By Dr. Ann Griffiths, 29 October 2024
Recently retired US Navy Admiral James Stavridis wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post. The
question he was addressing was: given that drones/uncrewed systems are changing naval
warfare, and are now powerful enough to sink a large ship, are large surface warships obsolete or
are they still essential? His reply was that surface ships are vulnerable, but they are not obsolete.
Stavridis notes that most of global trade travels by sea so there is still a need to protect these
ships and the sea lanes on which they travel. The future of naval warfare includes both --
uncrewed systems and surface fleets. Stavridis argues that navies need to evolve, and this
involves investing in both warships and innovative new systems. There’s an interesting article in
gCaptain, by John Konrad (“Are Ships Obsolete in an Age of Drones and Missiles? Admiral
Stavridis Says NO”) that discusses Stavridis’ article. (Note Konrad’s unflattering mention of
Canada: i.e., … “Surface warships will certainly be relevant for convoy protection, but the U.S.
lags behind China in shipbuilding pace. Allied efforts to expand naval fleets range from slow
progress (e.g., Australia, Japan, France) to near-utter failure (Canada, New Zealand, Denmark).”)
Are Ships Obsolete in an Age of Drones and Missiles? Admiral Stavridis Says NO
12 thoughts on “Are Large Warships Obsolete?”
Hello,
Considering the current state of missilery, it appears that the expeditionary deployment of large vessels is providing diminishing returns. Russia, China, and Iran can sink them, while other determined adversaries operating in their own littoral can harass them to the point of exhaustion.
Aircraft carriers with traditional air wings seem especially incapable of justifying their presence against such adversaries.
Regards
Hello Curious Civilian. You may be correct in the long term. Although “diminishing returns” as you say for crewed surface vessels are becoming redundant, they still serve a crucial purpose in today’s political atmosphere. The picture of a Ford class carrier task group coming over the horizon is still be a very scary proposition for any adversary in the long term for years to come. Canada’s CSC River class destroyer will be an integral part of any US armada in the future. I have sailed on Halifax class frigates within a US Carrier task group in the past and I can tell you from experience I was glad we have them! The new River class will be a formidable asset for Canada or any future task group coalition. The US can’t seem to wait to add one (or more) to their carrier groups! Will USVs be the wave of the future? Perhaps, in the future, but I would not bet the bank on it. A mixture of both seems to be more plausible. I tend to agree with Les Mader’s comments totally. Cheers!
Good morning Curious,
If large, crewed ships are so useless, please explain how UCVs would meet the requirement.
Criticizing is one thing, offering practical, alternate solutions is infinitely more valuable.
Ubique,
Les
Hello and thank you both,
I didn’t mention crewed vessels or UCVs, I think I wrote “expeditionary deployment of large vessels” and “Aircraft carriers with traditional air wings”.
What are they for? If the intent is to scare a group or country we deem adversaries, then which such groups can be adequately scared?
The large, industrially developed countries I mentioned do not fear these expeditionary groups. They are militarily capable of sinking them, and doing so is a political question, not a military technical one. Small groups like Ansarallah may not be technically capable of sinking a carrier battle group, but they’ve shown the ability to harass them, and almost exhaust their defenses.
So who are these deployments meant to scare?
That is what I mean by diminishing returns.
The River class will be a fine ship, I’m sure. But there’s the problem, it will be part of a US expeditionary armada. It doesn’t matter if it’s a Ford class, Trump class, Lake class or Harris class, it can sink.
Is it obsolete? Who am I to say? But it brings diminishing returns against adversaries that, like those I noted, are quite capable of denying it in their own littoral.
Regards
Good morning Curious,
You have carefully avoided answering the question. You criticize without offering solutions.
If not large vessels then what? How do we meet the requirement to deploy power (naval and other) beyond our own coasts?
Ubique,
Les
Hi Curious Civilian
I think the main purpose of a navy – certainly outside of wartime – is to secure control of maritime trade. A country with a navy can control which merchant ships pass through an area, and what they do. The navy can also protect merchant ships by making the cost of attacking them impossibly high for the attacker. Clearly we have seen some recent limits on the American navy’s ability to do this off the coast of Yemen and the Russian navy has failed to prevent Ukrainian trade through the Black Sea. But even if such limits are permanent – far from certain – there remain vast areas of the ocean where sending a naval ship is the only option to assert control short of sending a B2 bomber.
If western navies were to withdraw from expeditionary missions, one of two things would happen. Either nobody would control the seas, resulting in a collapse of global trade and the loss of most of the world’s wealth or some other state would begin to control them, thus becoming global hegemon and increasing their own wealth and power at the West’s expense. Indeed, I believe this is the main purpose of China’s naval expansion. Control of the seas in their region equates to control of the states in those seas through the threat of cutting off trade.
Very well said Michael.
Thank you.
Ubique,
Les
Hello again, Curious Civilian. With the end of open hostilities and the transition into the Cold War periods, the battle capabilities of multi-carrier formations became less important to the U.S. in comparison to global deterrence and the need to protect trans-Atlantic supply routes from Soviet submarines in order to deter open conflict breakout between the superpowers. In this context, the contemporary Carrier Strike Group (CSG) was born. Just in case you are unaware of what makes up just one USN Carrier Strike Group (CSG), here is a small sample: 1 X Nuclear Aircraft Carrier with up to 70-80 A/C of various types of squadrons (F-18 Super Hornets-F35Bs/AEW A/C & ASW Helicopters. These formations typically consist of one nuclear-powered ‘supercarrier’; well over 1100 feet long (335 meters) able to sustain at least 70-80 F18 Super-Hornet & F-35B aircraft, AEW Hawkeye & ASW helicopters on deck with crew complements of over 5000 personnel; at least two guided missile AAW/ASuW Ticonderoga class cruisers; at least two-three AAW/ASW Arleigh Burke class destroyers (Flt 11/111); anywhere from two to four ASW/AAW Frigates along with at least one supply AOR ship. Depending on the operation, they may also deploy with Amphibious Strike Groups (ASG-LHAs/LHDs) along with brigades of Marines and their equipment as well (sort of like a SG within the CSG). Great for Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief (HA/DR) as well. And let’s not forget what lies below. At least two SSN submarines lurking and searching for adversaries above or below, protecting the CSG. The USN currently maintains 11 of these CSGs. Two are tasked with training and certifying the Atlantic & Pacific fleets; five are based in Virginia with three based in California, and one CSG is always forward deployed to Japan. Kind of gives you that warm and fuzzy feeling doesn’t it? I believe the “intent” as you say CC, is to give others pause and not to scare. The CSGs can, have & will adapt to new AI technology and utilize future UAVs/USVs & UUVs to augment the Task Groups as we move forward. Don’t forget, The CSC River class Destroyers will also form their own Canadian TGs (when we have enough numbers to do so) with their own unmanned vehicles with future AI technology as well, and not just USN Strike Groups/Expeditionary Forces. Yes, any ship can sink. It’s how they are utilized with future AI technologies that will determine whether we sink or swim.
I kinda feel like with this article that history is repeating itself. I mean how many times have we heard UAVs will make manned aircraft obsolete? How many times have we heard that USCs make the carriers vulnerable? UCAVs USC & UUV have been around a very long time in some cases – in fact I think the first I heard of a UCAV type vehicle dated back to the 1980s.
While I agree USV & UAVs will take up certain roles currently filled by manned aircraft and ships I honestly can’t see in my life time any move away from manned platforms.
The reason I believe is simple – a human can make split second life or death situational decisions that an AI system right now cannot, AI and unmanned systems simply right now cannot exercise reason, judgement or discretion.
There’s also other reasons I think which go beyond combat if we take search and rescue, how does the UAV / USV respond to that?
Then there’s HA/DR missions, counter narcotics, anti piracy, etc. Now look at the legal side of the argument, if a foreign power forcibly comes onboard a gov-owned vessel technically it’s an act of war due to the flag status (UNCLOS). How do we go about the kidnap of a USC or downing a UAV?
Another key factor to manned warships is presence, a hostile state is more likely to take you seriously if you turn up off their coast with a aircraft carrier, frigate, destroyer or submarine than some small USC, indeed we know full well that this has been the case many times in the past and to ignore this lesson is well quite frankly concerning.
Overall however there’s a lot to consider. It’s not going to be an easy ride and I don’t think we will see the discontinuation of manned platforms in our life times which leads me to conclude that ,NO, large warships are not obsolete in general.
Hello all,
Michael, I quite agree that a navy protects shipping lanes, but protects them from whom?
All large economies in this world depend on fluid maritime trade. Ports are expanding everywhere to increase container transfer and processing of bulk and energy resources. Who is attacking what convoy? Somali pirates? Ok, does this require the US send an armada, to use David’s term. David, the carrier group you outline includes how many sailors? 10-20 thousand? Can local police actions by neighbouring countries provide security in the short term? Can belligerent groups be engaged politically for a long term resolution?
The point I and others make is that it is increasingly costly to send a large maritime force anywhere in the world to enforce a certain political arrangement. Houthi groups and others can acquire armament that makes our expeditionary forces less effective. In some cases these large forces become a liability, not an asset.
Les, you ask me for some solutions, presumably technical ones. I am saying that there aren’t any. The advantages previously provided by sending a carrier group or armada around the world are now in large part diminished. The US can hardly replenish its own missiles and ammunition. Forget broadsides, modern conflict shows layered salvos of different drones and missiles. A determined adversary will leak through and sink some of those 10-20 thousand sailors. I call this a diminishing return on the cost of deploying that $10 billion carrier group.
The solutions, Les, are being imposed on us. People we currently deem adversaries have as much a say as we do in world matters. The solutions (excluding nuclear exchange) are ultimately political, not military technical. Collectively, the West, primarily the anglophone-led countries, no longer have the technological and economic dominance to impose their political will on others. That is past and the West cannot rebuild it.
We will have to work within a new paradigm. Smaller fighting vessels will probably show better returns than large ones.
Regards to all
Good morning Curious,
There is so much to say about your post!
However, before I start, please define what you mean by smaller fighting vessels, both in terms of rough size/tonnage and the capabilities carried, that will offer a better return on investment.
Ubique,
Les
There’s much more navies do around the world than just war fighting. Large platforms have a place and that’s not going to change I don’t think in my life time.
Our navies protect merchant ships from both state and non-state actors – this has been the core role of the RN since its formation 478 years ago and remains a core function today. If you look at the RN right now, we have a Bay class LPD(A), some mine hunters and a FFG in the gulf. Why? This is to protect British shipping in the Persian gulf from Iran, it’s also the reason the USN is there.
Remember when the IRGC took on a US group in 1988 and that group took down almost the entire IRGC fleet? You simply couldn’t do that with a smaller less armed vessel and that action (praying mantis) required a CVN plus multiple large surface units.
So do you need a high end large platform in that area? Yes because that state actor has in the past used surface ships and also aircraft so it was a multi-layered threat. This is something a smaller ship like LCS would not be capable of doing simply because it doesn’t carry the weapons load out in quantity nor the sensors with the capability.
Do you need a CV or CVN in that area, well yes and no, it depends on the threat level. Right now it’s fairly low so not required but when Iran decides to kick off, having a CVN around helps keep them in check and again we have seen this in recent times.
The carrier itself provides area defense as well as AWACS assistance and this is something that may not be available via land-based aircraft all the time. This is also something drones cannot do right now either (it’s coming).
In areas like the Red Sea do we need a CVN? Again yes and no, we can simply keep swatting the drones and missiles from the sky but that expends a lot of treasure. The CVN offers a strike solution (and we have used it recently) this means we force the enemy to re think their time frames and areas of attack. It’s cheaper to deploy the carrier and have it on station than have aircraft deploy from land-based airfields and transit – just ask the British how costly the latter is.
The UK has been striking Houthi forces from Cyprus this is an expensive and politically sensitive option given the aircraft must transit Egyptian airspace to reach the target (which can be closed any time). You don’t have that problem with a CV on station. Same was true in Libya – we had to fly our aircraft to Italy and then into Libya again. It was incredibly expensive whereas the French just deployed the CDG off the coast and they are closer to Libya than we were!
With regards to anti piracy in the gulf of Aden, do we need high end platforms? Again that’s a yes and no answer they are handy to have in theatre. They have much longer endurance than a LCS or smaller warship, they offer sensor capability that can detect track and engage threats further out than smaller warships. Indeed since the formation of CTF in the gulf of Aden pirate attacks have all but ceased and that’s thanks mainly to the bigger FFG DDG and CG types deployed. Similarly in the Malaccan straight the same is true after Thailand and Singapore routinely deploy FFGs to that stretch the number of attacks have decreased significantly.
On the other side, in HADR roles large platforms have been very handy. Indeed in my own profession in 2013 it was handy to have lusty the carrier off the Philippines she was there participating in COUGAR13 however; typhoon haiyan swung in and devastated the islands. She along with others directly impacted and helped save lives by delivering aid, medical supplies and giving hospital treatment. We simply couldn’t have done it with a smaller vessel nor could we have done it with drones – her helos were so invaluable her size saved lives directly.
We saw the same thing with RFA Argus in Sierra Leone during the ebola outbreak, we have seen it in the Caribbean during hurricane season too.
There is a place for large vessels.