operations against irregulars, terrorists and the sort of troublemakers peacekeepers encounter. The LCS (Littoral Combat Ship) was developed to deal with this sort of thing, and has become even more popular because of its low cost. At $250 million per ship, the LCS is showing up the more traditional ships, especially the carriers. So now the proposal has been made that the navy cut one carrier, but not its air wing, from the fleet. That would save $500 million a year in operating expenses, and the $8 billion cost of building a replacement carrier for one of the older ones due to retire soon. Keeping the air wing in service would make it possible to work the planes, and aircraft, harder, because there would be an additional air wing that could be used for relief (of air wings that were just worn out from a particularly intense operation). The annual, and one time, savings would allow the navy to build more LCS ships, and even smaller patrol craft that are so useful and necessary for these kinds of operations. What really gives the brown water crowd clout is the need for these smaller ships to help out in the war on terror. At the moment, itâs the only war we got. Moreover, the U.S. Army, to the great embarrassment of old navy hands, has but together a brown water force of small patrol boats for use in Iraq. During the Vietnam war, the navy supplied this force. Not this time around, and the navy is feeling the heat for it. A aircraft carrier may have to be sacrificed to make amends. Meanwhile, the navy plans to form a riverine unit by next year, with more to follow, including a battalion of ânaval infantryâ to serve with the brown water sailors manning the small boats to be used along coasts and up rivers. Civil Affairs and intelligence units are to be formed as well. Service in Iraq seems a strong possibility. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #12 I find it curious that no one is talking about naval equivalents of UAVs or autonomous vehicles. In several ways an unmanned marine vehcile is an easier problem than the aerial equivalent. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-07-11 18:26 |
| #11 phil_b, I believe the book The Only War We've Got was published in England and still available "used" through Amazon UK. Being a book it has no regional coding problems. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-07-11 18:19 |
| #10 I mean, don't get me wrong, aircraft carriers are nice, I like them, but it's time to shift our priorities elsewhere. Coastal operations are the wave of the future. And the coastal operations will get their air cover from where, exactly? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-07-11 14:29 |
| #9 Only an insane admiral would put the carriers in Taiwan Strait. Carriers are to be out of trouble only the planes are supposed to fight. |
| Posted by: Hupomoque Spoluter7949 2005-07-11 13:51 |
| #8 You guys may be missing the point. The LCS is a new concept in naval warfare. They are extremely fast and agile and can carry a variety of weapons. They can work as anything from a sub hunter/killer to a fast attack, first strike weapon. They are small enough to be hard to spot and track, but they are large enough to carry weapons that can sink a carrier. A swarm of these little fuckers would be the chinese fleets worst nightmare. |
| Posted by: Sheamble Unairt5149 2005-07-11 13:00 |
| #7 Aircraft carriers are last century's weapons. They're huge targets. How do you kill an aircraft carrier whose defenses include 120 antimissiles? Fire 121 cruise missiles at it. The aircraft carriers were built to counter the Soviet threat, which no longer exists. I mean, don't get me wrong, aircraft carriers are nice, I like them, but it's time to shift our priorities elsewhere. Coastal operations are the wave of the future. Naval Infantry is different from Marines. I don't remember how exactly, it has to do with the missions that they're tasked with. The Russians have always seemed to be big on Naval Infantry, for some reason. |
| Posted by: gromky 2005-07-11 12:59 |
| #6 And while it might freak out some to think of the reduced "survivability" of such ships: they are expendable, granted; but match them against a single ship and THEY WILL WIN. Never mind the cost in training and staffing all those ships, and the loss of all that investment when your disposable firecrackers go off. Oh, and the larger supply needs of such a force. More fuel, more spare parts, more food, more water, more medical support, more mail, more harbor space, more more more. Naturally, of course, once you've taken the "quantity over quality" route, you can't really divide your forces up (their combat ability depends on numbers, remember?), so you're stuck with the same strategic flexibility as you'd have with the smaller number of gold-plated ships. So, what was the advantage, again? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-07-11 12:39 |
| #5 Moose, they're called PT boats. I thought the Navy's infantry was called the Marine Corps? Too much interservice rivalry!! |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2005-07-11 11:34 |
| #4 The problem with the LCS, as I see it, is that there is still too much emphasis on quality over quantity. Imagine building ships that only cost $10M each. A simple, multi-purpose vehicle that just acts as a pad for a whole range of weapons: *either* 155 arty, rockets, SAMs, depth charges or whatever else you installed on it *that morning*. It doesn't have to do everything all at once, just one thing really well. Now consider that for the same price as a single LCS, you can build 25 of these! By just pure numbers alone, it is obvious that you can do a heck of a lot more with such ships then you can with a single LCS. And while it might freak out some to think of the reduced "survivability" of such ships: they are expendable, granted; but match them against a single ship and THEY WILL WIN. So what does that have to say about survivability of a $250M LCS? As things stand now, it doesn't matter how an LCS is disabled; it is far too critical a loss. Lose a fleet of the cheaper ships and you might lose a battle. Lose a few of LCS's and you might lose the war. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-07-11 11:08 |
| #3 Apropo of not much at all, does anyone remember a book called The Only War We've Got. It was like Catch22 written by a combination of HS Thompson and Tom Sharpe. Amazon doesn't recognize it. They have also completely expunged any reference to the Just William books which were my absolute favourites as a child, along with the Jennings books. I guess I am doomed to love the things that get edited out of history. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-07-11 10:17 |
| #2 I would agree with this. We can already dump 4 or 5 CVAs into the already crowded Tiawan strait and really don't need anymore. However, several small, fast gunboats with medium range anti-ship missles, linked to the JSTAR to go after the amphibious assault ships....Oh baby! I'm also for completely covering the China side of the Tiawan coast with large, radar guided guns. Say, oh, around 155mm or larger. 5,000 or so ought to do it. China can't destroy them all with missles, and our and Tiawan's aircraft keep them from attacking them as well. It would make an amphibious attack, difficult... |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-07-11 10:11 |
| #1 Hmmmmmmm. Tough call. Right now, an LCS would probably be the better use of our limited funds. But, |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-07-11 10:03 |