During the third and final presidential debate, President Obama ridiculed Governor Romney’s arguments about the military. “Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines,” Obama quipped.
If Obama is not careful, he may soon need to revise his comments about aircraft carriers. While the Clinton administration found that the United States needed 12 aircraft carriers to adequately project power and fulfill both wartime and peaceful missions, that number slipped to 11 under the George W. Bush administration. Earlier this month, the USS Enterprise, the navy’s second-oldest ship, finished its final deployment and will be retired, leaving the Pentagon with 10. The problem is that when numbers dwindle, there is no room for error. The USS Nimitz, which has just come off of a major refurbishment, was supposed to deploy early next year, but now major mechanical problems reportedly will delay that by months, with an immediate impact on American force posture. Meanwhile, the USS Eisenhower will return to Norfolk for repairs to its flight deck before it can return to the Persian Gulf.
As the fleet ages—and with the uncertainty regarding on-time delivery of the USS Gerald Ford (due in 2015) and the USS John F. Kennedy (due in 2020)—the United States Navy may soon find itself in a real bind. We may have these things called aircraft carriers, as Obama condescendingly remarked, but someone ought to remind the president that there have got to be enough in working order if they are to serve the purpose for which they were built.
Romney was right. n nBut Obama gives away free cell phones and condoms. n nCase closed.
no one finds it an odd coincidence to suddenly have major mechanical problems and disappearing flag officers?
The demand for our carriers has always been great. The tasking demanded is increasing while the number has been decreasing. This makes for longer deployments, unahppy Sailors, and it's hard on the equipment. Something has to change.
There is no aircraft carrier drought. Rather we have a flood of chicken little propagandists on the payroll of admirals who want to keep their cozy berths. n nThree ultra modern carriers of the new Gerald Ford class have been funded and are being built. The first of them will be commissioned in 2015. Moreover we have additional carriers, huge, sea worthy and fully capable of going to war, in the reserve fleet and serving as training ships. n nThe real question is, do we really need more such vessels requiring crews of 5,000 men and costing billions to build and billions to operate. Granted, they are effective and valuable against 3rd class opponents, the kind we are facing at the moment, but how will we fight, and more to the point, intimidate into not fighting, a first rate military power? Even now we can't maneuver our capital ships in narrow waters like the Persian Gulf, not in wartime. n nWe need submersible carriers. They could be easily fielded using the hulls of Ohio class ballistic missile subs made redundant by the end of the Cold War. Those are vessels with the displacement of heavy cruisers and several have already been converted into cruise missile platforms. Adding the capacity to operate reconnaissance drones would make them the equal of surface carriers. They would pack as much punch and launch as many sorties before requiring replenishment, but would do it with a crew of 160, instead of putting battle groups of seven thousand men in harm's way. n nThe ability to tackle an enemy risking fewer men and assets reduces political hamstrings, allows for greater boldness and increases the chances for success.