Just like the cicadas, every 17 years or so, someone smoking a pipe and wearing a tweed jacket will come out with the bold proposition that maybe it’s time for the US Navy to buy smaller, or fewer, or no aircraft carriers. This year, it was former Carter-era CIA director Stansfield Turner, joined now by US Rep Roscoe Bartlett, R-MD.
Admiral Turner wrote an article in the July issue of the Naval Institute Proceedings, entitled: “Do We Need Carriers?”
Turner argues that other, cheaper ships, equipped with large stocks of computer and satellite-guided missiles, could deliver as much combat power as a carrier without risk to pilots and other airmen.
“All weapons systems have their day and we move on,” Turner said in an interview. He worries that “military people have a tendency to stay with what’s tried, true and proven” without fully studying alternatives, he added.
The Admiral had no such traditionalist compunctions as CIA director, firing over 800 human intelligence, or HUMINT agents in what came to be known as the Halloween Massacre, while increasing focus on technical intelligence capabilities such as SIGINT and IMINT. The gaps in intelligence generated by these technology-focused solutions – our inability to divine intentions to go along with assessed capabilities – have been vividly illustrated in empty Mesopotamian weapons bunkers and wounded New York skylines, but never mind: The admiral’s faith in technological solutions to national security problems appears unshaken.
I would not trade our Navy for the next three combined, and the fact remains that a robust carrier force is what separates our shrinking service from those of the rest of the world – as a maritime nation with global responsibilities and roughly 300 ships, we can ill-afford to throw away the competitive advantage in firepower, persistence and flexibility that bringing 4.5 acres of sovereign US territory, 60-odd tactical jets and 44 strike fighters per deck offers us, far less the synergies we achieve when we combine multiple carrier strike groups into one striking force.
We can, and do have the world’s best submarines and submariners. We can and do have potent destroyers and cruisers with a professional officer corps and heroic, hard working Sailors. But unless we abandon the global reach that has been the focus of our maritime strategy since the days of Mahan, unless we are content to use what ships we have left to merely patrol the maritime approaches to the continental United States, we will never have the advantage of interior lines and short logistic tails. With global responsibilities, the fast-moving nature of modern warfare, the tyranny of distance and a paucity of ships, we no longer have the capability to “flood the zone” with sea power. Instead, the geographical advantages of interior lines will nearly always accrue to potential adversaries in far flung fastnesses.
To balance this advantage we have air power at sea, which, when combined with surface and subsurface power, add up to three dimensional maritime dominance.
We have had the “jeep carrier” discussion before, and even tried it out during WW II and Korea – but with the current fiscal constraints on total ship numbers, no one today wishes for less capability or capacity at sea than we currently have, and a ship half the size of a Nimitz-class carrier is easily less than half as capable. In any case, where would we ever find the money to build and man the escorts for these smaller, less capable ships?
The “Arsenal Ship” was an interesting design, much along the lines of Admiral Turner’s carrier replacement platform, but operationalizing this concept had severe limitations, and the idea did not survive the death of its main advocate. First, in the scale of conflict from peacetime operations to full scale war, there are many fine gradations along the way – and hopefully, many potential “off ramps.” A missile sitting in a silo or vertical launch cell over the horizon is binary – it is either off (sitting in its cell) or it is “on” (i.e., en route to a target). Regardless of their latent potential, missile ships at sea have nothing like the deterrent value in an “approach to hostilities” phase of a carrier air wing flying “training missions” just outside a country’s national airspace.
In a transition to hostilities, missiles also tend to have much less destructive force – smaller warheads, in other words – because they must also have aerodynamic bodies, guidance packages, control suites and fuel capacity than does a precision guided free fall weapon like a laser guided bomb or joint direct attack munition (JDAM). This means that you either have to content yourself with pinpricks, or else use so many missiles as to make the apparent cost savings much less attractive – attacking hardened targets with unhardened missiles is an exercise in noisy futility.
Finally, no computer yet designed or even envisioned has anything like the native processing power as the human brain – especially in support of fast-moving ground forces in a fluid land campaign: Close air support. If I was a soldier or Marine in trouble and I needed high explosive ordnance dropped danger close and in the next few minutes, I’d want to make sure the operator doing the dropping had his own eyeballs on me, and on the enemy, and I could hear it in his voice – unmanned aircraft will never fill this role.
The Global War on Terror is primarily a land campaign, augmented to a degree by tactical air from the sea or ashore, but mostly fought out in the shadows by “operators” and in the gray areas between engagment and destruction by young men with dusty boots, rifles and incredible responsibilities. If the GWOT was all we were ever going to do, the argument in favor of carrier aviation would be far less persuasive, but there were good reasons to maintain dominance in the maritime regime before the GWOT began in earnest, and those reasons have not gone away in the meantime.
There may indeed come a time when carrier air power is no longer required, but such an event must necessarily be preconditioned by all of us beating our swords into ploughshares and our spears into pruning hooks. The only other alternative perhaps would be when we have at last withdrawn from the rest of the world entirely.
No time soon, in other words.
“Whatever happens, we have got / the carrier group, and they have not.” — John Derbyshire, channeling Hilaire Belloc
?
“military people have a tendency to stay with what’s tried, true and proven”….
well, of course. when you only have one chance to get it correct, and the downside of getting it wrong is unacceptable, what else would he expect us to do??
CAPT-
Preach on. While some might say that the arsenal ship concept exists to some degree in the SSGN class, even the thought that there *might* be 150-odd cruise missiles and 60-odd SEALs off your coast, but you can not be sure, will never be nearly as awe-inspiring as the sight of that big gray bird farm proving that we care enough to send the very best.
There is not, and will not in the near-term, be a better power-projecting platform than a big deck carrier. Bring all the gadgets you want in its place, they will not match up to the power a CVBG brings to bear.
And add to that what MajMike said, which was my initial, knee-jerk reaction…
Keep the [hell, build more] big deck carriers. Design the next generation swarming UAVs to operate from them, in concert with manned aircraft, for the long range strike mission.
Agree that manned aircraft are irreplacable for the CAS mission.
Gotta stay the course as the world’s maritime 800lb gorilla. Otherwise we’re just a frigate navy–useful for chasing pirates but not projecting power.
Besides, Army grunts think operating from a 30kt badass open 24/7 all-you-can-eat DFAC [with its own airfield] is really kinda kewl…
We do have small carriers last time I checked. I guess you’d have to ask the Marines how effective of a platform they are.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lha-1-gallery.htm
“Carter-era” pretty much says it all.
I second Jonboy’s sentiments.
Please tell me Admiral Turner did NOT graduate from USNA with Carter…
Babs, It’s my undersrtanding that Turner was a BMOC at the USNA when the future peanut farmer entered and that since then Carter has always held him (Turner) in awe. Best
PS.I’am sure Lex and the other sea going types wince when reminded that these two GOOBERS are USNA grads
You know, there are few things on this planet that I can say I truly hate. Islamic fascists, Mujahdeen, Jihadists, Enemies of the US in all forms, Adm Turner, Hippies, Seditionists, Traitors. Yep! ’bout covers it.
I’m tempted to add Murtha but there is just something so sad about a man that loses his backbone and falls prey to senility.
Keep the carriers. If nothing else than the fact that their wash stirs up the baitfish which in turn raises the billfish. Heh!
Phooey. I’m still mad because the Navy retired the last of the battleships!
Well, nothing says you’re really interested than seeing a flight of Hornets fly over your little burg, which tells you Uncle Sugar has one of his portable airfields stationed somewhere over the horizon. Hell yes, let’s keep the big deck carriers! Having said that, just why the hell did we screw the Kennedy over so badly, that we are now at the point where there is no other fiscally responsible choice but put her out of her misery? And having beat, banged, burned, and welded on her for the past five years, yes, I know how bad she really is. Oh, and yes, dear, we are STILL working on her, STILL pouring taxpayer dollars on her, STILL sending the JFK out to sea for 3 days every 3 months, for God knows what reason, when she is NOT certified by AirLant for flight ops.
Bemused in Mayport….
Byron, For this unenlightened landlubber… “how did we screw the Kennedy” over ? Best
Reframe the debate.
Resolved, a nation dependant upon trade with other nations should not have a Navy armed with capital ships.
Hey Ima…buzz off. The only reason we have trade with other nations is that we have open sea lanes and open air corridors. Now how do you think they got that way? Does Wolf Pack mean anything to you?
Lex-This writing is worthy of the Proceedings. Submit it.
Inquiring minds want to know:
Yes, what is wrong with the USS JFK?
Why did ADM Bourda commit suicide?
I believe it was that self-same ADM Bourda who convincingly demonstrated that mine warfare was the mostly deadly weapon in WWII and its cost effectiveness left submarines (the usual braggards) far behind, not to mention the carriers. Of course we are on the way to scrapping mine warfare pretty much altogether. At a cocktail party in Washington the mine guys probably couldn’t hold a candle to the flyboys and their industry reps, even if they were invited.
You have a war with China, it seems to me, that that there strait between Taiwan and the mainland is gonna get chock full ‘o mines in a trice. But I’m ‘way over my paygrade now. Just thinkin.
Ever since the JFK left a SLEP half-finished, and became a “training carrier”, and then, less than a year later, went through a quick overhaul to get her to deploy for six months, her material condition has slowly been going in the crapper. In 2002, her CO, XO, CHENG, and various and sundry others were relieved. Since then, she’s had another CO relieved (after running over a dhow in the Gulf). In 2003, she went through a major overhaul. I’ve heard various figures bandied about, and my best guess, after talking to the other folks who worked her for 11 months, was around a half billion dollars. I know for a FACT, that the jobs I worked on were band aids. There was a lot more very thin steel that by the book should have been replaced. And this folks, is on the DC deck..you know, the one that’s supposed to keep your ship from sinking? I’ve worked on her off and on since then, and we’re still sticking band aids on her. To get her ready for sea again, and good to go for 3 more years, would probably cost about 3 LPD-17s (gag).
And don’t get me started on the crew. Lets just say, I’m real glad when I walk off the JFK, to go work on any other ship, and get to deal with real sailors.
By the way, I’ve worked on the Forrestal and Saratoga a lot. I loved working on them. Got a little teary eyed when I saw the flag come down for the last time, too. I won’t miss the JFK, not at all.
Not for the first time Ima, you mystify me. Substituting logically, “Resolved: A person dependent upon employment should not support the police.”
See what I mean?
All you have to do is mention “Carter era” and my first reaction is to ignore whatever that person might say or think, and then I begin to get actively angry. How is it that these disgraced people, including the namesake, Jimmah himself, continue to get any respect in the Mainstream Media or anywhere??
Does the crew of SSN 23 get any extra razzing because of their boat’s namesake?
Where is B2?
I will opine the unfortunate tack that Navair took towards the all Hornet deck has left the carrier wide open to this latest political attack…
Turns out this article was rather prescient after all…
http://www.usni.org/proceedings/Articles00/prorowe.htm
How about this instead,
Resolved: A person whose livelihood depends upon private property rights should not support the police.
Real world counter example. Convenience stores almost always give free coffee to police.
And don?
And don’t get me started on the crew. Lets just say, I’m real glad when I walk off the JFK, to go work on any other ship, and get to deal with real sailors.
I’d think if what you say is true with poor leadership, band-aid solutions and no apparent ability to do the job (launch and retrieve those things with wings) it’s less than suprising the crew is wondering exactly why they bother.
Oh and BTW, if this is coming back up surely the Battleship argument is coming around soon, I think I just heard Chap scream somewhere.
ADM Turner is confusing the weapons system (air wing) with the platform (CVN).
Then again, I dismiss pretty much anything that comes out of the mouth of anybody who is from the Carter administration.
[...] Read his entire post here. [...]
Byron, Thanks for response. I de-coded CHENG as Chief Enginner…obvious but SLEP, DC deck and 3LPD-17s… not so obvious to this Dog… Best
I strongly recommend that Ima Fake change his/her nom de blog to “Ima Flake”. Best
SLEP = “service life extension program,” a major overhaul that went essentially unfunded. It was back in the glorious 90′s (peace dividend!) when we were playing a shell game with carriers, JFK being the “reserve” carrier that Byron touches on, which ended up doing all the same heavy lifting as all the “active” carriers, only with a great deal less maintenance. The sailors bore the brunt of the repair effort using quick-fixes and workarounds, because the labor was bought and paid for – unlike the shipyards, who work for profit on contract.
When you put band-aids on top of band-aids, eventually something breaks. Maybe it’s the morale of people who know that we shouldn’t have been doing business this way. Maybe it’s a piece of gear that ends up costing someone his life, or his command pin.
The DC deck is the damage control deck, the highest watertight level. If leaks get past the bulkheads there, she’s going over, and then she’s going down.
LPD-17′s are our new acquisition program for amphibious transport docks. Not everyone is a fan.
Ima’s just having us on:
“Don?
Ima’s just having us on:
“Don’t forget free trade. We liberals love free trade!
Plus, when you love free trade, you love a strong navy. Somebody has to protect your traders” — Ima Fake, 17 APR 2006
Lex, Many thanks for the primer on navy lingo…
Re Ima, the thought did cross my mind that Ima was as you say “just having us on” but no matter, my recomendation stands…”Ima Flake”… descriptive, evocative and well earned… Best
PS, I rejected “Ima a Polemicist” as just to klunky
Turner was an idiot then and some things don’t change!
I don’t think I was having you on. If you reframe the debate, the answer becomes obvious; as you all pointed out.
When the question under debate is complicated, one can lose the thread of the idea. Big deck – small deck ect. When you consider what a CV is, a capital ship, then it becomes obvious that a nation dependant upon trade needs a strong blue-water navy able to keep open the trade routes which are our life blood.
I was trying for the opposite of Sophism; simplicity. I said reframe the debate, so that the intellectually correct position is percieved. At least I used the right “capital.”
CAPT Lex,
I note that all the other submariners here have said pretty much the same thing as I will. As long as the American people expect to fight wars with overwhelming force and pinpoint accuracy, the future of the big deck carrier and the fantastic Men and machines they carry will be secure. I echo the comment that you can send a submarine or a destroyer off some far flung coast to announce your presence or intentions, but when you really want to show how much you truly care, you send the best.
And that is a CV/CVN Battle Group with 60+ machines designed to rain absolute Death and Destruction with a mere glance and a flyby.
I always loved to have a CVN in my periscope cross hairs. It made me feel important.
But it also made me realize there is nothing — NOTHING — in this world feared more than the pilots, jets, ships, Men and machines of the United States Navy Carrier Battle Group. Congress (and the Navy leadership) can have the carriers and their weapons systems for the boneyard only when they pry them from my cold dead hands.
God Bless, sir. Pass my highest regards to the Lord while you are up there communing with Him.
Subsunk
This past weekend I was in Boston and made a point to go by our oldest capital ship. Hey, we did not have a lot of money, but heavily armed speed and Florida live oak makes an awesome combination.
The harpies of the shore shall pluck
The eagle of the sea!
This Rand study is here is worth the read:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG448.pdf
It takes a woman to bring sense to this debate. If any of you were on the debate team in college, you’d see what she was trying to do. Argue a point by showing how silly the other side was. It must be hard to be a woman in the Navy.
Been there, done the debate. CVV project. See Carter wanting to have it forward based in places such as Pusan, Suda, Oslo, Degio Garcia as part of his RDF program. See Carter wanted these ships optimized for the ASW mission but could also support the troops ashore with VSTOL aircraft (which were then all the rage in the late 70′s and early 80′s, sort of like some other aircraft hmmm!).
See all the CNO’s from Zumwalt up to Holloway give it half hearted support, see Senator Carl Vinsion (A Democratic Senator no less) quash it and threaten to take all the money away from the Navy if they even think of this again. See the RAND think tank, GAO, CBO all say that it would of been more expensive to buy and operate then the current Nimitz class of ships then being built and it would of been even more expensive to operate then the Forrestall or Midway class carriers over a life time. The numbers with regards to time on station, number of sorties generated, sea states it would of been able to operate in, let alone the effect that one or two of the large Soviet cruise missiles (like the AS-4 Kitchen or AS-6 Kingfish) would of done to the ship or even just a simple torpedo since the ship was being planned to only have 2 rudders and 2 props.