Home » Budget Industry » Navy Weighing Options for a Family of Future Surface Ships


Navy Weighing Options for a Family of Future Surface Ships

USS Antietam (CG-54) is underway off the coast of Japan near Mt. Fuji. US Navy Photo

USS Antietam (CG-54) is underway off the coast of Japan near Mt. Fuji. US Navy Photo

PENTAGON – The Navy is currently charting its new roadmap for a family of future surface ships it hopes to enter the fleet sometime in the 2030s.

The future surface combatant study – set to complete in the late summer or early fall – is the early work that will lay out in detail a picture of the world and threats the next set of surface combatants will face and what the ships of the future will need to look like to combat them, the Navy’s director of surface warfare, Rear Adm. Peter Fanta (OPNAV N96) told USNI News in an interview last week.

“The future surface combatant study looks at all of the capabilities that we need to get across the board – from replacing [Cyclone-class patrol craft (PC-1)], all the way up through what we do with cruiser follow on and what do we do for the next destroyers,” Fanta said.
“We’re looking at a family of options. I have family of requirements. Now, for the large surface combatant, it’s both capacity and capability that we have to look at.”

The current generation of large surface combatants – Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyers (DDG-51) and Ticonderoga-class (CG-47) guided missile cruisers – have been in the fleet for decades and were all part of a surface-wide shift in capabilities across several different sizes of platforms.

The ships – though multi-mission — are optimized for anti-air warfare and built around a large radar array and a battery of vertical launch system (VLS) missile cells that field a variety of weapons. The ships centered on the Aegis combat system were part of a generational shift in thinking that traded boiler power for gas turbines and single purpose ships for multi-mission combatants.

And now, “we’re about at that inflection point again,” Fanta said.

What’s different in this generation of combatants is how Fanta and the Navy will tackle the problem of the next wave of ships. – constrained by budgets but buttressed by new networked weapons and technologies like directed energy and electromagnetic railguns.

“We’ll see a slightly different fleet [in the 2030s] but we’re going about it differently and how do I plug that together,” he said.

The New Threat

A photo of Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy warships in 2014. PLAN Photo

A photo of Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy warships in 2014. PLAN Photo

The U.S. surface warfare threat set is drastically different than it was merely five years ago.

While the emphasis from 2001 to 2010 for the broader military was low intensity ground combat in Iraq and Afghanistan the surface fleet was mostly tasked with providing long-range strikes with its Raytheon Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM) and ballistic missile defense (BMD) protection roles.

Meanwhile other countries spent their development dollars in perfecting new and lethal weapons that put the U.S. surface force at risk.

While Fanta and other Navy leaders rarely mention a particular adversary in discussions of future capabilities or threats in the context of the development of U.S. capabilities Russia and China are the chief considerations for new platforms– especially China.

A screen shot of a YJ-18 anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) from China's state controlled CCTV. CCTV Image

A screen shot of a YJ-18 anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) from China’s state controlled CCTV. CCTV Image

The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has undergone a rapid development of new surface platforms that are catching up to U.S. dominance in guided weapon technology.

“In the last several years, China has invested in rapidly expanding its anti-surface cruise missile (ASCM) stockpiles with an emphasis on anti-surface warfare (ASUW), according to a report on the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) capabilities by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI),” USNI News wrote in April.
The task for the Navy now is how to leverage its shrinking technological edge on a budget.

Capability, Capacity and Cruisers

Sailors man the rails as the U.S. Navy's only forward-deployed aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) and the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG 52) depart Busan in 2014. US Navy Photo

Sailors man the rails as the U.S. Navy’s only forward-deployed aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) and the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG 52) depart Busan in 2014. US Navy Photo

For the moment, the Navy’s Burkes are on track to be the most technologically adept large surface combatant in the fleet with a Flight III variant currently under development with a much more powerful air defense radar — the Raytheon SPY-6 — than the current SPY-1D resident on current ships.

Eyes are now on what will replace the older, but more heavily armed, Ticonderogas that – unlike the Burkes – are designed to handle the air defense commander role that directs the air war around a carrier strike group (CSG).

“For the large surface combatant, it’s both capacity and capability that we have to look at,” Fanta said.
“I get asked, ‘Why don’t you take a Flight III destroyer and turn it into a cruiser?’ What people forget is there is a lot of capacity difference between a cruiser and a destroyer.”

Burkes field about 94 VLS cells while the much larger Ticondergoas have 122 (depending on the ship). Each additional cell means more missiles the ship can fire.

For future ships, “I need both the capacity and the capability. So how do you do that?
The future surface capability study tells me how many missiles I’m going to have to have out there,” Fanta said.
“I don’t know that. But yes I recognize the cruisers coming out of the inventory sometime, starting in the 20s going through the 30s are going to leave me with a deficit if in nothing else VLS cells and command planning spaces and watch standers to handle that air defense commander role”

For the next large surface combatant, the Navy knows what it doesn’t want – a repeat of the Navy’s last attempt at developing a cruiser, the estimated $6 billion-a-hull CG(X).

“Last time we looked at a cruiser replacement we spent $30 million on a study to tell us a cruiser replacement was unaffordable… You can’t spend $6 billion on a first of class cruiser,” Fanta said.
“We looked at everything from nuclear power to advanced weapon systems to huge arrays to multiple numbers of VLS cells and it turned out to be so large that we might as well have plopped a deckhouse on an aircraft carrier.”

As the surface navy establishment puzzles through the threat picture, the ships that will replace the capabilities and the capacity are next on the development list and it might not look like the cruisers the Navy is familiar with.

“Have we come to a single point solution? No not yet. It will probably be a series of solutions,” he said.
“Being able to call something a cruiser is very comforting but what happens when one of them just carriers missiles that shoot down incoming air things and another one carries just anti-submarine warfare (ASW) weapons – or one of them carries every thing? I don’t know.”

The Modular Fleet

An artist's conception of a Raytheon's SPY-6 radar on a Flight III Arleigh Burke destroyer . Raytheon Image

An artist’s conception of a Raytheon’s SPY-6 radar on a Flight III Arleigh Burke destroyer . Raytheon Image

The trick for the Navy with its new family of ships will be to balance capabilities and capacity in systems that make sense fiscally.

That means not building ships that can only do one thing and have the capacity to grow as new weapon systems and sensors are developed.

“Look at what we had do to with the Spruance-class destroyer, he said.
“Originally that was just for hunting submarines but there’s a lot of real estate – you put in a VLS launcher in there and what do you get? A lot of multi-mission capability. They’d be long gone if you hadn’t put VLS on them. Everything has to do at least two things…. The advantage of things like vertical launch cells is they bring modularity by themselves. I can stick a new missile in there. As long as I leave the deck space on there, I can bolt on other weapons. As long as I leave my self with a deckhouse with the structural capability of handling a bigger array or an upgraded array, I can unbolt one and put another one in.”

He used the Flight III Burkes as an example of taking existing designs and tweaking them for greater capability. The new ships will field the emerging crop of Raytheon Standard Missile 6s and the new SPY-6 Advanced Electronic Scanning Array radar.

“Some people [ask], ‘are you designing the modular ship?’,” he said.
“Well sort of. I can do that now. I can unbolt an array and put on a new one. I’m doing it with DDGs.”

The fleet of the 2030s will be set to take advantage of the modular aspects of current ships and build in those capabilities in the new ships to allow for more frequent upgrades. But beyond individual platforms, the Navy is set to exploit future networked weapon systems.

In 2015, the Navy’s first Naval Integrated Fire Control Counter Air (NIFC-CA) carrier strike group – the service’s concept of linking ships and aircraft sensors to create a network of spotters and shooters that can share targeting information – completed a successful deployment. As the concept evolves more networked weapons will be in the offing and fit into the modular fleet of the future.

A Raytheon SM-6 launched from an Aegis guided missile destroyer. US Navy Photo

A Raytheon SM-6 launched from an Aegis guided missile destroyer. US Navy Photo

“Given our ability to shoot any weapon off any sensor using the [current] trends in technology, maybe I carry a whole bunch of missiles on one [hull] and then the sensors are somewhere else,” Fanta said.
“It’s a group of capabilities I have to cover and it maybe a family of systems that allows me to cover those – all of them being upgradable when the next weapon shows up or the next sensor shows up.”

That means adopting design models that will allow ships to shed and take on weapon systems with minimal amount of work to integrate them on hulls.

“The key element of that is do I understand my interfaces between the weapon and the combat system so I don’t have to redo every single time,” Fanta said.
“Is it plug-and-play? Do I have to redesign all the software and test all the software or do I understand that software tells this weapon to do something and now the next weapon better know how to do it with the same software.”

New technologies like directed energy and electromagnetic railguns would factor into the new designs as well.

While the specifics are still being developed, the one constant will be the money the Navy can spend — about the $2.1 billion cost of the current Burkes.

“I know how much a destroyer costs. I know how much money I have to spend on surface combatants give or take a bit,” Fanta said.
“It has to fit inside that, give or take by ‘X’ percent.”

  • Mud Fan

    What we don’t develop, our enemies will.

  • disqus_zommBwspv9

    Hey, I got and Idea, lets take a couple of aircraft spots on the flight deck and mount a VLS system. Or take a Gator, make it capable of holding 200 missles in a VLS configurations Or use a cargo ship as a Q ship loaded with VLS over 3 of it 5 cargo holds. Set up one cargo hold as a help pad that lowers out of sight. It goes from place to place hiding in plain sight

    • @USS_Fallujah

      Ingalls has been pitching this for ages, take the LPD Hull which was just seleted as LH(X) design and make it an arsenal ship, attaining fleet speed would be an issue, but they have ample power and hull space to run the SPY-6, 200+ VLS cells and EMRG/LaWS if/when they are deployable.

      • disqus_zommBwspv9

        Wonder how fast three pod engines could push a LPD hull.

        • @USS_Fallujah

          Lots they could do to streamline the hull too, but getting from 25ish to 35 or so sustained knots is a huge increase in power requirement.

          • Curtis Conway

            And the ultimate speed tops out real fast at the top of the scale.

      • PolicyWonk

        These would be very useful for supporting the ‘gator navy – and provide a staggering amount of firepower (and wide variety of missiles) at relatively low cost/risk.

        And that doesn’t count adding directed energy or kinetic weapons if/as they become available.

    • GJohnson

      Would love to see a catamaran light carrier with the ability to launch from below using electromagnetic catapults and land above vertically. Maybe hangar spaces for about 30 fighters and helicopters/Ospreys. RAM/SeaRAM and maybe 48 VLS.

    • Secundius

      @ Sailboater.

      Back in the ’50’s and ’60’s, they had a Battlecarrier concept. Part Battleship, part Aircraft Carrier. In the ’70’s a Hovercarrier, Hovercraft Aircraft Carrier. The ’80’s and ’90’s, the Strike Cruiser, 6.1-inch gun Cruiser, Arsenal Ship and Pocket Aircraft Carrier. Like “@NotRizzo”, said Nothing New. DARPA, is even doing a feasibility study on the Marvel Comic Book, The Avengers S.H.I.E.L.D. HoverCarrier (Good Luck On That One)…

  • Curtis Conway

    The new cruisers and destroyers should share as many components as possible to optimize logistical support requirements, service training schools, and combat systems GFE elements. All new surface combatants should be an Arctic capable, all ocean hull, with a greater electrical power generation, distribution and storage capability, emphasis on passive-centric sensor systems, the new AMDR radar, Directed Energy Weapons for very short range air defense while retaining Mk 15 CIWS as point air-defense, Hybrid Electric Drive capability while retaining gas turbine engines for speed, and incorporating the new rail gun. I would like to see a Double-Ender (two projectile spitting devices) on the cruiser. If this is a whole new design then we should take a look at a new SM-3 II(X) program that continues the use of solid rocket fuel, but comes out of a new VLS cell for the new cruiser and destroyer that can accommodate a larger diameter and longer ICBM intercept capable missile. The flight decks should be able to provide a “Ready-Deck of Opportunity” for the F-35B, and the hangar be able to accommodate that aircraft if required, or a V-22 (EV-22 AEW&C ? ). A greater emphasis on active & passive Electronic Warfare equipment should be employed on all our platforms across all services.

    A new guided missile frigate that cost at or below ½ that of a destroyer should be brought on line in numbers. This multi-warfare vessel would have similar capabilities
    with less capacity, but have sufficient firepower to hold their own in a skirmish. This will be the go-to ship for ‘Show the Flag’ & escort missions, ASW stations, primary participant for Standing NATO Maritime Group participation, and other theaters requiring presence including the Arctic. The combat system should share the new passive-centric & Electronic Warfare systems, and have the capabilities of the destroyer including a Theater Ballistic Missile Defense capability all the way up to a Tactical Ballistic Missile using the SM-6 with a surveillance picture provided by the SPY-6 Light (9-module version).

    One of our greatest problems of the past was when you are out of missiles . . . then you are toast. Distributed lethality is a real and laudable goal that we should grow into, making our surface combatant more effective and lethal as a team, but do not
    take any lethality or combat capability from our multi-warfare systems, for that distributed lethal capability is synergistic yet every platform can defense itself as well as project power. If we see an attempt to have a distributed lethality fleet, with
    everyone having a special mission, and they can coordinate engagements through
    FORCEnet, the loss of which will render the force ineffective, except for multi-warfare capable ships under dynamic leadership exhibited by their commanders, then we will have lost our minds, lost the conflict, and failed in our primary mission to keep the nation safe, forget about breaking the faith with out sailors. Let us not make that mistake again (LCS?).

    I thought it disingenuous that a statement of how much we have to spend for new platforms is specified, which is far less than what will be required to build an effective new combatant (particularly a cruiser replacement) within the context of this same chain of command having tried very hard to retire current, very capable, cruisers that simply require HM&E and combat system upgrades to Aegis Baseline 9 Integrated Air & Missile Defense (IAMD) capability. That conversion is cost effective, frugal, provides REAL capability, and helps keep the fleet strong, for doing otherwise, to this old sailor, is unthinkable.

    I look forward to seeing what the future will bring given introduction of the new technologies and synergistic combat system capabilities just around the corner.

    • JohnQTaxPayer66

      You are the reason we can’t afford to buy ships. I’d like to order a ship, put everything we could possibly imagine in it and just put it on my credit card. I’ll take 3 Danish FFGS over any LCS anyday. Built and paid for by people living in economic reality.

      • Curtis Conway

        Well JohnQ, I will agree with you to a certain point. Then I have deployed on cruisers in the modern battle space and could sleep nights. Can’t do that on a Danish FFGS in the Western Pacific within a 1,000 miles of China, and sleep nights.

        As the good admiral alluded to, the new cruiser may look different. If the LPD-17 could go faster, and the SQS-53 sonar could be placed upon the bow, it might make a more cost effective platform. However, there is a significant difference between a Surface Combatant Man O’ War, and an Amphibious Ship. do you intend to win . . . or lose? If budget is such a problem then build more REAL Multi-warfare Frigates, two for every destroyer passed up.

        • PolicyWonk

          I wonder if you are a fan of the LCS?

          =================
          Ouch!

          Gotta admit – there are two comparatively cheap ideas I like a lot:
          1. An LPD-17 sea frame with a lot of VLS as an arsenal ship (it would be nice if it was faster – but it would still prove *very* useful). A lot of value – and a lot of firepower – and can cruise with the ‘gators with ease.
          2. 747-400’s modified to be cruise missile carriers. The design work is already done; you can get service and parts *anywhere* on the planet (therefor easy to base); and you can get a lot of hurt to anywhere on the planet very quickly (literally change the balance of power).

          I am curious on your thoughts w/r/t how much of the design work from the Zumwalts might find its way into the new, proposed class (electric drive and power generation aside). I’m hoping they’re going to end up (if we’re fortunate) similar to the Seawolf class, that while expensive (and only 3 built), that design did garner us the excellent Virginia class.

          Any ideas?

          • Secundius

            @ PolicyWonk.

            San Antonio BMD/Arsenal Ship, ALREADY Thought of, ALREADY GOT CANCELLED. SAME WITH 747 Cruise Missile Carrier…

          • Curtis Conway

            How many times have programs been cancelled and revisited after the advancement of technology and changing of the political wind? The B-1 Lancer Bomber case in point.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            The Rockwell International B-1A, was FASTER and eventually GOT CANCELLED. The Uprated B-1B Lancer, is SLOWER “Resurrected” Version of the “A”. There are ALWAY’S Exceptions to the RULE. Like the General Dynamics F-16XL, with had the Potential of being a High-Speed Light Bomber/Heavy Strike Aircraft…

          • Curtis Conway

            We should have built the XLs. A stealthier version today would be a real performer. Super-cruise!

          • PolicyWonk

            The B-1A was cancelled when the advances in Soviet radar and missile technologies made it clear that the likelihood of surviving a mission (or getting to the target at all) was deemed *very* poor.

            This is when the Carter Administration (in concert with Lockheed) invested in what became the F-117 (Stealth).

            The B1-B became an earth-hugging/under-the-radar bomber after the Reagan Administration went on their massive buying spree.

          • PolicyWonk

            Thanks, I am aware of this.

            The (relatively) cheap, simple, obvious, and massively lethal options are usually the first to get axed. Yet here we are recovering from an economic disaster, and the budget isn’t what it used to be.

            Plus – the concentration on the immediate problems (i.e. terrorism) altered the priorities w/r/t to where funds were invested. Hence – simple (low-risk) and massively effective platforms with massive firepower and mobility are the common sense approach.

            Unfortunately – the common sense approach is the first thing to drop. If common sense prevailed, we wouldn’t be stuck with overpriced/low value platforms such as what is called LCS (to offer one example).

          • Curtis Conway

            “Common Sense” . . . more Large Deck Amphibious Aviation Platforms like LHA-6 with a bunch of F-35Bs on board? That can happen.

            We need to invest in a VSTOlSTOVL AEW&C platform. That could happen rather quickly.

            A REAL multi-warfare frigate and yes it will cost $1 Billion. Two for the price of a DDG-51 looks pretty good.

            Why does it not? The powers that be have determined is not in their best interest. What about the nation and its defense? Multiple smaller very capable platforms that have that multi-warfare diversity can go more places and do more things at once.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            At NEARLY “THREE” Times the Cost of the (SCS-75 design) and STILL CAN’T perform the SAME Function. NO MATTER how many times you SPIN-IT…

          • Curtis Conway

            Not in today’s dollars it ain’t.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            ~$3,4-BILLION for ONE “America” class, vs. ~$1.7-BILLION for ONE “SCS-75 Design”. STILL NOT A COST SAVING SOLUTION…

          • Curtis Conway

            The whole idea is to study, design and prototype a concept. Once built and tested the operational proving effort begins which can be a very synergistic effort. The final design requirements are folded in and manufacturing base will respond to the RFQ. Competition is good and keeps the cost down. Multiple manufacturers should be identified with the winner getting the lions share and the competition reoccurs on a regular basis to keep costs down the quality high. The power generation system on Zumwalt is THE test platform until unit #3 is out which will have all the latest write ups folded in, then it takes over. These new systems are rolled into the new constructs so we can maximize efficiencies in use of the proven technology, maintenance and operations training schools, and logistical support in the fleet which will grow slowly with demand, which can be projected and staged.

            The energy related systems are a pre-requisit e for the introduction of electron-centric bullets (Directed Energy & Railgun to an extent) going into the fleet. I’m assuming all the EMP hardening is factored in as well. Increased use of Photonics should be the direction of growth, and where the emphasis lies. Hopefully the Lockheed Martin fussion device proves out one day and we are even better off than having nukes.

            When looking at the hull we really need to see this beast in every operational environment and for extended periods of time. Telemetry, and data recording had better be wired in these ships. I remember the first time we took our 963 hull with 3,000 more tons on it into the Arctic for weeks. The HTs could barely weld fast enough just to keep us afloat. Tumble home needs a long look in every kind of weather, and operational environment. Then there is the systems. I’m assuming the AMDR will go on board and it will be the big antenna so this will be a huge generator for tracking data where ever they steam. It’s got the hull mounted sonar dome and its sticking WAY out front on one of the quietest hulls we can build. This should be a very good ASW platform. Too bad we don’t have a surface launched version of that winged torpedo that will be dropped by the P-8A sitting on a slow initiation booster in a long Strike length VLS cell. The Tumble Home Bow design is sported on a new frigate design (FFG-500). If the operational data looks good in the next years then the FFG-500 concept should get a good look for prototype and possible production.

            In my humble opinion we should be truncating every 3rd or 4th DDG-51 Flt III, rotating between the yards, and building two FFGs for the same dime (minus GFE costs of course) using as much of the DDG-51 Flt III equipment as can be fit in the National Security Cutter hull to the tune of a couple of dozen at least until our numbers get back up. The AMDR 9-module radar will be small, light (relatively) and provide the same coverage and support of the SPY-1A. The Legacy DDG-51s should be upgraded to BL 9 IAMD as rapidly as possible. That buys us the most capability the fastest. The frigates (NOT the LCS/FF as it is current or projected to be currently) with a whole slew of ESSM and directed energy, they can take the place of some of the DDG-51 Escorts of CSGs and ARGS so the DDGs can go do other things. This would be a good escort for any high value unit too. If we put a decent sonar on it (or some of them) we can do many other things with it too. If the engine room and that MRG can handle another LM2500 (one/shaft) then we should consider an SQS-53 sonar on the bow, and make an ASW version in numbers. Towed and Variable Depth sonar on board using the LCS ASW package permanently installed and off we go.

            Just my 2ȼ.

        • JohnQTaxPayer66

          The LCS has its place. But only one hull design, 20 in the class, Minesweeper that can double up and handle on lighter surface warfare duties in the Gulf, the med, etc. We need an affordable FFG if we want to even talk about getting a replacement CG on the table.

          • Curtis Conway

            THAT we agree on 100%, and it has been so for about the last decade and a half, except . . . I’m still looking for LCS/FF’s place. Mine Countermeasures is a good place, except that mission module doesn’t look so good right now.

  • SchrodingersCatBob

    A family of ships should work. The key will be minimizing the number of long range radars needed in a force. Probably 2 for redundancy. If the rest of the ships have good horizon search radar, they could still provide coverage against sea skimming threats that need more assets. I would think (with no analysis) that a large air defense command ship with a long range radar paired with a medium ship with a second SPY radar and small VLS could provide targeting to possibly 2 similarly sized ships that sacrifice the radar for more firepower. Using VLS these ships could also support surface and strike missions, easily tailoring their load out in port for the mission. I would suspect that it is more economic Micah per cell to put larger launchers on a few ships than a lot of small ones, but they could be used a missile carriers too. More likely, I think ASW will always have relatively short detection ranges and require more vessels than what is needed for area air defense.

    • Curtis Conway

      “A family of ships should work. The key will be minimizing the number of long range radars needed in a force.”

      The same positive aspects of your idea for Hull Mechanical & Equipment (HM&E) on the family of combatant hulls applies to the combat system. THAT is what AMDR is all about. Common boxes, logistical support (spares), service schools, and that software that provides all the outstanding capability to the radar if it has 9-modules (smaller vessels), 37-modules (DDG-51 Flt III), or larger installation (69-modules).

  • bobbymike34

    The Navy needs hypersonic offensive strike and prompt global range strike on all future ships. In addition, something like a converted LHA with about 500 missiles able to launch well outside Chinese IRBM ranges to hit time critical targets with conventional boost-glide type hyper-accurate warheads.

  • Secundius

    SecDef just announced on Breaking News. That BOTH freedom and Independence may go back to Original 52 Ship Hull’s class plan…

  • Pingback: Do I Need Building Regulations For Decking | edging - gardenfencing()

  • Pingback: Why Choose the Littoral Combat Ship? Because it is the Best Option()

  • Pingback: Why Choose the Littoral Combat Ship? Because it is the Best Option | i-can-help.net()

  • Bridgette

    Go NAVY!! 🙂

  • Bull Jones

    Two words: Naval Gunnery. P.dark a decent eight inch gun, or two, on our next cruiser. Nuclear is also a great idea.

    • TooTall7

      I’m in total agreement. An electro magnetic cannon could (theoretically) lob eight inch ordinance into the forbidden city itself…from San Francisco! It’s high time the navy brings back the gun cruiser (updated of course). Right now (excepting the Zumwalt class destroyer: already under the knife in congressional appropriations) the navy is capable of supporting marine operations with no more than three inch naval gunfire. Such is essentially worthless. Currently the navy has all of it’s eggs in one basket: airpower!

    • αεσν ακτινοβόλο

      A gun with a range of a few miles os useless when your enemy has supersonic missiles with a range of hundreds of miles.

      • Bull Jones

        Hardly! Middles cost millions, shells thousands. And, for shore bombardment and point fire they are more effective.