Thanks for Playing, but...

I like people who take bold and subversive points of view, especially publically. Stepping out of one's comfort zone and area of expertise is admirable, and often, innovative and useful ideas emerge this way. So although I was pleased to see an article from an Army officer on surface ships recently in JFQ, LTC Shrader's piece predicting the end of surface warships leaves me disappointed.

In no particular order, there are a number of problems with his arguments.
- As long as 90% of the world's commerce moves over the surface of the ocean, surface ships will be required to maintain freedom of the seas. Submarines certainly play a part in achieving sea control against a competent enemy, but the vast majority of naval missions don't require the stealth or endurance of a nuclear submarine. To wit, MSO, partner navy engagement, BMD, AAW, mine hunting and sweeping, among many others, require surface ships.

- Without going into details, he over-trivialized the challenges of space-based targeting and long range missile engagements.
"It will be a simple matter to find the exact grid coordinates of any ship anywhere in the world, punch the data into a missile silo, and launch a barrage of missiles to the precise location of the ship or fleet."

But his point about massive salvos of missiles (whether ASCMs or ASBMs) overwhelming surface ship magazines is valid.

- Yes, ships are very expensive these days and take many years to design and build. But I wonder what LTC Shrader thinks the price tag would be on the giant submarine capable of carrying an USMC MEU and all its' equipment that he suggests? Developing super-sized cargo, aircraft, and troop carrying submarines would break the bank and shrink the fleet even faster than today's untenable ship-building plan.

I'm confident LTC Shrader's ersatz sea power strategy will not threaten surface warfare for a good long while. Good on ya for playing, though.

The opinions and views expressed in this post are those of the author alone and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Defense or any of its agencies.