Quote:
Originally Posted by Rufus Shinra
Consider that Russian submarines don't have much of the same missions as the US', they aren't trying to patrol all the oceans en masse at all times, so the patrol length is probably quite shorter. As for allies, that would require a sustainable diplomatic posture ensuring reciprocal loyalty, which, to use an euphemism, isn't exactly the trend taken at the moment by the civilian leadership in the US.
The size of the economies matter, and keep in mind that the US isn't in a shiny situation either, economically-speaking. Infrastructure is in a very had state, governmental healthcare spending is still growing without result, the educational system is increasingly dependent on foreign-born students to fill the needs for STEM graduates, the base industry lacks competitiveness and the management is infamous for its short-sightedness (Boeing, for example). I'm not saying that the US is going to implode à la USSR, but IMO, these military ambitions are becoming increasingly unsustainable due to internal tensions, disengagement from allies thanks to US diplomatic choices and pressure from China to push for higher defence spending.
Going for a frigate/destroyer navy would seriously reduce the costs while keeping capabilities pretty similar. After all, from what I understand, the US hasn't produced as many missiles for its ships as it has VLS cells in the USN. The AB on their own have roughly 6 500 cells (more if you count the ESSM in quad packs), and I kinda doubt they've produced as many Tomahawk, SM-2/3/6, ASROC and ESSM. Then there are the Tico.
|
Russian submarines (and their Soviet predecessors) had (and still have) much the same missions (with 90 day patrols and the like) but they have (and had) smaller crews due to higher automation, you can see how it works in all areas from tactical to navigation to engineering.
The best current example would be comparing the larger Yasen-M with ~85 strong crew to RN's Astute class with it's ~98 strong crew to Virginias with ~135 strong crew.
Incidentally smaller crews and higher automation also allowed better crew comforts ie earlier use of individual bunks, recreational zones and so on.
Sustainability of the global ambitions is a valid but ultimately separate from the fleet composition question, ie the politicians make this sort of decisions and then Naval planners build around it.
I think that this is again the wrong way to go, I think the core difference between European FFGs and USN DDGs is not the size or class of the ship but the level of automation, which drives the large USN crews in general. So your objectives (a higher number of smaller crews using the same manpower pool) could be obtained that way but you would need to break institutional inertia for this, like it happened with say the rifle ammo.