Skip to content

Enough Battleships Already!

June 6, 2008

Galrahn at Information Dissemination is livid over Navy destroyer plans, declaring 86 of these modern-day battleships are more than enough. He says:

It is time to eighty six the battleship, and get moving on building small surface combatants. When we say eighty six, we mean the number and invoke the slang. The Navy has already paid for 22 CG-52s, 62 DDG-51s, and 2 DDG-1000s. That is a fleet of 86 battleships, enough already!

Take a look around the world and compare conditions to the Navy’s shipbuilding strategy. Japan, the second largest Navy in the world, has 6 battleships. South Korea will soon have 6, Great Britain is building 6, Spain will soon have 6, and no one anywhere on the planet has more than 6 or plans for more than 6, except the United States. I’m counting first-rate through fourth-rate surface combatants, ships armed with 48 or more battle force VLS cells, and/or 48 or more battle force missiles. Japan, South Korea, Great Britain, and Spain are all allies, who exactly are we building more battleships to fight against?

The blogger’s frustration with the USN is from what we reported earlier this week, I.E., the plan to stop building the giant DDG-1000 Zumwalt “destroyer” and replace it with new-build Burkes. Though we consider the half-price Burke a better deal than the $3-$5 billion Zumwalts, Galrahn is on the money. Enough is enough! We must start focusing on the war we are fighting now, and this includes the epidemic of piracy in the Third World, which is so bad even the normally recalcitrant United Nations has been forced out of its stupor to act. While most of the world’s navies will send corvettes and gunboats, all America has sent against the terrorist dhows and speed boats are Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga battleships, built to fight a Soviet Navy rusting in its ports.

As I’ve said on numerous occasions, if the Navy will not build an effective fighting force with the funds we give them, its time to give the bulk of the defense budget to the Army, who understands the threats we are fighting against and have changed their way of thinking accordingly.

9 Comments leave one →
  1. Anonymous permalink
    February 18, 2016 12:00 pm

    Did you even consider that the corvettes these other navys of the world are sending may be the best option for that Navy. Or may be the only option for that Navy. We send the the destroyers and cruisers because that is part of the mission they are designed for and well thats probably what we had in the area at the time.

  2. August 24, 2011 12:25 am

    How can supposedly intelligent people think that reducing our naval forces in any capacity whatsoever is a good idea. First, let me point out the cruisers and destroyers are not battleships, and only an ignoramus would call them such. Next, consider that each one of these ships has the capacity to blow an IRBM or an ICBM out of the sky. Does anyone think that we have enough missiles aboard these ships to shoot down every nuclear warhead by a potential enemy that would be fired at us? Perhaps some have failed to consider that because we have these ships, there is no one we would have to fight against, because we would be able to trounce their butts with no questions asked. Any student of history can tell you that it is weakness that has invited aggression and started wars, not strength. If cutting deficit spending needs to be dealt with, start with cutting out foreign aid, period.

  3. August 24, 2011 12:23 am

    How can supposedly intelligent people think that reducing our naval forces in any capacity whatsoever is a good idea. First, let me point out the cruisers and destroyers are not battleships, and only an ignoramus would call them such. Next, consider that each one of these ships has the capacity to blow an IRBM or an ICBM out of the sky. Does anyone think that we have enough missiles aboard these ships to shoot down every nuclear warhead by a potential enemy that would be fires at us? Perhaps some have failed to consider that because we have these ships, there is no one we would have to fight against, because we would be able to trounce their butts with no questions asked. Any student of history can tell you that it is weakness that has invited aggression and started wars, not strength. If cutting deficit spending needs to be dealt with, start with cutting out foreign aid, period.

  4. Consequence permalink
    October 24, 2010 2:27 am

    Dominance of the oceans cannot be maintained with these supporting vessels alone. Scaling down the Navy to fight third world pirates is surrendering our dominance of the oceans, which can only be maintained with the current naval strength which only we poses. The reason the other world’s navies concentrate on these endeavors is because this is all that they can afford. I can assure you beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt that if they could afford more and bigger ships, they would build them.

  5. charbookguy permalink
    June 8, 2008 8:47 pm

    Preaching to the choir, Josef. Thanks!

  6. June 8, 2008 6:58 pm

    Damn right.

    The LCS and the rest of the littoral warfare fleet should be priority #1, period. Get it done and get it done now.

Trackbacks

  1. Unleash the TLAM Warships Pt 1 « New Wars
  2. Searching for the Arleigh Burke Replacement Pt 2 « New Wars
  3. Playing China’s Game « New Wars

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: