You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
New Navy budgets may sink plans for aircraft carriers
2012-01-17
On the surface, the Navy's cherished fleet of 11 active aircraft carriers seems safe from President Obama's budget slashers.

Conventional wisdom says the requirement to cut $488 billion from the Pentagon within 10 years will not necessitate banishing a single carrier because the president's military strategy focuses on two carrier-dependent regions: Asia, where China is building a robust navy, and the Persian Gulf, where Iran threatens to block international oil shipping.

As Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta prepares to introduce the strategy's first budget next month, the Navy has been in a furious fight behind the scenes to protect only 10 carriers, sources familiar with the issue told The Washington Times. The sources say that, while the fiscal 2013 budget may well continue 11 carriers, the Navy will be down to 10 or even nine carriers within in the next five years.

A carrier typically transports about 80 aircraft and leads a battle group comprising 7,500 sailors, a guided-missile cruiser, two guided-missile destroyers, an attack submarine and a supply ship. Eliminating one carrier battle group would save billions of dollars. In addition, the Navy complements its carriers with amphibious-ready groups of warships, helicopters, fighter jets and Marines for sea-land operations. Some of those groups also might be scrapped.

A scenario discussed inside the Navy: Reduce the carrier fleet by retiring the flattops short of their 50-year life spans, and continue to build more advanced carriers at the Newport News, Va., shipyard at seven-year intervals instead of launching one every five years.

Reducing one carrier would set off a fight in Congress, which under law has required the Navy to maintain 11 active flattops. A source familiar with the discussions said the Obama administration would not want to take up that fight until after November's presidential election, given the importance of Virginia and its 13 electoral votes.

In general, the Navy has three carriers at sea, three returning from six-month deployments, three preparing to be deployed and two in some type of overhaul. For example, the USS Ronald Reagan, commissioned less than 10 years ago, is going into dry dock this month for a year of extensive repairs.

Under Mr. Panetta, the Pentagon has clamped down on the release of any details about the budget -- following the model of predecessor Robert M. Gates, who forced senior officials to sign nondisclosure forms.

But sources say a $488 billion in mandated savings will come from two principal sources: cutting the Army and Marine Corps ground forces by more than 100,000 troops combined and reducing the purchase and delaying the procurement of big weapons systems, such as the F-35 fighter.

Cutting back to 10 carriers would save the Pentagon additional billions of dollars. A carrier's payroll for a crew of officers and sailors, not counting its air wing, is about $225 million annually.

In fact, the Navy will soon undergo a 10-carrier trial. When the USS Enterprise is retired in November, 10 carriers will be active until the USS Gerald R. Ford becomes operational in 2015. Congress granted the Navy a waiver for the 33-month breach of the law.

"They're going down to 10 for programming reasons," Mr. Thompson said. "It is supposed to be temporary, but I think during the period the Enterprise is gone and the Ford class has not arrived, the Navy may grow accustomed to operating with only 10 carriers."

Mr. Thompson said carriers face three basic challenges.

"First of all, they have become extremely expensive to build and operate," he said. "Secondly, some countries, such as China, are developing the capacity to target and disable them from long distances. And, thirdly, the advent of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and unmanned aircraft will make it easier to accomplish air missions from other sea-based platforms."

Mr. Obama's strategy echoes that of his first defense chief, Mr. Gates. The strategy announced this month downplays the chances of a big land war, saying that active forces will be shaped to fight a limited ground conflict of a short duration.

The Gates imprint may well show itself when it comes to carriers.

"Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?" Mr. Gates asked during a 2010 speech to the Navy League, a naval support association.

Advocates of aircraft carriers note that the White House often asks in crisis, "Where are the carriers?"

"China is going great guns to develop a maritime superiority," said Jon Ault, a retired Navy pilot who served on eight carrier deployments. "Imagine 20, 30, 40 years from now, when the U.S. is down to its last two or three battle groups. A fatigued 40-, 50-year-old carrier gasping for breath and a nuke shipbuilding industry that no longer exists. Works for China, perhaps not so well for us."
Posted by:Mike Ramsey

#9  "Drone Carrier" > The Euros + Russia + Some in Asia appear to favor the MISTRAL-class designs, while as per the USN I believe we will see the future in the Navy's new mobile Landing Platform Ships.

I still hold that iff the US Navy-DOD have to cut the ENTERPIRSE + one or more NIMITZS', THEN GIVE 'EM TO THE BRITS = NATO FOR USE AS MULTI-PURPOSE VESSELS, ESPEC AIR + TROOP RR CARRIERS.

[POTUS FDR GIVING CHURCHILL 50 US DESTROYERS FREE-N-CLEAR here].

The UK's MoD + RN's anticipated timelines = gaps for the two CVF QUEEN LIZZIES is too risque' to allow.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2012-01-17 20:36  

#8  One possibility might be a semi-submersible. It would surface to travel quickly, as well as to launch or recover its drones, but when under attack it could quickly lower itself below the surface.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2012-01-17 20:06  

#7  Biggest problem I see w/ the idea of smart ships is damage control; yes sensors can detect a pipe rupture or a hull breach, even a fire. but it require manpower to effect a repair or an 'on the fly' reroute/re do of fire boundaries, hose runs.

after living through 2 major fires on 2 different CV(n)s, the training of the crew enables us to react and do things the robo boat couldn't ( like toss a full LOX bottle over the side when it was engulfed in a pool of burning JP-5, for instance)
Posted by: USN, Ret.   2012-01-17 19:35  

#6  Note that the MQ-47B is not a lot smaller than the lawn dart, but it does have triple the range. So carriers probably won't get smaller unless they carry fewer aircraft. A small carrier CBG will require the same escorts as a big carrier CBG. And the crew difference, (i.e. personnel costs) between a large and small carrier probably isn't that great.

So the big carriers will hang on until one is sunk or the UCAVs get significantly smaller.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2012-01-17 16:04  

#5  Moose, what you are suggesting could be a Wasp-sized ship with a smallish flight deck. Or make it MUCH smaller (about the size of one of these baby flat-tops the Euros like) and limit it to drones and a few helicopters. Good news is that those would be a lot cheaper than a Ford-class fleet nuclear carrier, and perhaps you could build a bunch of them.
Posted by: Steve White   2012-01-17 15:08  

#4  Maybe a submarine carrier? The Japanese managed to build a couple for WW 2, but never used them. In any case, stealth requirements by then may well make anything we have obsolete, much like the dreadnought class battleship did when it appeared on the scene.
Posted by: gorb   2012-01-17 13:52  

#3  I strongly suspect that the next carrier will be a "drone carrier", considerably smaller and a lot faster, likely launching from the sides and recovering on the flattop, which as a dual purpose will be able to take some manned aircraft as well, such as ECM and helicopters.

A critical design element will be their ability to avoid-defeat incoming high speed anti-ship missiles, torpedoes and mines.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2012-01-17 09:38  

#2  How about we pillage and loot Iran instead?
Posted by: Fat Bob Unotch3711   2012-01-17 01:55  

#1  "20, 30, 40 years from now" > by then the US-led OWG-NWO plans to rely on effective Spacestrike + Space MDS, + the early, simplistic beginnings of Earth-to-Moon/High Orbit travel.

The FORD-class CVNF is likely the last ocean-going Carrier classs before the USNavy-DOD switches oer to Space/Starships - the seven seas will become the purvue of Global Security Submarines + LCS-style light Surface Ships.

WHO'S THE WALKING PERT CLUSTERFUCK(S) THAT KEEP MAKING RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT(S) THAT OUR FUTURE OWG-NWO = SPACE GOVT-ORDER WON'T NEED NUC POWER ANYMORE, THAT HUMANITY IS GOING INTO DEEP SPACE RELYING ON "GREEN FUELS"???

First thingys come first, as one has to learn how to crawl before he can walk before he can run before he can fly before ....

> Universal Govts-Perts consensus on PEAK EVERYTHING, i.e. Curent + Future National, Global Reserves.
> The Russians [+ India] need to stop crashing.
> China will ultimately likely have to give up Communism.
> Indjuh will have to decide iff Indians, Hinduism, + Space are compatible concepts.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2012-01-17 00:43  

00:00