Michael
Apr 28th 2009, 09:35 PM
US NAVY - "Buy Ford, Not Ferrari"
There has been a fair bit of discussion going on about the future of US naval procurement. I find the whole issue of naval procurement to be particularly interesting because the issue is so longterm. It takes many years to design/test a new model, it takes many years to built the ship and the lifespan of the ship is about thirty years or so. That means decisions being made now will have the effect of defining US naval capacity through the mid-century mark.
As it stands, the US Navy is mostly comprised of about eleven (very powerful) Carrier Groups. Each Carrier Group is centered upon one 'supercarrier' plus a couple of smaller helicopter carriers, plus a couple of missile-cruisers, plus several destroyers to serve as escorts (and serve the "anti" role of anti-submarine, anti-air and anti-missile defense). These eleven carrier groups, in addition to a Marine Expeditionary force, constitute the majority of US naval power at the present time (not including submarines). There is a of course a replacement cycle for each of these Carrier Groups (the USS George H.W. Bush is on its way into service while the USS Enterprise is next to be retired).
For the last half century, this model of the US Navy has served its purpose very well. It is the next half century that we are looking at here, and I for one believe the US Navy has a bit of a 'hole' in its capabilities - and that 'hole' appears to be a significant one. That is the rise of 'assymetrical warfare' - of which 'terrorism' is a classic example, but would also include any US military operation against a much inferior military power (such as Iran for example). Carrier Groups may be the most impressively powerful displays of military force in the world, but they might not be all that useful for dealing with pirates and/or terrorists in speedboats. I respectfully submit that any reasonable assessment of the future of military conflict must include an increasingly likelihood of 'assymetrical' engagements, quasi-military actions by non-state actors, and/or rogue state elements.
At this point I'd like to reference an article that has been published entitled Buy Ford, Not Ferrari ( http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/story.asp?STORY_ID=1838) written by Commander Henry J. Hendrix of the US Navy.
If the Navy rethinks the role of Carrier Strike Groups (Ferrari) and deploys new, scaled-down Influence Squadrons (Ford), the result will be 320 hulls in the water for three-quarters the price.
This is the kind of thinking I'm talking about. I personally think this would be a very good strategic idea to develop these "Influence Squadrons". Not as a replacement for the Carrier Groups, but as a supplement to balance the Navy for different types of threats.
Here's some excellent articles that discuss the idea of "Influence Squadrons" (complete with pretty pictures!)
Influence Squadrons Next Evolution (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/04/influence-squadrons-next-evolution.html)
Littoral Strike Group Alternative (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/12/littoral-strike-group-alternative-to.html)
For anyone curious, the term "littoral" refers to shallow water coastal areas and rivers. :)
I think the development and deployment of these types of squadrons would greatly enhance US naval power across the globe, while at the same time it would reduce the overall cost of operating the Navy.
There has been a fair bit of discussion going on about the future of US naval procurement. I find the whole issue of naval procurement to be particularly interesting because the issue is so longterm. It takes many years to design/test a new model, it takes many years to built the ship and the lifespan of the ship is about thirty years or so. That means decisions being made now will have the effect of defining US naval capacity through the mid-century mark.
As it stands, the US Navy is mostly comprised of about eleven (very powerful) Carrier Groups. Each Carrier Group is centered upon one 'supercarrier' plus a couple of smaller helicopter carriers, plus a couple of missile-cruisers, plus several destroyers to serve as escorts (and serve the "anti" role of anti-submarine, anti-air and anti-missile defense). These eleven carrier groups, in addition to a Marine Expeditionary force, constitute the majority of US naval power at the present time (not including submarines). There is a of course a replacement cycle for each of these Carrier Groups (the USS George H.W. Bush is on its way into service while the USS Enterprise is next to be retired).
For the last half century, this model of the US Navy has served its purpose very well. It is the next half century that we are looking at here, and I for one believe the US Navy has a bit of a 'hole' in its capabilities - and that 'hole' appears to be a significant one. That is the rise of 'assymetrical warfare' - of which 'terrorism' is a classic example, but would also include any US military operation against a much inferior military power (such as Iran for example). Carrier Groups may be the most impressively powerful displays of military force in the world, but they might not be all that useful for dealing with pirates and/or terrorists in speedboats. I respectfully submit that any reasonable assessment of the future of military conflict must include an increasingly likelihood of 'assymetrical' engagements, quasi-military actions by non-state actors, and/or rogue state elements.
At this point I'd like to reference an article that has been published entitled Buy Ford, Not Ferrari ( http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/story.asp?STORY_ID=1838) written by Commander Henry J. Hendrix of the US Navy.
If the Navy rethinks the role of Carrier Strike Groups (Ferrari) and deploys new, scaled-down Influence Squadrons (Ford), the result will be 320 hulls in the water for three-quarters the price.
This is the kind of thinking I'm talking about. I personally think this would be a very good strategic idea to develop these "Influence Squadrons". Not as a replacement for the Carrier Groups, but as a supplement to balance the Navy for different types of threats.
Here's some excellent articles that discuss the idea of "Influence Squadrons" (complete with pretty pictures!)
Influence Squadrons Next Evolution (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/04/influence-squadrons-next-evolution.html)
Littoral Strike Group Alternative (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/12/littoral-strike-group-alternative-to.html)
For anyone curious, the term "littoral" refers to shallow water coastal areas and rivers. :)
I think the development and deployment of these types of squadrons would greatly enhance US naval power across the globe, while at the same time it would reduce the overall cost of operating the Navy.