No More DDG-1000

It seems the hugely expensive DDG-1000/DD(X)/Zumwalt class destroyer is going to have its procurement halted at 2. You can see Robert Farley and the Danger Room for more on this, but I think it's a smart decision. The ship is an impressive weapons platform in search of a serious rationale at a time when the focus of the Navy's procurement budget needs to be on acquiring a sufficient number of ships to execute its core mission. It's only a shame that so much money has been sunk into this project already, money that could have been spent on more practical endeavors.

Comments

"I think it's a smart decision."

Matt, in cases like this, I think it would be better if you just rested content with posting useful links to the commentators or analysts who study this stuff for a living, instead of pretending that you know something worth heeding about the Navy, its core missions and its needs.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 15, 2008 9:21 AM

"when the focus of the Navy's procurement budget needs to be on acquiring a sufficient number of ships to execute its core mission."

Posted by Which is? | July 15, 2008 9:25 AM

Matt, in cases like this, I think it would be better if you just rested content with posting useful links to the commentators or analysts who study this stuff for a living, instead of pretending that you know something worth heeding about the Navy, its core missions and its needs.

I was wondering what a 20-something, Harvard-philosophy major knew about the intersection of Naval Architecture and National Security Strategy.

Posted by calipygian | July 15, 2008 9:43 AM

About as much or more as any well educated, well informed citizen with a general interest in military, foreign, and budgetary affairs?

At least Matt's rational enough to not start off comments with an unsupported personal smear.

The math behind the concepts "the cold war is over", and "we're running gigantic deficits," and "stupifyingly expensive ships are not cost effective for low-intensity warfare" is not all that challenging.

The navy needs enough hulls in the water to support the army's boots on the ground in its current and projected deployments. Every procurement argument has to address that priority.

Posted by Berken | July 15, 2008 9:56 AM

Other than ensuring the nuclear deterrent, which takes a few Ohio-class submarines, it's hard to see what legitimate purpose a big Navy serves. True, the carriers are great for whacking third-world countries, but why would any sane person want to do that? I know people who worry about the looming menace of piracy, but that is of course nonsense.

No one knows what the attack subs are even for nowadays.

The Navy is in fact worried that the fools at the top will start asking what it all for: they have no answers. Well, various kinds of bullshit of course, but that's what consultants are for.

Posted by gcochran | July 15, 2008 10:11 AM

Other than ensuring the nuclear deterrent, which takes a few Ohio-class submarines, it's hard to see what legitimate purpose a big Navy serves. True, the carriers are great for whacking third-world countries, but why would any sane person want to do that? I know people who worry about the looming menace of piracy, but that is of course nonsense.

No one knows what the attack subs are even for nowadays.

The Navy is in fact worried that the fools at the top will start asking what it all for: they have no answers. Well, various kinds of bullshit of course, but that's what consultants are for.

Posted by gcochran | July 15, 2008 10:12 AM

Matt you have an ego problem to match Rush Limbaughs!!!

Posted by bluesmoke | July 15, 2008 10:13 AM

Anyone who doesn't want to live in a country where civilians set military policy will find plenty of other options out there in the world. To suggest that a civilian has no right to an opinion on military matters is perfectly repugnant. As for the Zumwalt, even the Navy doesn't seem so hot for it any more.

Posted by Craig | July 15, 2008 10:24 AM

gcochran, I guess you are a lot more sure than I am that we will NEVER need the Navy to deter a challenge from any other major power.
I'm not saying we need the DDG 1000 (although it sounds cool) but China's rise is a contingency that I think it's worth keeping a big navy around for, even though I am largely optimistic about the chances for peace with China.

Posted by jamie | July 15, 2008 10:27 AM

What does John "Straight Balk" McCain have to say about it? Maybe he'll use the savings to help with the cost of some of the 200,000 additional troops he says he'll enlist, but can't say how he'll pay for. Of course, we'll lose at least part of the savings in a slimy air tanker deal.

Posted by LFC | July 15, 2008 10:28 AM

"it's hard to see what legitimate purpose a big Navy serves. -- gcochran "

Given how much the US imports and exports, securing sea lines of communication is pretty vital. Counter-piracy likewise.

Posted by wiredog | July 15, 2008 10:34 AM

Wow you guys are harsh. Matt's opinion represents the common view in Washington, and his last sentence is widely assumed not because it is true, but because of the way the Navy has approached the Zumwalt class of ships with the Navy's own marketing.

Gene Taylor is no mans fool, if he was to name DDG-1001 either USS Philadelphia, USS Long Beach, or even USS Dreadnought, the name would be appropriate as each name represents a historical reference to when a new ship design was built in preperation for an emerging naval era. In many ways, as 2 technology demonstrators instead of an enormously expensive class of warships, the DDG-1000 is exactly that.

Posted by Galrahn | July 15, 2008 10:36 AM

About as much or more as any well educated, well informed citizen with a general interest in military, foreign, and budgetary affairs?

At least Matt's rational enough to not start off comments with an unsupported personal smear.

The math behind the concepts "the cold war is over", and "we're running gigantic deficits," and "stupifyingly expensive ships are not cost effective for low-intensity warfare" is not all that challenging.

Hear, hear! Matt is a generalist. He excells at providing snapshot analysis of a wide range of stuff. You want expertise in a narrow field, go elsewhere. It's not as if Matt didn't provide two links to other sites for more in-depth discussion.

Posted by Bragan | July 15, 2008 10:44 AM

"Matt you have an ego problem to match Rush Limbaughs!!!"

But, I hope, less of an appetite for illegal drugs."

Posted by dave heasman | July 15, 2008 11:00 AM

Apparently Dan Kervick hasn't noticed that the "core mission" of the ship in question is gunboat diplomacy. This is not a destroyer that hunts submarines- you don't use a 14,000 ton ship to hunt submarines. This is, in fact, not a destroyer at all, but a heavy cruiser.

Informed readers, of course, will remember that the heavy cruiser has always been a mistake. At Jutland four of them blew up and sank under moderate shelling. When the Hood met the Bismark it was all over for the Hood. The heavy cruiser was always too expensive to produce in quantities sufficient for the cruiser role, and too lightly armored to survive an encounter with battleships.

Fortunately, there is now no credible threat to the high seas domination of the US Navy. Yay us! Now we can spend our money on any damn fool thing with no fear of the consequences!

This story is actually a ringing endorsement of the abilities of the Congress. Originally the Navy said we needed at least 30 of these ships to ensure our safety. When the Congress questioned this, why, lo and behold, it turned out that six or seven might be sufficient. When the Congress hires an expert to ask the questions, it turns out that one or two will be enough for now.

Looks to me like Matt's philosophy degree has enabled him to pierce the fog of war that has addled the brains of the admirals.

Posted by serial catowner | July 15, 2008 11:01 AM

I think we should all veer wildly between points such as trying to sound like we have much more grand expertise on subjects such as the Air Force and the Navy than we do, and pretending to be astonishingly naive that honest, capable, and impartial experts will lead us to a brighter future if we dumb citizens would just get out of the way and let them make whichever weapons systems they like at our expense.

Posted by El Cid | July 15, 2008 11:01 AM

"Matt you have an ego problem to match Rush Limbaughs!!!"

But, I hope, less of an appetite for illegal drugs."

Posted by dave heasman | July 15, 2008 11:03 AM

I guess the larger meta question is, What is the role of the know-it-all generalist in today's specialized world where there is really no more room for Rennaissance men? I know this question is more appropriate for one of Matt's "Ask a Blog Person" forums, but for some reason this topic has raised that question in me.

And with that, I'll sit down, shut up and take Gahlran's smackdown like a man.

Posted by calipygian | July 15, 2008 11:15 AM

I guess the larger meta question is, What is the role of the know-it-all generalist in today's specialized world where there is really no more room for Rennaissance men? I know this question is more appropriate for one of Matt's "Ask a Blog Person" forums, but for some reason this topic has raised that question in me.

And with that, I'll sit down, shut up and take Gahlran's smackdown like a man.

Posted by calipygian | July 15, 2008 11:19 AM

But it's pretty.

Posted by Bat of Moon | July 15, 2008 11:30 AM

The trolls on this blog are only getting worse. And Craig is totally right; in the US, civilians set military policy. If you don't like it, there are alternatives. And I encourage you to take advantage of them.

Posted by NBarnes | July 15, 2008 12:15 PM

"I guess the larger meta question is, What is the role of the know-it-all generalist in today's specialized world where there is really no more room for Rennaissance men?"

Depends who you ask. I think the concept of "Rennaissance men" has evolved into "Rennaissance networks", they range from the generalists (like Matt), the interested citizens (you, being a politically active, informed citizen, in this case ex-navy), to the specialists whom take various forms and disseminate through various mediums. Believe it or not, in the new media model, you are one of the Rennaissance men calipygian.

The meta question you ask is very much alive in the form of everyone (Congress, services, DoD, and think tanks) asking the question of the role of new media for the national security debate. Everyone recognizes the role of new media in politics and entertainment, but for national defense the evolution is new to only the last few fiscal year discussions.

I am aware of the discussion because I'm one of several milbloggers who has been involved in these discussions with each side.

The reason the DDG-1000 discussion raises the question in you is because you probably recognize this is the first time new media has made a significant impact on a major defense issue for the Navy. Unlike the tanker decisions and other defense related shifts, this one has never been a hot political topic widely discussed online. You can verify easy enough via Google, which will lead you to only a handful of specialized, Naval centric blogs. This issue wasn't politically driven by new media, it was professionally driven by new media. In the national security debate, this is new.

Posted by Galrahn | July 15, 2008 12:30 PM

The math behind the concepts "the cold war is over", and "we're running gigantic deficits," and "stupifyingly expensive ships are not cost effective for low-intensity warfare" is not all that challenging.
The navy needs enough hulls in the water to support the army's boots on the ground in its current and projected deployments. Every procurement argument has to address that priority.
Posted by Berken

Spare me the people that are the political opposite of George Bush, but who also believe that "9/11 changed everything!!". Who then claim all previous national security roles and missions of the military magically disappeared, save supporting "boots on the ground" in two chickenshit small insurgency wars (that in 7 years have produced the casualties equivalent to one day's fighting in a real, major war).

The Navy's #1 mission is blue water supremacy against any potential foe (air-sea, sub interdiction of threats). It's nuclear strategic mission is eliminating sub and land nuclear assets, and now plays a antimissile defense role.

After those Primaries, it has missions like to (1)deter to keep sea lanes open, restore open sea lanes - against all credible threats. Which includes key Straits like Hormuz, Malacca, Gibraltar. (2)Conduct inland carrier war. (3)Support Marine deployment. (4)Enforce Law of the Seas - counter-piracy, WMD&drug smuggling.

The Air Force is similar. It's primary mission is to establish air superiority, then air supremacy against any foe. Then to take out strategic assets, critical infrastructure nodes of an enemy with conventional or nuclear bombing - depending on the nature of the war.

And lots of side missions like the Navy. Supporting "boots on the ground" in very small wars is on the list, but is in no way the main mission.

******************
gcochran - Other than ensuring the nuclear deterrent, which takes a few Ohio-class submarines, it's hard to see what legitimate purpose a big Navy serves........I know people who worry about the looming menace of piracy, but that is of course nonsense.
No one knows what the attack subs are even for nowadays.

1. You only broadcast your ignorance if you think the Navy's only "legitimate role" is launching nuke missiles, if need be.
2. You state the menace of piracy is nonsense. Really?
3. You state that no one knows what attack subs are for these days...not even the 45 nations that deploy them for various missions?

Posted by chris ford | July 15, 2008 1:32 PM

gcochran, one purpose the Navy does serve is keeping sea lanes open. Having a big, dominant navy means that no country can conduct a blockade without American permission.

The best argument against the DDG-1000 is that the US navy is already absurdly dominant. Your warships have a tonnage equal to the next seventeen navies on earth combined; amazingly, that's not an exaggeration. For added fun, American warships are generally the most advanced ships afloat/submerged. China? Please. Again without exaggeration, your country already has the naval strength to fight every other navy on earth simultaneously, with good odds of winning.

Full disclosure: I do not do this stuff for a living, and did not even go to Harvard. War is too important to be left to the Admirals.

Posted by Ian | July 15, 2008 1:36 PM

I would not want to be on this ship when it starts rolling on high seas, especially not on its deck.

Posted by allbetsareoff | July 15, 2008 1:38 PM

WRT Gahlran's comments:

Can you imagine what it would have been like if blogs were around with people like Herman Kahn, Albert Wholstetter and Curtis LeMay as they firmed up the coalescing US nuclear strategy that eventually became the SIOP almost 50 years ago?

Posted by calipygian | July 15, 2008 3:45 PM

If only "experts" can have policy opinions, then exactly how is democracy supposed to work?

Posted by AlanC9 | July 15, 2008 3:53 PM

Keeping sea lanes open?

When was the last time they were closed?

I mean, open sea lanes - not the Straits of Hormuz, or the fucking Suez Canal.

This is bullshit.

Anybody who doesn't understand that none of this crap is meant to be USED - that it's only purpose is to be PAID FOR by the taxpayers - is an idiot.

There is absolutely NO credible threat to the US Navy anywhere in the world now - and China won't be a threat (except for some of its nicely quiet subs that apparently can sneak up very near our biggest carriers without being detected) for the next twenty years - if then.

Any major naval battle will end up turning into a nuclear war if the US, China and/or Russia are involved. For anybody else, it will be the US vs whoever - and over in a day, even if the US never buys another ship for fifty years.

Chris Ford thinks a big Navy means he has a big dick - that's it in a nutshell, to coin a phrase.

"America has a Big Navy! I'm an American! My dick is bigger than yours!"

Retards.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 15, 2008 5:25 PM

This is the same dickhead Hack who claims his beloved Iranian mullahs can block the Strait of Hormuz and there is NOTHING, NOTHING!! we can do to stop them.

To which the USA and USAF say - they can try - but only for a few weeks at most.

And we have blocked and in turn unblocked access to sea lanes by Germans, Japs, pirates many times. The price to losing control of the sea can be starvation of troops needing sea resupply (the Japs on several islands we simply cut off until the last cannibal IJF starved out), starvation of civilians - Germans in WWI.

Nor would a naval battle with the revanchist Russians or Chinese necessarily lead to nuclear war. But the best thing is to stay so strong they don't even think of trying..

And if you want to call having a big dick code for having military and strategic experience, you can call me "Mr Big Dick", Hack, just like you called big, black Rufus in the shower stalls at Club Fed when you bent over like the puk you are.

Posted by chris ford | July 15, 2008 6:33 PM

I think that canning the ship is a good idea.

These ships are something like 3x as expensive as the Burkes (DDG-51), and so, for that money, you can get more coverage and redundancy.

The Zumwalts may be capable, but they can't be in two places at once, while two Burkes can.

Posted by Matthew Saroff | July 15, 2008 9:09 PM

I think that canning the ship is a good idea.

These ships are something like 3x as expensive as the Burkes (DDG-51), and so, for that money, you can get more coverage and redundancy.

The Zumwalts may be capable, but they can't be in two places at once, while two Burkes can.

Posted by Matthew Saroff | July 15, 2008 9:12 PM

I think that canning the ship is a good idea.

These ships are something like 3x as expensive as the Burkes (DDG-51), and so, for that money, you can get more coverage and redundancy.

The Zumwalts may be capable, but they can't be in two places at once, while two Burkes can.

Posted by Matthew Saroff | July 15, 2008 9:15 PM

(I'm going to pretend that this is a civil exchange of ideas)

Hack: To add to what Chris Ford was saying, sea lane closure can win wars outright by destroying the enemy's economy. For example, imagine if WWII German submarines had closed the Atlantic to merchant ships. For that matter, the American submarine campaign against Japan was a major contributing cause of the fall of Japan; by war's end they couldn't even run ferries between their home islands.

Sea control also gives diplomatic leverage. In the 60's, a blockade stopped the Soviets from supplying nuclear weapons to Cuba. More recently, North Korean weapons exports have been blocked by intercepting their shipments on the high seas.

I agree that the USN is already far larger than it needs to be to secure sea lanes. However, I don't think any navy can keep sea lanes open where shipping travels within missile range of shore. Please don't attack Iran.

Posted by Ian | July 16, 2008 5:09 PM

Serial Catowner,

The examples you cite are not of heavy cruisers, rather Battle Cruisers, which deliberately sacrificed armor protection for speed. We know how that turned out. These are not Battle Cruisers. If you check out the specs of the Zumwalt class of ships, you will see that these have dipersal systems to prvent the type of catastrophic detonation that destroyed the Hood. I love the idea that the Navy's Admirals are so fogged in that they need a liberal blogger to show them the light. It tells me that you know little of the military and those serving as naval officers. My brother, a senior Navy officer, would probably fart in your general direction and laugh at Matthew.

Posted by The Opinionator | July 17, 2008 9:29 PM