Speaking of being risk adverse

Galrahn did not, and need not have, minced words his post Unintentionally Maintaining the Negative Stereotypes about the announced justification for cut backs in the DDG-1000 builds. Go read it and see how risk adverse the U.S. Navy seems to have gotten when it comes to the littorals.

It make you wonder why we call them warships...

And it might also help if some of our naval leaders actually read Captain Wayne Hughes book, Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat, especially the parts in the introduction (p.3) where he writes:

...the fundamental importance of missiles in littoral warfare was not given the attention it now deserves. With one exception, every missile attack against merchants or warships in naval history has been in coastal water.
***
The emergence of missile warfare in the narrow seas is the foremost reason why a revised edition is timely. ...The most instructive modern naval engagement for control of coastal regions have been fought by land, sea, and air forces acting in concert, with missiles as the principal weapons. Perhaps the navies of the world should no longer refer to "naval" tactics at all. It is more reasonable to think in terms of littoral tactics that include warships.

By the way, this edition of Fleet Tactics came out in 2000, over 8 years ago.

And, perhaps it is time to revisit what Captain Hughes says about the purpose of a navy (p. 9 of the introduction)where he writes:

...From the sea, it (3) guarantees safe delivery of goods and services ashore...

Those "goods and services" include Marines and soldiers and their sustainment through a forced assault necessary to influence event ashore...

And you don't get there with "chuck and duck" tactics...