| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| US naval power threatened by new weapons: Gates |
| 2010-05-04 |
| WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday said new weapons threatened America's dominance of the high seas and questioned the US Navy's reliance on costly aircraft carriers and submarines. Anti-ship missiles and stealthy submarines could undermine the US military's global reach in the Pacific Ocean and elsewhere, putting carriers and American subs at risk, Gates said in a speech to retired members of the US Navy. ‘We know other nations are working on asymmetric ways to thwart the reach and striking power of the US battle fleet,' Gates said. He cited the Lebanese Shia militia Hezbollah, which had used anti-ship missiles against Israel in 2006, and Iran's arsenal of missiles, mines and speed boats that he said were designed ‘to challenge our naval power in that region.' The US military's ‘virtual monopoly' in precision guided weapons was ‘eroding' and the spread of missiles jeopardized Washington's means of ‘projecting power,' he said. The new ‘anti-access' weapons could potentially render America's costliest vessels obsolete, with vast sums of money devoted to ‘wasting assets,' he said. ‘Our navy has to be designed for new challenges, new technologies, and new missions — because another one of history's hard lessons is that, when it comes to military capabilities, those who fail to adapt often fail to survive,' he said. With the United States fleet of attack submarines and warships far exceeding any other country, Gates questioned if it was wise to spend billions more on the same programs given the changing strategic landscape. ‘At the end of the day, we have to ask whether the nation can really afford a navy that relies on three- to six-billion-dollar destroyers, seven-billion-dollar submarines and 11-billion-dollar carriers.' To reduce a dependence on carriers and regional bases, naval commanders will need to develop ways to strike at longer range with the help of robotic, unmanned aircraft as well as smaller subs and unmanned underwater vessels, he said. It was a blunt message from Gates, who has not shied away from cutting some big weapons programs he considered relics of the Cold War. New technology as well as budget pressures will force future leaders of the navy and the US Marine Corps to take a second look at long-held assumptions about US military power, he warned. ‘Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one? Any future plans must address these realities.' He cited his approval of funds for ships designed for shallow water, as smaller vessels had become vital for special operations against insurgents and Islamist extremists. ‘As we learned last year, you don't necessarily need a billion-dollar guided missile destroyer to chase down and deal with a bunch of teenage pirates wielding AK-47s and RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades),' he said. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #18 Imagine life with no carriers. Then what? They are more vulnerable than they have been recently, but carriers certainly were vulnerable during WW II and they helped win that war anyway. We'll be able to move them in close and use them to full effect after enemy defenses are suppressed. This would be fine for countries like Iran who think they are hot $hit but really aren't. I've seen those Phalanx guns at work. They are cool, but they take a lot of time and ammo to take out one target and could not defend the ship against multiple simultaneous attacks in a 3-D battlespace. Something special is going to have to be dreamed up to protect carriers from the new generations of torpedoes out there. Perhaps just a swarm of autonomous anti-torpedo torpedoes with small charges would work. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-05-04 23:08 |
| #17 wasn't the phalanx developed for said anti ship missiles? Also we have made the mistake of cutting down our military after every war and then do the costlier prcess of rebuilding as quickly as possible when the time arises. |
| Posted by: chris 2010-05-04 17:21 |
| #16 CBGs are no longer the pinnacle of power that can go wherever they wish to do whatever they want uhhh, yes they can. |
| Posted by: Thaique McGurque3812 2010-05-04 17:21 |
| #15 The denigration is based on vulnerability and concentration of assets. You may be proved right or wrong in the next regional conflict (of COURSE they are a target). However, the last carrier the US lost was the USS Princeton (CVL-23) in Leyte Gulf. At only 13,000 tons and loss dating 67 years ago, I don't see the strength of your argument, measured against both the prosecution of actions by the carriers, crews & fleet in the ensuing decades and, most notably, the security they have provided. I predict a sweeping change of thought when the keel is revealed for an indigenous PLAN CVN... |
| Posted by: logi_cal 2010-05-04 16:47 |
| #14 A simple way to address, if not solve, several problems at the same time is to create a "two-tier" navy. Keep the quality ships in reserve, and create lower tech, much less expensive, easier to operate and maintain ships for much of the ordinary work. The much-easily-forgotten legs of the USN are easily forgotten: Sailors. A Navy wins or loses battles not on the strength of its assets alone, but also on the strength of its personnel & training. You CANNOT keep trained & motivated Navy crews with that concept, let alone quality assets ready to fight a war. And by the way, back to the 'cost' thing: Would we rather be having discussion about tangibles such as 'cost', or have discussions about intangibles like 'quality' (as in Russia & India...Britain, too)??? |
| Posted by: logi_cal 2010-05-04 16:37 |
| #13 The denigration is based on vulnerability and concentration of assets. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-05-04 16:31 |
| #12 Gates is right. Quit trying to fight the last war. Carriers are great for posters and decent at projecting power at third world countries. But as high-tech anti-ship weapons become a commodity, they lose their effectiveness. Things like UAVs and hypersonic suborbital weapons are the future. You are right, if you ignore the fact that each CVN is 100% USA sovereign territory, delivered directly to the doorstep of a trouble spot (remember the trouble in Uzbekistan). Besides...UAVs have to launch from 'somewhere'. Denigrating an asset based on cost belies the value of the asset, which is best measured in capabilities & flexibility. I'm not addressing ship-by-ship, but the CVN, for example, could NOT be replaced for less money with anything short of a static piece of land located somewhere in the world (otherwise known as an 'airbase', leased to us, subject to termination, just as in Uzbekistan). |
| Posted by: logi_cal 2010-05-04 16:25 |
| #11 if the bad guys are allowed to continue to develop that ability without some sort of 'work accident' or interdiction of the supply chain to prevent key parts from arriving then yes the flattops are sitting ducks. So what sort of work accident are you planning for China? CBGs are no longer the pinnacle of power that can go wherever they wish to do whatever they want. (Especially if their catapults don't work.) They, like anything that floats, are vulnerable, if not sitting ducks. So we ought to be building vehicles that can operate in the environment that actually exists rather than the one we wish existed. That means primarily submersibles that can operate with a reasonable degree of stealth. This will create lots of problems and challenges, but it's what we need to do in a reality based world. Likewise, we need to start designing and procuring vessels in quantity we can afford. The USN is in the middle of designing a class of boomers that will devour the entire ship building budget. Ain't going to happen. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-05-04 15:06 |
| #10 A lot of high energy work is going on right now to field carrier-capable autonomous UAVs. Being able to defeat the hypersonic missle threat is not so much a technical one as a political one; if the bad guys are allowed to continue to develop that ability without some sort of 'work accident' or interdiction of the supply chain to prevent key parts from arriving then yes the flattops are sitting ducks. the CV-UAVs will enable US forces to deploy anywhere and cut down on transit / response time. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2010-05-04 14:40 |
| #9 I have to disagree, because that is the "victory through air power alone" doctrine. Practically speaking, once you have air superiority, you still have to send in the naval and ground forces. Right now DARPA and ONR are working on satellite radar that can look through the oceans to spot submarines. Once enemy subs are out of the picture, the game changes back to surface vessels. And as far as the enemy using high speed ballistics, nobody has yet invented a bullet that can outrun a laser, or the equivalent. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-05-04 13:27 |
| #8 Gates is right. Quit trying to fight the last war. Carriers are great for posters and decent at projecting power at third world countries. But as high-tech anti-ship weapons become a commodity, they lose their effectiveness. Things like UAVs and hypersonic suborbital weapons are the future. |
| Posted by: AllahHateMe 2010-05-04 13:13 |
| #7 Look at the hypersonic re-entry vehicle. Then look at carriers. And ask which one is more vulnerable and which one projects power more easily around the world. And in UAVs and UCAVs in particular. Assuming of course that the hypersonic vehicle and UCAVs mature quickly, it's pretty clear where the future lies. There will always be a use for carriers. But they are extremely expensive and increasingly vulnerable, just when China's spending a lot to build one. ;-) |
| Posted by: Flish and Tenille9732 2010-05-04 12:37 |
| #6 It's not a secret. Gates works for Obama, not you. Obama had stated while running for president that he would reduce the military budget by 30-40%. |
| Posted by: ed 2010-05-04 09:34 |
| #5 NOW we know why Bama & minions kept Gates on after Jan 21, '09... Great vetting process you had there, GW (snark). |
| Posted by: logi_cal 2010-05-04 09:20 |
| #4 A simple way to address, if not solve, several problems at the same time is to create a "two-tier" navy. Keep the quality ships in reserve, and create lower tech, much less expensive, easier to operate and maintain ships for much of the ordinary work. This concept is why the USAF still keeps and uses the B-52 far more than its high tech bombers. The big advantages are first, saving a ton of money that the US won't have in the future. Second, the low tech ships are still "boots on the ground" as it were, and so keeps our hand in, "where the action isn't". The disadvantage is that such ships are more vulnerable to enemy attack. But even that is an advantage, because naval tactics, it has been observed, are heavily slanted in favor of the opening gambit. If the enemy wastes that opening gambit on "expendable" ships, it blows its chance. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-05-04 09:12 |
| #3 Would that be too much to ask? Depends on who you're asking. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-05-04 02:39 |
| #2 On a separate note, GATES has broadly or subjectively affirmed the why of VARIOUS OLD PERSONAL DREAMS/VISIONS OF MINE AS PER FUTURISTIC, NO-DOUBT-IT WEIRD LOOKING USN SHIPS [Designs + oper Fleet Units]. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-05-04 01:50 |
| #1 Maybe he needs a civilian chain of command with some balls that will take action on an adversary BEFORE there is a big hole in the water where a capital ship used to be. Would that be too much to ask? |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2010-05-04 00:14 |