Secretary Gates says Navy Might Not Need 11 Carrier Groups

Every service has experienced cuts or delayed programs in the past few years.

Army lost the Future Combat System, IIRC.
Air Force had the F-22 capped, the KC-X and CSAR-X canceled or delayed significantly, lost a couple big-ticket satellite programs, and NMD.
Navy plans for the LCS have undergone significant changes, and I remember something else getting cut (but can't remember the name).

The costs of fighting two wars while budget defitcits are running so high makes things "interesting." Quite a few systems need replacement or recapitalization, but they are all competing for money. Not only is the competition within th DoD, but domestic programs are eating increasing percentages of the federal budget.
 
Also, if you haven't noticed America has been fighting a very assymetric war over the past couple of years, and carrier strike groups aren't exactly designed for that. Especially the billion dollar AEGIS DDG. Build 2 LCS's for the same price, get twice the visibility, all of the same capabilities that are actually used in this war, and a fraction of the crew (and thus a fraction of the upkeep cost). That is a good deal.


I think we should look beyond the current conflict the US is embroiled in - if President Obama stays faithful to his withdrawal plans, we will be out of the Middle East in no more than half a decade. We have no idea what the next big conflict might call for or where it'll take place and I agree with a lot of the people here that America should preserve its blue-water capabilities just in case.
 
Reducing a single carrier hardly eliminates a blue water navy. It just reduces our blue water naval capability from 10x to 9x the rest of the planet.
 
One proposed Navy aircraft carrier is equal to the entire, shrinking, Coast Guard budget.
 
Food for Thought

Safety, operational efficency, and operational effectiveness demand six months of workups prior to each deployment. After a 6-8 month deployment, morale and retention demand a six month standown. Carriers visit the shipyards with disturbing regularity for rework. Therefore, 3.5 or so carriers are demanded in the inventory in order to sustain each one that is deployed.

To sustain round-the-clock operations demands at least two carriers. Desert Storm called for four. OIF demanded three. Afghanistan, in the beginning, used two.

Do the math three deployed X 3.5 and we have our 11 carrier battle groups.

A modern carrier and it's air wing is probably one of the more complex weapons systems in the world. They cannot be stood up on a whim.

Until Seymour Johnson has the capability to get underway and be parked off the coast of any country in the world in 3-5 days, to sustain our present world posture, we need them.
 
Safety, operational efficency, and operational effectiveness demand six months of workups prior to each deployment. After a 6-8 month deployment, morale and retention demand a six month standown. Carriers visit the shipyards with disturbing regularity for rework. Therefore, 3.5 or so carriers are demanded in the inventory in order to sustain each one that is deployed.

To sustain round-the-clock operations demands at least two carriers. Desert Storm called for four. OIF demanded three. Afghanistan, in the beginning, used two.

Do the math three deployed X 3.5 and we have our 11 carrier battle groups.

A modern carrier and it's air wing is probably one of the more complex weapons systems in the world. They cannot be stood up on a whim.

Until Seymour Johnson has the capability to get underway and be parked off the coast of any country in the world in 3-5 days, to sustain our present world posture, we need them.

Welcome back mombee :thumb:
 
Actually, Mongo has made some excellent points. The current number of aircraft carrier groups wasn't picked on a whim; it was done after careful analysis of the requirement for "forward presence" in today's world, detailed in the National Military Strategy. And the level of that required forward presence was determined in order to meet the requirements put forth by our National Security Strategy, which comes from the desk of the President and is approved by Congress.

Now, exactly how much "forward presence" are we going to be able to accomplish with a reduced number of carriers? Well, the Navy will have to tell the SECDEF that answer. It will be centered on: "we can do a lot, but we can't do everything you told us to do." What will fall out? Will we reduce presence in the Eastern Pacific, where we have a very visible "reminder" for some potential threats over there that we won't put up with any nonsense? Or that the shipping lanes, which are the life blood of our economy, are kinda important to us and we're willing to smack anyone who may try to do something stupid and threaten them? How about the Arabian Peninsula? We willing to stop supporting the two conflicts we're currently involved in over there? Finally, we get to the Med and the Atlantic. Ready to tell our allies that one of their security blankets is no longer there for them, so the next time a Kosovo happens, they're out of luck? Or better yet: "Israel, you're on your own. Now don't get nervous or nothing and decide to pre-emptively reach out and touch the enemies that surround you."

Do I agree that we need to stop the huge spending? Do I agree that we need to reduce costs? Certainly. But, I get a little peeved that it is done with a "Just make it so" from the civilian leadership without telling us how we're going to continue to meet the current requirements THEY dictated to us. Wanna cut the military? Fine, just tell the American public the consequences, and tell us where you are wiling to accept more risk in meeting our National Security Objectives. Perhaps maybe it IS time we abandon Europe; 70 years may be enough. But have the political courage to announce that publicly and deal with the fall-out...

Until Seymour Johnson has the capability to get underway and be parked off the coast of any country in the world in 3-5 days, to sustain our present world posture, we need them.

BTW, when Seymour Johnson was notified to deploy for Desert Storm, the first squadron of 24 jets was gone 24 hours later and parked on a ramp ready to fight within 72 hours of the initial notification. The second squadron got notified in December (a few months later), with the same results. Same thing happened in the Bosnian conflict.

But you are right, Mongo. Nothing makes a more visible reminder of American power than a carrier parked off the shores of some lunatic despot...
 
Reducing a single carrier hardly eliminates a blue water navy. It just reduces our blue water naval capability from 10x to 9x the rest of the planet.

I meant to say that any reduction in the navy, especially a potential reduction as big as the one, would obviously decrease any capabilities we have, many of which have been posted. It could be a liability to any future conflict we might have to respond to, but I'll leave the rest of the debate to the better informed members here ;)
 
Bullet said:
BTW, when Seymour Johnson was notified to deploy for Desert Storm, the first squadron of 24 jets was gone 24 hours later and parked on a ramp ready to fight within 72 hours of the initial notification. The second squadron got notified in December (a few months later), with the same results. Same thing happened in the Bosnian conflict.
Can we guarantee that all the world's potential hot spots are within range of existing friendly capable airfields? I think most, if not all, are within range of international waters.

It is also extremely difficult (or at least more so than with a carrier) to maintain any element of surprise when forward land basing a couple of squadrons of AF jets into a potential hot spot.
 
Last edited:
Actually, Mongo has made some excellent points. The current number of aircraft carrier groups wasn't picked on a whim; it was done after careful analysis of the requirement for "forward presence" in today's world, detailed in the National Military Strategy. And the level of that required forward presence was determined in order to meet the requirements put forth by our National Security Strategy, which comes from the desk of the President and is approved by Congress.

Now, exactly how much "forward presence" are we going to be able to accomplish with a reduced number of carriers? Well, the Navy will have to tell the SECDEF that answer. It will be centered on: "we can do a lot, but we can't do everything you told us to do." What will fall out? Will we reduce presence in the Eastern Pacific, where we have a very visible "reminder" for some potential threats over there that we won't put up with any nonsense? Or that the shipping lanes, which are the life blood of our economy, are kinda important to us and we're willing to smack anyone who may try to do something stupid and threaten them? How about the Arabian Peninsula? We willing to stop supporting the two conflicts we're currently involved in over there? Finally, we get to the Med and the Atlantic. Ready to tell our allies that one of their security blankets is no longer there for them, so the next time a Kosovo happens, they're out of luck? Or better yet: "Israel, you're on your own. Now don't get nervous or nothing and decide to pre-emptively reach out and touch the enemies that surround you."

Do I agree that we need to stop the huge spending? Do I agree that we need to reduce costs? Certainly. But, I get a little peeved that it is done with a "Just make it so" from the civilian leadership without telling us how we're going to continue to meet the current requirements THEY dictated to us. Wanna cut the military? Fine, just tell the American public the consequences, and tell us where you are wiling to accept more risk in meeting our National Security Objectives. Perhaps maybe it IS time we abandon Europe; 70 years may be enough. But have the political courage to announce that publicly and deal with the fall-out...



BTW, when Seymour Johnson was notified to deploy for Desert Storm, the first squadron of 24 jets was gone 24 hours later and parked on a ramp ready to fight within 72 hours of the initial notification. The second squadron got notified in December (a few months later), with the same results. Same thing happened in the Bosnian conflict.

But you are right, Mongo. Nothing makes a more visible reminder of American power than a carrier parked off the shores of some lunatic despot...

Unless something has changed in the last 4 months, there is no carrier group supporting OIF now. All ITO CAS comes from USAF assets in Balad.

Bullet, you know as well as anyone that the USAF can now project power from home station in ways we couldn't imagine 40 years ago. It used to be that a CSG was the only way to project non-nuclear strike power globally. Today, that's not the case so much.

I think we would be wise to not assume that there is much discussion between civilian and military leaders occurring on this subject. I highly doubt that the admirals and the SecDef take such things lately. The question is the age old problem of limited resources trying to satisfy unlimited wants.

Would it be great to give the Navy 11 carrier groups, 20 LCS, and a chocolate eclair for every sailor? You bet. But the bottom line is that the Navy has been swimming in fiscal gravy for years. During that time, the Army and Marines have been run ragged while the USAF and USN have had a much smaller role to play. If we look at the current global situation as a long term issue, which the Navy has with the desire for the Littoral Combat Ships, then there must be a shift in resources away from the massive, high-intensity power projection architecture we've pursued since the end of WWII.

The Navy is being asked to be a team player in the effort to reshape the American military. The reaction of the officers in charge will reveal volumes about how much they value the team concept.
 
scoutpilot said:
Unless something has changed in the last 4 months, there is no carrier group supporting OIF now.
It would be a first. You might want to check on the location of the Eisenhower.
 
The Navy is being asked to be a team player in the effort to reshape the American military. The reaction of the officers in charge will reveal volumes about how much they value the team concept.

I was with you until this line, which, while a wonderful thought, is not grounded in reality, in the slightest, at least not "Beltway" reality. I can picture A-1 Abrams driving along side pretty pink unicorns assigned to the calvary, but that's "LaLa Land" not the real world of service funding.

If this were reality, the Army would have given their National Guard counterparts far greater support in 2001-2003 time frame and DoD would have cut spending for peace time operations of other services (like mine, for instance), but that's not reality.

The reality of it is...you have the CNO say "we don't need ships", when he does, what has changed?

In the early 90's, under President Clinton, the federal government asked agencies to make cuts. The Coast Guard, trying to be the "team player" made huge cuts, at one point we have over 120 public affairs professionals, and cut that to 78. That was 20 years ago. We continue to carry maintain 78 PA pros for an organization of 40,000.

Totally understand the concept of being a "team player", but frankly, I've never seen that realized...certainly not in the favor of the Coast Guard.
 
If this were reality, the Army would have given their National Guard counterparts far greater support in 2001-2003 time frame and DoD would have cut spending for peace time operations of other services (like mine, for instance), but that's not reality.

Explain what you mean by that.

Totally understand the concept of being a "team player", but frankly, I've never seen that realized...certainly not in the favor of the Coast Guard.

Doesn't mean it shouldn't be, and it doesn't mean that the Navy leadership would be right for behaving that way. As I mentioned, other services have taken huge cuts in core programs to maintain the current tempo of deployments and field necessary lifesaving systems (MRAPs).

The Navy isn't being asked to say "we don't need ships." They're being asked, essentially, to combine their new LCS and submarine capabilities with 10 carriers to maintain a global presence. These aren't wholesale cuts in the Navy. They're a shifting of resources within the DoD and to Department of the Navy. Some of the savings will be returned to the DN via USMC reset. No one is bleeding the Navy dry, and if some senior leadership acts as though that's what's happening, they will be showing a lot about the character of DN leadership overall.

I'm not saying it hasn't happened before. I'm saying it's not right whenever senior leaders play "give us the most" instead of playing "how do we best serve the nation?"

And it's an M1A1 or M1A2 Abrams. The A-1 was the Skyraider :smile:
 
I was referring to the sub-par equipment the National Guard had to deploy with at the beginning of the war.

I said A-1? Eh, my bad, I should have known better, there was one parked on the National Mall this weekend, and I'm a fan of that tank.


No, totally agree it SHOULD be that way, each service considering what the others need, but in large part, it is not, everyone is concerned about their own budgets (for obvious reasons, they have their own programs and own goals).

Thought it was a funny way to end the post. As I read it, I could hear Madonna's "Jessie's Song" playing in my head. "Candy kisses and a sunny day...."
 
Now Mongo, do we really want to start down the road of "which asset is the best"? All have limitations, all have strengths in different areas. Almost always, it is the Combined TEAM that is the best answer...

But let me answer a few of the glaring ones you posted, based on the discussions I am having with Congress, OSD, and the joint services as part of my current job...

Can we guarantee that all the world's potential hot spots are within range of existing friendly capable airfields?

May not need to if it is just a short, one strike mission into a denied airspace. Persistent / prolonged combat? Well, different story, but if it's a prolonged war, it will include the ENTIRE power of the DoD.

I think most, if not all, are within range of international waters.

So are most of the anti-ship missile batteries and the potential enemies OWN aircraft, complete with anti-ship weapons. Does the CSG have it's own self-protection capabilities? Certainly. Can they get ALL the incoming missiles? A pretty gutsy bet, especially if you will be the one standing on the LARGEST radar reflector in the water for miles...

It is also extremely difficult (or at least more so than with a carrier) to maintain any element of surprise when forward land basing a couple of squadrons of AF jets into a potential hot spot.

Thanks for the chuckle. Element of surprise? From a Carrier Group having to sail close enough to employ against potential targets? :rolleyes: Well, maybe if we stick to taking on the Pirates off the Somali coast. I think both deploying a Wing of Strike aircraft from the AF and deploying a Carrier group really don't count on surprise. I think there both more inclined to be sending a message.

But this is besides the point. As has been mentioned, this is clearly a situation where the senior military leadership will have to work with OSD and Congress to establish priorities. Someone's capabilities will have to be reduced for another's to be supplemented; the defense budget's imminent reduction will make this a reality. I just hope the debate will include the foresight to look beyond the current situation and also include future possibilities. Or at least those in charge to have the courage enough to identify National priorities for the next 20 or so years, and publicly declare their willingness to accept risk in other areas.

One factor no one has addressed is "How will Congress take this?" They do have a tendency to muck up our best plans for shifting priorities and reductions. The C-130J comes to mind, plus the whole BRAC process. Not to sure how our Congessmen from California, Virginia, and Florida will take to suggestions to reduce the fleet. And I'm positive the Congressman who has the shipbuilding yard in their district WILL NOT be the first in line to shake the SECDEF's hand in support of his intentions. I always get a big laugh when Congressmen hold a press conference about "how can we risk our troops' safety" when it's suggested a program from their district be cut or eliminated. Never forget: Congress's 1st priority is NOT National Defense (although they may loudly claim it is). Their 1st priority is getting re-elected, and that means keeping the jobs in their district.
 
Not attempting to start a 'which is best' fight or provide chuckles either. Just that in certain scenarios, a CV is invaluable, perhaps even mandatory. A single strike is not the issue of course, but a prolonged Iraq/Afghanistan type engagement where the Navy can almost be the quickest but not necessarily sustainable. Yes, both the AF and Navy have positives and negatives.

I would imagine that to most third world radars, a CV in the Persian Gulf/North Arabian Sea paints an almost identical skin picture as a super tanker.
 
Not attempting to start a 'which is best' fight or provide chuckles either. Just that in certain scenarios, a CV is invaluable, perhaps even mandatory.

Concur on the utility of a CV-part, 1000%.

A single strike is not the issue of course, but a prolonged Iraq/Afghanistan type engagement where the Navy can almost be the quickest but not necessarily sustainable. Yes, both the AF and Navy have positives and negatives.

Agree again, and acknowledged in my previous post. In fact, I think we're just talking over each other here, and in violent agreement that the impacts of a carrier force structure reduction must be considered. And I agree with previous posters that this is definitely happening, at levels way above us mere mortals.

I would imagine that to most third world radars, a CV in the Persian Gulf/North Arabian Sea paints an almost identical skin picture as a super tanker.

Absolutely true. And if the shooting starts in that neck of the woods (or water, in this case), I don't think either would want to be in that confined a water space, and both would be extremely vulnerable. But we're not talking third world radars over there (or in the Straights of Taiwan), are we? Again, bad ju-ju.

But don't get me wrong. I ain't too sure the bases we would have to deploy our land-based aviation assets would be the safe-est to be standing on either. We're looking at some interesting scenarios in the next few generations. With some interesting capabilities becoming more and more emphasized. It ain't gonna look like your Dad's (or ours) military in the not too distant future.
 
Now back to the OP's question as to how this will affect careers of current candidates, I would guess it could probably be very little. We need an aircraft handler here but my impression is that we are now carrying a minimal aircraft load out and the deck is nowhere near locked. Presently, the normal air wing consists of 65 or so aircraft with similiar deck footprints to the Vietnam era with much larger flight decks and hangar space. I do not know the rationalization for this. On Yankee Station the normal air wing consisted of 90-100 aircraft. We could eliminate two carriers and absorb their aircraft into remaining air wings at much less cost than maintaining two extra battle groups and providing more effective service with the remaining assets. Just an opinion with nothing to back it up except that the space is there and the aircraft would also already exist.
 
Back
Top