Are you talking about the PRC? I thought they didn't have a lot of submarines and relatively little Naval capability.
The last battleship the USA had (USS Iowa, BB-61) was ordered in 1939, finished and paid for in 1943, and was decommissioned and turned into a museum in 1990. So the short answer is we aren't spending money on battleships.
I think weslinder might've been using "battleships" as more of a general term to refer to combat military vessels than to a specific class.
China, Iran, and North Korea (and soon Venezuela) all have the small diesel-electric subs that can get into torpedo range without being detected by sonar, and are one of the biggest threats to a battleship. (A medium range missile is an even bigger threat, but among our potential enemies, only the PRC and maybe North Korea have those.) Few big ships and little Naval capacity aren't the same thing. China seems to be spending money smarter than we are. It's just like the idea that for all the money we've spent on the F-22 (not a bad plane) and F-35 (a dog and generally a waste of money), I'd argue that we've done more to establish 21st century air superiority with the Predator drone.
No it means the military you build today will fight a war of tomorrow. No one had the foresight to think about what if the HUMVEE would be used to transport on enemy ground. They thought the next war would be USSR driving across Europe. We cannot make the same mistake in reverse. I think the real money savings can come from shrinking the military in personnel and increase the $$$ spent per person for high tech equipment.
Modern destroyers aren't much different than battleships as far as this conversation goes. They are still big targets that seem to have little usefulness for a 21st century war.
You seem to know quite a bit about a century we are only 10 years into. thats worse than someone in 1910 thinking they would know how the first Iraq war would work.
I would start by closing bases in Japan, Korea, Germany, etc, unless those countries agree to pay 100% of the cost of the base. If those countries want US to protect them, let them pay for it.
I think we have to keep Japan around unless we give them the right to have military in which case PRC would chit a brick.
OK, you're right. I don't know how wars will be fought in 2090. I also don't think we should be developing the technology for them. I do think we have a pretty good idea how wars will be fought in 2015, and do think we should ensure that we are able to fight them, if we can't learn to mind our own business around the world.
Surely Japanese have enough money to cover the cost of the bases, it would be cheaper than building a full military force.
The carriers allow us to be the global player. We send one of these groups into an area and everyone is pretty much on notice that we're ready to drop a hammer on someone. So I guess it depends what your goals are for US policy. If you want to have the pulse on things around the world and the ability to move relatively quickly then the carriers are probably pretty important. Maybe do a cost/benefit analysis of fixed bases vs carrier groups and evaluate what our goals are for projecting military power in potential problem areas.
They would never pay for that. You are living in fantasy land. They already buy our fighters which lowers the cost per unit.
We're the ones who want those bases there, not them. We use Germany as a stepping stone so to speak to refuel in between flights between here and Afghanistan.
Actually, they are far and away the most used ships the Navy has. They are also the smallest and least expensive blue water ships the Navy has. Drug interdiction, anti-piracy, any basic navy non-war function is carried out by the destroyers. The first American ship on the scene in Haiti was the USS Higgins, DDG-76. And in war as part of a Carrier Battle Group, they exist to serve as a picket for the big @ss carriers. They perform anti-submarine and anti surface defense, as they are relatively cheap and manned with a small compliment of sailors. Behind them are the aegis destroyers which prevent air attacks. Basically, eliminating destroyers would be the last step to turning the US Navy into a brown water, riverine Navy. If you want the USA to have nothing larger than a Zodiac, then eliminating the destroyers is a good idea. Every country that has a Navy has destroyers or frigates (the same thing).
Do we use Destroyers because they are the best tool for the job, or use them because we have them? It seems that 100-foot coast guard style boats would do better for fighting the drug trade (and I know they use them for that), and for anti-piracy. It also seems that Haiti would have been better served had a cargo ship been the first ship on scene. I certainly agree that they are necessary for carrier protection, but I don't think they'd offer much protection at all from a motivated, modern attack. To be fair, we have the missiles and submarines to do the same to anyone else's surface fleet.
