Comments?
Flattop follies: navy cuts back on carriers
By Peter Brookes (bio)

Tell a Friend
Printer Friendly
Font [+]
Font [–]
Check this: After cutting the number of active aircraft carriers from 12 to 11 last year, the Navy is now requesting Congress’ permission to go down from 11 flattops to 10 for the years 2012 to 2015.

It gets worse.

Maintenance required on nuclear-powered carriers means one ship is always in overhaul in the yards - so we’d actually only have nine carriers available for those years. And some fear that the drop to a 10-carrier force would wind up being permanent.

Look: Carriers are vital to our defense needs - the Navy deployed a second carrier this week to Iran’s vicinity as what Defense Secretary Robert Gates called a “reminder.” Scanning all the potential flashpoints around the world, it’s not at all clear that we have enough flattops to meet current - and potential - wartime needs now.

How did we get to this point? Basically, the Navy brass are in a bind: The budget is tight, programs are behind schedule and they’re trying to avoid sinking the fleet’s total of battle-force ships below today’s 279 hulls.

So the Navy asked Congress to waive current law, which requires 11 carriers to meet wartime needs. (And that minimum was 12 active carriers until last year. . . )

This dispensation would let the Navy retire CVN-65 Enterprise, which at age 50 is past its service life, three years before CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford joins the fleet.

The admirals want to prevent new shortfalls in their shipbuilding budget by avoiding a $2.2 billion price tag to keep Enterprise “operational” (on paper, anyway) to meet the letter of the law.

Fact is, we need balance in our armed forces to meet a range of challenges, from terrorism to major-power wars. The carrier’s combat-strike capability is going to be a key element of that force.

And while the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan (and other anti-terror ops) don’t always need the punch of a carrier group’s ships, planes and submarines daily, other threats would.

It’s troubling that, like our ground forces, the carrier fleet is also stretched thin. Navy brass already have difficulty meeting the need for carriers. What if another major crisis, such as a serious dust-up in the Taiwan Strait between powerhouse China and its rival Taiwan, comes across our bow?

Considering China’s military buildup, you can bet that we’ll need several (at least) carrier groups to deal with People’s Liberation Army’s navy and air force.

If the Korean peninsula goes up in flames and a million North Korean soldiers pour over the border, we’ll need lots of carriers to support South Korea and the nearly 30,000 US GIs and airmen stationed there.

Not to mention Russia, another (re)emerging major power, which recently announced plans to build a carrier fleet of its own in support of its growing global interests.

Carriers are also handy tools of (gunboat) diplomacy. They provide US policymakers with 90,000 tons of deployable, difficult-to-ignore, cold-steel persuasion, as evidenced by the recent deployment near Iran.

Without firing a single shot, the presence of 4.5 acres of floating, sovereign US territory off the coast has given more than one foreign leader pause. At the onset of a crisis, the first words a president often utters are: “Where are the carriers?”

A failure to adequately maintain our carrier fleet will embolden potential adversaries. More than one historically great naval power became a shadow of its former self - much to its detriment.

Given the challenges we face, how can this nation not afford to maintain a fleet of at least 12 carriers? Remember: Even in a high-tech warfare world, quantity has a quality all its own.


Where are the carriers?
USS Kitty Hawk finaly had a 5 day lib in Hong Kong. Hoo Rah.
This article is fairly recent, and the budget was the focus. A rob peter to pay paul question.
end

Its just a portent to dark days to come if we get an anti-military Democrat in the White house. either one will embark on another gut the military campaign, that we don't and can't afford to have done to us. But what the hell all those people who want them can't be wrong...... RIGHT?

quote:

How did we get to this point? Basically, the Navy brass are in a bind: The budget is tight, programs are behind schedule and they’re trying to avoid sinking the fleet’s total of battle-force ships below today’s 279 hulls.

Agree with JPope, its going to get much worse if the Dems control the WH and Congress...may end up with an 8 carrier fleet.

Eight carriers.....Sgt_Schlappy we are VERY OPTIMISTIC aren't we. If the D*MN Democrats REALLY had their way we WOULD NOT have any CARRIERS. Or for that matter "NO NAVY" or "NO MILITARY"!

I only have one question for all those "SO-CALLED POLITICIANS" in Washington, DC - "Who is REALLY In - Charge"! Can anyone really make a decision without someone or some group critizing it? "I realize you can not please everyone, but can anyone agree that our military is called upon time and time again to do a job, and THEY ALWAYS DO IT WITH LITTLE OR NO COMPLAINTS"! When the going gets tough, The TOUGH GET GOING - The MILITARY is called upon to take care of it! Can these POLITICIANS in Washington, DC understand that? Probably NOT, since MOST of THEM NEVER SERVED! What a concept, "PUT SOMEONE ELSE IN HARMS WAY, BUT WHEN IT WAS TIME FOR YOU TO BE THERE - YOU BAILED OUT OR CAME UP WITH SOME LAME EXCUSE OF WHY YOU COULD NOT DO YOUR AMERICAN DUTY"! It is EASY to tell someone else to put their BUTT on the line. But when it was time for (THEM) to where were they? Why can't everyone be like Pat Tillman? He did not care about money, prestidge or image. "He is a TRUE American HERO and LEGEND"!

GOOD MORNING ALL
USS Kitty Hawk, last of the conventional powered CV is off to the Decommissioning. Made thier last overseas port call in HONG KONG>
The crew, some 5000, according to the press, had 5 days liberty.
Also, the Battle Group came into the harbor alongside. A great show of US Carrier power.
If the article shows anything, it seems like we are in for a reduced level of ships on line. The rest of the CVs are all CVNs correct?
If so, then the mothballing or setting aside of the USS Nimitz, oldest of the lot, is just the start. Once the reduction nose gets under the tent, the Dems, or the Reductionists,,, will never cease to push for more reductions.
The call for 2 carriers, just recently, in the Gulf of Hormuz, showed the anxiety of these reductionists folks,they had a hissy fit. 2 IN THE GULF, WHAT IS GOING ON....
Iran, China, are literally worlds apart, in seagoing distance. We need Pacific, Indian Ocean, Atlantic, Carribean, Meditteranean, and the Various Littoral gulfs; task forces, just to maintain the deterrence of piracy of oil and material shipping.
Watching the Rueters shipping web sites, shows a daily watch of the piracy taking place in the Singapore Straits, the Close In areas around the various Pacific Island straits, which are being monitored and patrolled by COASTIES and the Brits. Our USN guys have the control and command function, as well as board and search functions. THe shippers depend on instant calls and response. Without the CVNs close by, with the attendant refueling, replen, ships, this effort makes the piracy possible. Our lifeline of materials, oil and fuels comes thru these straits. So, a reduction in the total fleet strength, regardless of DOD Dollar Stringency is not a good move.
end.