US naval power threatened by new weapons: Gates

AFP via Yahoo Canada ^ | 5/3/2010 | AFP via Yahoo Canada

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

"We know other nations are working on asymmetric ways to thwart the reach and striking power of the US battle fleet," Gates said.

He cited the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah, which had used anti-ship missiles against Israel in 2006, and Iran's arsenal of missiles, mines and speedboats that he said were designed "to challenge our naval power in that region."

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.

More sophisticated submarines -- that are more difficult to track -- along with other underwater weapons "could end the operational sanctuary our navy has enjoyed in the Western Pacific for the better part of six decades."

The new "anti-access" weapons could potentially render America's costliest vessels obsolete, with vast sums of money devoted to "wasting assets," he said.

"Our navy has to be designed for new challenges, new technologies, and new missions -- because another one of history's hard lessons is that, when it comes to military capabilities, those who fail to adapt often fail to survive," he said.

[skeeter]

I wonder how Obama’s America will fare without nukes, carriers or submarines.

[The Grammarian]

I misread that headline and thought it was saying that Sec’y. Gates was the new weapon threatening the US Navy!

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Been posting this for years. The “swarm” technique is still very effective against a fleet, esp. carriers and that is where our enemies are placing their developments.

[GreyFriar]

Flash, US Navy plan to return to sail powered ships canceled because of environmental protests against the cutting of ‘virgin forests’ to provide the oak, spruce and pine required for construction of the 1790 era 44 gun frigates.

[llevrok]

Every one is advancing

The Swedes, of all people, have a diesel sub that is damned quiet. Ran circles around some of our boats off San Diego recently.

We can not stand still.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

Iran did buy a record-breaking British speedboat has raised fears it plans to arm it with high-speed Russian torpedoes to sink a U.S. aircraft carrier.

[LibLieSlayer]

Nothing can harm our ships if we have the balls to deal with it before they can do damage... but we have no balls because we have a queen in the White House.

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

Stand still? obama is rolling us in reverse.

LLS

[microgood]

We keep carriers pretty close to ports and shore these day but in the 1980s the carriers stayed pretty much out in the middle of the Indian Ocean, far out of the range of land based missles or smaller vessels. Out there, the only way to get a carrier is with a sub, or from the air, the latter of which the carrier should not allow. In fact, when they are out there, they are extremely hard to find to begin with.

And since carriers can outrun any vessel when doing flight ops or even cruising.

But even when they are out in the middle of the ocean, they can project a devastating amount of power from those jets, and all the firepower they can load and reload on them.

[FreeInWV]

Yep, projecting power is what they are good for. My concern are new threats like the cruise/anti-ship missile carrying shipping containers that the Russians are peddling.

http://www.rferl.org/content/Russian_Firm_Denies_Club_K_Missiles_Could_Be_Used_By_Terrorists/2027728.html

They could change peaceful shipping lanes into warzones, where every ship or port is a potential ambush.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Iran has a large fleet of small speedboats possibly armed with torpodoes but more probably some form of Exocet or Silkworm-like anti-ship missiles. Fired in the scores or hundreds, they will overwhelm most of our anti-missile defenses.
We have a new machinegun/cannon coming online that will have a higher rate of fire and supposedly fire somelike like pellets in a shotgun explosion pattern to hit everything in front of it. Wishing and hoping.l

[Gen.Blather]

I read Bush 1 wanted to replace some of our carriers with highly automated mass-assault boats that could partially submerge to escape detection and could fire hundreds of cruise missiles and launch and recover RPVs. He was undercut by a bunch of Captains who visited their Congress critters and said it was a bad idea. You see, the only way to become an admiral is to command a carrier. Fewer carriers, fewer admirals. Yeah, we have lots of problems.

But, primarily, we’re lacking balls in the Whitehouse.

[Citizen Tom Paine]

A word for all you non Naval background readers out there. Carrier battle groups make a tempting target for some wannabee enemies. However, a carrier battle group is not something that you want to attack on the spur of the moment. They are ideally designed to break things and to kill people when they so desire. They also can project US power to about 85% of the surface area of this old earth in a very short time. Yes they are expensive, and there are some counter measures that might be effective against them in the future, but they are good at protecting us from those that want to do us harm.