The Arctic will remain on thinning ice, and climate warming is expected to begin affecting the Antarctic also, scientists said Friday. "The long-term prognosis is not very optimistic," atmospheric scientist Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University said at a briefing.
Last summer sea ice in the North shrank to a record low, a change many attribute to global warming. Asked if this summer will match last year's record low sea ice in the North, Overland [said] that is likely. "The tea leaves point to a minimal amount of sea ice next September, that would be the same as we had last summer, 40 percent loss compared to 20 years ago," he said.
Tea leaves? That's got to be more scientific than anything else I've seen on global warming ...
Overland added that the winter freeze got a late start last fall. "All arrows are pointing towards, certainly not a recovery, something like we had last summer and possibly worse," she said. That might be at the root of their problem. They try to divine the weather by looking at tea leaves and arrows, instead of going outside and looking around.
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.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/03/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
WIth the advent of reliabel UAVs and the long range of teh B1 and B2 and the forthcoming KC-Airbust (OK, so i slipped a snark in) i really have to believe the CV is a dinosaur. When the Navy gave up the deep strike mission to the USAF they essentially began digging the grave for the flattop. The development of the supersonic cruise missles that can hug the surface makes defense a real problem; consider the PR nightmare when (not if) a silkworm takes out a CV and the associated loss of life. at least with precision munitions and stealth technology, a B2 can drop a sh!tload of ordnance where its needed and only expose a 3 man crew to danger rather than 5,000. Any CAS the navy could provide the USMC can do it now. Yes this is a mistake in some scenarios but this is the twilight for the CV. (never thought i would write these words)
#2
Here on Guam, it has been reported in local news that that USMC facilities in Hawaii are being budgeted for renovation or improvement in lieu of Units from Okinawa being sent to Hawaii instead of reloc to Guam as anticipated.
OTHER > Vari local personages have argued that USMC will only be on Guam for a short time being reloc again back to the CONUS, or that the USMC reloca and s0-called "buildup" is actually consistent and on par wid a planned PHASED CLOSURE of the USG-USDOD here on Guam bwtn 2015-2040 - Guam's Big Navy may be closed down NLT 2020, Andersen AFB allegedly 10 years after or so, while the USA may offer Guam formal unilater INDPENDENCE anytime after 2015.
THE ABOVE AS PER GUAM IS BASED ON US BELIEF THAT, AT LEAST THRU 2050, NO MAJOR WAR WILL OCCUR AGAIN AMONG THE MAJOR NATIONS, THAT RADICAL ISLAM WILL BE MOSTLY DEFEATED OR ISOLATED, AND THAT THE US WILL PREVAIL IN THE WOT AND POST-WOT FACE ONLY MINOR SECTARIAN CONFLICTS = "POLICE ACTIONS" vv UNO???
2008-2012/13 > decisive timeframe for both budding US-led/centric OWG-NWO, as well as for OWG Jihad-saving Radical Islam, PLUS ANYONE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER.
#3
The aircraft carrier is a useless anachronism. Come on, there hasn't been a real shooting war in the ocean since WWII, and that's when carriers date from. In this age of supersonic missiles, an aircraft carrier is just a huge target with 5000 casualties waiting to happen.
As long as we have this phony peace, though, carriers will still be 'useful'.
#4
Actually, against any country lacking a major navy, carriers are quite useful. The US Navy smashed the Iraqi Navy using carrier aircraft at the beginning of the Iraq War; the Iranians don't seem to be eager to take on a Carrier Battle Group in the Persian Gulf; and a CBG steaming off the coast of South America has backed down many of that region's loud talkers.
Also, this article is only counting super carriers as aircraft carriers : none of the Marine Corps Gators are included in the total, even though in most of the world, a Marine Gator-style ship is the ONLY carrier those countries have.
#6
Joe, I can't help but believe that developers dreaming of the land that US base closures would make available are deluding themselves. While closing big Navy would free up lots of land for development in Agana and Apra harbor and remove the annoying presence of US military personnel for the Japanese tourists, Guam is an irreplaceable strategic asset for projecting power in the Pacific. With the bases in the Philippines gone and the bases in Korea and Japan politically tenuous, Anderson and Big Navy aren't going anywhere for the foreseeable future. Hafa adai!
#9
I read all these lines in the 80s. Didn't happen then, won't happen now. As for usefulness, everyone ranting seems to forget the air capability that was used in the first Gulf War and the initial air support during the start of the Afghan campaign. Too many forget in those early days, there were no friendly bases for American aircraft to operate from other than the long range bomber force, not the ideal source of flexible close tactical support. Technology is evolving but its not there completely yet and won't be for a while.
#10
Come on, there hasn't been a real shooting war in the ocean since WWII,
--------------------------------------------------------------
I chalk it up to fear of SilkWorms
Posted by: George Smiley ||
05/03/2008 9:31 Comments ||
Top||
#11
No wait, it was the Law of the Sea...
AKA Rule Britinia/My Country Tis of Thee
AKA Get the fuck off my Ocean
Hope this clarifies things a bit.
Posted by: George Smiley ||
05/03/2008 9:33 Comments ||
Top||
#12
This sounds to me like the old rationale that we don't need ground troops. Just the AF and all the super duper missles and bombs. And the old wheeze about not needing guns on fighters cause missles made guns obsolete.
I think of a Carrier as not only an incredible force projection system but as a visible reminder of the limits of diplomacy.
If carriers are so unnecessary why are there so many sorties flown from them? What is the psychological effect on friends of neutras when one (plus its friends) stops by for a visit?
#13
Submarines launched the rockets that took out the HVT in Somalia. Nothing like a Tomahawk to reach out and touch someone. Carriers are targets that require protection and a huge logistical train.
The USN is demonstrating its complete procurement incompetence in the DDG1000 and LCS programs. And CVN21 won't be far behind. The LPH, LSD, and LPD are the surface fleet of tomorrow. Perhaps they'll need some sort of UCAV carrier, but not a mini-city. They should protect those ships and do everything else underwater.
#15
I think the question is how you destroy another country's air force - if you don't have any bases nearby - without carriers. The invasion of Okinawa would have been horrendously costly without carriers. The problem is operating tempo. Without floating airfields nearby, the round trip takes too long, giving your adversary time to regain his balance to prepare for the next air attack.
#17
But then, you would need a Command and Control ship to carry and launch the UAVs, fleet protection ships, and anti-submarine assets : so basically a CBG oriented to UAVs. Probably the best way to approach this would be to slowly integrate the UAVs as strike elements into the existing CBGs and then retain some manned aircraft for Combat Air Patrols and sub hunting.
#18
Unlike a battleship with big guns, not missiles, where having just one would be enough for anything the US wants to do, aircraft carriers biggest value is in *peacetime* force projection. It is gunboat diplomacy at the worldwide level.
Practically speaking, you have to have enough for at least three major operations at the same time. And double that number for rotations. With new carriers entering service and old ones leaving, 10 to 11 carriers is about right.
Now sure, a sneaky enemy might be able to take out *a* carrier. But they would know that its brothers would wreak a world of hurt on it, and they would not be so easy to sneak attack.
First of all a carrier is not a ship, it is a group of ships. And surrounding it, more or less, can be an exclusion zone of 200 or more miles.
The biggest threat against them is not ballistic, but submarine. And I'm sure the USN is aware of both that, and that if they turn our submariners loose, they will smite every enemy ship, on top of and underneath the water with a ferocity not seen since the days of the Wolf Pack.
So what does the future hold? The #1 threat is the Chinese, and they are doing anything they can to create an aircraft carrier fleet themselves. It is a 50/50 proposition who they will eventually fight, however, the US or India.
#20
NS: You can build a lot of UAVs for the price of a CSG.
UAV's are great for fighting counter-insurgency wars. The kind of war we will be fighting with carriers has nothing to do with counter-insurgency. In the major combat phase of the Iraqi campaign, we sent in fighter bombers, not UAV's, to knock the other guy's interceptors and air defense systems out. I think there's a tendency, when people talk about abolishing carriers, to assume air supremacy. In real life, air supremacy is earned, not simply taken for granted.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The Arctic will remain on thinning ice, and climate warming is expected to begin affecting the Antarctic also, scientists said Friday. "The long-term prognosis is not very optimistic," atmospheric scientist Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University said at a briefing.
By Peter Brookes
