US in pursuit of a new fleet that will make the country great again
The American press seriously raises questions of the revival of the greatness of its fleet. The National Interest and Drive, already familiar to us, have recently been joined by such an interesting magazine as Foreign Policy (International Policy), with materials by the British retired military officer Alexander Wooly, known to us from the same Drive.
Wooley aroused great interest in his articles, because in some of them he not only quotes, he actually rehabilitates the “defeatist” Paul Kennedy (not from THAT clan, Paul is British), who predicted the decline and collapse of the American fleet in the late eighties and early nineties. Then Kennedy was not kicked only by the lazy, military experts were especially atrocious, but it turned out that old Paul was right, and the US Navy is experiencing a crisis that can be called unprecedented.
Today, not only the aforementioned specialized American publications say that “not everything is beautiful in the American state”, political and financial publications join them.
In principle, it is logical, because the fleet costs the United States astronomical sums, therefore the Wall Street Journal and Foreign Policy experts that have arisen with estimates are quite normal. Money and politics always go side by side, and therefore, if the fleet eats money, if not in itself, but does not have any influence on politics, the conclusions are not the most pleasant.
Therefore, today Kennedy's books (and then books were still in use) are of interest. "Victory at Sea", "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers", "The Rise and Fall of British Naval Power" are discussed, quoted and re-examined because the 77-year-old Briton was able to predict much of what we see today.
And we are watching, if not a sunset, then ... And what are we watching? In 1938, the US Navy had 380 ships. In 1944, by the end of the year - 6 ships.
And this is the essence: it is not so important who sank how much during the war, it is important who has how much left by the end of it. Here, as an example, German submariners fly in perfectly. Yes, they sank hundreds of ships, yes, the tonnage went off scale, yes, Britain had a very difficult time. But in the end, where are all the underwater aces of the Third Reich? That is it...
In 1943, when a huge flock of American aircraft carriers was launched into the oceans, the ensuing series of real large-scale naval battles buried Britain's dominance at sea, which had lasted more than 200 years. Britain gurgled, because it could not build ships at such a pace and of such quality.
Yes, masterpieces like "Yamato" or "King George the Fifth" were not built in the USA. And you can say for a very long time who was better, the "Towns" of Great Britain, the "Mogami" of Japan or the "Clevelands" of the USA. Yes, the Mogami were, in my opinion, simply incomparable ships, but how many of them were built, and how many Clevelands?
But in huge quantities they built escort aircraft carriers, battleships, cruisers and destroyers. What can I say if more Fletchers alone were built (175 units) than all ships for the Japanese Imperial Navy from 1937 to 1945?
That's where the power was born. It was possible to build a couple of excellent ships of the Tirpitz-Bismarck and Yamato-Musashi types, but, as practice has shown, little came of them. Three of the four super battleships were destroyed without actually having fought even. But simply stunning middle peasants like "Iowa" not only fought successfully, they did it until the very end of the last century, having gone through wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.
What has changed after 80 years? But nothing. Battleships have died as a class, the aircraft carrier is still the main warship, and the destroyers and cruisers that have become frigates and destroyers are still escort ships for aircraft carriers. The United States still has, if not the largest, then the most powerful navy.
But there were not very pleasant nuances. And in order to understand and appreciate them, it is necessary, like 100 years ago, to look at the shipyards. Where ships are built, and ships today are not built in the USA. About 90% of the world's merchant ships are built in China, Japan and South Korea. The United States and Europe nervously smoke on the sidelines, struggling to keep up with their own military orders.
And if you look at how US allies in NATO, such as France and Great Britain, build warships, then in general, mortal longing begins.
Today, US Navy officials are talking about growth, but at the same time, the naval potential is shrinking, despite the fact that the cash flow does not dry up. Paradox? Yes. According to the latest draft budget, by 2027 the now dwindling US Navy will not have today's 297 warships, but only 280. In the United States, the number of shipbuilders is declining and the capacity of shipyards is not enough.
And come on, new, old ships sit in dry docks for years before it's their turn to be repaired.
And when shipbuilding is in this state, there are heads in the US who start talking about changing course. The fact that it is time to move away from the concept of a global war against terrorists (a dozen aircraft carriers are absolutely not needed for this) and admonish individual countries towards the return of the concept of dominance in the oceans.
There is something. After all, whoever controls the water areas today holds the whole world by the throat. Yes, without sea and ocean transportation, modern trade is unthinkable, both in hydrocarbons and in everything else.
The whole problem is that the United States is gradually emerging, if not opponents, then competitors in this field. First of all, it is China, followed by India and Japan.
Why is that? Because China has long been a headache for the United States, India is also striving for dominance in the region, and Japan, which today has the most dynamically developing fleet, can easily go crazy in the implementation of its conquest plans.
Russia is not on this list, not with our parodies of fleets to claim control of something there in the oceans. So far, we are not able to take control of the Black Sea, because there is nothing.
Yes, oddly enough, but today the main force of non-nuclear deterrence in the leading countries of the world is the navy. And surface forces are a very important component, since neither ICBM nor strategic aviation, nor the submarine fleet is not able to carry out, for example, the blockade of a single region by sea.
Of course, submarines can tightly seal the same Persian Gulf, piling up a certain number of tankers at the exit. But the Strait of Hormuz is shallow, it will be very difficult for a submarine there, and the environmental disaster from a sunken tanker will be half the world. But the surface fleet can easily do this.
Especially if this surface fleet can do such things.
And this is where some of the problems are.
If during the Cold War the American fleet was definitely ready for naval battles, then after its end, degradation began. Surface ships and their crews fought terrorists, pirates, participated in the support of landing operations on the shores of unfriendly countries. And this approach caused a drop in the training of personnel. And, as the practice of recent maritime accidents involving American ships shows, navigational training leaves much to be desired. And all computers and navigation systems cannot replace people.
And by the turn of 2022, it turned out that the political situation required the reorientation of the American fleet to solve new problems. More precisely, to solve old and well forgotten problems. To combat a serious enemy surface fleet. Naturally, without the use of nuclear weapons. It will always work out.
On January 11, 2022, as part of the next symposium of the US Naval Surface Forces Association, Vice Admiral Roy Kitchener, Commander of the Naval Surface Forces, unveiled a plan to achieve superiority at sea over a potential adversary precisely with the help of the surface forces of the fleet: “Surface Combat Operations: Competitive Advantage”.
The admiral's plan is simple: more surface ships that are task-oriented, staffing with trained personnel, developing new concepts for the use of ships and training crews in their light. Plus well-established work on the shore for repairs.
Kitchener is quite optimistic in his report. In general, the admiral believes that in 5-10 years the United States is able to solve all naval problems and again become a force that will be "a global power with a bias towards the Pacific Ocean" and "will support security interests throughout the Indo-Pacific region, including alliances with five countries and close friendships with many others.”
That is - the usual role of the world gendarme. The plan is quite normal, but not just because it was born? Yes, it addresses deterrence and warfare, the strategic imperatives of sea control, force projection and the ability to dominate the oceans, and reveals the new architecture of the US Navy's surface forces.
Against who? Everything is clear and transparent: the main enemy of the United States is China.
“Global competition with China and renewed tensions with Russia are major strategic factors for Naval planners. We are competing with a first-rate navy…whose scope extends far beyond territorial waters.”
China is pursuing a very aggressive policy in the region today, that's a fact. It builds military bases on the islands, constantly arranges events in the Taiwan area, which the US does not like at all. Plus a very dynamically developing Chinese navy.
What can the United States do in the next ten years to eliminate or at least minimize the threat posed by China?
You know, not very much.
1. The main stake is still placed on the nuclear aircraft carriers of the new generation "Ford". The ships are promising and powerful, but the period of "childhood" illnesses has somehow dragged on. But it will still be a force in the future.
2. Arleigh Burke destroyers of the third iteration re-equipped with the latest development hypersonic missile system. Promising, but doubtful, because joyful reports of success were not heard at all. Work on hypersonic weapons in the United States is progressing, but not as fast as we would like.
3. If everything goes well, then destroyers of the Arleigh Burke type of the second series will be re-equipped with hypersonic missiles.
4. Commissioning of the fleet of promising DDG(X) missile destroyers, which are only at the development stage.
5. Frigates URO type "Constellation", a large series of which is planned for construction, and in the light of recent events may even be increased.
6. Modernization of the UDC of the San Antonio type, ships that are not old, but that form an integral part of the striking power of the fleet.
7. Commissioning of promising light landing ships of the LAW (Light Amphibious Warship) type.
8. Introduction into service of two types of unmanned ships, large LUSV (Large Unmanned Surface Vehicle) and medium MUSV (Medium Unmanned Surface Vehicle).
9. Modernization for carrying hypersonic weapons of the destroyers of the "Zamvolt" type and modernization with the strengthening of the armament of the littoral ships of the "Independence" and "Freedom" classes.
If you look thoughtfully, then points 1, 2,3,6, which are based on work with existing and well-proven ships, are quite viable.
Points 4,7, and 8 are in some doubt, because "Zamvolt". As everything is delivered today in the USA, these ships can not wait. As for the Constellation frigates, here, perhaps, we can say that, most likely, the matter will work out. The ships are small, not "breakthrough", because the Americans can build them.
As for the dances around the flawed Zamwalt, Independence and Freedom projects, let me say that these are nothing more than sawing dances. It has long been clear that ship designs are completely unviable and further attempts to rehabilitate them with the help of additional appropriations are nothing more than marine necromancy with all the ensuing results.
But even in this form, ships are really only half the story. The second half is crews.
The maritime department understands and, most importantly, they are well aware that the more complex the technical part, the greater the role the human factor will play.
And in this field, the American naval command considers it necessary to take a number of measures to train personnel, primarily aimed at raising the professional level of sailors in tactical training, in navigation and navigation, in engineering and emergency rescue.
A ten-year plan has been developed, the implementation of which will significantly increase the level of combat capability of the American fleet. The main goal of the plan is "increasing the level of competencies of personnel, which is necessary for the successful conduct of hostilities in multi-domain operations of new generation wars".
The next area of work is again connected with ships, but which are already in service and, moreover, require repair. Maintaining the combat readiness of ships requires money, maintenance, modernization and effective planning of all these activities.
It is planned to create an entire strategy that will ensure timely maintenance and repair of ships, timely modernization and commissioning of warships. Accordingly, the creation of a warehouse infrastructure capable of ensuring the uninterrupted supply of spare parts and components for the fleet.
The command of the Navy intends to give the shipyards and suppliers of the second and third levels (this is just everything that concerns repair and modernization work) the status of national assets (“national treasure”), and then take all processes in these firms under constant supervision in order to avoid disruptions in terms of time and quality of work.
This also applies to the latest equipment, in which naval structures are so interested: the latest AN / SPY-6 radars, new electronic warfare systems under the SEWIP Block III program, means of combating enemy control systems, communications, and computer systems.
And all this will require money. Naturally. And not just money, but huge resources that American financiers are not yet ready to estimate even approximately. The cost of the fleet continues to rise, although the return is not yet observed. In 2013-2021, about $5 billion was invested in simulators for practicing navigation skills and tactical training of surface ship crews. The result is more than 10 accidents and disasters since 2010 involving US warships.
The construction of new ships, the repair and modernization of old ones, the acquisition of new equipment, the organization of coastal infrastructure for new ships, the training of crews - the command of the US surface forces perfectly understands the level and global nature of the plans.
However, the American admirals are very determined. Their confidence that in ten years it is really possible to make such a revolution in everything related to naval affairs is amazing.
But China continues to build up its naval forces, and the state leadership continues to implement the Three Lines of Islands strategy. According to this concept, by 2050, the Chinese Navy must secure the ability to operate freely, primarily at the border of the Aleutian Islands - Hawaiian Islands - the countries of Oceania. And also have the ability to solve a wide range of tasks in a vast water area - up to the southern part of the Bay of Bengal, the central and northern parts of the Arabian Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and the eastern coast of Africa.
Considering how actively the PLA fleet of the PRC is replenished with new ships, if you notice how harmoniously this development is proceeding, both in terms of surface and submarine forces, we can conclude that the Chinese leadership is well aware of how to correctly realize their ambitions.
And for some reason, there is confidence that the implementation of the program to create the first Chinese nuclear aircraft carrier is more likely than, say, the creation of a new American URO cruiser.
Willingly or not, we are witnessing the beginning of a new global confrontation in the oceans. Yes, while this is the territory of the Pacific Ocean and parts of the Indian Ocean, but ...
No normal analyst will undertake to predict at least approximately how events will develop. The great desire to regain lost positions in the ocean for the United States and the no less great desire of China to become the maritime hegemon of the Pacific Ocean for a long time will become reactors fueling a new confrontation.
But in general, there are too many analytical predictions in the American press about the fact that the Chinese fleet can outperform the American one.
Therefore, the efforts of the American admirals are quite understandable. The whole question is not just how well the measures to strengthen the role of the American fleet in the World Ocean will be planned, but how well these developments will be implemented.
So - time will tell.
Information