Skip to content

Outstanding Quote

March 4, 2009

From House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton, via War is Boring:

“The frank and honest assessment is that there are not the resources to build the ships in the Navy 30-year shipbuilding plan.”

The fallout from the All Battleship Navy continues. I don’t mind battleships, but do we really need a Navy in which 4 multi-billion dollar warship types often overlap each other missions, consisting of supercarriers, missile escorts, attack submarines, and amphibious ships?

10 Comments leave one →
  1. Mike Burleson permalink
    March 6, 2009 9:17 am

    Total, I won’t argue about the lack of sources, but it is notable about the lack of almost any new type of tank being produced in Western countries since the fall of the Iran curtain, and even the East is just updating older models. Ever more costly and heavier defensive equipment is killing the tank while of-the-shelf wheeled vehicles are proving survivable and affordable, and they are built in huge numbers, 10,000 of the MRAP car alone, and counting.

    Moose, I don’t agree that the “M1 is far more survivable”. As proved in Iraq, it is vulnerable to most of the same weapons as the lighter vehicles, the IED which has been the principle killer in the warzone. For all its heavy armor, it uses the same “cage armor” to protect against anti-tank rockets as the “weaker” Stryker! There is no invincible weapon out there, much as armor proponents hate to admit, and the bigger tanks can’t be replaced quickly or easily anymore.

  2. March 6, 2009 4:32 am

    I would warn you Douglas – that those gentleman were from the Army and Airforce – the later think that it would be better handled by a standing air patrol of eurofighters with nuke bombs slung underneath; now we all know what happpened the last time someone decided to use that form of deterence. The army officer in question was a calvry man, which in the British army is usually a byword for promoted for no earthly reason other than he looks good on a horse, but was considered a pretty good officer…although he does advocate an all main battle tank army, no navy or marines, as the amphibious ships once they have dropped off the battle tanks can be sunk; and oh yes when I was listening to him the other day at a gathering, the submarines should be banned because they are so underhand – I thought it must of been a bad joke aimed at the 1870-1930s era, but I was reliably informed by a young lady who has been a trusted colleague for a long time that it was not a joke.


  3. Mike Burleson permalink
    March 5, 2009 4:59 pm

    You could be right Douglas, though my sources tell me otherwise.

  4. Douglas permalink
    March 5, 2009 4:56 pm

    That’s ironic then, Mike, because several retired general and flag officers of Her Majesty’s armed forces recently recommended retiring the Royal Navy’s boomers on cost grounds. Their reasoning? “The Americans will handle strategic deterrence”.

  5. March 5, 2009 4:06 pm

    yeah, we are buying 4, with perhaps 2-4 more modified as SSGNs

  6. Mike Burleson permalink
    March 5, 2009 3:41 pm

    I don’t think Congress is interested in replacing the nuke boats, Douglas. This is insane! Even the bankrupt Brits are making plans to replace their handful of Tridents!

  7. Douglas permalink
    March 5, 2009 2:46 pm

    Mike, the Navy has got two do two things…. one, take a high-low acquisition approach… we’ve got to have smaller, cheaper ships along with the big steel battleships. Two, we need more Super Hornets and lest Zumwalts; that is, we should favor the evolutionary approach of the Super Hornet design process vs. the revolutionary, brand new from the ground up-cutting edge approach of the DDX design. The later clearly has astronomical costs.

    If the Navy thinks they have fiscal issues now, oh boy, wait until we have to find a replacement for the Ohio boats.

  8. March 5, 2009 11:38 am

    more importantly – are any elected representatives listening to us?


  9. Mike Burleson permalink
    March 4, 2009 7:58 pm

    I don’t know.

  10. Anonymous permalink
    March 4, 2009 5:37 pm

    yes but is anyone listening to any congressional type?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: