+- Rogue-Nation Discussion Board (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: History and Old Mystery (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=109)
+--- Forum: Military Matters and Misteps (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=112)
+--- Thread: Navy's illogical evolution (/showthread.php?tid=2846)
Navy's illogical evolution - FCD - 06-10-2025
The other day I read some article which was talking about a Navy frigate. I wondered...what is the difference between a frigate and a destroyer? Then I got to wondering about naval ship sizes in general. The gist of the one article I was reading was how a Navy frigate outgrew its utility. Now, I've talked about this theme related to the military (in general) here before. The theme is, the military just can't do anything small; everything they do has to be huge. Never was this theme more true when talking about US Navy ships. I'll cut to the chase here and describe what I'm talking about, then circle back to this part.
As part of my research, I looked at modern day ships as well has ship sizes throughout naval history. Almost without exception, the following progression happens every single time. ...
The Navy will build a small(er), highly efficient, and very effective ship, and then they will "improve" them. The "new and improved" ship will be bigger, less efficient and less effective. Over time, the same type of ship will grow so large and become so inefficient that it can no longer even be called that class of ship any longer and has to be re-classified as the next larger class above it. So, frigates grow, and grow, and get heavier and slower, until they can no longer be called "frigates" anymore and have be called "destroyers". Destroyers will grow, and grow, until they can no longer be called destroyers and have to be called "cruisers". And so on, and so on. If you look at the history of the Navy, this happens every time. The problem becomes when a frigate (for example) becomes too large to be called a frigate, and now has to be called a destroyer, it is not effective as a frigate and it is not effective as a destroyer. They're just not effective at anything. Same for destroyers, and cruisers.
Where I got off on this tangent was thinking about how the US Navy doesn't really have any good brown/green water ships; they're all so big they have to be blue water boats. So, what happens when a brown/green water threat shows up? (the most likely threat, btw). The Littoral Combat Ship (designed to address this issue) has been a catastrophic failure. They will be retired before they ever see service (they're THAT bad)! There is a huge gap right now between a 'coastal patrol boat' and a frigate (the next larger ship). Yet, every other navy on the planet is bristling with patrol boats. Yes, this is the US Coast Guard's area of responsibility but the USCG is not set up to fight a war, unlike the Navy.
Destroyers too are the same way. The primary function of a destroyer is to protect the fleet. But destroyers today have become so big they're now called missile cruisers, and while they might be capable of defending the fleet against other ships (sort of), they're very little deterrent to aircraft, particularly swarmed aircraft like say drones.
Yes, if you look, you will still see names like 'frigate' and 'destroyer', but if you look at the evolution of these ships over time, they have all gotten progressively bigger to the point they no longer serve their intended role. A missile cruiser, for example, is most effective against land based targets which doesn't have anything to do with protecting the fleet. And then I suppose we have to ask, what is a "fleet" today? Well, predominantly aircraft carriers now. So, now aircraft carriers are pretty much left to defend themselves.
I really wonder what would happen if we were to get into a full blown war with another large naval power? I fear we wouldn't fare as well as our military brass is telling Congress (when requesting funding). If the mix of ships in the Navy is wrong, then naval power of the nation is at risk. All great big, expensive, floating targets.
Lastly, remember it wasn't some awesome superpower with a great big, expensive, technically advanced military which toppled the twin WTC towers on 9-11. No, it was a handful of guys with box cutters and (4) unarmed airliners. The point here being, it's not the great big, expensive, enemy who does the most damage; it's the little guy you don't see coming. Just ask Putin, the guy who just lost 1/3 of his entire nuclear capable air force to less than a half dozen well timed strikes with weapons which you can buy at Best-Buy for a few hundred bucks. Oh, and it wasn't some super massive force which just about sank the entire US Navy on Dec. 7th 1941 either.
But hey, we have drones right?? Heh, yeah, great big, expensive, ones which are too big to be called drones, so they're called UAV's. (I've been saying this for years, but it doesn't appear anyone is listening).
We're fighting a war against an adversary who doesn't exist anymore. A ghost.
RE: Navy's illogical evolution - F2d5thCav - 06-11-2025
FCD,
As an aside, there was a lot of force transition following World War II. The army took decades to decide how to structure itself, and still goes through the drill every few years.
The big antitank guns of the war dropped out very quickly and were replaced by recoilless rifles, and later, guided missiles. Every infantryman could carry an antitank rocket. A decade of so later, helicopters gave the army a third dimension to combat.
The air force went through variation after variation of combat aircraft. IIRC, the "fighters" of today can carry a bomb load like that of a B-17, and they are physically huge compared to WWII fighters.
The Corps just reorganized itself after decades of being prepared for heavy conventional combat.
And the navy, yeah, somehow "frigates" became the new fair haired child of the fleet; the terms "destroyer escort" and "cruiser" (both light and heavy) somehow became obsolete. Also note almost no warships today carry significant armor plate. My take on that is the navy considers them expendable ... not good for the crews.
We caught Germany's disease after the war -- "size queen fixation".
RE: Navy's illogical evolution - 727Sky - 06-11-2025
I have heard some outlandish figures on how many ships China can build for every one ship we build at a small fraction of the cost it cost America for a ship. No $14,000 coffee makers in China for ships and aircraft.
All ships built in China have to be built to a duel purpose such as reinforced to be able to transport a tank if the ship is ferry size while others can all be logistics and troop carriers.
Hopefully if we go to war with China maybe we will not hesitate to take out China's unbelievable ship building and other military production facilities. China is planning on building 3 nuclear subs a year and their new nuclear powered aircraft carrier is getting close to sea trials..
Back during WW2 we could plan and build an aircraft and have it flying in 6 months.. Now it takes several years and once delivered it needs to be fixed over and over again (big bucks) until finally it works as it was supposed to in the beginning but now it is obsolete so the process must start all over again ??!!
The military industrial complex with a few suppliers was a big mistake IMO.
Skip to the 2:06 mark for a new way of winning a war.
RE: Navy's illogical evolution - 727Sky - 06-11-2025
RE: Navy's illogical evolution - FCD - 06-11-2025
The really disturbing part of all this is just how expensive these vulnerable craft are. It's one thing if you're going to make boat loads of smaller expendable craft which can be built in a couple weeks. But it's a whole other thing to be building these giant floating targets which cost billions of dollars and take years if not decades to build and commission.
Like throwing gold bars off the Titanic.
RE: Navy's illogical evolution - 727Sky - 06-12-2025
Another 4 billion dollar gold plated boondoggle ? DDGX with each missile that cost more than a nice big house on a lake and golf course !!
RE: Navy's illogical evolution - 727Sky - 06-12-2025
And it does not cost a fortune .... because it is not of the MIC
RE: Navy's illogical evolution - FCD - 06-12-2025
(06-12-2025, 06:12 AM)727Sky Wrote: Another 4 billion dollar gold plated boondoggle ? DDGX with each missile that cost more than a nice big house on a lake and golf course !!
Stuff like this just makes me want to scream!
Stealth? Can someone explain to me why we're wasting even a single dollar on stealth technology for ships? No matter how stealthy you make something, it will never be invisible. It's a freaking ship for cripes sakes. Stealth might make the radar signature smaller, but it's not going to make it invisible to radar...not ever! Plus, stealth only works at certain angles; it doesn't work from all angles, so what's the point? This is a classic example of, yes, a "boondoggle"!
Secondly, this DDGX class boat is supposedly built around a 40MW power source. Without knowing anything else, you can already know it's going to be chocked full of expensive electronic systems (aka, $$$$$$$$$$$$).
Couple these two things together, and add in the fact that hypersonic weapons are essentially impossible to defend against and what do you get? Great big, expensive, floating target, just like I said in the OP.
Here we go again! Wasn't the Zumwalt and the LCS a big enough failure for you, Navy???? Apparently not, because now you're really going for the top booby prize with this one!
(06-12-2025, 08:52 AM)727Sky Wrote: And it does not cost a fortune .... because it is not of the MIC
On a serious note; this is encouraging.
However, my sarcastic side says the MIC will try everything in their power to derail this technology until it becomes 10x bigger, and 25x more expensive!