The leadership in the U.S. Department of Defense has told the U.S. Navy that it must be more mission oriented, and less concerned about maintaining certain quantities and types of ships. In short, the navy leaders were being warned to build, and maintain, forces needed for current, and likely, missions, and to forget about refighting World War II, or the Cold War.
Our most expensive carriers, amphibious warship mini-carriers, and nuclear attack subs, won't be replaced in the same numbers so the Navy had best adapt rather than hope for budgetary salvation to continue our old ways:
Meanwhile, new technologies make robotic ships, submarines and aircraft affordable and effective. The navy is being told to buy more of this stuff. Robotic equipment is cheaper and, well, more expendable. If the navy needs this new gear, and is scrambling to find the cash to replace the old-school ships and aircraft, something has to give. The Department of Defense brass are telling the admirals that the old is out and the new should be at the top of the shopping list. Just a suggestion, of course.
I wrote that we have to look at our missions, pick a number of hulls that we need to achieve those missions, and build that number even if we must build cheaper warships (and even auxiliary cruisers, as I link to in the post). And seriously consider building some conventionally powered submarines, for goodness sake.
I think our carriers are going to occupy an increasingly niche market as network-centric warfare capabilities of our enemies expands. The DF-21 is just the beginning of the threat. It may not be revolutionary in the context of the long history of land-based aircraft being a threat to carriers, but it highlights the threat our carriers are under. Sure, our existing super carriers will be useful in many scenarios that don't involve peer competitors for many decades to come. We should let them serve their lives but not replace them as they retire. If we need naval aviation, use the amphibious warfare mini-carriers as supplements instead of as amphibious warfare ships while the super carriers phase out. Maybe build new mini-carriers that have a primary naval air mission with a secondary amphibious role. But even these ships might be too expensive given the development of missiles and robotics that will take place over that time frame.
As for the amphibious warfare capability, do we really need this? Much like carrier-to-carrier warfare, is amphibious warfare just a glorious piece of World War II Pacific theater history? Do we really need big deck ships for the most likely missions we have for battalion-sized landings in peace time? Other than Hainan Island, where else might we need a multi-brigade amphibious landing against opposition?
Face it, the bulk of our naval missions are in the developing world and don't require high-end ships--and often would do better with lower profile ships like auxiliary cruisers that don't offend locals sensitive to the overt presence of our military.
Forward presence in the face of potential enemies just risks giving our enemies a free shot at our forward deployed ships--and the presence of vulnerable and expensive forward deployed ships might encourage a first strike rather than deter war. Low-end ships should be the first line of defense, useful for presence in peacetime but whose loss in the opening hours of a surprise enemy attack won't cripple our fleet.
Our most capable ships should be kept in the eastern Pacific and western Atlantic away from enemy attack. But don't just keep them in port since the development of intercontinental ship-killing ballistic missiles could Pearl Harbor our ships even on our coasts.
Our Navy has to evolve to face the threats we face now and in the future with ships and deployment strategies designed to take on opponents more advanced than the Imperial Japanese Navy.
UPDATE: You don't need advanced missiles to severely damage a forward deployed high-value naval asset in the opening minutes of a surprise attack, as the April 21st close encounter by an Iranian F-27 patrol aircraft with one of our super carriers demonstrated:
Since the carrier was in international waters, and had not announced any flight restrictions (for combat operations or whatever, warships can do this, for short periods, to keep commercial aircraft and ships away), the Iranian aircraft was allowed to get this close. But there is always the danger of a suicide bomb attack. The F-27 could be crammed with several tons of explosives, which would do a lot of damage to an aircraft carrier. With the F-27 only a kilometers away, a sharp turn towards the carrier would have the aircraft hitting the ship in less than ten seconds. Possibly enough time for the Sea Sparrow missiles from the carrier, or escort ships, to do enough damage to stop the suicide Fokker from arriving, but maybe not.
Sailing close to potential enemies as a matter of routine for our best ships just tempts an enemy to take their best shot and hope it hurts us too much for us to want to fight back.
