That’s been a popular question for US presidents for decades. It’s a little more interesting to hear it being asked by foreign policy elites in Manhattan lofts:
At a dinner party on Manhattan’s upper east side recently, I asked my table-mates how many aircraft carriers they thought America had in service. It wasn’t an idle question. It was triggered by comments from two of the guests. Both had just returned from Iran, and one was a senior European Union staffer involved with security issues. Their report was seriously distressing, and the conversation turned to the possibility of U.S. (or Israeli) intervention.
The answers to my question – how many carriers — ranged from 22 to 100. The EU expert weighed in with 40. All were shocked to learn that the United States has a total of just 11 aircraft carriers. And even that number is misleading: two are in dry-dock, one for a four-year refueling; six are various stages of refurbishment, training and certification and can, in theory, be ready to “surge” in 30 to 90 days. But only three are actually deployed.
Smoke ‘em while you’ve got ‘em.
And read the whole thing.
well, there are always the Gator Navy flat tops….
And the future versions for the JSF won’t even have a well-deck.
and current plans call for a reduction of that total number to 9 if I’m not mistaken…
Anyone know our optempo during the Cold War? Did every one of our ships start workups 8-12 months after returning from deployment as they do now? Were deployments pushing toward 7-9 months back then? We’re not only pushing our Carriers to their maximum potential, we’re doing the same to the rest of the fleet with far fewer ships than we had in the past. I’ve always said that the Navy’s mission never changes whether we’re in war or not- our ships are still out there either keeping the peace or putting in back into place. We don’t put our ships back in garrison when times are less stressful.
It’s not the ships and aircraft you need to worry about…it’s the people who are asked to give more and more and more.
Been saying that for years, and it’s pissing me off. The Reserves are fully engaged and they’re about burnt to a crisp with the Regulars.
Yes, Byron, people are the key. I know deployments away from home and family are MUCH worse, but even in the private sector, “doing more iwth less” seems to be the nature of the beast these days. At some point, both military and private sectors are going to lose quality workers who somehow find less stressful ways of making a living.
A scarier question is how many folks in the current administration have similar misconceptions of our inventory
I’m sure PeBo is just planning on asking the Brits for support with THEIR carriers to tide us over. . . .OH, WAIT!!!! that won’t work either, will it? (intense sarcasm)
I daresay that had we invested $100-200 billion in shipbuilding rather than bailing out crooked bankers that yeah, the unemployment rate would have dropped, and yeah, we would have had higher tax revenues due to working stiffs paying taxes, and yeah, the trickle down to other industries would be about 3 to 1, and yeah, we could have had a great workable jobs program for the next 5-10 years.
But I’m thinking that even had someone yelled “go” the USN would not have had a clear plan to build ships that actually work.
And as the good VADM told me “LT, when we stop buying ships and subs those shipyard workers go work for Maytag and Whirlpool and they don’t come back when we need another carrier or sub”.
The funny part would have been to ask the one who guessed 100 to start naming names. I’m sure the USS Obama, USS Clinton, and USS Kerry would have been right up there.
Wonder if I can learn to fix a washing machine with a 6pd sledge?….
Remember when this nonsense started back in the “rightsize” days of Dubbya’s Daddy? All that work to get to the right size his predecessor flushed, and for what? More G@#D(*#% Social Programs?!?
It leaves me downright uncivil to think about it.
read that “by his predecessor”.
Grumpy now…
GHWB did layout the downsizing after the Fall of the Curtain. Clinton rolled into office and accelerated it by 3x, and, instead of putting the “Peace Dividend” into the Treasury, he began buying up votes via social spending….politicans: They know how to spend any money in front of them, they just don’t have a clue how to stop and/or save any of it…a critical skill for economic survival. What that’s you say? “When it belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one”? Yep.. that would be it.
+1 My inference, only you did a much better job. Thanks!
Considering the GOP controlled Congress for most of Clinton’s administration, perhaps we shouldn’t be pointing too many fingers here?
Good call, G-man. Actually, it would have been the better move politically for Obama, as he’d have been able to do that whole bipartisan thing with the defense-prone Republicans and handed jobs out like candy to his union supporters.
Ponder that. Building a ship is a union workers wet dream. It’s not just the shipyard, it’s the plant that supplies the steel back in Ohio, the electrical workers union that’s fitting all that conduit and wiring, steamfitters union, plumbers union, right down to the Teamsters who move all that material from the plant to the shipyard. In terms of trickle-down, or trickle-up, or whatever, a single carrier beats heck out of any other industrial endeavor in the country for keeping factories running and hence union jobs.
In terms of the factory, these are long-term contracts. They aren’t likely to cut jobs or idle lines when the contract is for 5 years. It’s only between contracts that factories start laying off and mothballing sections.
I wonder how the smartest man in the room, running the smartest administration in history, missed that and spent money on road construction?
– Max
Too late. Whirlpool & Maytag are already hecho in Mexico. GE is hecho in China.
Isn’t that “assembled” rather than “made” Spenser–or am I wrong?
If the EU so-called “security expert” thinks the US has 40 carriers, that explains a lot about Europe’s security posture and behaviors. In other words – clueless.
George V.
I accord that to a latent hope that we’re still the Western world’s Savior in times of trouble.
Poor, deluded fools…them as much as us.
The need for a deployed force multiplier is critical in today’s uncertain world. The nature of the trouble spots around the world calls for having the ability to respond quickly and with a fully capable response to any issue large or small. The ability to project force from the Sea is essential and the Carrier is the one platform we need. Littoral Ships are essential BUT the Carrier is the Big Dog.
Recently, the CEO of my company stated that when he gets on the plane, he trusts the pilot as he feels that is the way it SHOULD BE. If you plan on going somewhere, you have to TRUST the guy at the helm.
READ the words below – I TRUST the people in charge of the NAVY as they know best when it comes to the Large Ships we need –
FROM NAVY.MIL – http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/cv-why.asp
Why the Carriers?
The United States has become increasingly entwined in the business and security issues with the rest of the world. Our economy and security depends upon our protecting our overseas interests as well as encouraging peace and stability around the globe. Forward presence by U.S. Navy aircraft carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups helps us accomplish this. As former Secretary of Defense William Cohen stated: “If you don’t have that forward deployed presence, you have less of a voice, less of an influence.” The U.S. Navy is engaged. And engaged means being there.
As example, on 11 September 2001, USS Enterprise (CVN 65) had just been relieved from being on station in support of Operation Southern Watch. She was heading south in the Indian Ocean, beginning her trip back to homeport in Norfolk, Va., when, on television, they saw the live coverage of attack on the World Trade Center, then on the Pentagon. Enterprise, without an order from the chain of command, put the rudder over, executed a 180-degree course change and headed back to the waters off Southwest Asia. Enterprise then remained on station in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, launching air attacks against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and Taliban military installations in Afghanistan. For approximately the next three weeks, aircraft from Enterprise flew nearly 700 missions in Afghanistan, dropping hundreds of thousands of pounds of ordnance.
The carrier battle group, operating in international waters, does not need the permission of host countries for landing or overflight rights. Nor does it need to build or maintain bases in countries where our presence may cause political or other strains. Aircraft carriers are sovereign U.S. territory that steam anywhere in international waters — and most of the surface of the globe is water. This characteristic is not lost on our political decision-makers, who use Navy aircraft carriers as a powerful instrument of diplomacy, strengthening alliances or answering the fire bell of crisis. As former President Bill Clinton said during a visit to the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, “When word of crisis breaks out in Washington, it’s no accident the first question that comes to everyone’s lips is; where is the nearest carrier?”
The carrier battle group can not only operate independently but it presents a unique range of options to the President, Congress and Secretary of Defense. By using the oceans — more than 70% of the earth’s surface is ocean — both as a means of access and as a base, forward-deployed Navy and Marine forces are readily available to provide the United States with a rheostat of national response capabilities. These capabilities range from simply showing the flag — just a presence — to insertion of power ashore. The unique contribution of aircraft carriers to our national security was best expressed by Gen. John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said during a visit to USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, “I know how relieved I am each time when I turn to my operations officer and say, ‘Hey, where’s the nearest carrier?’ and he can say to me ‘It’s right there on the spot.’ For United States’ interests, that means everything.”
NOW, follow that up with a bunch of elite idjits at a dinner party in Man-hattan who don’t have a frickin’ clue as to how many Carriers we REALLY have…..OMG. The protected have no idea how difficult it is to make sure they can go about their small lives while others pay for it in blood, sweat & tears 24/7/365.
Talk about ” All hard, all the time.”
Over at Information Dissemination there’s been many a post about this subject.
In terms of numbers of carriers, I’m inclined to agree with the fellow at the sadly defunct New Wars milblog. He thinks the USN should stay at 9-10 large CVN’s, but build smaller carriers for the “presence” missions.
This “presence” goes back to another theme I’ve mentioned before. We don’t need a large CVN fleet to patrol the world, which is what we’re doing today. There is no need for a CVN in the South Atlantic, Baltic, etc. I’d save those ships for the 7th and 5th Fleets. The smaller carriers would be covering the “presence” aka “patrol the world” stations. And even then I’m not 100% convinced we need to have 100% coverage in every “presence” station in the world at the same time.
Galrahn (spelling?) has written much on this with “presence squadrons” built around a T-AKE. I don’t have a link but the idea is well worth considering given the capability we would get for the dollar investment.
I do highly agree with the sentiment expressed by Mr. G-Man. That would be a much better use of tax dollars.
You don’t need “presence” squadrons if you have an actual fleet in being.
12 CVN should be a bedrock minimum, with a goal of 15 in commission.
the goal after the “defense review” was to have 1 each on station in the Pac, North Atlantic, Med, and IO, with 1 working up/underway and one standing down/returning, and 1 in SLEP.
That makes for 9 carriers. And it’s obviously a pipe dream to project global power with that, as a true strike force needs at least 2 carriers, and with the current size air wing (this was based on the air wing numbers of the 1980s, they’re down by over a third now, while at the same time the defense review reduced the size of the air wing as we know) even more.
The big problem with small carriers is that they aren’t much cheaper. Ship steel is cheap. Combat systems are where the costs come from.
Ah but see do we really need a CVN constantly patrolling the Baltic? South Atlantic? Western Pacific? South Pacific? That is what the linked article implies. That mentality of having a CVN at every “presence” station 100% of the time is not affordable nor neccessary.
Sure, steel is cheap. I’m not talking about a smaller carrier with all the fancy bells and whistles. You don’t need that for “presence” missions. That’s another part of the problem, the military insisting every ship, tank, airplane, etc, have every little piece of gold plating when it’s not required.
The current LHD design could be modified to make an acceptable “presence” carrier. FA-18′s were flown off the Midway so it can be done. Most likely a “presence” carrier would only need 15-18 fighters. I’d fill the rest of the space with helo’s and UCAV’s.
I’m with XBradTC. Forget ‘Presence’. That’s just code talk for cash burning, useless target. John Lehman landed on 15 CVN’s with accompanying full blown Battle Groups after careful consideration of then existing USN global requirements. Our requirements since then haven’t changed much, except to multiply into more numerous and wide-spread regional hissy fits.
People need to spend more time at home for refresher training and family, ships need (Say it with me) MAINTENANCE, and there need to be spares; not just for CVN’s, either. The personnel attrition rate during the Carter years teaches us that, unless somebody’s burned the books or changed the ‘history’.
We discussed some months ago the enormous costs to overhaul USS ENTERPRISE, many of us agreeing that the overhaul was not cost effective. Part of that, I believe, stems from an aggregation of deferred maintenance requirements. Just like your car, fix the brakes when the pads are worn or pay for pads and rotors later. USS ENTERPRISE is not unique in that regard, as there are many ships being deferred. “We got a war on, you know, and people are starving at home! Banks need saving! Jobs! Did I mention jobs?”
Think USS Cole X 2-3-4 in a CVSG firefight. We’re pared down to the point now where 1 or 2 kills in the Group puts the CVN dangerously at risk. I’d bet money there are those in Navy Leadership who firmly believe we’ll never be in another full blown Naval engagement. IMO, that’s a whole lot like an Atheist praying that, in the end, he’s got it right.
Ironically, the number of U.S. deployments after the Cold War ended went up. 85 some odd deployments within an 18 month period, IIRC. We’re not slowing down, nor are becoming any more fit to do the job.
In addition to the two points Mike makes above about CVN’s, smaller CV’s can be a beast to operate from and their seakeeping ability doesn’t compare to a Nimitz class ship. There’s no way we’ll put reactors in smaller hulls, and we’re done with oil burners. Were it otherwise, our LHD’s would probably be nukes…which I think would be a good idea anyway.
Two questions: First, what about total cost of ownership? The smaller carriers might have a “sail away” cost close to nuke carriers, but what about operation? The nukes are still more expensive.
Second: you didn’t mention the turbine-engine ships. Why?
You have a point about seakeeping, but considering even the “small” carriers are bigger than the Essex-class ships (which seemed to do quite well), I’m wondering if “good enough” will trump “better” in this case?
Nukes are expensive because we make them that way. The expense has increased as a result of hysterical paranoia over the issue of radiation. ADM Rickover had the correct approach. Do not have an accident, design conservitaly, and place those responsible in the chair with shortened legs. Politics and the lack of someone with big brass ones to follow and continue the Rickover path on a strategic and policy level.
Lord that is depressing.
Byron’s point on the personnell issue is one not often discussed outside of Milblogs, though it darn well ought to be.
I knew the number because I had recently been aboard the USS Harry Truman, a nuclear super-carrier with some 70 jets and a crew of 5500.
Closer to 40 some these days.
40 is about what a 40k ton Charles de Gaulle can carry.
Also, if we are going to spend that kind of money on carriers, the Navy needs at least one squadron on the deck that can stand up to emerging threats. If the threat isn’t legacy, the F-35 Just So Farcical (if it ever makes it to the deck) and the Super Hornet (and of course the Hornet) are not it. For example; the Super Hornet is the jet you want your kid to fly because it is in fact very safe in carrier operations. It isn’t the jet you want you kid to take in to combat vs jets with a much larger energy curve. We are OK now. We won’t be in 2015, 2020, 2025 etc.
Also the author needs to realise that if the Joint Strike Failure falls on its face, that those big carriers will be looking at having 2 squadrons of Supers (that is 2 squadrons of fast jets total) when the classic Hornets are put to pasture and that is it.
“I’m not going to cut any aircraft carriers,” Gates told Fred Kaplan in his recent Foreign Affairs interview. “But the reality is, if Chinese highly accurate anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles can keep our aircraft carriers behind the second island chain in the Pacific, you’ve got to think differently about how you’re going to use aircraft carriers.”
So, is the Chinese threat due to Slick Willy’s approval of the sale of the ballistic missle guidance system to the PRC?
Yes.
IIRC Loral played its part in that as well, xformed.
I liked Loral a lot better when it was the Goodyear-Zeppelin Corporation.
No – at least not insofar as the ASBM is concerned that is…
w/r, SJS
[...] least when it comes to aircraft carriers. At a dinner party on Manhattan’s upper east side recently, I asked my [...]
The real issue is that the Navy has no champion. Not in Congress, not in public. And the Navy’s own hysterical paranoia about public affairs doesn’t help.
Might explain the massive rush to be “diverse,” since that has nothing to do with readiness, but is currently (especially as of yesterday) relevant in power politics.
Navy has to focus on putting women aboard Submarines first. Not much use dividing their attention from such an important matter.
Gahlrahn is a decent enough bloke and his heart is is in the right place, but he is seriously out of calibration on minimum number of carriers for national security adequacy in the basket of underfed, stirred up cobras we light-heartedly refer to as the world situation.
THE NUMBER IS FIFTEEN NOT COUNTING ODDS AND SODS flattops and demi-flattops whose hull numbers start with “L” (we are way short on them, too). Plus two oilers, two ammo ships and two beans, lettuce and spare parts supply ships, per bird farm. Plus an Aegis AA Cruiser (two would be better) two destroyers and two frigates per TG with a carrier in the center.
Yes, kids, I know you can consolidate ships types in big new classes.
I also know the one sure way out of a depression (which we are in, deflation = depression, what’s the mil cola the last two years, hmmm?) is Naval Rearmament.
Alternative: sooner or later, no USA.
NO SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ADC, Title 8 housing, Congression staff jobs and network news jobs. The older style whores at the Mustang Ranch’s successors and the hotel bars of Manhattan, DC and Las Vegas are probably still good if they get lucky in nuetron bomb avoidance.
Not now, not in my lifetime. But I have 4 beautiful granddaughters and two strapping grandsons, all under 9 years. I am worried. I have thought it through.
When will the damn fool politicians?
Jackasses. God does things for a reason, right down to party mascots.
LOL. Wolverines!!! Nobody is going to invade America. NOBODY. I’d be more concerned about the demographic invasion in the South. If the foreign elites are just as dumb, then all is good. It’s better to have 10 carriers and be thought to have 100, then to have 100 and be thought to have 10. Perception of omnipresence has a paralyzing effect.
No,no, it is FAR better to have 100, and be thought to have 10, as those 90 extra carriers will be a nasty surprise for someone.
“For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”
Grandpa, you and I are peas in a pod. I’ve always thought that “influence” squadron was a bunch of baloney as well, and a half a carrier is pretty near no carrier. There’s a damn good reason why they made carriers as big as they are: capability. The modern CVN can do a mulitude of things; a demi-carrier can do one or two things sorta OK. When the BBs start flying, the CVLs start dying…fast. Does two 50k ton CVLs equal one 100k ton CVN? Not really, not even close.
While I am in the moderation time out corner, the article is about the best short summary I have ever seen.
We ignore at peril of the Republic’s life.
Rant to follow, after aging like fine wine (I hope)
Sobering read.
Congressman Mark Kirk (hopefully next week Senator Kirk) is a reserve CDR intel officer.
Want to see a movie of CVN-74 taking out 2 ASCM’s with her CIWS, while 3 more ASCM’s “leak” and slam into the carrier ?
And just before impact, the movie depicts what the CIC Watch Standers are discussing as these 5 ASCM missiles are approaching USS STENNIS.
“THE SUM OF ALL FEARS”.
Very, very realistic “movie”. Chilling for our CVN’s !
“The Sum of All Fears” isn’t a good example to use. The carrier in that movie was in what was considered a “safe” area, there was no conflict going on at that time and none of the ships in that battle group had their systems operating. While I agree that scenario is possible, I would like to see how it would turn out against a fully alerted CVBG.
No, this is a good thing. For once I see a silver lining. Iran and China probably also think we have 22 to 100 carriers too. Logically, since EU security experts ARE the smartest people in the world, and therefore Iran and China would be, well, less smart . . .
Snark off.
Let’s just hope for “So?”‘s sake nethier Iran or China have an internet connection . . .
I am in agreement with Grandpa, et al, in that 15 is the bare minimum. But I want us to build up to at least 30, so we can have 5 in the shop for maintenance, 10 in port for rest and retraining, 5 heading in/out, and 10 on station.
Even that seems like speading them pretty thin. The Bear is pumping air into his Zodiac, and looking to sea, and the Dragon is coming for us, eventually. Remember also, people, yesterday was Samar Day, and those people were bushwhacked during a time of war, right after one large battle, and during another, with every ship in TAFFY 3 having at least 1 SC surface search radar, and with both night flying radar equipped TBM search planes in the air. What happened once, can happen again. Between CVEs,CVLs, and CVS we were well over the 100 carrier mark at that tine, so the loss of GAMBIER BAY and ST. LO were under 2% of our carrier force, the loss of 2 today would be 20%,add a 3rd damaged one to represent the mangled KALININ BAY, and we are down to, with the 4 we have in the shop, just 4 CVs. This is unacceptable.
We also need to buy the license to build FRITIJHOF NANSEN class DEGs, as the 21rst Century’s JOHN C BUTLER class. They have 5″/54s, and AEGIS, so they can replace BURKES for a lot of misions, and they cost about what an Little Crappy Ship does. If Marinette Marine, in Marinette, WI, can build a LCS, they can build a BUTLER. This would bring money and jobs to the Upper Midwest, the neglected Flyover Country, and give Badgers jobs, because WE ARE HURTING!BUTLERs would also mean we burn out our BURKES and thier crews more slowly.
While 30 NIMITZ/BURKE/TICONDEROGA/BUTLER/PERRY/SSN CVSGS needed, we need still more. As noted above, the Fleet isn’t going ANYWHERE without a Fleet Train, and we are down to just, so to speak, an MP15AC switcher, and a short string of cars. They are not glamourous, but they are every bit as important as the CVN and her buddies.
PATRONs have also been neglected, with the very capable P-3 being slowly being allowed to become endangered, and is now well on it’s way to extinction. It’s replacement, the P-8, flies too high and too fast to do the ASW part of Maritime Patrol. The Hoover is gone. So we will be sending the carriers out through the approach/departure chokepoints with the areas not being sanitized first. The next Samar or Pearl Harbor might be The Battle Off San Diego.
The Congress, both parties, have allowed us to get in this state, by wasting money on unworkable and futile social spending, to buy votes. Naval Rearamament is not an option, it is imparative, we are a maritime trading nation, and Free Passage of the seas is our means of survival. It is gonna cost A LOT, but we really have no choice. but at least the money will be spent at home, on building ship and planes, and highering the people to build and operate them. This ends the Badger’s Rant.
Thirty nuclear carriers? Who’s paying for them?
I do wish people would quit talking about how big the Navy was in WW2, at least until they remember that defense spending was 86.86% of Federal spending in 1944, and 89% in 1945. You can accomplish all sorts of crazy things when you allocate nearly 90% of your budget to the job.
Mr. Casey,
Exactly. There is no need for that many CVN’s. It is not in any way affordable.
Mr. Badger,
Agreed on the buying/building of the Norwegian FFG’s. Here’s the problem. The ships are not gold-plated enough so the USN won’t buy them.
Mr. Jim,
I’d like to see 15-18 CGN’s to replace the CG-47′s and older DDG-51′s. There was a proposal in the early 2000′s for a T-AOEN. I like that idea, and I’d go with 10-12 to replace the current T-AOE’s. I’d continue building T-AKR’s to at least 24. And, I’d adopt the Danish STANFLEX system, such as the RDN design for a patrol frigate, into a large (40-45) class of ships in place of the LCS.
The badger has a good point, if we want to meet the Lehman standard there is an adjustment ot consider. We have lost some land bases in the WESTPAC since the time of his study. I noted the point that a carrier does not depend on resupply to a friendly airfield, but carries its resupply along with the group. And don’t forget Barret Tillman. to paraphrase, the Air Group pounds the target on a three strike cycle. Strike, evaluate, re-arm, strike again. The NVA is fortunate, in that we ran out of political will, before running out of carriers and the people who operate the system.
The battle groups ought to be nukes too (at least the cruisers). When they have to slow down to buy gas, the Lady in the middle of that group has to slow down too. One of the boasts Bainbridge (CGN-25) had was that during Vietnam, she was always on station, picking up downed aviators and RIOs–while all the rest of the recovery ships were way off-shore, buying gas at the local mobile gas pump. So said my former Old Man, whom I would have sailed anywhere with.
Yeah, they’re more expensive than DC-10 engines, but they don’t need to buy Saudi oil to keep turning the screws.
+1
Sub reactors are small enough to accommodate small boys and gators, IMO, and should be used as often as possible. Leaves more room for magazines and ancillary fuel bunkers.
Thanks Badger for the backup. My turn.
If there is one place to put a yard to build modest sized escorts under license, Manitowoc is the place to do it. Manitowoc boats (SS’s) were prized til the last one died of (very) old age.
These folks are craftsmen who know machinery. Give em a contract and a blueprint folder. Shake hands. Stand back, there’s a welder who needs to strike an arc.
The summer I worked an ore boat on the Great Lakes, the oldest boat still working was A HUNDRED YEARS OLD. The one I was on was about 55, 750 feet long and tied up with wire rope from winches fwd and aft with 6 seamen and mate on deck. Dropped her own line handlers, two screws and a bow thruster, about a 450lb steam plant, if memory serves. No tug. Carried about a squadron of destroyers weight of limestone (or coal or slag) would offload herself in about 6-9 hours, or warp herself up and down the the “dock” (3 men on deck, two on the pier) to put each hold’s hatch under a high speed conveyor as desired, and be loaded in about the same time. Ballasting or deballasting simultaneously with bringing aboard cargo, with roughly the equivalent of a duty section watchbill. In winter, ice the last month (Dec) then yard period, then CG annual inspection and back to work in March. Early March, soon as the ice got a bit soft, I guess. Never stopped working all summer long.
Still up there working, too. There are some shipbuilders, and seamen, and ship’s engineers up there (even if they do call the lifelines the “fence rail” and say “hang on” instead of “avast heaving”.) Every officer and hand a union man. Well paid, unbelievably productive. Strikes unknown. Yoopers for the most part. Tough, smart, screwy sense of humor, all decent sorts.
“We can’t do it nowadays”, phooey. We haven’t tried.
Inland Steel’s WILFRED SYKES? She’s about that size and is 61 years old. Coastal folk don’t know about footers, like PAUL R TREGURTHA, or the MESABI MINER. The Manitowoc Shipbuilding subs were known in the Fleet as the cadillac boats, as they were so much better built than other yards boats.
So?:
Nobody is invading? Other than the drug cartels and the human trafficers, that is. Murders on the lakes, and in ranchers own stock corrals, signs saying no safe to camp or picnic or hike or rock collect or rock climb off the main roads 35 mile south of Phoenix? Pinal County Deputies ambushed 300 miles north of the border by “coyotes”. Nobody invading, my…aw never mind.
Clue. For you. Just ruin the economy, bankrupt the treasury, command the seas, suborn the political parties with drug money and our own quislings will do it themselves. The field is then open for jihad.
Sober up. Hard times coming.
Ahem, you’ve just reiterated what I said… xcept no invasion from the sea. It will never happen.
Never happen? Once you have no effective defense and the Chinese know it and the drug cartels own Mexico, it’ll be time to slice up the prey.
Powerpoint doctrine puts everything in three steps. Real world doesn’t work that way. Think it through, say to about step 17 or so. Branches and sequels, as URR might say.
I’m certainly no expert. But I do know that all key defensive and offensive weapon systems throughout world history are at some point in time, rendered obsolete! OBE!
Too often, this realization comes far too late. (And at the unecessary cost of lives.)
Are/will aircraft carriers, like battleships be rendered obsolete? Or are they obsolete already?
I don’t know. I like them and still believe in them, but I wonder how long they will be effective, or even relevant. This century is far different than any prior, with shifting powers, economic warfare, and nuclear proliferation. The old rules and strategies of the last century no longer apply.
“Are Carriers Obsolete?”
For our sake I hope not. But I fear they may be.
I’d hesitate to label even the battleship – in the sense of a heavily armoured vessel intended to deliver (relatively) close-range violence – as obsolete. Other’n speed, sounds like what the LCS should’ve been.
As far as “line of battle” tactics, the BB is pretty much obsolete. But they were obsolete at the battle of Surigao Strait as well. The BB can’t be equalled when it comes to support of Amphib landings. You might build what the brits called Monitors, carrying one turret of BB caliber naval rifles. That we canned the remaining Iowa class BBs was an act of stupidity by the Bush administration.
Hell, David, their hull design is probably the best in the world making them STILL among the fastest ships in the world. And of course THE MOST heavily armored ships in the world making them *ipso facto* the MOST survivable ships extant against SSMs/ASMs. And of course LOTS of deck space for “bolt-on” advanced wpns systems with the hull size that negates any vibration/stability/CG problems for added systems. Edward Luttvak once quipped that we won’t bring them back even in the face of demonstrable need NOT because we can’t afford to upgrade them or pay the salaries&benefits of the sailors that are needed to man them–but because we can’t afford the braces on the dependent children of the supply types at Memphis NAS or wherever that keep them supplied. LOL–but probably sadly all too true
* “…braces on the teeth…” Sorryeee
VX, hasn’t the “speed is life” mantra coming from the LCS faction taught you anything? Even an Iowa only did 31 knots. Do you think an extra 3-5 knots will make any difference to modern anti-ship missiles or aircraft?
Even during WW2 the worlds navies realized the battleship was too vulnerable to the then-primitive bombs & torpedoes? Hell, during WW1 most powers refused to commit their dreadnoughts to dangerous (i.e. torpedo-bearing) waters.
Do the Repulse and the Prince of Whales ring a bell? How about the Bismarck? The Musashi? Shinano?
SSN are the real capital ships. Can’t show the flag, though.
Really? Once an SSN has launched it’s pitiful load of T-hawks, which aren’t really the best land attack missile in any sort of dense air defense system, the only tactical operation it can accomplish is sinking ships. It can no longer project death and destruction over the beach.
USS Ohio = 144 cruise missiles. How many of them could be bought for the price of one carrier group, half of which is dedicated to self-defence?
SSNs are not capital ships. The SSBNs and SSGNs might be, but they are limited in what they can do. Their strength is surprise, but there is a lot them cannot do. Submarines can’t provide CAS. They can’t provide a constant, on call presence to whoever might need something taken out in a hurry. They can’t provide MEDEVAC or CSAR flights. And they don’t provide facilities and capabilities needed by a Flag and his staff.
T-LAMS launched in combination or in support of a strike is useful. By themselves against an un attrited air defense system, a crap shoot.
USS Ohio = 144 cruise missiles. How many of them could be bought for the price of one carrier group, half of which is dedicated to self-defence?
Anyone with a reasonably decent missile defense system can kill a Tomahawk. That doesn’t render them useless, but it does mean a lot of them won’t make it to the target.
What keeps CVN’s viable is their versatility and adaptability. Use them whenever, wherever, and however they’re needed. That’s not found in any other single platform on the planet. Cost be damned. What will it cost us NOT to have the Carriers?
I think Ohio is a good move, and I’d like more of them. At the same time, I think the cost of soing without CVs is far too high to try to do without them.
Unless we can modify a Boomer to carry aircraft, the CV will be around for awhile. The need for them is simply too great. If the ability to target them reliably at long range with some kind of ballistic missile ever becomes a reality, or lad based AC reach the point of having the ability to deny seaspace to the CV within range of its AC, then the CV will be in trouble.
Frankly, the latter causes me the most concern.
…half of which is dedicated to self-defence?
Besides needlessly repetitious, your assertion is both outdated and specious. Might have been true back in the 70′s/80′s, but the advent of CG/DDG’s with large capacity VLS’ and multi-function aircraft in the airwing has changed that equation.
interesting carrier graphic, and short article, here:
http://automaticballpoint.com/2010/10/20/lesser-nobility-of-the-seas/
and i didn’t realize it (or forgot) but the graphic is a link to this article, which likely isn’t news to most of y’all, but its a good primer for us land lubbers: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm
SJS/
I was under the impression that although the CD/DDGs were/are supposed to take up the Fleet AD slack when the F-14s were retired–and that they were retired to provide more deck space for offensive punch (i.e, we’ve got all these expensive hulls sitting around, so lets give them something to do)–under the original F-14/Phoenix “forward defense” concept the Aegis systems were only supposed to sop up leakers–not be first-line defense systems. It’s my understanding that these current “multi-function” ac (read: F/A 18s) STILL don’t have the long-range multi-tracking capabilities of the F-14/Phoenix combo…..so anyway you want to dance it we’ve slightly degraded AD capability as a trade-off for more offensive punch in the strike force–or am I too far deep into the Barbancourt bottle?
VX:
Those VLS cells hold a mix of SM-2 ER, SM-2, TLAM, ESSM and SM-3 for a variety of FAD/strike missions. As for getting back to the days of the ” really reach out and smash someone in the face” like we did with the E-2C/F-14 days, well now that we are facing longer ranged A2/AD forces from “near peer” nations, with the arrival of the E-2D/SM-6/NIFC-CA we get some of that battlespace back.
W/r, SJS
Steeljaw Scribe,
I was referring to the overall capability of a carrier group. The flattop may be freed up for offensive operations, but SSGNs do not need those expensive escorts with VLS cells. They are 100% offense for your money.
TLAM – great (aging) missile. Gonna lose a bunch in a triple digit SAM/gen 4.5 fighter environment. Ok vs fixed targets, not so vs. Mobile and/or hardened/deeply buried targets – some other employment issues as well looking down scope. SSGNs are force multipliers, just like DDG/CG and CVN/CVW team.
W/r, SJS
Mongo,
“Decent” SAMs like Patriot and S-300 cost a bundle and are purely defensive. Money spent on them is money not spent on power projection.
The Russians and Chinese, IMO, focus more on function than on finance, and often spend more than is good for their budgets on both protection and projection. That’s why they’re always more broke than we are. Money spent on power projection is rendered moot when enemy firepower pokes holes in your power projection bunkers. For them true cost is relative to ROI. “The Billion we spent on S-300 vs Ten Billion the Americans blow into smoking crater? Da! I take first one!”
If the Chinese are rational, they’ll spend money on SSNs and SSGNs. (In the real world they’ll build carriers for prestige instead, of course… but I digress). USN carriers are busy fending off their SSNs and fighting land-borne airpower. A runway can be patched up, a flight deck can’t. Meanwhile Chinese SSGNs are bombarding the West coast. Who’s spent their money better?
Your arguments have merit, So?, and we could argue this til the cows come home. I’ll let it rest after quoting a portion of Grandpa Bluewater’s statement below:
-a large, powerful Navy with a properly balanced fleet
-numbered fleets made up of sufficient numbers
-warships, auxiliaries, aircraft and submarines
-wedded to a large superb Marine Corps
No preponderance of one type over another, but all providing a synergistic balance. (Hope that doesn’t sound trite.)
Power projection could also be considered as resoures used to protect your buddy. In this case, Saudi vs Iran. Double win, protection of the gulf and the Saudi’s spend some oil money in CONUS.
Or…we start using more of our own oil, and say screw them and theirs.
Time to stoke up the IOWAS again I think.
As great as carriers are, nothin says lovin like 9 16 inchers staring at your shoreline.
Actually I had hoped you Yanks had 14 carriers, 2 per fleet, allowing one in overhaul/refit while the other is on station.
France is useless/communist (though slowly becoming less so) and Britain is now Islamic so no hope from there.
Honestly though, you better un-mothball the IOWAS soon (you’ve got what, 3 left?).
If you don’t you will wish you had. Well, I WILL WISH you had at least.
Love ya Yanks. Thanks for the protection and freedom.
Slowly we are trying to pry our head out of our political ass here in Canada but the seperatist French (go figure)do everything in there power to hold us back. That and our communist political opponents (NDP and Liberals)who want to destroy the small military we have left.
Iowa-class BB’s have seen their last underway, period. Way too expensive to man/operate for a niche capacity in this day and age.
W/r, SJS
And increasingly more difficult to find people who can make them move at all. Oil fired steam isn’t a current Navy technology.
I’ve done that and would give my left nut to do it again on a BB. As I already have a son, give me a week or two for the daughter my wife desires, and I am so onboard. Bet there are some other unreguited BB lovers out there as well.
Be still my beating heart.
Yeah. They’re too expensive, and two of the four are gee-gawker galleries. Iowa’s AFU and up a river, and Wisconsin is being fought over to become People’s Exhibit #3.
I’d love to see CG’s of that size, but that’s a pipe dream too. Stick with the AEGIS boats and make a whole bunch more of them.
Mr. Grog,
Your line nothin says lovin like 9 16 inchers staring at your shoreline would make a great pr0n movie or two. Yeah yeah I know, very bad joke….
Grog, many problems.
One is: once you get a few miles in from the coast, BBs are worthless.
Another is: Even the Musashi was taken out by relatively primitive WW2 Navy bombers. What do you think a modern 10-kiloton warhead would do to a battleship after contact detonation?
If you divide the number of ships in our Navy by the number of Admirals in our Navy, I betcha the quotient is less than unity.
P.s. Who was it who said the most expensive thing was a second-rate Navy?
Don’t get me wrong, here; as a friend of liberty everwhere, but guardian only of our own, we have spent entirely too much blood and treasure in my lifetime to mind ungrateful other people’s business, but we do need a fierce-appearing Navy in order to be left alone. The best way to appear to be fierce is actually to be fierce.
I think one or two big nukes renders all the above deliberations irrelevant.
They know it. We know it. Everyone knows it. So? Who dares?
And we gots lots of them, too!
Um, Flit, I hope you aren’t banking on that Google link sending people to a large number of uninformed editorials…
Yes, one or two “big nukes” would do that, but at what cost to the attacking country? Hm? Pretty much a suicide play, there.
Even a small tactical nuke (from a Tomahawk-equivalent) would create a huge, nasty stink, as in “let’s fire up some ICBMs” kinda smell. In fact, by your logic, all capital ships are obsolete, since they can be killed by nukes. Do you propose we start building more PT boats?
If we used your logic, we never would have gotten anywhere in Europe during Reagan’s administration. We had nukes, they had nukes, and using one would start WW3. Given the USSR advantage in conventional forces, who dares? The answer is, of course, “Reagan.”
Introduction of the Pershing pretty much caused the Soviet military leaders to wet their pants in panic. They would do nearly anything (including negotiating genuine arms reductions in Europe) to eliminate them. The moral of the story is: intelligent application of appropriate strategy & doctrine can trump brute force calculations. The carriers aren’t finished yet.
Possible approaches: nastier UAVs going after Chinese defense-in-depth systems. If we get really imaginative, maybe orbital kinetic-kill systems like Project THOR. Bulk up the Indian Navy. Ditto for Japan and Korea. Give them all possible aid to futz up Chinese war plans. The latter face all sorts of complications if they have to address India, and Japan, and Korea, and Taiwan, and,the US…
-Cyber warfare.
-Maybe we finally get to unleash the B-2s on the kind of targets they were designed for, on the China coast, with F-22s to pick up the pieces (sorry we killed the assembly line, yet?).
Recall that China (and other major potential opponents face the same kind of uncertainty we do. The fog of war functions in a 360-degree radius.
…But that’s getting away from the main thread. Carriers aren’t going away any time soon, and they offer platforms of unparalleled flexibility.
The trick is to keep the groups up to strength. After looking at the debate above, I think we could -in theory- financially accomplish 15 groups over the next 10-15 years. 15 is do-able.
But it’s not just carriers, it’s destroyers, and subs (even AIP boats), and SERVRON ships, and mine sweepers, and…
Good points noted. But the Cold War Super Powers, after coming close a time or two to Armageddon, never wanted to wage real war against each other directly… because of MAD. (And that has not changed, although Soviet fortunes have) So they/we participated in foolish proxy wars that never defined much, but at the cost of many lives and treasury for all. But never accomplished much.
The carrier battle group today has a vulnerable, Achilles heel. Maybe two or more. Warfare has changed, and is changing. Nevertheless, why would a foe run a certain death Pickett’s charge against our strength, when we would retaliate with annihilation, especially when a $100 IED can kill a million dollar weapon system and its precious crew?
No sovereign nation is ever going to confront us on an overt and a massive scale as in WW-II. It will be new and unusual ‘combat’ that we aren’t prepared for, not expecting, and not previously used. It is a new world. We are vulnerable. Time to think out of the old box, and far beyond last century’s Battle of Midway!
What we are skirting is the necessity of a large, powerful Navy with a properly balanced fleet.
What we are staring at like a mouse at a cobra is the end of Pax Americana Oceana.
What keeps the homeland safe and free is not virtue or divine right, it is the numbered fleets made up of sufficient numbers of types of warships, auxiliaries, aircraft and submarines – wedded to a large superb Marine Corps. Get it right and you will deter anybody but a band of lunatics, which, given sensible rules of engagement, you may then eradicate or decapitate (see also – Seals). Get it wrong, reinstitute conscription and mobilize the Air Force and Army and declare war, which is way more expensive.
Yes, the most expensive thing in the world is the second best navy in a sea war. Way cheaper to be too dominant to challenge for the next two generations, and to hold that lead.
Getting it back is the less cost effective option.
Grandpa Bluewater, words of wisdom, as usual. Now, can we get the decision makers to listen?
Flit, we have the special weaponry, the right targeting info, launch training, and good maintenance. Do we have the will? My take is that the current NCA would not pull the trigger, no matter the provocation.
The problem is that flash-banging the world’s problem children with nukes establishes a dangerous precedent. If we, the U.S.A., then why not others like…Iran? It’s kinda hard to bitch about Iran having nukes, if we go about using them to squash regional piss-ants.
I note you said necessity, not convenience, Grandpa. Well stated. All of it…
The best way to get decision makers who listen is to elect ones that do.
After unelecting the ones who don’t. Then unelect the ones who can’t learn by the Admiral Byng’s Example method.
Takes about 8 years, so best start next week. Big Time.
More wisdom.
We have a chance to get a better, more in tune with reality, group of legislators on Tuesday. I’m doing what I can here in North Virginia (as Nose calls it). We need to vote as if our lives and future depends on our ballot.
Rinse, lather, repeat as needed.