JA Boomer

True, I failed to mention that one. I'm really not a fan of that whole program, but I'll save that for the Land Forces forum. I wonder if it will every overtake the F-35 as the MOST EXPENSIVE MILITARY PROGRAM EVER???

kato

I'd say the currently estimated $276.5 billion for the JSF/F-35 is pretty much unbeatable - unless they'd start building some 300+ $1-billion ships of course. Or replace the Abrams on a one-for-one basis with something with a unit cost of over $50 million

BadKharma

I went with the Littoral combat ships. In todays climate it is the most lacking in the naval arsenal.

ShawnG

When was the last Iowa Class battle? I'm naive when it comes to the USN. To me, the larger battle ships have been sitting pretty since WWII. I see a lot of use in modern war for Carriers, Submarines, and Littoral class... though I need to be enlightened.

__________________
"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." -Adlai E. Stevenson

1 Observer

Question to answer qwestion.
What is the profile of our actions projected to become?
Large actions? SPECOPS? tactical/retaliatory strikes? If we knew what we where for sure going to do next week I'd never end up in big puddles of 5h!t with the wrong shoes!
I agree with "Ssg ShawnG" carriers will continue to have great flexibility, Subs will continue to be required ... beyond that we need enlightenment.

ShawnG

I'm refering specifically to battleships. We have weapons in our arsenal that can be used effective in place of battleships in my opinion, but as I'm not keen on naval operations my opinion is purely that, (I have no fact or background to prove anything) I stand to be corrected.

The classic WWII style "Ship vs. Ship" warfare, in my opinion, is all but dead. You are correct in not knowing what lies ahead... who knows. We could bring back bow and arrows to replace the M16/M4. Maybe even Red-Baron biplanes.

1 Observer

I'm thinking ... Coral sea .... Yeah you're right, everything I've read suggests that battle ships were about done after that point. Undoubtably the reason behind supercarrier development.

JA Boomer

Well...ship vs ship, your probably looking at WWII, the Iowa class was used in battle as recently as Gulf War 1. Although I don't think that the battleships have anything to offer the current USN, this argument isn't really prove anything, as how many ships in the USN have been involved with direct ship vs ship action since the Second World War?

HKDan

Or perhaps some variation on the concept. That is one program with some serious issues. Whatever solution the Navy eventually decides to do to address its need for a small surface ship is likely to see some action and heavy use.

Expat Canuck

In the US Navy, you need a bar on the ship.

Dreadnought

Hell no those people are crazy enough without the ship being delcared "wet".

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Dreadnought

The last time was ODS when we sent Missouri and Wisconsin over to the ME to ask Saddam to leave Kuwait quietly and peacfully. Needless to say he did afford us some very good target practice and we did get to light off quite a few Tomahawks. New Jersey was already home from her Med cruise and was not needed.

Gregor

Definitely SSN 774's. The demand/call from the Combatant Commanders for submarine support (ISR, etc.) far exceeds the current capability. Take a look at some of the COMSUBFOR addresses and speeches in the Submarine League Review.

And no, I'm not biased because I'm a bubblehead

lastdingo

The USN needs the most:
A new procurement system/bureaucracy

2nd place:
Some modern anti-mine warfare ships with decent oceanic cruise speed and modern equipment

3rd place:
Some modern SSKs (some fo them with AIP) for regular training in brown water ASW