What is the future of the US Navy?

[spejic]

The navy has long had plans for a super-stealthy ship with long range guns, currently represented by a soon-to-be-built class named the DDG 1000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD%28X%29). The Navy originally wanted to build a lot of them, but now because of high costs has decided to build only two and instead built a lot of new Arleigh Burke class ships. DDG 1000 construction is spread over a lot of states, so some Congresspeople are upset by this move. So the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, lead by John Murtha, looked into it.

And it turns out they recommend not really getting either (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0708/073008cdpm2.htm). They instead want to push the Navy into getting more ships designed for amphibious and littoral (that is, close to shore) operations. Which I think is rather smart.

There are still a lot of directions this might move in, but this could be a key point in deciding the future shape of the Navy.

[Foosinho]

I think the days of deep-water ship-to-ship fighting are long gone. The Navy still has a role - as support for ground troops and in shallow water / coastal actions. Many of the traditional capabilities provided by the Navy have been superceded by the growth in Air Force capability (long rang bombing and aircraft, and space operations).

[FormerGermanGuy]

Some really high percentage (like 80) of the world's landmass is within 200 miles of some ocean or other large body of water. For that reason alone, the Navy will continue to be relevant. Tomahawk missile have a range of something like 500-800 miles, carrier-based fighters go even further, and battleship guns have no land-based artillery equivalent.

I agree that sea-to-sea battles became obsolete right around the same time people started getting submarines right. The Navy's current and future role is ground support and AA, and in actuality, it has been for awhile.

Supposedly the role of our subs is to disrupt enemy shipping in the event of a war, but I would be interested to see what would happen to that mission with the current mania regarding minimizing civilian casualties.

[FCLouie]

Some really high percentage (like 80) of the world's landmass is within 200 miles of some ocean or other large body of water. For that reason alone, the Navy will continue to be relevant. Tomahawk missile have a range of something like 500-800 miles, carrier-based fighters go even further, and battleship guns have no land-based artillery equivalent.

I agree that sea-to-sea battles became obsolete right around the same time people started getting submarines right. The Navy's current and future role is ground support and AA, and in actuality, it has been for awhile.

Supposedly the role of our subs is to disrupt enemy shipping in the event of a war, but I would be interested to see what would happen to that mission with the current mania regarding minimizing civilian casualties.

I'd come to the opinion that the modern role of a navy is more a Strategic Logistic Superiority. (Basically the awkward sounding brother of tactical fighters role in establishing Tactical Air Superiority). But you're right about the aversion to civilian casualties limiting that role somewhat.

There are two things things that impact that though. Firstly, we haven't seen a war in modern times that relied on interdiction of strategic shipping by an advisory. The closest was Falklands which really didn't last long enough to require serious equipment replenishment so the Argentinian navy was mostly facing British warships. Secondly, that that doesn't happen in front of cameras doesn't have the impact of that that does. If a shipping vessel is sunk where the 24 hour news networks can't get cameras it's as if it doesn't really happen. (Sad but true.)

Unless there's a major power war, say USA v China, we will never know how willing western navies are to go after pseudo-civilian shipping during a war. Outside of something like that there are only a handful of uses I see at the moment in desening order of my presumption of need:

Surgical force projection. Mostly cruise missiles launched a targets to interdict or harass eneimy activity. (useful to deny enemy supplied tylenol :rolleyes:) Mostly Aegis cruisers or the like.
Projected close air support. For situations where a forward deployed air base is impractical due to time or geographic limitations. Aircraft carrier groups.
Anti-terrorism convoy escort. When one guy in a dingy can put a ship load of tanks, or more importantly MREs, on the bottom of a bay you need to stop the smiling waving locals from driving up to the ship to say hi. This would be best handled by Coast Guard size vessels. Small and fast is much better, with a handful of larger ships to watch over them.
Strategic Logistic Superiority. This includes both enemy shipping suppression and protection from suppression of our own shipping. I notice that as I'm setting here typing this the one ole that I thought of as major is a much lower priority. I see this as mostly frigate and submarine duty.
Symbolic force projection. The classic "warships off the coast" meant to impress governments and civilian populations. Not as useful as it used to be. Anything big and scary looking.


Notice how my list bent towards what you posed in the first place? Shows how the goal of a modern navy has changed pretty dramatically in the last 20 years.

[Scarecrow]

I will expound on this more later, but the Navy's role as a mobile air power will continue to grow and adapt with the next gen A/C's.

With the Aegis system, you now have a floating Command and Control that can be intergrated with the Air Force. I do look for more close shore ships coming out, but the deep sea Haze grey and underway Navy will still be with us for some time to come.