Is the US navy overrated
- Thread starter Player 0
- Start date
The_Zergling
Junior Member
I'm not completely sure, but I think I've seen a link to this article before. But anyway, the article does indeed make valid points, but it's nothing that we haven't heard before. I don't think anyone with any real military sense would be ignorant enough to believe any force as invincible. Best in the world perhaps (the massive military budget helps), but not unbeatable, depending on the circumstances.
Whether or not it's overrated depends on who you're talking to, I guess. "Ratings" are often a subjective thing.
Whether or not it's overrated depends on who you're talking to, I guess. "Ratings" are often a subjective thing.
I read the article halfway trough (eyes started worn down), and I must say it made sense. Ofcourse there was some strong culminations made but in generally it spoke quite hars language to the US naval deciders.
But like the article itself pointed out USN is still the biggest and propaply most advanced in the world...it just showed that, like in many other ocassions, David can beat the Goliaht.
One of the things caugth my eye was the minewarfare. I've been foaming behalf of it earlier and I must do it now too. During the WWII the entire soviet blatic fleet was completely surrounded to it's Kronstads main base by simply mining almoust the entire Gulf of Finland. Almoust every single ship can lay minefields, but only few dedicated platform can detect and sweep them of.
Antoher thing that strikes me was that if USN had have these kind of results troughout the whole post-WWII era, then why it haven't changed it's obnions and doctrines acording to the threats that these mentioned execises have showed? Also the solid fact is that the USN is most likely going to encounter those very small navyes relying on SSKs and mines, then why aren't dealing with those threats the number one issue in USN training and tactics?
I don't by the "Americans are too arrogant to admitt being wrong" -type of conclusions, there must be some other reasons. The biggest things coming to my mind are byrocratism and...well capitalism (i will explain it further)
First the byrocratism. USN is huge and all huge machines needs complicated systems to work properly. Big organisations are also those who most often suffer from stagnation and unflexibility. The more there is people, the more change is that there are those horrible type of persons who just care about their own effort (and fruits of that effort) rather than trying to see the big picture. Changing doctrines and methods aren't easy in such a huge organisation and untill something really concrete (like some US carrier actually being sunked by enemy SSK in real battle) the changes are low.
The seccond thing...yeas capitalism. As in all capitalist systems, in the US weaponindustry, what count is the profit and sale of your own product, not the fact that best possiple system is adopted. The battle is done not in the deeps of the oceans but in the halls of Pengaton and submarines are replaced by lobbyist who tryes to get the company they represent to win the deal of next new weaponsystem deals. If the company making nuclear subs have better ties to those making the decisions, nuclearsubs are the ones getting to the USN.
But in the shadow of this article I wont allow any cheap "USN has defaults, PLAN can sink every single american ships in no time" type of arguments and other silly comments. This doesen't mean no meaningfull discussion cannto be made, only that from expereince this subject seems to be one of the most flamable.
The article was made proffesionally, so regardless of what you may think of it, its only fair that all awnsers made pro- or agaisnt it is done so also.
But like the article itself pointed out USN is still the biggest and propaply most advanced in the world...it just showed that, like in many other ocassions, David can beat the Goliaht.
One of the things caugth my eye was the minewarfare. I've been foaming behalf of it earlier and I must do it now too. During the WWII the entire soviet blatic fleet was completely surrounded to it's Kronstads main base by simply mining almoust the entire Gulf of Finland. Almoust every single ship can lay minefields, but only few dedicated platform can detect and sweep them of.
Antoher thing that strikes me was that if USN had have these kind of results troughout the whole post-WWII era, then why it haven't changed it's obnions and doctrines acording to the threats that these mentioned execises have showed? Also the solid fact is that the USN is most likely going to encounter those very small navyes relying on SSKs and mines, then why aren't dealing with those threats the number one issue in USN training and tactics?
I don't by the "Americans are too arrogant to admitt being wrong" -type of conclusions, there must be some other reasons. The biggest things coming to my mind are byrocratism and...well capitalism (i will explain it further)
First the byrocratism. USN is huge and all huge machines needs complicated systems to work properly. Big organisations are also those who most often suffer from stagnation and unflexibility. The more there is people, the more change is that there are those horrible type of persons who just care about their own effort (and fruits of that effort) rather than trying to see the big picture. Changing doctrines and methods aren't easy in such a huge organisation and untill something really concrete (like some US carrier actually being sunked by enemy SSK in real battle) the changes are low.
The seccond thing...yeas capitalism. As in all capitalist systems, in the US weaponindustry, what count is the profit and sale of your own product, not the fact that best possiple system is adopted. The battle is done not in the deeps of the oceans but in the halls of Pengaton and submarines are replaced by lobbyist who tryes to get the company they represent to win the deal of next new weaponsystem deals. If the company making nuclear subs have better ties to those making the decisions, nuclearsubs are the ones getting to the USN.
But in the shadow of this article I wont allow any cheap "USN has defaults, PLAN can sink every single american ships in no time" type of arguments and other silly comments. This doesen't mean no meaningfull discussion cannto be made, only that from expereince this subject seems to be one of the most flamable.
The article was made proffesionally, so regardless of what you may think of it, its only fair that all awnsers made pro- or agaisnt it is done so also.
Roger604
Senior Member
That article is kind of old, and I'm sure the USN is doing its best to mend its weaknesses.
But still, the point of the article is that the USN can expect to take casualties, not that it cannot win if it is willing to do so at any cost. The author is debunking the idea that conflict will be a cakewalk; victory will come at a price.
This is the nature of assymetric warfare. It made sense for China to pursue this route to make America think twice about any adventures. But I don't think China should limit itself to assymetric warfare in the future. At best, assymetric warfare can deny access to the seas surrounding China, but it cannot project further and cannot protect trade routes.
To have secure energy resources, China needs a blue water navy.
Americans are arrogant? That's news to me
But still, the point of the article is that the USN can expect to take casualties, not that it cannot win if it is willing to do so at any cost. The author is debunking the idea that conflict will be a cakewalk; victory will come at a price.
This is the nature of assymetric warfare. It made sense for China to pursue this route to make America think twice about any adventures. But I don't think China should limit itself to assymetric warfare in the future. At best, assymetric warfare can deny access to the seas surrounding China, but it cannot project further and cannot protect trade routes.
To have secure energy resources, China needs a blue water navy.
Gollevainen said:
Americans are arrogant? That's news to me
I'm sure the USN is aware of its' weaknesses e.g. mine warfare, but isn't too worried as long as Allied navies participate in its operations. The Royal Navy has a high degree of expertise in mine warfare ops, and lead the way in clearing the northern Persian gulf during the invasion of Iraq. All nations armed forces have areas of weakness and areas of strength, USA included. Resources have to be allocated according to priority, and when the USN asks itself whether it would be better off with 1 CVN, 6 DDGs or a fleet of mine warfare vessels, they go with the capability they are best placed to provide. Allied navies can make up the shortfall in mine warfare (even a small nation like Belgium for example) but who else can provide a CVN? This seems to me to be how the USN rationalises any lack of capability, by accepting that in future conflicts it will not be acting alone, but in concert with several allies who can 'fill the gaps'.
DennisDaMenace
New Member
Wow! Obi Wan, I celebrated 2 birthdays while reading that article. Some
of our more senior members may never respond, there time will just run out.
However, my biggest disagreement with the article is that it takes a lot of
US military doctrine from WW2. Since then the USN has changed quite a bit.
I dont think any nation has lost a war from its inability at mine sweeping,
and I think if theres a need the US will be able to get a friendly nation to do it- as you said. I dont think I've ever heard any objections in the UN about a country conducting mine sweeping. Its very low key, and everyones against mines. The article does make several good points I would be more concerned with the way anti-submarine warfare is going since the USSR is no longer considerd a threat and the USN seems to be degradeing their capability.
Their new arsenl ship design is suppose to replace several type of ships including the Spruance but the differnt designs I have seen so far only had a very limited ASW capability. One helo and no hanger bay.
of our more senior members may never respond, there time will just run out.
However, my biggest disagreement with the article is that it takes a lot of
US military doctrine from WW2. Since then the USN has changed quite a bit.
I dont think any nation has lost a war from its inability at mine sweeping,
and I think if theres a need the US will be able to get a friendly nation to do it- as you said. I dont think I've ever heard any objections in the UN about a country conducting mine sweeping. Its very low key, and everyones against mines. The article does make several good points I would be more concerned with the way anti-submarine warfare is going since the USSR is no longer considerd a threat and the USN seems to be degradeing their capability.
Their new arsenl ship design is suppose to replace several type of ships including the Spruance but the differnt designs I have seen so far only had a very limited ASW capability. One helo and no hanger bay.
I was using the minesweeping situation as an example to illustrate the point that the USN doesn't have to be the world leader in every form of warfare. Since the end of the cold war even America has made drastic cuts in defence spending and so the Navy will have had to prioritise resources, and as conflicts now tend to be fought as part of a coalition (politically as well as militarily desireable) some aspects of the tapestry that is naval combat can be delegated to other navies within the alliance, thus freeing funds for more important capabilities.
ASW is an area I believe the USN allowed to lapse a little during the seventies and eighties following the decommissioning of the Essex class CVSs and their associated dedicated ASW hunting groups. These task groups, because of their single mission developed a high level of expertise and proficiency due to their training cycles not often being interrupted as they frequently are aboard multi mission ships. After the demise of the CVSs and the integration of their squadrons and escorts into CVBGs (now known as CSGs), continuity of training was disrupted due to the primary strike role of the CV. This pattern is repeated in most navies, where a multi role destroyer will never be as proficient in ASW as a dedicated ASW frigate. Perhaps the USNs expertise in sub hunting could have been maintained, even improved upon if Admiral Zumwalt's plan to build up to eight Sea Control Ships for the price of one CVN had been approved. The CVNs could have retained their focus on the strike mission and the ASW hunting groups would have remained autonomous within the fleet, and not diverted to general duties. Specialisation leads to efficiency and excellence, changing roles at the drop of a hat does not.
I agree that far too much emphasis was placed in the article on WW2 doctrine, an era when navies were dominated by Battleships, Aircraft Carriers had wooden flight decks and black people were relegated to menial duties. The world has changed a lot since then, the USN has changed almost beyond recognition too, so to base criticism of the modern navy on arguments from the forties is frankly not credible.
However the ponts concerning the levels of training and competence are valid, and tally with just about every account I have ever heard from people who have served with or trained alongside the USN. Perhaps they should start by instituting their own equivalent of FOST (recognised as the best naval training organisation in the world by all who undergo the course, including the Americans!)
ASW is an area I believe the USN allowed to lapse a little during the seventies and eighties following the decommissioning of the Essex class CVSs and their associated dedicated ASW hunting groups. These task groups, because of their single mission developed a high level of expertise and proficiency due to their training cycles not often being interrupted as they frequently are aboard multi mission ships. After the demise of the CVSs and the integration of their squadrons and escorts into CVBGs (now known as CSGs), continuity of training was disrupted due to the primary strike role of the CV. This pattern is repeated in most navies, where a multi role destroyer will never be as proficient in ASW as a dedicated ASW frigate. Perhaps the USNs expertise in sub hunting could have been maintained, even improved upon if Admiral Zumwalt's plan to build up to eight Sea Control Ships for the price of one CVN had been approved. The CVNs could have retained their focus on the strike mission and the ASW hunting groups would have remained autonomous within the fleet, and not diverted to general duties. Specialisation leads to efficiency and excellence, changing roles at the drop of a hat does not.
I agree that far too much emphasis was placed in the article on WW2 doctrine, an era when navies were dominated by Battleships, Aircraft Carriers had wooden flight decks and black people were relegated to menial duties. The world has changed a lot since then, the USN has changed almost beyond recognition too, so to base criticism of the modern navy on arguments from the forties is frankly not credible.
However the ponts concerning the levels of training and competence are valid, and tally with just about every account I have ever heard from people who have served with or trained alongside the USN. Perhaps they should start by instituting their own equivalent of FOST (recognised as the best naval training organisation in the world by all who undergo the course, including the Americans!)
Last edited:
I would like to point out because the USN is so strong in comparison to everyone else it could literally destroy all other navies in the world, but this makes it hard to say if they are being efficient, if there was a navy in the world just as strong, then the USN would be able to see most likely more flaws in their navy but since it dominates everyone elses so much no one is challenging it enough to even make these apparent, thats if it does have these sort of problems.
Perhaps the problem is that the USN spends so much time and effort trying to maintain numerical and technological superiority over everyone else that they have lost sight of the basics, good training and good organisation allow you to do more with less. The American way has since WW2 been that if you want to do more, you must have more. But more isn't always better. The USN could do with taking a page or two out of other navies books if it wants to improve. No one is doubting the quality of American sailors or ships, but the management of resources has a long way to go.
Ah hemm.. the level of training in the USN is virtually unequaled in modern warfare. I remember from my days in the USN being on a ship inport and a foriegn navy ship tied up accross the pier. Never once did any of those ships conduct a fire drill or any sort of drill. While anyone that has ever served on a USN ship knows that fire drills are a daily accourance a long with many other drills.
My son who has been on active duty for over 8 years is a sonar tech. His sonar tech school was 20 months of high tech training. Most enlisted ratings in the USN attend schools fron two months to 2 years in lenght. Nuke power school is over two years long. It takes about 3+ years to train a Naval aviator..so on and so forth...