Navy Arteriosclerosis

I have written several blogs about the seeming inability of the U.S. Navy to do R&D in a timely manner and bring cutting edge weapons systems on line to counter what our enemies are doing. Not that we aren't spending tremendous amounts of money - we are - which leads to a dissonance in the eyes of critics, but to put it everyday terms, we ain't getting much bang for the buck. Now another example of this chronic inability to deliver is surfacing. 

In what really must be a galling report for the Navy to swallow, the Army is warning that by 2024 the Navy will not have enough ships to surge Army and Marine heavy combat forces to a major conflict. A full 90% of the combat power of the land units must be transported by ships and by 2024, the number available will drop below the minimum number required to do the job and even quite a few of those still in service will be upwards of 60 years old. This is compounded by the fact that many of the ships are steam powered and, since most modern ships are powered by diesel or gas turbines, finding merchant seaman who still know how to run steam is increasingly difficult. And last but not least, you have to plan for attrition in wartime, as submarines and missile attacks will sink a number of vessels making their way across the oceans. 

Building replacement ships like the ones ready for mothballs is costly but easy and would provide many jobs in U.S. shipyards, which would no doubt please politicians from those districts. But a preliminary question that must be asked is whether these ships would survive in the modern threat environment? I think the answer is probably not. 

First the submarines. The Russian sub fleet has been rusting for a long time but that is changing. Older subs are being upgraded and new types built. The Russians also reportedly have a new torpedo that travels at 250 mph in a bubble of air, as well as very capable supersonic anti-ship missiles. The Chinese have been building subs wholesale with similar weapons. It is not difficult to see the potential vulnerability of U.S. ships of current design to these new threats.

Then there are the missiles. Both Russia and China are relying on an air attack strategy that utilizes AWACS-type platforms with over-the-horizon radar to locate a U.S. fleet and then vector bombers loaded with supersonic anti-ship missiles to shoot from 600+ miles out. Of course, although the Navy can detect that the fleet is being painted by radar, they have not had fighters with the range and long-range missiles to take out these threats since the F-14 and its Phoenix missile systems were retired in 2006. Brilliant and timely planning yet again! As supersonic missiles fly closer, they are very low to the water and travel very fast, making them very hard to hit even with our own missiles. Our enemies also plan to shoot massive salvos, so that even if we hit the first group of "vampires" as they are called, our ships will simply run out of missiles and be helpless to the next salvo. 

A lot of questions are raised that need to be thought through and answered - quickly. Do the replacement ships need their own anti-air capability? Do they need to be smaller and more maneuverable? Can we build huge transport subs? Are more dedicated anti-sub warships needed? How about giant dirigibles to air lift equipment instead? Russia is imploding because of a rapidly aging population, as is China due to its one-child policy. This means if they are going to act, it will have to be sooner rather than later. Will the U.S. be ready? Maybe, but I have to say that between the politicians and the dithering of the Navy, I am not overly optimistic. 


www.wnd.com/2018/11/army-warns-of-navy-deficiencies/