You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Tech
US Navy Marching to a Very Different Drummer
2005-06-24
June 24, 2005: The U.S. Navy is working on a dramatic change in weapons, ships and tactics. Many admirals believe the navy has been resting on its laurels, brought about because of the lack of any real opponents since World War II. The Soviet Union tried to provide a meaningful threat, but, when you consider Russian naval history, the smart money was always on the U.S. fleet. The navy could continue to dominate the oceans using the World War II model, but there are better ways to do it today, and that's what is driving the current changes.

The LCS (Littoral Combat Ship) is seen as the model for the 21st century navy. While the aircraft carrier will remain the "capital ship," the next generation of them (the CVN 21 class) will be very different from current carriers. The navy wants to spend more money, and effort, on increasing the capabilities of sailors, using more robotics and making the navy more mobile and in touch. Admirals recognize that, unlike in the past, there is no one enemy fleet you go after. The future threats will be all over the place, and you have to be able to get to them quickly, and with the kind of forces that will take care of the problem before it gets any worse. The navy is looking at doing more with mobility, in the same sense that the army has long studied that issue.

All of this means more "jointness" (close cooperation with the other services.) Up until the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S. Navy was, as it had long been, a force unto itself. But after several embarrassing moments during the Gulf War (difficulty in communicating with the other services, lack of the right weapons and some cooperation problems), the navy turned around. Since then, the navy has provided one carrier to the army, to transport an infantry division to Haiti, and another to serve as an offshore base for SOCOM helicopters in 2001. Naval aviation was crucial in the 2001 Afghan invasion, and now the navy wants to institutionalize this kind of cooperation. For centuries, admirals operated far from home, and communication took so long that the sailors had to act on their own. But the world is a much smaller place now, especially when it comes to communications. Soldiers can get to distant battlefields, via air force transports, long before the navy amphibious ships can. So the navy wants a force that can communicate faster, see more and act more quickly than ever before.

This means a very new type of navy, one that it is having a hard time selling to Congress. The politicians have come to rely on those very expensive contracts for building large warships. But the navy is pulling back from that, and getting some political heat as a result. It's tough to sell the politicians on a lot of untried ideas. But it's a new century, with new technology. If the U.S. Navy doesn't figure out what to do with all this, someone else may.
Posted by:Steve

#4  I have become disturbed about the rosy picture painted about Naval R&D. The magazine "Proceedings", published by the US Naval Institute, though not an official publication, is the most widely read Naval journal in the world, whose articles are mostly written by senior US Navy Officers. An issue or two ago, their lead editorial, concerning procurement of new ships and technologies, began by saying "The United States and China are preparing to have a naval war. The United States will lose." The author then blamed this on combined factors in procurement and construction, mostly the cross-purpose desire to have only a relatively small number of very advanced ships, combined with no clear-cut strategy of design and construction. In this, it was pointed out that a naval construction program takes years to produce a ship, much less a fleet, and needs consistency of purpose and design lasting more than a decade. But as it is now, the US Navy has a magnificant, high-tech fleet on paper, and no real program to make it a reality. Their estimate of the loss of US Pacific naval supremacy is between the years 2010-2015.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-06-24 18:17  

#3  Damn of course! I don't know what came over me RWV! You're correct of course.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-06-24 18:00  

#2  The US Navy's primary enemies remain the US Army and US Air Force. There isn't enough money to fund all those new ships and toys, buy F22s and F35s, and still buy bullets and beans for the Army and Marines. Somebody, perhaps everybody, is going to get a lump of coal in their stockings. Watch what they do, not what they say.
Posted by: RWV   2005-06-24 15:27  

#1  Our theoretcial enemey is the combined fleets of the rest of the world excluding only the UK and OZ. It could take several weeks maybe two months to finish. And four of those weeks will be running down the Japaneese.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-06-24 14:39  

00:00