Carrier cuts coming?

[phrogdriver]

The Navy is apparently worried that its CVNs will be on the chopping block.

I can't say this is unexpected. This is WITH the Navy doing fairly well in the current round of cuts compared to the Army and Marines.

I can see a scenario, though, when the service is going to have to choose between gear and people. Gear will win.

An odd mention was made in the article about the F-35 reducing the need for carriers. I guess they're thinking that LHD/LHA-based air would mitigate some decrease in CVN presence, but since the F-35B is the most endangered of the versions, I can see any strategy based on this completely falling through on both ends.

 

[sodajones]

I'm all about reducing Army and Marine numbers especially if we are changing our responsibilities but it doesn't make sense to me to start reducing carriers.

 

[Jim123]

...An odd mention was made in the article about the F-35 reducing the need for carriers. I guess they're thinking that LHD/LHA-based air would mitigate some decrease in CVN presence...

Well, we do have a sweet new LPH that is getting close to being finished.

 

[KBayDog]

Well, we do have a sweet new LPH that is getting close to being finished.

Are you trying to make my Agent Orange act up?

 

[helolumpy]

With the draw down of land forces in CENTCOM, DOD needs to maintain credible expeditionary power projection capability for Shaping and Deterence phases of all the Theater Campaign Plans, so that is why I think cutting carriers will not happen.
Besides being the most visible form of U.S. presence the lead time to build a new carrier is 10 years. We can't "surge" ship building anymore, so I think the carrier is truly a sacred cow.

Add to the fact the political influence carriers bring, IMO, the Pentagon is conducting a bit of "shaping" of the enviroment to get the politicians in Virginia and California to start being more vocal about the impact of DOD cuts.

 

[Jim123]

Add to the fact the political influence carriers bring, IMO, the Pentagon is conducting a bit of "shaping" of the environment to get the politicians in Virginia and California to start being more vocal about the impact of DOD cuts.

I'm gonna say that I think you're on to something with this train of thought. There are always politics involved but I hadn't thought of it exactly like this.

On the other hand, there is the "one and spoil" strategy and the humongous national debt. But I think you're on to something when you call it "shaping."

 

[phrogdriver]

With the draw down of land forces in CENTCOM, DOD needs to maintain credible expeditionary power projection capability for Shaping and Deterence phases of all the Theater Campaign Plans, so that is why I think cutting carriers will not happen.
Besides being the most visible form of U.S. presence the lead time to build a new carrier is 10 years. We can't "surge" ship building anymore, so I think the carrier is truly a sacred cow.

Add to the fact the political influence carriers bring, IMO, the Pentagon is conducting a bit of "shaping" of the enviroment to get the politicians in Virginia and California to start being more vocal about the impact of DOD cuts.

Good point about the Navy prepping the political battlefield.

With the lead time involved in carrier construction, though, I could see them not doing a one-for-one replacement of existing carriers and pocketing the savings.

UAVs will, for better or worse, form the backbone of strike in 10-20 years. A UAV carrier could be considerably smaller and cheaper than the Fords. I could definitely see one being built in that timeframe, and thus never fully replace the Nimitzes with CVNs.

 

[Brett327]

I think people tend to give more weight to the current state of the economy than it is really due, given the long time horizons involved in these things. While we've been in a relatively prolonged period of recession or sluggish growth, these things are transitory. 15 years ago, we were enjoying economic boom and budget surplusses projected as far as the eye could see. The pendulum will swing the other way and I think the policy makers factor that in.

At any rate, the next two CVNs are already under construction (Ford and JFK) to replace Nimitz and Ike. With TR in RCOH and Lincoln heading there this year, if they were going to nix a carrier, it would seem like GW would be the likely candidate since it's presumably the next in line for RCOH. Maybe in all this mess, they'll put HST where it belongs - in Yokosuka!

Brett

 

[Jim123]

^^^ I see what you did there.

 

[jollygreen07]

they'll put HST where it belongs - in Yokosuka!

Hmm... I honestly wonder if they would. Do you think the policy makers would put 2+2 together and make that connection?

 

[Brett327]

Hmm... I honestly wonder if they would. Do you think the policy makers would put 2+2 together and make that connection?

The Japanese sure as hell would. With the amount of cock-sucking we had to do so they'd let us put a nuclear powered carrier there, yu can bet your bottom dollar they would.

Brett

 

[exNavyOffRec]

If they want to reduce the number of carriers they are first going to have to be ok with not being able to have a carrier in or around the gulf all the time. We can only do 6+ month deployments for so long, the electronics can't take it and reactors are based on 25 year life with a set deployment schedule.

 

[BackOrdered]

If they want to reduce the number of carriers they are first going to have to be ok with not being able to have a carrier in or around the gulf all the time. We can only do 6+ month deployments for so long, the electronics can't take it and reactors are based on 25 year life with a set deployment schedule.

This.

And just think of all the jobs, civilian and military, lost from losing just one carrier. Of all the defense cuts that can be made (stares hard at the Air Force) this is the worst idea possible and a huge leap in the wrong direction.

 

[phrogdriver]

This.

And just think of all the jobs, civilian and military, lost from losing just one carrier. Of all the defense cuts that can be made (stares hard at the Air Force) this is the worst idea possible and a huge leap in the wrong direction.

You can stare as hard as you want at the Air Force. They've successfully justified themselves after some soul-searching.

Maybe we need to look less at how to keep what we already have and look harder at what capabilities we want to bring in the future.

The carrier, at least in its present form, is still extremely useful, but is becoming less so every passing year. "Where are the carriers?" is still asked by the President, but isn't his first question anymore. Eventually it will go the way of the battleship. Hopefully we can figure out what the next big thing needs to be before our opponents do.

The jobs we get from a carrier would be the same as if we spent $10 billion on anything.

 

[Brett327]

If they want to reduce the number of carriers they are first going to have to be ok with not being able to have a carrier in or around the gulf all the time. We can only do 6+ month deployments for so long, the electronics can't take it and reactors are based on 25 year life with a set deployment schedule.

So you're saying that with <10 carriers, we can't maintain a 1.0 presence IVO the gulf? Explain that math to me. Besides, a 6 month cruise is standard, what's the problem there? We haven't seen any significant deviations like the 10+ month ABE cruise in quite a while.

Brett