[Rembrandt_fan]

Prior to WWII, there was an influential cadre of military thinkers in virtually all countries, Allied and Axis, who thought air power—and air power alone—would be the determiner, and the fallacy of this thinking continues to this day among various Air Force brass throughout the world in spite of all evidence to the contrary. In WWII, the seemingly unstoppable German U-boat campaigns were successfully countered by improved screening techniques and detection strategies. Why think any future war would be any different? Overemphasis upon any given arm of one’s force array gives the enemy a singular focus for the development of countermeasures.

[Dilbert56]

It is nice to think of the Korean Peninsula surrounded by some of these undersea battleships. North Korea has enough artillery within range of Seoul that ten of thousands of rounds could fall in an hour if hostilities commenced. Being able to put 150 X 4 cruise missiles into the air quickly could be significant.

[Lurker]

Let me know when you can stuff an MEU into a submarine.

L

[TalonDJ]

Interesting. But it overlooks the modern long range patrol ASW aircraft. Those type of systems we CAN mass produce.

[ryan71]

I’m proud to have USS Michigan aboard. 150 Tomahawks is great but that’s not a substitute for aircraft. The Michigan cannot project power like an aircraft carrier and it’s battle group.

Carrier battle groups are not as vulnerable as the author would have you believe. A tremendously think defensive layer exists. Ideally, the best defense is a good offense.

Offensively, the US Navy trains to eliminate threats before they can be implemented. The Iraqi Air Force is a good example.

Defensively, there have been significant improvements in ECM, radar, and weapon systems used to counter cruise missiles. Even highly maneuverable, fast ASCM’s can now be defeated. But once more, the best defense is to destroy the launching platform.

By the way, what foreign navy is prepared to get into an all out shooting match with the US Navy? Russians? Not even close. Chinese? No, but maybe some day, and we’d better prepare for it.

The Falklands War? A vintage WWII Argentine cruiser was a sitting duck, all by itself, with no ASW assets. True, submarines have some distinct advantages against surface combatants, but a determined, well trained ASW group can make a submariner’s life miserable, even short.

As far as submarines forcing surface ships into port once the shooting starts...Ask the German worlfpacks in the Atlantic during WWI about that. Yes, submarine technology is far better now, but so is surface ship technology.

Our surface forces are vital. Submarines are not and never will be a substitute for surface forces. The truth is, both are crucial and the US Navy functions as one, gaining synergies from both.

[ozzymandus]

I believe the Germans tried (to some extent) the “all sub navy” idea in WW2, and while they sank a lot of enemy ships, it didn’t work out ultimately.

[mad_as_he$$]

"I am of the opinion that in full-scale shooting war at sea, the US surface navy will be devastated in the first day., by the combination of cruise missiles and stealthy submarines. The survivors would all be forced into port, unable to participate in the counterattack, which would likely be initiated by our own deadly nuclear attack submarines."

No navy in the world could devastate the US Navy in the first day of battle - not even the Rooskies. i also think some 688 drivers would have a thing or two to say about who got close to their protected asset.

[hosepipe]

A submarine the size of an aircraft carrier would be something.. A virtual mobile naval base.. With attack subs as escorts and a few f22's and helos..