Claims

As we discuss ship and aircraft design, we often repeat statements we hear and read from various sources and then proceed to make arguments to support or refute those statements.  We typically pick and choose specific features of the given weapon system or platform that we favor and use those specifics to batter detractors into submission.  That’s fine.  It’s fun and it keeps blogs in business.  However, if we’re interested in serious discussions and want to actually learn rather than just engage in arguments and try to chalk up “wins”, it’s vitally important to recognize where the various claims that we rely on come from.  The claim is only as good as its source – that’s a variant of the venerable programming adage, Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO).

 

Regarding weapon system claims,

 

-       the only reliable source of claims is from authenticated combat reports.

-       the second best source of claims is from rigorous, systematic, statistically based, realistic testing such as that conducted by DOT&E.

-       the most common source of claims is manufacturers.

-       the least reliable source of claims is US Navy program managers and spokesmen.

-       blogs vary widely in the reliability of their claims but the good ones are far more accurate than the Navy’s official claims.

 

 

Here’s some examples of wildly exaggerated claims that never panned out:

 

• VDS – The LCS VDS was going to revolutionize anti-submarine warfare – ignoring the fact that VDS systems have been around for decades – and yet the LCS ASW function has been officially terminated.
• Modular warships – Modularity was going to revolutionize warfare, allowing ships to convert from one function to another in a matter of hours.  Of course, the Navy abandoned that when it was found to be impractical.
• Distributed lethality – Small, isolated, forward deployed ships with a handful of weapons would wreak havoc on enemy navies.  We’ve discussed the folly of that claim and the reality of war waits patiently to further emphasize the folly.
• Anti- Torpedo System – The anti-torpedo system was a proven system developed as an urgent need program and was claimed to provide protection for carriers.  It was installed on a carrier and quickly shown to be a complete failure and removed from service.
• Amphibious Escorts – The Navy claimed to have discovered that escorted amphibious ships would be more survivable than unescorted ships;  a fact known since the earliest sailing days.
• IRST – The Hornet’s IRST was going to revolutionize aerial warfare, again ignoring the fact that it has been around for decades.
• Networks – Networks are claimed to allow us to compensate for lack of firepower and quantity.  Reality has demonstrated, however, that we can’t even keep track of giant, hulking cargo ships, reefs, and Iranian territorial waters.
• Lasers – Fully functional, instantaneously destructive lasers have been claimed to be just around the corner … and have been for several decades, now.
• Rail Guns – These were going to revolutionize warfare by causing the unstoppable, instantaneous destruction of any enemy asset, at near zero cost.  The Navy has terminated the rail gun effort.
• Zumwalt AGS – The Advanced Gun System was going to allow the Navy to provide pinpoint naval firepower 70-100 miles inland.  Of course, the AGS was cancelled after its one-of-a-kind munition reached the $1M per round cost and it failed to come anywhere near its claimed range or accuracy.

 

 

Keep the source and credibility of claims firmly in mind as you evaluate and discuss various systems.