Bloodless Coup

Naval shipbuilding strategies are interesting. In general, bigger ships can do more things. They have limits (can't go into shallow waters), but bigger is generally more capable than smaller. However, states can't usually buy the same number of bigger ships as smaller ones. Thus, you get a trade off: fewer bigger (more capable) ships, or more smaller (less capable) ships.

The Navy looks to be on course to get a very few ships, all of which use new technology that we hope works. Congress canceling the 4th Littoral Combat Ship is on top of the Navy canceling the 3rd ship (and the rest of the program run looks like it's shot, too). Thus, the Navy will have two of these things.

The Navy looks to be moving to a smaller and smaller stock of ships; the world is the same size, and there are lots of places we'd like to have a presence. Not sure I like where this is going...

Well if they keep costing as much as some of these do, we'll have a much smaller navy. I read somewhere (maybe that site) that the 7 DDG1000s were going to cost as much as the 3 Ford aircraft carriers - which is freakin' ridiculous.

And, of course, big ships are higher-value targets. Harder to hit, maybe, under some circumstances, but the consequences are far more significant when you do.

Yeah, the Navy's budgetary decision-making is remarkably questionable; a few big (capable) things can be sunk, and then you don't really have a navy.

Of course, another interesting aspect of this is: what the heck is the Navy good for? Protecting sea-lanes, and ocean-denial are valid strategies, if you are opposed by someone who want to fight you for some part of the ocean. Depending on who you think the US should be preparing for, several of the more common scenarios have the Navy doing squat. And we need billion dollar ships, why?

Errr, it seems to me that protecting sea lanes is kind of important, and that the navy could easily come in handy re: possible conflicts around Taiwan, Korea and parts of Africa, for example.

Now as to whether we need the DDG1000s for those, errrr, maybe they aren't the best uses of those gigantic piles of cash, but that's a different matter.

If there's a service that's of questionable utility at the moment I think it's easier to make a case that it's the Air Force. And no, I don't mean we should get rid of it (hardly) but when it comes to what we should be spending money on both the F22 AND F35 seems as questionable (or more) as the navy's acquisitions.

Well, arguably the main purpose of the modern US Navy is the ability to put an airport and electronic surveillance capabilities off the coast of any country in the world with a coast. And since the military portion of US foreign policy these days consists mostly of harassing (for several values of "harass") third-world countries of various flavors, that's a useful capability.

But if we were to ever fight someone with a reasonably modern sub fleet, say, or a big supply of modern antiship missiles, we could find ourselves in some trouble.

Ah, yes, the Air Force. Why do we need super-advanced fighters? Why do we NOT need a modern long-range bomber fleet?

Submarines?

Armand, the protection of sea lanes (that's the word I was searching for, but forgot) is only important if something threatens them. Today, I don't see any state really threatening international sea lanes. The closest would be India and China, and they only profess to regional (not international) influence. So, as I see it, the international sea lanes are in pretty good shape today. I realize the Navy is preparing for the next generation, but I'm not convinced these ship types (expensive, just a few) are better than continued upgrades of present types (which would lead to more ships, though not as revolutionary). Plus, of course, we have an Air Force, which should put a dent in any other navy's attempt to control sea lanes (and don't even get me started on submarines; if you really want to prevent other states from messing with sea lanes, build a bunch of subs; no one else can even hear our subs, and we could sink the entire Chinese navy before they get an alarm off; given that, why do we need $2 billion next-generation destroyers?).

As for the Navy's use in littoral areas (horn of Africa, Gulf); that was the purpose of the Littoral Combat Ship, before it became so expensive and potentially buggy (i.e., unworkable) that we decided to build just two.

The Air Force isn't useless, just flying rapidly off in the wrong direction. Look at it this way: I disagree with building $2 billion dollar destroyers, but I'd happy trade a squadron of B-2 Stealth "Spirit" bombers for an extra sixteen destroyers. As jacflash notes, a reasonable long-range strategic bombing ability (at less than a billion a plane) is of more use than any number of Raptor fighters (no one else in the world can shoot our fighters down today; why do we need very expensive fighters?).

I think it is healthy to question everything, and baltar's question leads to a healthy discussion.

I think the flaws start with the US National Defense Strategy. For example, I believe the US should be focused on a Sea Based, Air Based, and Space Based National Defense Strategy for the 21st century, and from that all decisions of procurement should come.

It is why I think the increasing the Army is a bad idea. Where will the US need a bigger Army, for which theoretical theater of war in the 21st century? It seems to me the only advantage of a larger Army offers is for occupation duties. OIF pretty much proved the US Army is one lethal force not to be messed with. So when someone can tell me why our government is increasing the size of the Army as a defense strategy, while at the same time announcing as recently as yesterday that our national military strategy is to reduce the footprint of the Army in other countries (Iraq yesterday, but Europe and South Korea behind the scenes is ongoing) I am interested in listening.

Clearly the US doesn't have a clear National Defense Strategy, because only with the absence of that strategy can you invent any policy for any situation and align it with any objective. Think about it.

Procurement. I think it is worth pointing out how the F-22, researched and developed for over 2 decades to insure every element in the final design was mature before building is actually the model. It is no accident under that model that the F-22 has exceeded its original expectations, and is more than it was ever envisioned being. I think history will ultimately judge the F-22 the best military investment in the history of our country during peacetime.

The DDG-1000, a ship with 10 new technologies most of which haven't been proven yet and only researched and developed for less than a single decade, well, that isn't the model I would follow. There is something to be said for building major programs only with mature technologies, which is what the Navy used to do. Don’t get me wrong, I think the Navy should build 2 DDG-1000s, but as test platforms for all of these technologies that aren’t mature.

A brand new F-22 off the runway today costs around 135 million per plane for every 100 purchased.

I'm biased in favor of the navy, but when the cost of 7 DDG-1000s equals 200 new F-22s, or 3 CVN Fords, or 17 DDG-51s, the 7 DDG-1000s may not be the best investment. If the US had a clear National Defense Strategy, someone would point that out without worrying about losing their career.

Galrahn,

I'll happily stipulate that defense procurement decisions should flow from a single (well-debated but political) document: the military's buying decisions should be based on a balanced political determination of what military strengths we need. In my opinion, the (individual) services have more influence in advocating for specific weapons systems then they should (but that's a different debate).

Following that logic, I'm unclear why you are against an expanded Army (or Marine Corps; they amount to about the same thing). The Army does "occupy," but it also is the only force capable of applying force to influence people to our political will. In other words, while the Navy and Air Force can destroy, only the Army has the possibility of influencing local politics. Or, an Army division parked somewhere has the possibility of changing "hearts & minds" (political beliefs); the Air Force and Navy can't do that. I will be the first to grant that the Army, when used improperly, when given the wrong mission, or when it fails to have the doctrine to accomplish the mission, can fail to change "hearts & minds," but only the Army has this inherent ability. In that way, I'm in favor of expanding the Army.

So, 200 F22s costs $27 billion; that same amount of money gets you (either) 7 new destroyers (DDG-1000s) or 3 new aircraft carriers or 17 old desroyers (DDG-51s) or 5 new Army divisions (link). Which is 15 new brigades, which is 75% of what we have fighting in Iraq today (and is 100% of what we had fighting in Iraq pre-"surge"). I'm not denying that 200 F22s are useful (or that 3 new CVNs would be useful, or that 7 (or 17) destroyers would be useful...), I'm asking what force structure would be the most useful, given what the global political situation is likely to be. And, given wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, the larger GWOT (or whatever you want to call it) and who knows what else, I think you can make a reasonable case for expanding the Army, over expanding F22s (who would they shoot down?) or more destroyers or carriers.

So, everything (should) flow from a reasonable, logical and debatable (i.e., we should be able to argue about it, but come to some reasonable conclusion) guess about the military threats to US national interests for the next decade plus; once you have that, the procurement decisions should be much simpler. So, in general, I agree we should have this debate. Moreover, if someone can convince me that the greatest medium-term future threats to US national interests are best opposed by a flock of (F22) Raptors, or by a small number of very expensive destroyers (DDG-1000s), I'll happily sign off on that (in that way, I don't think we disagree).

So, what's the threat?