May 26, 2010
Destroying the Destroyer
The destroyer has always been a central part of naval warfare ever since its inception. A fast vessel with a respectable amount of firepower and extensive ground support/anti-submarine capability. In today’s world, the destroyer is even more critical. Larger guided missile ships just don’t work anymore. If you don’t believe me see the Soviet missile cruiser Kirov. The ship was phenomenal. Nuclear powered, carried plenty of missiles. Overall, great design. Problem: cost. The Kirov and her sister ships simply cost too much to operate and thus there only 4 of them in existence. To put this into perspective, the United States currently operates 10 Nimitz class aircraft carriers. The destroyer can fulfill the role Kirov was designed to at a much lower cost and with greater ship versatility. The Kirov couldn’t hunt submarines, a destroyer can. The Kirov couldn’t move close to land and support troops, a destroyer can. The list goes on. The point is very simple: destroyers are the vanguards of modern naval combat. They serve as the base of the fleet that actually does battle. Aircraft carriers cede power to their strike wings and missile cruisers such as the Kirov or the US Ticonderoga class are too big to deploy in large numbers. On top of this, the United States stopped manufacturing Ticonderoga class missile cruisers for the same reasons the USSR stopped making Kirovs, they are simply too expensive to build and maintain, and thy’re also nearly impossible to upgrade. Simply, the destroyer is king.
Currently, the United States is operating just over 50 Arleigh Burke class destroyers, with a few more slated for production. Here’s the itch: these ships are getting old. The first flight of these vessels is already going in for modernization, a long and expensive process, and the last flight won’t be going in until around 2016. By that time, the first flight will need modernization, or they might be ready for retirement. Already, the Arleigh Burke class has the longest production run of any ship in the navy, and with the retirement of the USS Kearsage, it’s also the only class of destroyer the US is currently fielding. As the ships age, the Navy as already come up with a destroyer to pick up the slack: the Zumwalt Class. Now, these things are sleek, fast, heavily armed, and excel at shore fire support, something badly needed in the current war on terror. However, in keeping with the flow of this article, there is a problem here too. We’re ordering three of them. Three. Down from twelve.
I understand that the Zumwalt class isn’t exactly a cheap date, costing just over 3 billion bucks a pop, but we have to look at the implications this could have on national defense. Modernizing the Arleigh Burkes just isn’t a long term solutions, and it’s a losing battle no matter how you cut it. The Zumwalt has many features, several of them in the fundamental design of the ship, that make every other destroyer on Earth obsolete. It’s only a matter of time before other nations, such as Russia, China, and India develop their own counter to the Zumwalt destroyer, also more advanced than the Arleigh Burkes. And I guarantee they’ll have more than three.
Even with a valiant moderinization effort directed at the Arleigh Burke class of destroyer, the hulls will eventually wear out and the boats will have to be retired. This leaves, at current budget constraints, three Zumwalt destroyers to cover the entire navy. I see a problem here. 12 are enough to stagger by on for a year…maybe. Split them up Atlantic and Pacific, use them to keep our precious carriers safe, but even that’s an enormous stretch and huge risk to the safety of our navy and by extension, our country.
The Zumwalt destroyer is a leap forward in naval technology and it’s foolish of the budget office to turn this leap into more of a tiptoe with penny pinching budget worries. The cost of a single Zumwalt is less than two percent of what’s been thrown into the economy in the forms of TARP and stimulus funding. The United States has a proud history of storming into new technological frontiers, and that is going to become more expensive as technology advances, there’s no way around it. However, if the US is to maintain its position as a naval superpower, it cannot afford to fall behind in either numbers or technology. Even a new class, commissioned after the Zumwalt, with some of the improvements and a lower price tag, similar to the new Virginia class submarines derived from the USS Seawolf, would help the US stay ahead technologically while allowing it to maintain a sizable fleet at a reasonable costNaval power will become more critical as China and India move forward and Russia tries to reassert itself as a global player. The US must be ready to play ball on these new, competitive seas. Simply, three destroyers aren’t going to cut it. Naval power will become more critical as China and India move forward and Russia tries to reassert itself as a global player. The US must be ready to play ball on these new, competitive seas. Simply, three destroyers aren’t going to cut it, no matter how good they are.
Tl;dr: Destroyers are critical to naval warfare. US destroyers are getting old, replacements are inadequate. The US must move forward and accept the cost of the Zumwalt class, or create a strong alternative, as naval power becomes important in global power brokering once more.
Nova Americana 