NPS Prof in Forbes: "Kill the Carriers"

[FlyinSpy]

The debate this time will, in fact, be the numbers of CVNs. But lurking in the margins is the debate over their usefulness, at all, in the future. So, to go back to the slam dunk comment. If the debate is over how many CVNs we need to go forward in the current and forever future type of conflict (according to the chowder head in question) then just ask yourself if the op tempo is satisfactory. If it is not, then we can't do with fewer CVNs. If the debate is over the unique value added of CVNs the just ask if the CVNs proved vital in the GWOT over the last 7 years? If so, then we can't do without them. This whole thing reminds me of the cell phone commercial depicting fire fighters in Congress. This isn't a hard decision. It doesn't have to be complicated. The debate clubs in Congress and the various think tanks and consultants make it complicated. It ain't.

You've hit the issue smack on the head here - if you believe CVNs are vital, then we barely have enough as it is. If you submit that in the last 7 years that having 11 carriers has not been vital, then we have a debate. I'll bet there will be those in the incoming Administration who will entertain the latter position, and will seek out analyses that support it.

For a good example to the counterargument to your approach, check out the bottom of page 5 in this link: http://www.gao.gov/products/T-NSIAD-94-171. A bit dated, but typical of the sorts of position papers that will be floating around again shortly. The key line is at the top of page 6: "Our work suggests that the Navy could reduce the number of carriers and achieve substantial savings." You can bet the Air Force Association, AUSA, CDI, and others will likely come out with similar statements and supporting analyses. Simply saying "you're wrong", or "OPTMEMPO won't support that" won't cut it. The answer to the OPTEMPO issue will be quite simple: gap the coverage requirement. Hopefully the heavies in OPNAV see this storm coming, and are teeing up the 40lb brains and teaming them with the Public Affairs and LL types - this is going to be a battle royale, and the stakes couldn't be much higher for this community.

The fire fighters in Congress commercial chaps my analytical ass. "Want clean water? Yep. Good roads? Yep. Hey, this ain't hard." Well wait a minute - you don't have enough money for everything you want, so which is more important? What about blind orphans, or the crippled veteran's widows? Yes, this is hard....

p.s. When everyone's bored, check out this link: http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-98-1 This is an analysis of why in 1998 they concluded it was cheaper to build and operate conventional carriers rather than nuclear powered. As an exercise, read the document and come up with a coherent response to the major points laid out in it. When done, compare your results to the DoD response (p. 147), and then GAO's follow-up on the comments. This is the level at which this debate occurs - we all need to have our analytical shit in one sock to engage effectively at these levels.

 

[HeyJoe]

When everyone's bored, check out this link: http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-98-1 This is an analysis of why in 1998 they concluded it was cheaper to build and operate conventional carriers rather than nuclear powered. As an exercise, read the document and come up with a coherent response to the major points laid out in it. When done, compare your results to the DoD response (p. 147), and then GAO's follow-up on the comments. This is the level at which this debate occurs - we all need to have our analytical shit in one sock to engage effectively at these levels.

Before youy take any GAO product to the bank, consider their own press:

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is known as "the investigative arm of Congress" and "the congressional watchdog." GAO supports the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and helps improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people.

They used to be known as the Government Accounting Office vice their new name of Government Accountability Office. Regardless, there are more CPAs per square inch than there are PhDs at ONR. They don't freelance much anymore, they're too busy responding to member requests for these type analyses. Take this into account as well. When asked to investigate, they come up with the "Bucket" title of the report. It doesn't change regardless of what they produce as a result of their "investigation" and what DoD says in response (always put into an Appendix). They know who butters their bread.

Note: They are required to inform the service that they are investigating an issue/topic. They cannot make cold calls so if you get a direct call from a GAO investigator, that is a party foul. Ask them for a copy of the letter and alert your chain of command.

PS LL is an Air Force term. Navy uses OLA (Office of Legislative Affairs)

IMO, if you want an authoritative analysis, go to Congressional Research Service (CRS) that operates out of Liberary of Congress.

 

[wink]

The fire fighters in Congress commercial chaps my analytical ass. "Want clean water? Yep. Good roads? Yep. Hey, this ain't hard." Well wait a minute - you don't have enough money for everything you want, so which is more important? What about blind orphans, or the crippled veteran's widows? Yes, this is hard....

Yes I agree it is hard, but mostly because it is made so. If it is hard it is because the public has been convinced we have to spend money on programs that should not be the federal government's responsibility in the first place. It is harder because it is made so by congressman pandering to constituents and business interests. It is hard because people with agendas and parochial interests will make any argument to win. Give me a break. It is not about money, even if you want to pay for all the blind orphans to go to Stanford, or put a post office named after a politician on every street corner. It is about WILL. The fact is that the debate, and yes I do believe it can be debated, is cluttered by arguments made simply to attack and gain advantage elsewhere, not contribute to the debate at hand. If you have the will, you find the way, or the money in this case. It is basic economics. Every city in this country has ALLOWED the crime rate they endure to materialize. The crime rate in every city in this land could be lower if more police were hired, more security systems installed, more jail cells built, etc. But in every city the citizens have by default decided how much crime they are comfortable with by diverting resources to recycling programs, a new library, or additional public art. Or they may signally their limit on taxes, drying up funds to do all the above. The fact is that the public does not adequately value defense spending. The misinformation perpetuated, and believed, about the defense budget as a line item is perpetuated by those that have no interest in a strong defense. As a percent of GDP our defense spending is quite low historically, and we are at war. That is because the public has been convinced that billions of dollars a year need to be spent on programs that should have no, or much smaller, federal participation, and that defense has gotten it's fair share. To change that takes WILL, not fancy arguments, GAO studies, or Rand reports.