Yes, by all means, we must be able to control 'shallow water' all around the globe, now and forever.
The biggest surprize about all this is that months before the fall election, that anyone within the defense procurement establishment said no and shut off the spigot.
On second thought, what might they REALLY want instead? Let's see: an airborne PT boat powered by corn-based ethanol capable of being piloted ONLY by a certified bible-banging fanatic out of Colorado Springs. Yessiree, gou gotta bang that bible to get your wings these days!
ohwilleke
· 1 year ago
There is nothing mysterious about the action by Congress to kill the program. It was over budget to an extent never seen before in Navy history, behind schedule and didn't do what it was supposed to do. Few project kills have been easier.
Also, the DDG-1000 fills a role, of sea based fire support, that only makes sense if it is more affordable than cruise misiles. That was originally the plan, but didn't work out.
Finally, the LCS while troubled, is not as troubled and can fill many coastal warship roles.
Now, one could call the incompetence of the contractor mysterious, but that would be contrary to known facts, history and all good sense.
Gene Ha
· 1 year ago
I'm no defense geek or Navy veteran, but the Zumwalt just sounds crazy. To defend shallow waters the obvious solution is to use smaller, lighter ships. They won't need as deep of water and they won't form a huge, aircraft carrier sized target that'd be indefensible against a coordinated assault by exactly the kind of missiles Hezbollah used. Giving 'stealth' capability to something that big is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If you need more firepower, add two older destroyers for half the price further out, or an aircraft carrier to provide air support. But keep the big ships far from shore.
I could be wrong, but this article assumes the Zumwalt is the natural solution without explaining why. Google provides lots of commentators who disagree. The impression I get from the article is that Congress is trying to protect contractors in their districts.
Jaycal
· 1 year ago
So just why does the Navy need to increase it's number of front-line ships by 15%? Are we afraid that Russia might revive the old Soviet Navy and threaten our costal waters?
I'd also like to see what, if any, role the Air Force or Naval air support would fulfill in the littoral regions... why plunk down probably 100+ sailors to sit in a near-shore situation where they'd be accessible to most land-based forms of attack, when we can utilize air support with 1/10th or less the manpower and even less risk?
Gordon Moore
· 1 year ago
We need to fix the economy. when there is only so much money you have to use it wisely. From my college days I remember that the Multiplier Theorem states that the ratio for moving the money around is greater when we spend money on industries that produce domestic goods instead of "Military" goods. We're not going to be able to bomb Hamas out of existance it's much cheaper and wiser to negotiate with these people and continue negotiating.
Robin, Frank
· 1 year ago
The consequences of such a move would be enormous. After all, the Navy’s own Maritime Strategy, published last year, emphasized that “lifeblood” global trade “relies on free transit through increasingly urbanized littoral regions.”
cloakanddaggarbaby
· 11 months ago
DDG 1000 is not ship shape. A traditional sea hull has a "V" shape which utilizes hydrostatic forces to keep the ship upright. The DDG 100 has an "A" shape to bounce radar off - stealth - and consequently no hydrostatic forces to help keep it up right.
Bible Study Man
· 8 months ago
Shallow water in Vietname and WWII was controlled by gun boats and PT boats. Perhaps, light and fast is still the best answer. Stealth? I doubt that coastal snipers and shoulder-launched rockets are relying on radar to detect the presence of big ships.
vessel sinks
· 1 month ago
the Navy Sink the Zumwalt Destroyer and blog contain well presentation detail.
craigAussie
· 2 weeks ago
Perhaps the new USN chief figured out what a lot of people already knew long ago. That the US Military Industry will lie through its teeth to get R&D funding for projects that should never be delivered lest the users find out they dont work. Given the problems and delays in producing aircraft that match their industry hype it makes sense that someone in the navy wants to keep producing proven ships which they can fund two-three to one against the Zumwalts. As an ally, Australia has been stung on several occassions by the failure of lead US industry to resolve program issues on a much more modest scale...SH-2G(A) 7 years late and rejected, F-35 originally projected for RAAF 2012 now slipped to 2017-18 (our legacy airframes in limbo given optimistic promises from the USA), Boeing Wedgetail AWACs four years late and counting, being delivered but not "fully operational". Coupled with the sagas of the US military's own Commanche and Raptor programes. We are talking about programes where R&D lasted decades longer than production or service (if any). Compare the count of cancelled or endless programes versus delivered ones since the end of the cold war. You wonder why people are nervous?
All Comments
The biggest surprize about all this is that months before the fall election, that anyone within the defense procurement establishment said no and shut off the spigot.
On second thought, what might they REALLY want instead? Let's see: an airborne PT boat powered by corn-based ethanol capable of being piloted ONLY by a certified bible-banging fanatic out of Colorado Springs. Yessiree, gou gotta bang that bible to get your wings these days!
Also, the DDG-1000 fills a role, of sea based fire support, that only makes sense if it is more affordable than cruise misiles. That was originally the plan, but didn't work out.
Finally, the LCS while troubled, is not as troubled and can fill many coastal warship roles.
Now, one could call the incompetence of the contractor mysterious, but that would be contrary to known facts, history and all good sense.
I could be wrong, but this article assumes the Zumwalt is the natural solution without explaining why. Google provides lots of commentators who disagree. The impression I get from the article is that Congress is trying to protect contractors in their districts.
I'd also like to see what, if any, role the Air Force or Naval air support would fulfill in the littoral regions... why plunk down probably 100+ sailors to sit in a near-shore situation where they'd be accessible to most land-based forms of attack, when we can utilize air support with 1/10th or less the manpower and even less risk?