Here is a good read that covers the state-of-the-state of the future of the U.S. Navy.
But it also suggests that America will be unable to provide effective air coverage even in uncontested, low risk areas where convoys and logistical ships are expected to operate.
If that doesn’t embolden competitors, I don’t know what will.
Consider the U.S. Navy roadmap:
-A carrier air wing roadmap that is obsolete to emerging threats.
-LCS, which isn't even a good and robust corvette.
-$2B Destroyers
-$6B Destroyers (DDX)
-$15B aircraft carriers
-$3B flattops for the USMC that have no well deck.
-Money squandered on alternate fuels.
-New SSN's that are creeping past their original goal (to be affordable). Remember why we didn't buy more Seawolf-class subs?
-Lack of investment in a layered ASW community. As one example; A poorly designed P-8A without MAD only eats up limited resources. Many of our ships and subs can still be clipped by diesel-electric subs. Important to think about when most of our ships are gold-plated-expensive. We can't afford war attrition.
-Anti-naval mine warfare being under-resourced.
-Senior admirals with bizarre theories and spending practices that have little to do with killing things and breaking stuff.
That is a start.
So yes, the U.S. Navy can be had.
How would D.C. leadership and the public respond after seeing a couple of aircraft carriers and other surface ships on fire and sinking on CNN, caused by a threat not taken seriously?
And if what I have described are real problems, why do we have Annapolis?
No comments:
Post a Comment