USN theorists wrote about that as the Streetfighter doctrine. However due to the poor execution, led to the LCS debacle.
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
USN theorists wrote about that as the Streetfighter doctrine. However due to the poor execution, led to the LCS debacle.
It was indeed. But US Navy was still only in top 4 till Russo-Japanese war, and only in top-3 till the later stages of the WW1.
Capital ships are so called precisely because they are sort of investment you can't make on a whim.
On the other hand, capital ships are something what cannot be offset by numbers of other types of units.
Even WW2 United States started all capital ship building programs before it's entry, classes started later(Midway, Montana) either failed to materialize, or entered service long after they were of any use in ww2.
To put it bluntly, it's the thing about them - it's almost universally too late to start capital ship construction when you feel the need...
UK economy was crumbling in 1919, when RN was cut. In 1914 it definitely wasn't.
Naval war against Britain in 1914 for US was just unwinnable. Much more so than even for Kaiserliche Marine.
I don't know where you're getting your 'facts' from
In To Shining Sea: A History of the United States Navy, 1775-1998 By Stephen Howarth on p216 he wrote
"At that time when the British Empire was at its height most Britons accepted as a matter of course that a big navy was of itself a good thing: it was both an emblem and agent of power. So they were astonished when after the Civil War, Americans virtually destroyed the U.S. fleet - and not only did so with apparent alacrity, but also, it seemed deliberately neglected what was left. For some reason, the United States appeared to be willfully throwing away the chance of power abroad. To imperial Britons such perverse behavior was mystifying"
The US did not start to rebuild it's Navy till 1881 and it wasn't till Theodore Roosevelt was President in 1901 (i.e. the 20th Century) that things started to step up a gear.
According to The U.S. Navy: A History (3rd ed.) by Nathan Miller, the U.S. Navy was twelfth place in 1870 jumping to fifth place among the world's navies at the start of the 20th Century.
Alfred Thayer Mahan himself is quoted as hoping "that our Navy will be brought at least equal to that of Germany" in 1911 and in 1912 he said "The US navy should be second only to that of Great Britain"
In 1911 the Royal Navy was still supreme on the seas , followed by the Imperial German Navy with the Japanese Imperial Navy in 3rd place. The British ship yards had enough capacity to build not only for the Royal Navy but also export to Japan and South American Navies, furthermore, beyond 'British GDP' the Malay Federation, Australia and New Zealand all funded capital ships as part of imperial defence.
As we're really here to discuss the PLA Navy a pre-eminent Naval power isn't just about GDP but technical capability, a supply chain and ship building capacity. The Chinese appear to fully understand this and have methodically created their own technical capability, a supply chain and pretty amazing build capacity and then have ridden the GDP growth wave.
At the beginning of the 20th Century the British response to it's naval challengers was the aptly named Dreadnaught, still waiting to see what the USN is going to come up with at the start of the 21st to address the Chinese challenge!
The Zumwalt!
antiterror13
Brigadier
I'd be surprised if B-21 would enter service before 2030 ... there is a good chance that he next generation of Chinese bomber would enter service first. Because the US don't really need it as the existing bombers (B-52, B-1B and B-2) are more than capable doing anything
As far as strategic bomber remains part of nuclear warfighting capability first and foremost, unlikely.
These have all been posted long, long ago ... - Status