Skip to content

CNA’s Five Battleships

April 7, 2010

HMS Valiant

You likely recall my post “the 5 Battleships” where I detailed that most of the procurement in warships was going toward modern versions of capital vessels, an amazing 5 of the most expensive and powerful naval vessels ever devised, that often duplicate each other’s function. While reading deep into the Center For Naval Analysis’ “The Navy at a Tipping Point” report, I came across this:

They also commanded more than 50 percent of the capital ships of their time (CVNs, big deck
amphibs, TLAM shooters, SSNs, and SSBNs).

This is in reference to the historical dominant naval powers of Britain, the Netherlands, and Portugal, with their caravels, fluyts, and dreadnoughts.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. Mike Burleson permalink*
    April 9, 2010 4:40 am

    “Anyone can “not fight” without ships.”

    Thats true, and you can build anything you want, such as 14,000 ton destroyers or 45,000 Gator Ships meant to go near the beach, all in range of Chinese ASBM. Or aircraft carrier without planes.

  2. Heretic permalink
    April 8, 2010 11:33 am

    And the Navy can’t fight without ships.

    The purpose of the Navy is not to fight. Anyone can “not fight” without ships. In which case, your “not fighting” ships can be as expensive as possible.

  3. Mike Burleson permalink*
    April 8, 2010 5:31 am

    “Well, one of the reasons Sea Control has been put on the back burner is the (top-down) pressure from DoD to be Joint.”

    Good point. The Navy currently is in the fight for its life, but I think if they make the case for sea control, as the Army did for its own role in the 1970s, it could transform itself.

    I’m all for jointness, but the point is bringing diverse capabilities to the fight. The army can’t get where it needs to go without the sealanes being secure, recalling Normandy 1944. And the Navy can’t fight without ships.

  4. Marcase permalink
    April 8, 2010 4:37 am

    Well, one of the reasons Sea Control has been put on the back burner is the (top-down) pressure from DoD to be Joint. The USN had to be ‘in the fight’ with the Army and marines – on land.

    Any return to ‘classic’ blue water sea control/sea denial is viewed as fighting the previous ‘old war, Cold War’ with no relevance to the GWOT. Gates, but also Rumsfeld, were very adamant that the US Navy would get ‘feet dry’ and de-emphasize classic navy roles.

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: