This is interesting. The Navy is thinking about retiring the Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS George Washington sometime in the next decade — roughly 25-years early, Defense News is reporting.
The move, designed to save money, would make the GW, commissioned in 1992 and originally slated to serve for 50-years, the very first Nimitz class carrier to be decommissioned.
According to Defense News’ Chris Cavas, the ship wouldn’t receive the mid-life refueling of her nuclear reactors that’s scheduled for 2016. She’d then serve until her current supply of nuclear fuel runs out — which is expected to happen sometime between 2016 and 2021.
Navy officials are also apparently considering disbanding one of the sea service’s 10 carrier air wings to coincide with the retirement of the GW — both moves would cut thousands of personnel positions and save equal sums of cash.
The Navy would need Congress’ permission to retire the GW early, since this would reduce the Navy’s big deck carrier force to 10 ships and U.S. law mandates an 11-carrier Navy. The currently has ten Nimitz class carriers along with the 50-year old USS Enterprise. The Enterprise will be replaced by the brand new USS Gerald R. Ford in 2015.
While the Navy isn’t confirming this, Chris Cavas is incredibly well sourced and knows the service and its ships better than just about anyone I know. It’s more than safe to assume this is under active consideration at the Pentagon as officials there try to shave $464 billion from DoD budgets over the next decade.
The other thing that’s safe to assume is that the Navy will get plenty of pushback both internally and externally on this idea. Nobody needs to be told that carriers are the backbone of the Navy and one of the keys to U.S.’ military dominance. Reducing the carrier fleet by just one ship will undoubtedly alarm some people given the fact that China is fielding its first, albeit refurbished carrier, and reportedly set to commission two brand new carriers in the coming years.
Remember this fact that Cavas points out:
Congress raised its collective ire only a few years ago when the service asked for permission to temporarily drop to a 10-ship fleet during the time when the Enterprise is decommissioned in 2013 and the Ford is commissioned in 2016. But when the request was resubmitted in an off-election year, virtually no objections were raised.
One veteran observer opined that the Navy could cancel or defer the refueling overhaul, but leave a specific request to decommission the ship until after the election.
Click here for the story.
{ 129 comments… read them below or add one }
This would be great tragedy if it occurred. I hope this is just the Navy's way of getting more funding by threatening to cut a fundamental instrument of our defense.
If they really wanted to save even more money, I am sure China would be willing to forgive some debt in exchange for the carrier…
Shhh…don't give them any ideas.
O god no if we sold them that you would see 20 more ***** versions of it and there’s more technolighy in one aircraft carrier than china has all there military
Parking the GW at Norfolk in a Ready Reserve with a few years left on her reactors would not be the worst decision that could be made. The skeleton crew could be employed also for technology updates. This should be a rotational assignment for all Nimitz carriers, before their mid-life refueling.
Do re really need 10+ carriers? I am sure if we cut it down to 6-8, we would still have more than enough power projection than the rest of the world not to mention saving tons of money (which we need to do right now).
Don't forget that out of three carriers only one is on station. One is in transit and one is in refit. Take the three oceans and you get 3×3=9 carriers minimum. US strategy calls for being able to fight two major wars and a contingency at any one time so in the theater of a major war there would be two carriers making it 3×3+2=11 carriers minimum to be able to fulfill our strategic plans with out "abandoning" another theater.
We need to abandon the two war model IMO, either that or actually commit to the model and back it up with an actual capability to do so. As it stands we have enough aircraft and ships to do so, we lack enough personnel to actually make it happen, specifically in the Army and to a lesser extent the Marines (which have become the second land army because of our inability to fight and occupy two nations at once).
Iraq and Afghanistan, I think, were a very relevant proof of concept for our military. They have shown us that the concept doesn't work, at least not in our current state of affairs.
The other issue is that in wartime, waiting a few years to refuel a reactor is not an option. In WW2 putting a carrier back out to sea could potentially make or break a battle (as at Midway, with the USS Yorktown). With CVN refueling, you can't exactly put a ship out to sea on short notice?
"US strategy calls for being able to fight two major wars and a contingency at any one time"
Yeah – that's been the strategy. The Cold War is over- we don't really have to worry about the Soviets invading the EU while China invades Korea anymore.
The EU's don't seem to worry much about being invaded- and frankly a CV wasn't really necessary to defend Munich- so there's a cut.
The Norks can't feed themselves- we have bases in S.K – so a CV isn't as mandatory as it was in 1950.
We really can do a lot of cutting- Putin and his buddies want to fleece Russia dry and retire to London and the Chinese want to create a Chinese Steven Jobs- not Napoleon.
Cut cut cut.
You obviously have no clue how the world works.
You obviously have no clue that we are borrowing a trillion dollars from China- and that THAT is far more damaging to our security than 1-2 carriers.
Did you notice that we didn't sell F-16's to Taiwan? Because we didn't want to piss off China. One day China might decide to take back Taiwan- and we will let them- CV's or no.
Who exactly will invade who but for 1-2 carriers?
Ummm, No
National Defense is the main purpose of the federal government, yet it seems to be the first place that is effected by budget cuts. In today's absolutely crazy world we should never jeopardize our safety.
National Security is always the *last* place looked to for budget cuts. It's practically sacrosanct.
"Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Benjamin Franklin
I think there are some things we should jeopardize our safety for.
Yeah. Lets cut welfare and other government fat feeding the lazy of society before we cut out military!
Carriers don't vote. Those waiting for a check at the first of the month do….
He's still got a point. I'm willing to bet we'd save as much or more cutting welfare as cutting defense……
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
To give your trolling some fodder: It's either *A* purpose, or the fourth purpose.
Why couldn't we lease it to a close ally that would really want a carrier, like the Australians. Help train a crew, let them pick up maintenance costs, least it for a dollar a year. They already have FA-18s, will be getting F-35s. Similar to Lend-Lease, and we have a close ally with a carrier in the South Pacific.
Or the British. They already have plans for F-35Cs and are already in the process of building conventional take off carriers.
The Aussies couldn't man it and Britain's shipbuilding industry is hurting bad enough that they won't buy a carrier from abroad. They want to cancel one of the two they've already ordered. Both of those countries are trying to cut spending like the US, too. The only countries with the ability and desire to field such a carrier are China, Russia, France, and India. Of those, only France and India are serious options for a lease (for obvious reasons), and a Nimitz might even be more than either of them could handle.
France and India are the only countries we'd consider leasing the GW to, and I don't see that happening. The US will mothball it in the reserve fleet and–if the unlikely war with China ever happens–it will be reactivated and sent in with the rest, just like the Korean War.
I'm not happy to see this happening, but I understand it.
Think Aus wants a carrier that takes 5,000 people to crew and is unavailable for a year or two every few years? That means Aus would need three carriers. Then you need an appropriate surface navy to protect these units.
Soo…where is Aus going to buy this navy?
I could see where Australia might think the core of their defense should be naval. The only way to get to Australia is by air or sea. They are our best ally, we should just give them three and let them pay to maintain them.
I don't see where they could rustle up the manpower for three CVNs without totally stripping their fleet barebones. Or to fund them. In FY '93 the projected annual cost per carrier was ~200 million…can Aus afford 600M/year to maintain three carriers?
The other issue is that Australia is steadfastly anti-nuclear… apart from a small research reactor near Sydney, there are no other nuclear installations in the country – much less the RAN. Given the debate that appeared a short while ago when there was a push from some quarters to develop an Australian nuclear power industry – combined with the media scare-mongering following the recent events in Japan – it would be political suicide for the current government to introduce nuclear warships.
Australia's defense budget is, comparatively, tiny. it occupies 1.8% of their GDP and a increase of 1-1.5% could find the necessary resources to purchase the CVNs, As for the Anti-Nuclear Status the current government has conceded that the most likely platform for Australia's First major nuclear reactor is a naval, in the form of an aircraft carrier. The RAN has begun the procurement of 3 Air warfare destroyers which would mos likely become an escort with the only truly operation Collins class submarine becoming support. the only major issue is, as has been said, Defense recruitment in Australia is at an all time low, and is not in the position to change.
I think a complete rethinking of our strategy is needed. We need to stop being the world's policeman. I'd rather we be used as the local cop walking the local beat but carrying a huge stick. Cut our carriers to around 7-8, keep them working around our shorelines and only send them out to the Med or Persian Gulf or wherever when needed. If we keep our forces closer to home we will be giving our servicemen and women more time at home. This will not impact their training schedules, if you want to run a two week exercise, well you're already at homeport so the logistics of such a thing is greatly simplified and reduced in cost. So just put to sea, do your training, and come back.
It is good to see that the preparedness genius of the early 1930's Congress is alive and well. It almost plowed us under when Germany and Japan arose, and now it will do the same as the Chinese Dragon arises.
7-8 carriers means three overseas ports with one carrier a pop, plus three in transit and two in refit. Or maybe 3/2/3…or if it's seven, 2/2/3 is more likely.
If we could move our carriers home bases and do refuelling in Europe or Japan or South Korea, it would put a CAG close to hotspots. However, it means those hulls would be vulnerable if unable to escape, and could be captured on the slips like the Union Navy at Norfolk Navy Shipyard.
according to ur brialliant idea, why even have carriers? and i know policing sucks, but who else is gonna do it? i know u guys will shoot back with dozens of naitions, but seriously, if teh US stopped "policing" will we just sit back and watch the world erupt in flames ( as tempting as it is since much of it hates us) and eventually slap our heads when the conflicts spread to the US, or
Oh- anyone know why its the GW and not the Nimitz or Ike?
I remember reading a few years ago that the Ike was a bit of a rat trap and that would be retired first- why one of the newer ones? Did they let rust eat her out?
According to the article it's because she's the next one up for refueling and modifications. Nimitiz and Ike just modernized and refueled so it doesn't make sense to retire those.
YEP…Iran threatens to patrol our Atlantic Coast… North Korea and Venezuela continue to spew anti-American rhetoric and develop untold nuclear capabilities…Time to cut our Air Craft Carriers, for sure! Better to spend all that money on Diversity Training, you see! Who cares whether we can protect our citizens and protect our vital national interests…right?
And look at the navies of those pathetic countries…I think we'll be just fine!
Iran off our coast? Venezuela spewing rhetoric?!?
ARMAGEDDON!
And look at the sorry state of our own Navy… What was it the GAO report said, 60% of surface ships are failing inspections and incapable of meeting mission requirements? Warships optimized at shooting down incoming but incapable of really doing damage in return? The fleet needs to be recapitalized
It feels like the Navy has become way too optimized for anti-surface missions and BMD, and might not necessarily be as capable as counter-attacking sea targets or long range air targets with ALCMs.
TLAMs and the standard family are basically the heart of the Navy's striking power.
Good job working the diversity training into your argument on threats, carriers, and costs.
Cause when an argument is already pretty bad, you might as well show your a bigot to add a little icing to the bad argument cake!
Quickly, weave in something about Kenya! Or is that too passe now that Trumpster let the air out of that balloon?
First question asked by our elected officials in a crisis: "Where are our aircraft carriers?" Enough said. Keep the carrier battle groups at full staffing.
Isn't Enterprise going to retire first?
Which means two carriers are on their way out, to be replaced by the Fords as they come online.
So we decommission the G.W. I am sure the Japanese would "love" losing that piece of soveriegn US territory while the Chinese navy gets ever stronger.
This is military thinkers trying to win a budget battle. Here's a way to save some money without cutting an entire carrier and flight group. You want to save money? Check your contracts and start enforcing penalties for late contracts and cut out the massive cost overruns on these contracts. They could save most of this money if they would have had the F-35 developed on the correct schedule and not go over the Nunn-McCurdy act with it.
We would still homeport a CVN there.
Well hell,
why don't we just lease one of the Nimitz class to the Euros (UK, etc) indefinitely,
park it in the Med near Italy or Greece (stationary floating runway), let them maintain it and launch all the anti-Libyan and Middle East peacekeeping mission they want off her decks…
(sarc)
There is actually a certain amount of validity to what you are sayng though. If the French and Brits wanted to go in on a joint venture aircraft carrier like they have discussed in the past, why don't they pay the mid-life overhaul and run it jointly instead of both building a pair of new carriers, they could built less new and still have a better ship. The Brits are buying the f-35c no instead of the f-35b anyways. I wouldn't give it to just anyone, but the Brits could lease it for a decade or 2.
Like the Greeks have cash?
So your saying turn over two functional A4W plants? FYI they are highly classified, no other nation has the capabilities our plants do. The french were the closest and they had to refuel retardedly fast and abandend the nuclear program. How about we dont turn our immensly complex naval nuclear reactors over even to our allies. Remember these are designed WAY differnt then commercial land based systems.
If we trust them with Tridents, then surely we trust them with a CVN. I always thought it was cost and manpower that kept the RN out of the business.
We spend a zillion dollars trying to develop a space plane or subspace ICBM that can hit any spot on earth in 2 hours. Meanwhile, we are cutting back on our ability to project boots on the ground power and lengthening the time required to get there.
Lets be real here, a Carrier does very little to project boots on the ground capability, aside from providing air support, now an amphib….
Alternatively, the carrier beats the snot out of the enemy while a ground force from Kuwait moves overland and takes the fight to the enemy.
If we fight an coastal power again, then the Marines will demonstrate that they are not ready for the new amphibious warfare of tomorrow. And more importantly, the Army does have a large supply of amphibious vehicles in conjunction with vessels carrying pre-positioned stocks, but without an efficient means of putting it on the ground it devolves things to the limited stocks of equipment that can be delivered in an LPH or LPD and shipped by helicopter and LCAC.
We should wargame it with say, Australia (or Japan, or Taiwan, but nerves might be touchy). What kind of beating does a CBG take if it tries to invade a largish country with modern anti-ship defenses and can throw an fully mechanized force at an amphibious force with a light mech tinge (to improve amphibious deployability) relying on airpower?
yup, reminds me of germanys v2 program…
The V-2s caused alot of havoc…..
If you wish to reduce the fleet as part of a strategy review fine, I hate to lose anything as critical as a carrier, but only do it if you decide you need fewer ships, not because you don't want to maintain them.To retire one of the new-ish ships of the class for cost only is a bit short sighted.
Yes you save more money now but end up with an older fleet. This is a problem as the oldest ships ie, the Nimitz, Ike, Vinson, Roosevelt and Lincoln will be due to retire before the GW would have been. (may have them a bit out of order)
Decide how many we need and keep what we need to reach that goal, don't bean count for the short term, it usually seems to cost more to adress in the future.
exactly
This is just window dressing….
Smart though…
None of the action moves would be for AT LEAST 5 Years…
More than ample time to reverse if the Economy picked up before then….
It would be ok to consider moves like these if we would resolve some of the needs. If we could get some closure with the Norks and bring the regime in Tehran to an end the need we go with them to some extent. As long as our foreign policy and national security moves are dependent on the UNSC agreeing to something I don' t see how we can scale back carriers.
In fairness, the majority of our "enemies" already have bases, distributed next door or "safely" away (in CENTCOM, forces in ME proper, plus bastions in Diego Garcia; in the Pacific, facilities in South Korea, Japan, with bastions in Guam, Hawaii and CONUS).
The carriers fill in the gaps between CENTCOM and east asia (namely Iran and AfPak). Losing one carrier wouldn't be so bad if we could turn around carriers faster (and maybe we could if America was at war). This will also free up money to get the Fords through.
I don't know if it's cost-effective to retire the Enterprise and the Nims early and replace them with Fords as they are built. Refuellings are expensive, but are they really that costly?
Old data from globalsecurity: (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/scn-cv.htm)
"Decommissioning and disposal costs to inactivate a Nimitz-class nuclear carrier is estimated at $750 million to $900 million, almost one-quarter the cost of procuring a new Nimitz-class carrier. These costs are normally funded in the Navy's operations and maintenance appropriation account. The nuclear carrier inactivation cost is approximately 20 times the cost estimated for the decommissioning and disposal of conventional carriers currently in the fleet."
That's pretty intense cost. The same site gives the annual cost in FY' 93 as ~235 plus ~40 more for "nuclear power". My guess is that they must be confident in the Fords enough that they feel that the Nims due for refuelling aren't needed; and that they can synchronize construction of the Fords with retirement of the Nims.
Along with other older primary source material: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/re…
Give a portion of our fleet, maybe three carriers, to Australia and let them pay to maintain it. They are our best ally and aircraft carriers are the perfect defensive strategy for them, since the only way to get to Australia is by air or sea. A larger Australian navy would also likely reduce piracy in the area. We may be nearing the end of the era of worrying about force projection and be more worried about defense anyway. It may only seem like America is weak because we are tied down in two wars, so this impression may not be valid after the end of American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What in the world suggests to you the Aussies want, can pay for, or could even supply crews for three Nimitz carriers?
As for force projection, it isn't an optional capacity for a superpower, it's a necessity. I think we can modestly reduce the carrier force, but nothing about the next 30 years says to me "Global Peace." Dwindling access to potable water, affordable sweet crude oil, and maybe even arable land could spell a time of radical destabilization coming.
It costs around a million to train a nuclear operator, nimitz class carriers have 500 nukes. You think Australia would be willing to do that, let alone the other 5K in service personel? Plus they'd have to develop the training program unless of course they agreed to ship there guys to the US for training. Which I guess could make us money.
most Aust ports are nuclear free so how & why should Aussies get such nuclear device?
Isn't Australia a nuclear-free nation?
I hope they make a new USS Enterprise by the end of the decade not a US Navy w/o the Enterprise.. I think the USS Nimitz itself would be retired first after the Enterprise since its the 2nd oldest carrier we have. I dont get to retire them before the replacement sales They should keep the Enterprise in service till 15 itself and then retire it after the USS Ford is launched.
Enterprise is old. As the first CVN it makes economic sense to dump it.
As it is, Enterprise is an old name that probably came first from the Royal Navy (which also had Enterprise, or Enterprize).
The Nim may be older, but it's just gone through an expensive refit and should be good for another 23 years, at which case it's old enough to seriously consider retiring. There's an opportunity cost associated with retiring the oldest ship early in this case.
Maybe the Ford should've been named Enterprise…
I don't dislike Gerald Ford- but he was a pretty bizarre choice for an entire fleet of carriers.
Bush, Enterprise, JFK, America, so many choices would have been better…
Langley. Lexington. Ranger. Yorktown, Essex. Saratoga. United States. America.
Nerd Point
Yorktown and some of the other "traditional" carrier names are traditionally used for cruisers
Okay end needless nerd point.
"USS Yorktown (CG-48), a Ticonderoga-class cruiser commissioned in 1984 (awaiting scrapping)"
We renamed the USS Constitution before to free up the name. Rename it before you dump it, then stick the name onto the Ford.
2/5 Yorktowns were CVs. One was a sloop, another a PG and the most recent was a CG.
carrier aviation has been a joke since they retired the A-6 without an adequate replacement.
I would say carrier aviation became a joke when doctrine evolved from "planes are primarily an anti-ship attack platform, and by extension a fleet defense platform" to "hai guys, look we can be the air force too!! We're still technologically and doctrinally relevant, plz don't take our budget away, k thnx, bai"
Note, I'm not attacking Naval Aviation as an institution, merely its employment on the battlefield.
If they're just an air defense platform, isn't that just a recap of the old IJN doctrine? Carriers defend the battleship, which is the decisive arm of battle.
Wow, using your logic suddenly the high-tech stealth bombers the Air Force wants would make sense because they'd get all the bombing missions the Navy currently gets. Mind-blowing…..
Joe,
the A-6 was a fine aircraft, I know, I worked on um for 3 years. But I can tell you from first hand, on board, hands on experience…. There is NOTHING an A-6 can or could do that an F-18 cannot do better.
All Weather….. Check..
In Flight re-fuel… Check
Anti-Radiation Runs (Iron Hand)….. Check
Anti-Communication (Ordinance/Coms/DATA) Jamming.. Check
Low, Med level infiltration bombing… Check
BUT… with the 18 you add
* Supersonic in supersonic out…
* Laser pods for laser ordinance WITHOUT having to add a pod.
* GPS Ordinance capable without adding GPS Blister
* High Level Bombing
* 20mm Vulcan 6 barrel cannon
* Air to Air superior to just about anything south of Russia's best.
* Sparrow, Sidewinder air to air along with a couple new designs
* In Helmet 360 degree display
* Even with a Dead Pilot… an 18 can be brought aboard with ship board avionics
I'm a 14 year Navy man… worked aboard the Nimitz and the Independence. The A-6 was unmatched in Range and load carrying capability. But you know as well as anyone in today's air-war, there are two things that will keep you alive. Stealth or Speed (both is preferable) An A-6 not Jamming can be painted at 300 miles. And take 20 minute to cover that distance. Paint an F-18 super hornet at 300 miles and before you can relay the information he is within your airspace, by the time you launch a missile or aircraft the bomb is already off his wing. Not true of a "Drumstick"…
Didn't the GW take over for the Kitty Hawk in Japan? I wonder what ship would take that duty?
Any. Originally we kept CVs for Japan duty, but we finally eliminated them. Any CVN will do.
I bet they're hoping the new Fords will be ready, or they may push one from the Middle East to the Far East. Considering the Middle East already has an amazingly high density of airbases and military infrastructure, the expeditionary, strike-from-anywhere utility of the carrier drops off significantly.
This would be stupid. Cut the bloated AF, cut the Army, pull our troops out of the silly wars they're in, but giving up the key to US power? Nuts.
Would be a terrible move IMO…..
NO NO NO don't retire a carrier early. Cut defense programs before you cut very very valuible combat and power projection forces. Esspecially when we can expect the Chicoms to make more very unsettling decisions that can upset the pacific.
We already have. Now we are cutting troops & having talks about changing the Pension system. To meet budget goals most of the fat has been cut. Now we have to slice the meat.
Pensions are expensive. If unions are devilishly expensive, what do you think the military's benefit system costs? We've already learned from the union system that benefit costs from pension systems go up, and with increased life expectancies you have can have active duty/pensioner ratios, and military pensioners often have special needs, such as those associated with combat duty or exposure to pesticides, etc.
Cut foreign aid to Pakistan
Keep the GW
With Iran and N. Korea as a threat we still need this for defense.
Just overhaul it, add a 8 multiple antiship missile launchers on each sides, modern-wide range radars, anti aircraft guns, algae fuel engine compatible, paint it with water proofing and a good long lasting paint. It will look good as new.
Removing the nuclear reactor and then re-engining the thing would take years and be ridiculously expensive.
Just because it looks new doesn't mean it is new.
i think he was playn around
This is the " five thousand F-23" guy. He either plays around a lot or…
Tssss. do like the Chinese do: turn it into a nuclear casino with wedding chapel.
This has bad idea written all over it – especially in light of China's military buildup being fuled by American dollars due to incredibly stupid trade policy on the part of the United States.
Apparently, this CVN caught fire in 2K8 and was exposed to radiation in 2K11. They may have good reason to retire her early…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_George_Washingto…
Upfront caveat. This is pure speculation and online research (was censored elsewhere perhaps because of excess open source detail). This carrier is a national asset and piece of U.S. sovereignty. In or before 2016, it could become a centerpoint of a stationary island constructed in the reefs/banks of the shallow Spratly Islands to maintain law and order for oil exploration by all countries. Could the carrier's reactor life be expanded by making it a stationary feature?
It could become an LCS base for guarding the Malacca and other straits from piracy. Instead of planes launched by catapault, it would become a joint base with Soldiers, Marines, Navy, and Air Force assets…primarily joint helicopters, F-35B, and ships, and ground troops permanently embarked on Naval LCS and High Speed Vessels. Another alternative would be to ground it in the Malacca Straits which are seldom more than 120' deep and as shallow as 82' in shipping lanes.
You do realize You need wind over the deck to launch? That means moving……..
Which was why I mentioned F-35B STOVL in limited numbers to make room for the helicopters and ground troops that would spend much of their time on the LCS and HSV patrolling…especially if tensions were high and you wanted to disperse assets.
Cut the beyond stupid LCS program and there will be plenty of money for keeping all of the carriers around
You must be mistaking Obama for TR? The man wants trains & windmills. Not CVN's.
In way makes alot sense their retiring the Nimitz Class ships earlier, aside with possible radiation leak/clean up. Keeps the shipyards busy and cycles newer technologies on aging ships. When Nimitz was design, i can't imagine that folks at Pentagon actually believe turn even of events that would come with 21st Century. Cold War ends, force deductions on large scale, declining production, esclating of costs rearch and development of all things involing the DoD from tiny field weapons to aircraft carriers themselves.
Its make sense in some ways, but it still doesn't cure fincianal problems or these actions will cause in the future of the America's defense forces.
I'd be curious what the operating costs of an SSGN are.
Perhaps we could trade one carrier for 2 or 3 SSGNs. If you figure time on patrol they would give at least as much first strike capability.
The SSGNs would also be safe from these new carrier killing ballistic missiles.
Would there be any benefit to having more smaller carriers of the Wasp class? Some as regular assault carriers and some without the helicopters but with more F-35Bs. It would seem to me that 80 F-35Bs spread over four locations would be tactically superior to 80 f-35s in one location.
It's called the economy of scale. Wasp "amphibious assault ships" can only carry a half a dozen or so Harriers and about a dozen helos or so. Wasp class ships are designed to support the Marines on the ground not for sea control or strike missions. They don't carry E-2 or refueling planes and they would need to be grouped together to have enough planes available at one place and one time. It's like asking a Humvee to do the job of a tank, not possible.
You'd definitely still want carriers around, as the -C variants would carry more equipment than the -Bs, which sacrifice range and payload for vertical landing.
Multiple smaller carriers is a possibility. The first two LHA America's (no well deck) may be the "light carrier" that you're thinking about, but they will carry very few -B's.
A LHA/CVN mix is certainly possible. Then again, launching UCAVs off of LHA's might even the odds in favor of small carriers…someday.
For plane still in flight test, Just how good it is simply theoretical guessing.
The US should consider selling older Nimitz class carriers to countries like Australia as this would allow us to build more CV21 (Gerald R Ford class).
This about the 3rd time this has come up. Australia has no nuclear experience with ships or subs. Lack the money & manpower to run one. That is why they gave up Carriers.
sigh, once they get rid of this carrier, those carrier cutters will get emboldened and cut another, and another… I really hope that doesnt happen.Plus, if this battle group is eliminated, what happens to the escort ships?
It means more ships homeported overseas closer to action areas, or faster rotation back home for ships, which should improve morale for sailors and improve readiness as ships can be brought in for repairs. It might also need carrier groups get larger with more surface combatants to protect the carrier or to launch strikes.
We used to be able to get away with decreasing size of carrier groups because our enemies got weaker and weaker. There's only so many VLS tubes in a carrier group, and if you have to fight enemies from the air, land and sea you can't devote them all to Tomahawk missiles and expect to put dents into your opponent's nation-state.
Cut the ship, & you cut the Air wing. The escorts can be cut as well.
If it means less surface warfare groups, it means we can cut the Perrys and the older Ticos. DDGs and newer CGs will be it.
People who persist in claiming that we need fewer CVNs because the Cold War is over have no knowledge of what the US military does or the nature of the threats we face. The far messier world we live in now demands more US Navy presence and fast reactions in more places than we had to worry about 30 years ago. Under current conditions we need 12 to 15 Carrier Battle Groups (CVBGs) and 6 to 9 LHD/LHA based Amphibious Ready Groups (they keep changing the names). We also need guns, real guns bigger than 5", and the new amphibs have only a 30mm pop gun. The Marines deserve better. Remember that most people live within range of modern naval gunfire. Iraq and Afghanistan are aberrations in that regard.
We do need to strengthen our ties with Australia and India, as well as Japan Korea Taiwan Vietnam and The Philippines. Wonderful as the Nimitz class is it is the wrong ship for their needs. What they need are two things. First they need conventional submarines. We should build 3 dozen Air Independent Propulsion silent boats and sell half of them to those threatened by the rise of China. We should also help Israel to double her submarine fleet. The Dutch and Germans have good designs as do the Swedes.
Second we should help the Australians gain an Air Force that can patrol and control the vast ocean space that surrounds them and react to a possible thrust by China through the South China Sea. The best way to do that would be to give them the old B-52s that are being chopped up in conformance with the SALT Treaty, a treaty with a country that no longer exists. Those 50-55 year old planes if reengined would still be good for another 30 years. They are incredible aircraft and if teamed with Awacs and long range radars in lighter than air craft could dominate the region and prevent major conflicts for decades.
The idea of transferring the old Nimitz class CVNs to the UK and/or France as the Fords come online is not completely without merit but is unlikely to happen. They are old, expensive to maintain, and European financial labor and political interests would probably prefer spending almost the same money not building new ships of their own to buying ours.
Right now we are looking at a US Navy smaller than it has been since 1916. Even the best ships can only be in one place at a time, and the new LCS that ate the budget is nobody's idea of the best ship. The Royal Navy, like the other components of the UK MoD, is essentially out of business. They are now a Coast Guard. The Argentines can have the Falklands any time they like. The combined firepower of the European Union proved unable to crush Libya.
If anything, we need to group buy for maritime patrol aircraft with our Pacific allies. A large strategic bomber platform would be ideal, but I don't know if the Aus' want to pay to maintain them, considering parts will be hard to find, parts will come from the US and they will always be second in priority to American forces. If we can all find a maritime patrol aircraft (based on a Boeing or airbus design) that is mass produced so that parts scarcity shouldn't be a problem it will benefit the Navy, Coast Guard and our pacific allies.
AIP subs are nice, and will form the bare minimum for offensive striking power in a war. Will your offensive component be a handful of Tomahawks launched from the torpedo tubes before you get out of dodge to re-arm?
It would be nice to compromise down the middle and look into amphibious ship designs. Japan's helicopter destroyers are smaller than the Dokdos, which carry LCACs. Don't think the Aus' need to think about such things at this time? Or if they have an amphib vessel, just hang onto it for now.
Ships offer sustained presence in a spatial area versus aircraft, which are faster but need to land to refuel or refuel in air and suffer crew fatigue while at the same time running attritional risks from parts failures. Mechanical failures at sea aren't as ruinous as they are for aircraft. We like ships because they are "there", but the Soviets went for a maritime patrol aircraft oriented doctrine which Aus could consider as well.
More pie-in-the-sky; I wonder if there's room for seaplanes. The Pacific is certainly calmer than the Atlantic, and a seaplane that can land off a Pacific island, load up with ALCMs, take off and fire them into an invading fleet would be…interesting.
The Pacific naval campaign of ww2, due to the nature of vast seas and numerous islands was quite decentralized in this regard. Island chains are bypassed since sea power enables one to sustain presence long enough to conquer islands out of sequence. Ground aircraft range is sufficient to leapfrog past islands, then act in support of the next campaign.
Nobody in the beltway is even close to your playbook. Obama is a domestic policy/ swords into plowshears guy. I hear you, but nobody in DC is……
Dumping all your nations remaining wealth into military adventures when you have domestic problems describes pre-Revolutionary France perfectly. Otherwise you'll walk into World War 3 with a built-up military but serious domestic problems that will hurt warfighting in the long run.
In 200 years, when have we not had domestic problems? We need Guns & Butter. But the Butter only folks are in charge.
Or we can walk into WWIII with a weak military and a stabilized domestic situation, resulting in Red Dawn. Guess we're doomed either way…..
May be China can lease nimitz aircraft carrier, i think good idea for defense bugdet cut.
You're not fooling anyone…
You cannot retire any carriers!!!!
It seems history is repeating itself. Before ww2 we had only 7 carriers. Two where in the Atlantic and one was just finishing construction and another just finished with refit. Japan had 6 fleet carriers in the Pacific against our 3. If it was not for Roosevelt we would not have had those.
Russia and China have already announced they will or are building carriers and both their Governments hate the U.S. For Russian Government the cold war is not over and the Chinese Government seems to be acting like the Japanese in the 1930's.
Today it takes more than 5 years to build a carrier. There more complex to build today. What we will have if a world war breaks out is what we will have to fight with. It wont be like WW2 where we built Carriers in 18 months.
I imagine another contributor to our five year build times is the need to stretch out the work with respect to the costs of carrier construction. In wartime, construction could conceivably be bumped up, but I'm not sure how much.
The real kicker in wartime is our carriers are built in two yards and our subs in two yards, with no construction facilities on the west coast. Not sure if Pearl and San Diego can still do extensive repairs anymore, or if it would require a trip through the canal to the manufacturer.
yes we really need 11 carriers and it doesn't make sense why they would decom the newest carrier… its already been built and serving its purpose… if they were really going to stop something it would be the ford but thats not going to stop being produced therefore why decom a new boat when they are going to commission another one. people believe anything they read and it just shows how dumb people are and how they don't know anything about what the people in the service go through every year!
We should look into donating or a lend Policy to put a few aircraft carrier under the UN control. they currently lack a large military muscle, leaving the US to project force to the likes of Somilia and west africa for regional problems, not to mention the Persian Gulf. If they had a carrier or three they could post there and unload this global stabilization burden from the US significantly. If they bad enough they offend the global Morality and International law then the UN would send their forces. a cost burden carried by the globe and also negating more the need or desire for countries like Iran to posture aginst the whole world, not to mention making their intervention in the Warlord Countries easier to implement from a larger force. dumb down the carriers from the High security electronics to international approved systems. refuel once and donate them, along with some standard aircraft they are able to support on the carriers. Such a effort will make a emense dent in our own long term threat defense policy by relieving a lot of these threat we react to thru the years,
So… send a squadron of F-16 fighting Falcons and 200 Abrams M1A1 Main Battle Tanks to Muslim Brotherhood led Egypt… then start retiring our greatest non nuclear weapons? More GREAT work by Obrozo….
I think you should check your facts… we dont borrow a dime from China, we (which means, in large part, private organizations) sell our debt to China, kinda like how loans of just about any sort can be bought and sold by various investment groups.
That's correct. The issue with debt and China isn't that China holds paper on the US. The actual question is the willingness of China to buy *more* debt in the future.
And, given that the EU looks like going the way of Soviet Socialism, there isn't much choice.
5 seconds on Google- Wash Post
"China's new status — it now owns nearly $1 out of every $10 in U.S. public debt — means Washington will be increasingly forced to rely on Beijing as it seeks to raise money to cover the cost of a $700 billion bailout. China, in fact, may be the government's largest creditor, period."
Government bonds don't have that many middlemen- believe me- people know when the Chinese are buying- and when they don't.
The Army is cutting 50,000 troops over the next 5 years. The USMC, over 17,000.