| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| The U.S. Navy Needs to Radically Reassess How It Projects Power | |
| 2015-04-25 | |
| |
| Posted by:Blossom Unains5562 |
| #15 U.S. Navy May Turn Every Ship into an Aircraft Carrier |
| Posted by: newc 2015-04-25 17:21 |
| #14 Well, maybe not Granada. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2015-04-25 16:08 |
| #13 The problems lie in the body politic in Washington and its unwillingness to make hard decisions about our economy as well as confront our enemies. Every war since WWII has had the problem of political leadership in D.C. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2015-04-25 16:07 |
| #12 Sharks with freaking lasers on their heads! |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2015-04-25 15:35 |
| #11 Optimally manned electric Iowas using off-the-shelf armour plate, build in flights of 12. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2015-04-25 14:16 |
| #10 1,000 -- or 10,000 unmanned submersible drone ships. Armed with everything from machine guns to rocket propelled grenades to cruise missiles. Ideal for both reconnaissance and force projection, for dealing with everything from Somali pirates to China. Small, cheap (well, cheap compared to anything with human beings on board), expendable, with 0 troop risk. |
| Posted by: dlr 2015-04-25 13:05 |
| #9 Oh, and launch a few rods from god units in perm orbits for quick first strike attacks. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2015-04-25 12:05 |
| #8 Could do the same with EM rail guns. Put them in old decrepit hulks. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2015-04-25 12:04 |
| #7 I like the idea of old oil tankers with UCAV's and a few crew parked like derelicts in ship parking areas (like the tanker one around Indonesia) around the world. A tanker deck would be an ideal landing/takeoff deck for the UCAV's. Fuel not a problem. Actual UCAVs stored below deck or in cages that look like shipping containers. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2015-04-25 12:02 |
| #6 When I was a yute I remember fighting the "lots of cheap planes" against a few great ones. (I think the great one at the time was the F-15). I was on the side of the "many cheap" ones. As I grew up and observed the world I realized that given all of our values, particularly a commitment to the troops, great is better even if fewer. This sounds like the same argument. Mr. Spook basically says it all. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2015-04-25 11:03 |
| #5 The US Navy has had one mission, "permissive" combat environments or not, and that is keep the sea lanes open for commerce. Does the author really think that that mission efficacy would improve by changing the tools for that mission to cruise missiles or an aircraft with longer legs? It's not just about force projections; it is also about keeping the sea lanes of commerce open. Is there any Navy or any foreign military entity of any kind that would take that mission willingly and fulfill it as well as the US Navy has since the end of WWII? |
| Posted by: badanov 2015-04-25 01:28 |
| #4 Missile Destroyers are great - but you have to go feet dry and far inland to project power beyond the beach. |
| Posted by: Tiny Ulusosing7241 2015-04-25 00:58 |
| #3 ... needs to remember our oath had no expiration ... |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2015-04-25 00:56 |
| #2 One other problem - he bellyaches about "putting 5000 sailors at risk". Well excuse the hell out of me - there were many multiples of that in Marines and Soldiers who actually are on the front lines and at far more risk. This guy pisses me off. Typical think-tank jackassery from some beltway weasel that was formerly military and trading on that for political influence. The author needs to our had no expiration on it, and stop being a sell-out bitch for those who would disarm us. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2015-04-25 00:55 |
| #1 Such a hideously wrong and full-of-holes article. NR should be ashamed. The guy makes the most stupid argument: We cant use carriers because they are too valuable - the Chinese have ICBM that target them, and tis expensive to build BMD defenses against these allegedly effective weapons (there do remain doubts about just how accurate the Chinese ICBM terminal guidance against a carrier is short of nuclear warbheads). This numbskull then says we should instead build 7 "missile laden destroyers", or a hile pile of vastly less capable brown water patrol craft... Excuse me, what makes those any less vulnerable to the same things that threaten the carriers? DUH! So we lose capability, and we do nothing to reduce vulnerability other than multiplying lesser valued targets for the Chinese. He complains that the Navy is getting smaller due to building expensive ships... No, its that the Navy budget, in real dollars, is shrinking, while entitlements grow. THAT is the issue which needs to be fixed - crippling our Navy is not the proper fix. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2015-04-25 00:44 |