Navy to Cut Carrier and Air Wing

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 20 Mar 2009, 16:01

Navy Will Offer Up Carrier & Air Wing In Quadrennial Review
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Issue Brief
Mar 10, 2009
Print Page

The word within the Pentagon is that the White House wants to collect 6-8 "scalps" -- major program kills -- in this year's Quadrennial Defense Review. Some of the cuts are already being considered as defense secretary Robert Gates rewrites the 2010 budget. You can expect to hear a lot of rumors about which programs are being targeted between now and when the Pentagon releases details of its budget request in April. But while most of the military services are scrambling to protect programs, at least one is getting ready to offer up a signature weapons system. The Navy will propose removal of one aircraft carrier and air wing from its posture, dropping the number of carriers to the lowest number since 1942.

Of course, today's carriers make World War Two carriers look like toys. With nuclear propulsion, supersonic fighters, and over four acres of deck space, they are the biggest warships in history. But at any given time some are being repaired, some are being replenished, some are in training and some are in transit; if the fleet is cut to ten then maybe half a dozen will be available for quick action on any given day. Congress didn't think that was enough, so it mandated in law that at least eleven carriers must be maintained in the force. But with big bills coming from the Obama Administration and other items like healthcare costs pressuring Navy budgets, the service has repeatedly sought relief from that requirement. This year's quadrennial review is the likely venue for another such bid.

The issue is coming to a head now because the pace of new carrier commissionings is not keeping up with the rate of retirements. Kitty Hawk, the last carrier in the fleet powered by fossil fuels, was removed from the force last summer after nearly 50 years of service. The Navy plans to decommission the nuclear-powered Enterprise in November of 2012, leaving the fleet with only the ten flattops of the Nimitz class for three years, until the next-generation Ford class of carriers debuts in September of 2015. Going to ten isn't supposed to happen under present law, but since the service hasn't made budgetary provisions for maintaining the Enterprise and its crew until the Ford class arrives, it looks like ten carriers will be the total number in the fleet.

In the current budget environment, once the Navy gets used to having ten carriers, that's probably where it will stay. Navy insiders think the service will decide to forego the refueling of the Lincoln, which is scheduled for 2012. And when the decision to stay at ten is formalized, the service can also move to eliminate one of its carrier wings. That step would cut the Navy's projected shortfall in strike aircraft by half. So billions of dollars are saved by skipping the refueling, cutting the purchase of aircraft, and eliminating the need to sustain 6,000 personnel associated with ship operations and air-wing support.

There's only one problem with all this. It reduces the nation's capacity to project power from the sea at the same time access to foreign bases is becoming doubtful. And why is such a move necessary? Because the Obama Administration has decided to stick with Bush-era plans to grow the size of ground forces by 92,000 personnel, and the Navy must pay part of the bill for that. Yet the administration is getting ready to depart Iraq, which was the main reason for increasing the size of ground forces in the first place. There are precious few other places where the warfighting scenarios for the next QDR suggest a big ground force will be needed. Most of the scenarios envision reliance on air power for the big fights of the future -- the kind of air power delivered by carriers. So cutting carriers to build a bigger ground force doesn't make much sense.

Copyright © 2009 Lexington Institute. All rights reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printed From LexingtonInstitute.org on 3/20/2009
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/printer_1383.shtml

Post by **BadPvtDan** » 20 Mar 2009, 17:14

That's kind of sad to see a carrier leave service but..always need more boots on the ground. It was crazy to cut so many divisions after the first Gulf War.

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 20 Mar 2009, 19:37

I think we are in for more cuts than Clinton made when he took office.

Jumpshot724 · Post by **Jumpshot724** » 20 Mar 2009, 20:24

IMHO cutting a carrier AND air wing should be the last resort.

Whenever there's trouble in the world the President's first question is almost always "Ok, where are the carriers?". The aircraft carrier is arguably the most important part of our military today, both in it's capabilities and it's ability to "psyche" out an enemy. You look out to sea and see and American Aircraft Carrier offshore and you as a country are gonna think twice about what you're going to do next. How many do we have currently in service?? 11?? 7?? I can't remember.

Cutting an entire airwing is going to effectively cut the US Navy's cycled land fleet in half. That's going to cause problems big time.

While I'm against it I do see the point in cutting the Raptor. It is a fighter made for a Cold War scenario BUT, it would also be invaluable in a WWIII scenario. A catch 22 since we're in neither right now.

Cutting the Hornet production line will be ok at first only because they want to cut out an entire air wing, so there will be some leftover Hornets. Plus that would speed up the F-35's production and give cause for more of them.

O wait a minute, they want to drastically reduce that too. Does anyone else agree that this logic does not make senese lol??

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 20 Mar 2009, 22:00

It may not make sense, but as a nation, what alternative do we have? Our deficit is now projected to hit 2 TRILLION dollars as a result of the mess we are in. To put that into perspective:

"A trillion dollars is so large a number that only politicians
can use the term in conversation... probably because they
seldom think about what they are really saying. I've read that
mathematicians do not even use the term trillion!
Here is some perspective on TRILLION:

Trillion = 1,000,000,000,000.
The country has not existed for a trillion seconds.
Western civilization has not been around a trillion seconds.
One trillion seconds ago – 31,688 years – Neanderthals stalked the plains of Europe."

Ford Friendly · Post by **Ford Friendly** » 21 Mar 2009, 00:05

Actually, moving to a 10 carrier Navy makes lots of sense IF you accept the premise that US foreign policy should be non-interventionist wrt military force. The problem with that perspective is that some rhetorical hack (read politician/media pundit with a hidden agenda) will jump to the logical end of the continuum and claim that such a policy is .... wait for it.... isolationist! Oooooooooo! The second problem is current treaty requirements and mutual defence commitments which require a certain level of military force be maintained - regardless of what is "detailed to/committed to" homeland defense.

If one accepts the premise that the US military should be a defensive force only (albeit with offensive capabilities used ONLY in mounting a defense against "the homeland"), then a 10 carrier fleet is more than sufficient.

I'm not so sure that the US should continue its past policies which all but necessitated as large as a 15 carrier force. However, going below 10 raises the question of whether or not an adequate defense could be mounted on a 2-ocean front - and THAT raises the question of the likelihood of such a scenario in today's world (or a world where US policy IS/has been non-interventionist for a while).

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 21 Mar 2009, 01:59

Ford Friendly wrote:Actually, moving to a 10 carrier Navy makes lots of sense IF you accept the premise that US foreign policy should be non-interventionist wrt military force. The problem with that perspective is that some rhetorical hack (read politician/media pundit with a hidden agenda) will jump to the logical end of the continuum and claim that such a policy is .... wait for it.... isolationist! Oooooooooo! The second problem is current treaty requirements and mutual defence commitments which require a certain level of military force be maintained - regardless of what is "detailed to/committed to" homeland defense.

If one accepts the premise that the US military should be a defensive force only (albeit with offensive capabilities used ONLY in mounting a defense against "the homeland"), then a 10 carrier fleet is more than sufficient.

I'm not so sure that the US should continue its past policies which all but necessitated as large as a 15 carrier force. However, going below 10 raises the question of whether or not an adequate defense could be mounted on a 2-ocean front - and THAT raises the question of the likelihood of such a scenario in today's world (or a world where US policy IS/has been non-interventionist for a while).

Ford,
You are coming from theoretical hypotheses on what we should have for military capability. Certainly force structure is based on a National Strategy(if we have one). That starts at the top and is used as guidance for Doctrine.
The doctrine then gets translated into individual service doctrine and the service staff defines what they think will meet the Requirements or capabilities set down by the DoD. Such things as how many wars do they expect to be involved in. What kind of forces can carry out those requirements. What levels of manpower and equipment are needed? etc, etc.
Each service comes forth with what they think is needed to carry out their mission and there are many, many, meetings between service representatives to negotiate what gets into the budget. Most of those meetings are held with 'purple' suited outcomes in mind. The results are blended into a DoD budget that goes to Congress for appropriations. Congress can then interject their own views and reviews.(I.E. the tanker, bomber, fighter, ships, manpower, etc.)
Terms like 'isolationists" are the Rhetoric that is sometimes used to
justify or refute decisions after the fact. It isn't a question of 'accepting' a premise. The President lays out what he intends in terms of Decision Papers, Policy statements, and Memorandums. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the DoD then interpret that guidance with their own policy, directives, and Planning Guidance.
The 'hook' is that you currently have a force structure built on guidance in the past. It is not easy to suddenly shift to a new force structure to meet new guidance without losses or short-falls.
To use a cliche as you have done, "The best defense is a good offense."
A purely defensive posture would tie our forces to the Continental U.S.
without any power-projection capability. We could then just sit there prepared to absorb any attacks on us. If you look around the world you can find some countries in that kind of posture. All well and good unless someone actually attacks.(Saddam vs Kuwait/Saudi Arabia for example)
So if you have an administration that takes that approach, You still have to ask what would constitute such a defensive force and how much is enough for defense only? As we saw in WW2 you cannot defeat an enemy without attacking his military forces and the means of production within his country.
The real bottom line is that we see these snippets of news and react. We really need to build a 'score card' and see how the force balance looks and how well it could meet our strategy. The meetings to develop budgets and negotiate capability are not out in the open. Sometimes for security reasons but usually because reporters are not present and only a few could really see the "big picture."

Ford Friendly · Post by **Ford Friendly** » 21 Mar 2009, 02:57

GZR_Sactargets, other than the fact that you substituted National Strategy for my use of the word "premise", thereby putting the horse before the cart IMHO, you seem to have made essentially the same argument that I did, just more verbosely, I think. As have a number of others here, I too put in a couple decades in the US military and saw shifts, both large and small, in strategy, policy, guidance and interpretation of all those AND events. So, if someone is going to post "news articles" here, which by the very nature of the act begs for discussion or comment, then what's your REAL point vis-a-vis my post? To educate me? Others? To agree, disagree or amplify?

Sorry, I must have missed it..... I guess that I am slow tonight.

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 21 Mar 2009, 03:46

Ford Friendly wrote:GZR_Sactargets, other than the fact that you substituted National Strategy for my use of the word "premise", thereby putting the horse before the cart IMHO, you seem to have made essentially the same argument that I did, just more verbosely, I think. As have a number of others here, I too put in a couple decades in the US military and saw shifts, both large and small, in strategy, policy, guidance and interpretation of all those AND events. So, if someone is going to post "news articles" here, which by the very nature of the act begs for discussion or comment, then what's your REAL point vis-a-vis my post? To educate me? Others? To agree, disagree or amplify?

Sorry, I must have missed it..... I guess that I am slow tonight.

My objective was to explain the way the forces are evolved and how the budget is built. I spent some time in the Pentagon working the General Defense Intelligence budget (GDIP) as the Air Force Program Manager. Built a lot of Congressional Budget Justification Books. The detailed rationale for why a particular system fills a need in the force structure.

I put in 3 decades myself. Mostly as aircrew and staff. Each experience was different and offered a different view of how things get done. I saw requirements built at the HQ level (HQ SAC Staff). I also saw how they got encorporated or dropped from the budget. The real key isn't the eye candy (flies fast, looks good, etc) It is how well it will do a specific job. In many cases it is what a Command can offer as an offset. I think that is what the NAVY is doing with the idea of dropping a Carrier Group. It isn't so much that they don't see a use for it. They may well feel they can fund other projects by making it 'cold iron.'

There is a significant difference between a premise and established policy.
Established policy provides the REAL direction. A premise is just an idea.
I don't understand your "horse before the cart' analogy. It doesn't seem to fit.

Not seeking an argument here, Just trying to be sure that the process is clear rather than rhetoric.

Ford Friendly · Post by **Ford Friendly** » 21 Mar 2009, 04:01

I prefer not to play "show me your resume and I'll show you mine". The one thing I will say is that I can probably match your experience fairly equally as well as claim multi-service time which broadened my perspective quite a bit.

So, I'll get out of this "discussion" before I write something that will be misinterpreted. I've stated my opinion and obviously we disagree. Enuf said.

Post by **VulcanDriver** » 21 Mar 2009, 06:52

That'll be the USS Enterprise I bet. She's getting old and I did hear the USN wanted her retired.

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 21 Mar 2009, 14:43

That will be a sad day as there's been an "Enterprise" in the fleet for a long, long time. No more "Big E".

Jumpshot724 · Post by **Jumpshot724** » 21 Mar 2009, 15:59

That will be a sad day as there's been an "Enterprise" in the fleet for a long, long time. No more "Big E".

It'll just be a gap, one of the CVX's is SURE to be named Enterprise lol.