The Tough Questions

Is anyone else tired of the same line of questioning regarding the vulnerability of the Carrier Strike Group? There are legitimate questions that need to be asked regarding the aircraft carrier centric force of the US Navy, and in my opinion the way to ask those legitimate questions is well presented in a recent opinion (subscription only) found in Janes Defense Weekly: Questioning super carrier ‘invulnerability’ by David W. Wise.

However, in the final analysis, debating CSG vulnerability asks the wrong question - and one that cannot be answered fully until a day no one wants to come.

What is the most effective way to achieve the missions of the US Navy: sea control, sea denial, power projection or protection of open commerce? In an age of networks, small wars, unmanned systems and diffusion of military technology, the best solutions are unlikely to be found in highly expensive, complex, centralised systems requiring massive manpower. Answers are likely to be found in ways that distribute firepower to lower-cost platforms for more widespread and rapid deployments on more numerous, but less visible, lower-signature vehicles. Solutions are likely to stress reliability over theoretical elegance, quality achieved through quantity and simplicity over complexity while utilising the emerging capabilities of robotics and unmanned systems.

The nuclear-powered guided missile submarine (SSGN), with a crew of just 159, carries the equivalent inventory of Raytheon Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles as an entire strike group at a fraction of the cost. It can be reconfigured to carry other weapons and unmanned systems, insert special forces and serve as their command centre. The SSGN is mobile, difficult to detect and impervious to anti-surface missiles and attack boats. Other lower-cost submarines and guided missile destroyers might also provide alternatives. In the era of distributed capabilities, retiring the very concept of the capital ship may be necessary.

Dean Robert C Rubel of the US Navy War College advises speaking of the “governing weapon”, which may differ from theatre to theatre and situation to situation. The new realities of technology make it dangerous not to ask these fundamental questions. Our indebted national government, in which the phrase “economy of force” will take on new resonance, makes this debate unavoidable. Fortunately, asking tough questions in this budget crisis may lead us to lower-cost solutions for a more effective defence.