Navy News, news from Iraq - Navy Times

NYT call for Navy cutbacks sparks online buzz

A Sunday editorial in the New York Times called for drastic cutbacks in the Navy’s planned fleet, an argument that set bloggers buzzing — as did the piece’s errors of fact.

In its editorial, “How to pay for a 21st century military,” the Times recommended the Navy eliminate one carrier strike group; cancel its planned Zumwalt-class destroyers; cancel all its Virginia-class submarines; and cancel the Marine Corps’ V-22 Osprey program. Its other recommendations included eliminating the Air Force’s F-22 Raptor and ending the missile defense program, part of which includes Navy warships.

The newspaper also called for more littoral combat ships, assuming follow-on copies to the first ship, the Freedom, also will cost about $600 million. Canceling the Zumwalts and the Virginias will free up shipbuilding money for more LCSs, the Times wrote.

But the editorial mischaracterized several details about the Navy’s programs. It criticized the Zumwalt as “a stealthy blue water combat ship designed to fight the kind of mid-ocean battles no other nation is preparing to wage,” although the Zumwalt is actually designed to operate close to shore. Its radar system is designed to find targets in a cluttered littoral environment, and its Advanced Gun Systems are designed to provide fire support to Marines ashore. As designed, the ship can’t use its guns against surface targets on the ocean, and although details are hazy about the ship’s exact missile capabilities, it isn’t designed to fight other warships with surface-to-surface attacks.

The Times also reported that 10 “unneeded” Virginia-class subs have been built — actually, only five have been built; the sixth, the New Mexico, was christened Dec. 13. The newspaper said the submarine “was modeled on the Cold War-era Seawolf,” although the Virginias were designed for littoral and special operations. The editorial recommended upgrading the Navy’s existing fleet of Los Angeles-class boats to take the missions of the Virginias.

“Here’s why you don’t want journalism majors deciding things that need to be left to the engineers,” wrote the submarine blogger Bubblehead, one of several bloggers who criticized the Times’ editorial.

“Sure, you could keep the old subs operating by reducing the engineering safety margin, but I’m sure The New York Times wouldn’t write an understanding editorial if some old LA-class boat suffers a hull crack and loss of crew sometime in the 2020s,” Bubblehead wrote.

Another blogger, Neptunus Lex, wrote that he thought the Times didn’t appreciate the complexities involved with solving the Navy’s problems.

“Honestly, you could pull half a dozen people out of line at the DMV and get a more sensibly written editorial,” he wrote. “Can’t anybody here play this game?”

Ward Caroll, in a post on DefenseTech, agreed.

“It would be nice if The Grey Lady took the time to actually flesh out what’s wrong,” he wrote. “In accurately identifying problems, they might have actually assisted the Obama White House as it attempts to get the five-sided beast under control. As it is, framing things poorly is worse than not framing them at all.”

Not every commentator in the Navy blogosphere rejected the Times editorial.

In a post titled “Heart’s in the right place,” blogger Mike Burleson concurred with several of the Times’ recommendations. For example, eliminating a carrier strike group “would release 5,000-6,000 trained personnel for duties elsewhere,” he wrote. “Also, why do we need thousands of warplanes considering the enhanced capabilities precision bombs like [Joint Direct Attack Munition] give them, not to mention the rising use of pilot-less drones?”