The news that the Navy is discussing the possibility of canceling the DDG-1000, and building more Burke's instead, has thrown a monkey wrench into our plans to publish several articles we had written for this week on the shipbuilding topic.
While the news is still new and unfolding, rather than discuss these rather new events, we want to highlight several of the ongoing discussions.
We have written two articles on this topic to date, here and here. Both the InsidetheNavy article we originally cited and the Defense Daily article we discussed were included in Monday's Clips in full, and can be read fir those who subscribe. Christopher P. Cavas has a great article with more of the behind the scenes information at Navy Times.
Weighing in on the topic so far is CDR Salamander, Noah Shachtman, and Robert Farley.
However, in the spirit of the discussion, click the image. It is "Table 8. Total Number of Ships in the Navy Since FY1948", page CRS 27, of this report (PDF). We keep asking the question, how does the discussion regarding trading 5 DDG-1000s for X number of DDG-51s really reverse the trend that chart outlines? How many more DDG-51s above 5 will the Navy really get as a result of this discussion, and will it make any difference towards the ends of the maritime strategy?
The way we see it, a trade of one type of battleship for another type of battleship puts the Navy in a strange position. Essentially, the Navy would have built two DDG-1000 technology demonstrators (a good thing), retired 12 MHCs for between 3-5 Littoral Combat Ships, and added X number of new Burkes to the mix. This essentially resets the Navy shipbuilding program to the same conditions they were dealing with in 2003.
In 2003 the other military services found themselves capable of winning every single battle they fought, and yet couldn't win a war. With the Navy's inability to construct a shipbuilding plan that meets strategic requirements, is the US Navy stuck in that place in time?
Update: Matthew Yglesias weighs in.
Update: Murdoc weighs in.
Update: Fabius Maximus weighs in.
No comments:
Post a Comment