Thanks Obama! U.S. Navy to retire capable vessles for cheaper ones that are easily sinkable..

With U.S. military budgets shrinking, many pundits argue that America's technological advantage can easily make up any difference in numbers. Such arguments have been made before and have failed. The U.S Navy seems set on replacing older-but highly capable- cruisers and destroyers with Littoral Combat Vessels. They are cheap to build and maintain, but offer only a small portion of the firepower. With China and others developing powerful navies and ballistic missiles, America must think cautiously on where to place its defense dollars.

thediplomat.com...

Shame the article you posted in no way correlates to your headline.

Odd that you chose to make a highly speculative, partisan headline instead of using the actual headline for the article.

It would appear the article places the blame at Leon Panetta and Undersecretary of the Navy Robert Work's feet, not Obama. In fact, it doesnt mention Obama at all int he article.

And I have to question the author's logic in claiming that the US must invest even more in technology that will allow them to dominate the globe like they have since the end of WW2: "Whether the United States can accomplish the same globe-spanning goals it has pursued for decades with fewer assets is doubtful. A mismatch among policy, strategy, and forces looms."

reply to post by travis911


You know what's odd...I did a search on your source article for "obama"...nothing came up.

I wonder why you put him in the title???

Originally posted by jtap66
Shame the article you posted in no way correlates to your headline.

Funny how that works isn't it

And what do we exactly need the more expensive more capable craft for? The old days of the Navy needing scores of ships for ship to ship combat are long since gone. The U.S. is capable of commanding air superiority in any kind of surface battle which means we can easily use smaller more cost effective ships that work well against pirate craft which is the main enemy we should be concerned with. There is no other nation on the planet that can compete with our air power on the high seas. Even China only has one aircraft carrier and that isn't even in service. Not to mention they didn't even build it they bought it off Russia.

These days the ship v's ship warfare is pretty much the stuff of history and hollywood films since how often do you need to pound the area around a beach into dust while killing 100's of civilians as a prelude to a suprise attack

and with the ability to use the group ability of a fleet much more efficiently than in the olden days you need less ships to do the same job but the problems facing navies have changed so a more reactive force is needed for somali pirates and you dont need a destroyer that takes 30 mins to change direction when a smaller more mobile force will be better

Paneta was given the job by Obama right?

As to the Blue water navy being replaced with littoral water is a dangerous game being played, only fools beleive in quantity over quality.

Trying to save a buck is not going to save this country or the lives who go into harms way, and the simple fact older ship are built better compared to what we have today.

Well we still have the biggest air force in the world Go USAF --- We also have the second biggest air force in the world -- Go Navy

The days of battling robots are here -- gunboat diplomacy is not quite so important.

I think full-scale wars are quickly becoming a relic anyway. Nowadays there is economic warfare, and weather modification warfare, and terrorism. China is extremely behind the times in creating a new Navy, because Navy's are yesteryear's weapons.

Littoral ships have been in the works for more than a decade. So blaming Obama for this direction is a completely idiotic. Is it the goal of wing nuts to blame Obama for things that occurred years before he come into office?

The article doesn't put the blame on Panetta either, it only quotes him as supporting their use (and again, the littoral ships were planned long ago, before Panetta or Obama were involved).

Officials like U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Undersecretary of the Navy Robert Work point to scientific and technical advances that supposedly render numbers of ships and aircraft less meaningful than in bygone decades.

Obama-derangement syndrome is in high gear in this thread.

Times change, and so do the threats. And according with the threats, the military must also adapt. There will always be people, however, who frown on new technology, strategies and/or policies. Stragglers, unwilling to adapt. The US is less vulnerable to this because they have a huge economy, a huge military, and a huge military budget. But even they must adapt. And that's what they're doing. Adapting. I doubt that the author of the article knows better than the entire US military command.

I've often said that the era of great wars (World War 1, 2) between superpowers isn't over. It isn't. There will be great wars again in the future. But, for the time being, there is nothing indicating a great war is coming closer. On the contrary the threat comes from other directions. That means huge destroyers isn't necessarily the best equipment for a modern navy, whereas possibly, in thirty years, Littoral Combat Vessels might not necessarily be the best equipment for a modern navy anymore - and huge destroyers might be.

My point is, times change, and so does military requirements. Currently, Littoral Combat Vessels meet the requirements, so that's what they're focusing on. It's as easy as that. Blaming Obama and/or the White House solely for this is unfair, because the decision to focus on this have gone through probably dozens if not hundreds of offices, agencies and sub-organizations within the military and government of the United States, long before Obama even got wind of it.

Space is the next high ground.We are already up there with ouch stuff I'm quite sure.

reply to post by travis911


sounds like Russia before/during ww2,, 8000 tanks,,,and cheap to build,,

anyone got any new Military ideas?,,using AMERICAN KNOW HOW AND INGENUITY.
any unemployed people from 3d artists too, cgi specialists,, CAD can too

build a better ship,,,,, anyone
i thing counts and one thing only,,crew are not expedable ,and must be given fail safe options for Survival against 3 too 1 odds.
ohh and u can have a pretend budget off what ever the genie who thought of this option get.

we need to get spending under control

we need to build a defensive military and stop being the world police

get over it

Originally posted by Gauss
Times change, and so do the threats.]

Remember the scene in Indiana Jones -- The big mean warrior came at Jones with a sword - Jones was in trouble - What would he do before he was stuck like a pig -- What did he do -- pulled his revolver and plugged that sucker

reply to post by spyder550


Those are some of my favorite scenes in movie history.

So, I guess the requirements of an up-to-date military force boils down to two things; The right equipment for dealing with today's threats, and staying one step ahead of tomorrow's enemies. Not an easy task, but one that I have all confidence that the US military is achieving continually.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


And what is going to protect carriers from subs and missiles?

Here's my problem with going to a littoral fleet.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Until we fix the problems with the ships coming out of the yards, we don't need to switch to a littoral style fleet.