From the Armchair Admiral, quoting “Not-a-Dreadnought” Huntington:
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/
The application of naval power against the land requires of coarse [sic] an entirely different sort of Navy from that which existed during the struggles for sea supremacy. The basic weapons of the new Navy are those which make it possible to project naval power inland. Those appear to take primarily three forms:
1. carrier based naval air power, which will in the near future be capable of striking a thousand miles inland with atomic weapons;
2. fleet-based amphibious power, which can attack and seize shore targets, and which may, with the development of carrier based air lifts, make it possible to land ground combat troops far inland; and
3. naval artillery, which with the development of guided missiles will be able to bombard land objectives far removed from the coast.
The navy of the future will have to be organized around these basic weapons, and it is not Utopian to envision task forces with the primary mission of attacking, or seizing, objectives far inland through the application of these techniques.
National Policy and the Transoceanic Navy, Proceedings, May 1954, Samuel Huntington
So, we have this huge C4I thingamajiggie that has to leave Club Black Sea in 21 days, a Burke class destroyer with full Aegis weapons that also has to leave, right? Sometime long into the future we will have DDG1000′s, seven, or two.
No wonder commenters at Armchair Admiral are screaming for more Burke class destroyers!
Again, my question is this: is the Burke class destroyer USS McFaul, armed with missiles that can intercept SS-21′s 50 miles inland? Apparently they could be if they aren’t, if only the Top Brass would let go of their DD1000 dreams.
How far off am I here?
