Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US naval power threatened by new weapons: Robert Gates

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US naval power threatened by new weapons: Robert Gates

    Article link:

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/W...ow/5888046.cms
    Sincerely,

    xllhawksllx

  • #2
    This sounds like prep fires for proposals to cut defense spending in certain areas.

    WASHINGTON: Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday said new weapons threatened US dominance of the high seas and questioned the US Navy's reliance on costly aircraft carriers and submarines.

    Comment


    • #3
      Looks like Campaigner-in-chief picked a guy who's attitude suits his own perfectly.

      I expect that rather then counter the new weapons with something ne of our own, the regime will just try to retire the fleet, like they are doing with the Space Program.

      Comment


      • #4
        On what planet has Gates been living?!! Stealthy submarines and anti-ship missiles?!!
        The least he could have trotted out were maybe anti-ship ballastic missiles. But subs and missiles?!!

        Those have been around for what?.... 50 years in one form or another? The guy is clueless.

        Comment


        • #5
          I believe the defense secretary has a point

          I believe the defense secretary is correct in that expensive carrier groups are becoming increasingly vulnerable to comparatively cheap submarines and anti-ship missiles. At the same time, the increased range of aircraft reduces the necessety of aircraft carriers.

          The question is if effective counter-counter weapons can be developed to help protect the carrier groups or if the carrier group methodology should be abandoned -like the battleship methodology was abandoned when it was discovered how vulnerable these ships were to aircraft. I really do not know enough to have an opinion about this but the question needs to be raised.

          What bothers me is that the defense secretary seems to have come to the conclusion that the carrier group methodology must be abandoned without investigating the alternatives -at least he does not mention any such investigations in the article. This might be an à priori assumption based on political and financial considerations rather than military ones, just like Miss Saigon suggests, but I do not want to believe that.

          Also the defense secretary mentions that the ships are not particularly useful in the correct conflicts you are involved in. At the same time US troops have other needs that go unfulfilled -he mentions helicopters and unmanned aircraft. As far as I can tell, he is correct in this. However, given the time it takes to build an aircraft carrier and its impressive expected life time -it would be irresponsible to base a decision only on your immediate needs in the current conflict.

          Sensemaker
          It doesn't matter how much intelligence you have. What matters is how much intelligence you use.

          If it is stupid, but works, it aint stupid.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Sensemaker View Post
            At the same time, the increased range of aircraft reduces the necessety of aircraft carriers.
            I disagree with that, simply because fewer carriers and correspondingly longer travel times for air strikes significantly reduces the operational tempo. Flying for 12 hours to execute a mission instead of 1 hour means you can only deliver 1/12 the ordnance and gives the enemy 12 times more time to repair and prepare; not a good idea in a war.

            That we need to look at upgrading our anti-missile defenses for all our naval vessels has been obvious for many years. While we have decent defenses against a few missiles at a time, our current anti-missile systems would almost certainly be overwhelmed by a massive attack with dozens or hundreds of incoming missiles. Of course, the number of potentially hostile nations which could execute such an attack is extremely small.
            Go is to chess as philosophy is to double-entry bookkeeping. - Nicholaï Hel in Shibumi

            Comment


            • #7
              What Secretary Gates is not saying is submarines and missiles are also more vulnerable than ever to the Carrier Task Force. One reason we have a certain number of carriers is they can arrive at a threatened location ready to work with a supply of spare parts and other necessities. We also are not guaranteed access to air ports and other necessities.

              I think the guy needs to go.

              Pruitt
              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

              Comment


              • #8
                Gates sounds like Rumsfeld...

                ...in 2000 Rumsfeld made the case for a leaner smaller army and after 9-11 made the case for disposing heavy divisions for lighter, more mobile units and of smaller size as well.
                Gates is doing the same thing not based on actual combat experience but upon his desire to cut spending and to change the fleet based upon perceived threat, not necessarily real ones. Russia still possesses a large deep water navy and there is no guarantee conflict will not arise with her.
                China is building carriers and submarines that we will need to counter.
                This man is a dunce, sounding the death knell for the strongest navy the world has ever seen for political advantage. He should be removed from his office but Mr. Hussein Obama will not do so. As we talk ourselves blue with Iran, Mr. Gates proposes we oppose that state with torpedo boats, pellet guns and water balloons.
                Baloney, this hooey has gone on for too long. We need to return to a heavy, division based army with individual, self sufficient brigades detachable for individual duty but combined for European action or combat in the Middle East. The US Navy should be composed of fleets and task groups able to take on any sized opposition.
                Secretary Gates
                Peace is Our Profession

                Comment


                • #9
                  He must be cutting the Navy down so he can afford to build a real life Apocalypse tank.
                  Standing here, I realize you were just like me trying to make history.
                  But who's to judge the right from wrong.
                  When our guard is down I think we'll both agree.
                  That violence breeds violence.
                  But in the end it has to be this way.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
                    Looks like Campaigner-in-chief picked a guy who's attitude suits his own perfectly.

                    I expect that rather then counter the new weapons with something ne of our own, the regime will just try to retire the fleet, like they are doing with the Space Program.
                    Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Gates a carry over from the W administration? In any case, this is probably where that article originates from; I really recommend reading this instead.

                    Gates: Sea Services Must Question Embedded Thinking
                    By Jim Garamone
                    American Forces Press Service

                    NATIONAL HARBOR, Md., May 3, 2010 – The Navy and Marine Corps are going to have to question some embedded thinking, such as whether the Navy needs 11 carrier battle groups or whether the Marines ever will launch another amphibious landing, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said here today.

                    Gates spoke at the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space Convention at the Gaylord National Convention Center.

                    The world is changing, and the sea services must be on the leading edges of those changes, Gates said to an auditorium full of Navy and Marine Corps officers and defense contractors that was just a bit smaller than an aircraft carrier’s hangar deck.
                    http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59000
                    Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

                    Initiated Chief Petty Officer
                    Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I could care less what any new report states.This is really old news.The threats from the newer quieter subs and newer faster missiles has been well known for years.And why should anyone be shocked?For every measure there is a counter measure.We will develop ways to counter the subs and the missiles.And then there will be counters to our counters.And so it goes.........
                      Last edited by Gixxer86g; 04 May 10, 11:50.
                      ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                      BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                      BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        When I read the article I did not see him making the case against carriers but more or less saying in the future they might not be needed and that DOD needs to be constantly thinking out side the box.

                        He just challenging conventional wisdom something we all think should of happened prior to WW2

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
                          I could care less what any new report states.This is really old news.The threats from the newer quiter subs and newer faster missiles has been well known for years.And why should anyone be shocked?For every measure there is a counter measure.We will develop ways to counter the subs and the missiles.And then there will be counters to our counters.And so it goes.........
                          In the aftermath of a small scale conflict that was remarkable for its brutality, and the manner in which the world's most powerful army was repeatedly humbled by an adversary that refused to play by rules of conventional warfare, that distinguished itself by using asymetric tactics, many military experts proclaimed that the era of conventional wars between state actors was over. Am I talking about current events? Hardly; I am referring to the Boer War that ended in 1902; World War I began August 1914.
                          Last edited by Bass_Man86; 04 May 10, 12:23.
                          Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

                          Initiated Chief Petty Officer
                          Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sensemaker View Post
                            I believe the defense secretary is correct in that expensive carrier groups are becoming increasingly vulnerable to comparatively cheap submarines and anti-ship missiles. At the same time, the increased range of aircraft reduces the necessety of aircraft carriers. . . . .
                            I hear exactly what you're saying, and in the main it makes sense. I would disagree, however, that increased range can obviate the need for carrier-based aviation. The time involved in reaching station from faraway bases still highlights the need for the mobility and the firepower that the modern carrier battle group can provide like no other platform.

                            To my mind the question is not so much about the harware, but the manner in which it is deployed. Deploying carrier battle groups to confined waters like the Persian Gulf seems foolish in the extreme. The Navy's choice of airframes is also questionable. And it only standws to reason that the moment that the USMC abandons amphibous assault is the moment that the President will feel the need to take a hostile beach. What's at issue here is not the harware, but the strategic priorities, and the tactical employments of our assets. Both uniformed and civilian leaders alike need to display a little more flexibility than has been their pattern to date.

                            Now if Sec Gates is merely trying to stimulate debate among uniformed and civilian officials, I applaud him, since such debate is desperately needed, but if Gates is about reducing the US' tactical capabilities in today's extremely unpredictable world, then I must question his fitness to hold a leading post in this nation's defense structure -- him and his boss both.
                            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              What stupidity.

                              Anti-ship missiles and stealthy submarines could undermine the US military's global reach, putting carriers and American subs at risk, Gates said in a speech to retired members of the US Navy.
                              Stealthy submarines? Like what? Did the Chinese finally put a reactor cooling system in the Han that doesn't sound like an industrial washing machine? They're going to need more than that.

                              And anti-ship missles are no new invention and we have ways of dealing with them.



                              The US military's "virtual monopoly" in precision guided weapons was "eroding" and the spread of missiles jeopardized Washington's means of "projecting power," he said.
                              And this idiot believes this to be a reason to CUT spending?

                              "At the end of the day, we have to ask whether the nation can really afford a navy that relies on three- to six-billion-dollar destroyers, seven-billion-dollar submarines and 11-billion-dollar carriers."
                              That's right, trillions in bailouts and government programs is fine but God forbid we spend a measly seven bil on a submarine that could kick the of anything afloat.

                              And anyone who considers carriers a vulnerable target clearly has absolutely no understanding of modern naval tactics. Yeah, a carrier can be a sitting duck - if you can get past the prowling Seawolves, AEGIS equipped destroyers, guided missle cruisers, and waves of F/A-18s packing their own anti-ship and AA missles, taking down a carrier is child's play.

                              "Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?
                              It's called deterrance Nimrod. The whole reason we haven't had a major naval engagement since WWII is because we have eleven to their one.

                              "As we learned last year, you don't necessarily need a billion-dollar guided missile destroyer to chase down and deal with a bunch of teenage pirates wielding AK-47s and RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades)," he said.
                              Last time I checked, Somalia wasn't our sole concern.

                              What a ditz.
                              A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X