Are U.S. warships ‘obsolete?’
July 13th, 2009 | Blogs Ships Washington | Posted by Phil Ewing
MCC Spike Call / Navy
That is the provocative question New Wars’ Mike Burleson asks in his analysis of a story in Foreign Affairs by Andrew Krepinevich, the think-tank maven behind the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Krepinevich posits that, in a world where more nations are challenging American access to the global commons, big Navy sea-control ships are “wasting assets.” Warships are too expensive, too vulnerable and too few in number, he says, to risk in a world of cheap, guided artillery, sea mines and small-boat attacks, which could make an area like the Persian Gulf a “no-go zone” for the Navy.
Burleson paraphrases thus:
The idea that our very few large warships, based around 100,000 ton aircraft carriers, 50,000 ton amphibious ships, backed up by very costly missile cruisers and destroyers of 10,000 ton each, and nuclear attack submarine of 7000-9000 tons must be used for projecting power ashore is a suicidal one.
At the very least, such very costly warships will have to operate in range of land based aircraft and stealthy coastal submarines, [which in the] last century experienced admirals avoided as much as possible, notably carrier admirals such as Halsey and Spruance. As recently as the Falklands War, the British Royal Navy took a terrific pounding from the primitive Argentine Air Force, losing new built warships to antiquated aircraft and a handful of cruise missiles and dumb bombs.
Krepinevich’s piece (pdf) and Burleson’s take are both worth reading and thinking about. Then come back here and post a comment: Is the U.S. wasting billions on a Tiffany fleet it won’t be able to actually use?
Blog note: Scoop Deck recommends Adm. Sandy Woodward’s book “One Hundred Days” for an insider’s look at just how narrowly the British were able to eke out a victory against the Argentines at the Falklands.