"The Biggest Boondoggle"???

[Jack Ray]

I am not convinced. Mr. Arquilla is dragging out the same old arguments. It was by listening to this sort of rubbish that Duncan Sandys and the British government condemned the carrier in the 50s and 60s. In both the power projection and the sea control missions, the large CV provides unmatched capability, flexibility and visibility.

The Biggest Boondoggle
How the Obama Administration could save $100 billion.
By John Arquilla
Forbes
December 8, 2008

Throughout the presidential campaign both candidates repeatedly pledged to ax wasteful spending from the federal budget. Now that the economic crisis is putting further pressure on outlays, will President-elect Barack Obama make good on his promise?

When it comes to spending on the Defense Department's biggest boondoggle, the answer is a definitive no.

Over the next few decades the Pentagon is planning to spend more than $50 billion on its Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carriers. The first of these 100,000-ton ships is due for completion in 2015, with others following as vessels in the existing 12-carrier fleet are retired. Since aircraft carriers are near helpless without a protective ring of about ten destroyers, frigates and cruisers, the military wants to invest in newer versions of these, too, at a cost of an additional $50 billion.

This plan constitutes a huge waste of taxpayer money and exemplifies the Defense Department's fixation on preserving legacy systems designed for a kind of war that the U.S. is likely never to fight again.

Why won't the next Administration get rid of this white elephant? President-elect Obama simply has too little military expertise to take on the carrier champions, even though his senior adviser on strategic affairs, former Navy secretary Richard Danzig, has in the past called for reducing carrier crew sizes. But Danzig did not call for moving away from giant carriers, and he is unlikely to urge Obama to do so anytime soon.

So it appears that the carrier will live on, at great cost to the American people and at increasing risk to our national security. If there is ever another conflict at sea, it will erupt over Taiwan. Swarms of small Chinese vessels and aircraft armed to the teeth with smart weapons would quickly sink a carrier. The Chinese have focused on producing supersonic antiship missiles and mines that position themselves directly under a ship's keel. They are experimenting with supercavitation torpedoes that create a small bubble of air in front, reducing resistance and allowing them to move at hundreds of knots.

In a world of such weapons, aircraft carriers should paint over their identifying numbers and replace them with bull's-eyes. They have had a good 70-year run as capital ships, but their time is over.

Despite their iconic appeal (think of Tom Cruise in Top Gun, or the elegiac pbs series Carrier) and the juggernaut of military and political support they enjoy, these "fighting ladies" are too vulnerable, cost too much and do too little. When the carrier U.S.S. Carl Vinson was supporting field operations in Iraq between January and June of 2005, at an operating cost of several billion dollars, it dropped a total of just four bombs on enemy targets. In terms of so-called irregular warfare, the most common form of conflict over the past 60 years, carriers have an insignificant role to play. Air Force planes, small or large missiles and artillery make more effective substitutes.

Defenders of the carrier are getting creative. One idea has been to have aircraft catapult off the carrier, fly to land bases and operate from there. This just makes the 41TK2-acre floating airfield the world's most expensive taxi.

Another argument is that carrier aircraft play a key "intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance" role, conveying vital information to ground units hunting insurgents. But other kinds of manned or unmanned aircraft do the job just as well.

Does a carrier have deterrent value? No. Our carriers didn't deter North Korea from invading South Korea in 1950, or North Vietnam from invading South Vietnam in 1965. Carriers were deployed to the Persian Gulf and the northern Arabian Sea during the crisis with Iran over its nuclear enrichment program. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's latest response to such signaling: "The big powers are going down." He doesn't seem deterred.

At $8 billion per ship, spending on aircraft carriers constitutes the single-largest line item in a defense budget that now runs to $500 billion a year. That line should be cut.

John Arquilla is a professor of defense analysis at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California and the author of Worst Enemy: The Reluctant Transformation of the American Military (Ivan R. Dee, $28).

[MichelB]

"...designed for a kind of war that the U.S. is likely never to fight again."

This line alone sinks the entire article. Never, never think you know what kind of war you'll be fighting in the future...

[chuck]

"...designed for a kind of war that the U.S. is likely never to fight again."

This line alone sinks the entire article. Never, never think you know what kind of war you'll be fighting in the future...

You never know, but you must assess the likelihood. Else you have no grounds for any decision.


However, I do disagree with almost every one of the supporting arguments he presented.

[Lesforan]

Obama has demonstrated a willingness to take on advisors who know more about specific policy issues than he himself does.
This has come to me as a pleasant surprise. It also suggests that he will not use appointments as a means of political rewards in the manner Clinton did.

[Gone Asiatic]

the most common form of conflict over the past 60 years, carriers have an insignificant role to play. Air Force planes, small or large missiles and artillery make more effective substitutes.

This dude is a proferssor? His article was so full of Es Eich Ai Tee I don`t know where to start!
Above is a good one. Air Force planes are completely dependent on host nation permission to operate from forward deployed bases; a USN aircraft carrier is soveriegn territory and requires no such permission.

[Lesforan]

This reminds me of the anti-Navy position of the newly formed USAF. Why have a Navy when we have the B-36?

It seems to me a goodly number of Air Force crewmen were rescued by nearby naval units over the past fifty years. It is one thing to fly halfway around the world on a bombing mission. It is another matter to make it all the way back with a damaged aircraft.

A good balance between the forces was established when the carriers ceased their strategic nuclear attack role. This freed up the carrier forces to do what they do best: tactical air support. And left the doomsday weapons to the boomers and Air Force.

Air Force advocates do it no favor when they overstate their case.

[RNfanDan]

This dude is a proferssor? His article was so full of Es Eich Ai Tee I don`t know where to start!

Why are you surprised? This guy represents the "middle 80" of so-called "higher learning" educators. Book smart, well spoken, above-average spelling and writing abilities, but at the core level, almost completely devoid of balanced reasoning.

He comes from the same "progressive" school (no pun intended) of thought that brought us a New Year's Day 2000 "millenium", political correctness, and no-fault crimes.

[Filipe Ramires]

Maybe you guys should send this "professor" to negotiate directly with hostile nations in the future. Then when negotiations fail I can listen him or the President asking:
"Where are the carriers?!?!?!??!?!?!"
"Sir, we have none!!!"

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

Pittyful politians... send them to the front line for a couple of days to see if they learn a bit of how war do actually take place.

[Gone Asiatic]

Perhaps the professor-dude would send a littoral combat ship for power projection!

[Walt]

Even though I am a practical person and I do see the arguement for continuing to build CVs or CVNs I kind of agree with the good prof..
In the "very" near future most every Navy in the world will have access to cheap,effective and numerous types of DBF Submarines.. Any one of which can handle a CVN with little trouble.
I'm for keeping our present CV/CVN inventory seaworthy and spend all our future resources on methods and systems to help keep the present inventory from being put on the Ocean's bottom by a 3rd world nations submarine force.
The CVN is a dinosaur when being considered as a offensive Naval weapon.. It does provide for a mobile airbase and a political demonstration of power projection and presence, but it is too easy to take out and really not worth "further" investment especially as a "capitol" investment in the USA's security plans.
The US Navy hasn't been seriously challenged by another Navy on the high seas in combat since WW2.. They are lucky.. Because I do think if they were the CVN's true weakness would have been revealed over and over again by smaller and much more affordable weapons systems.

[Jack Ray]

Even though I am a practical person and I do see the arguement for continuing to build CVs or CVNs I kind of agree with the good prof..
In the "very" near future most every Navy in the world will have access to cheap,effective and numerous types of DBF Submarines.. Any one of which can handle a CVN with little trouble.
I'm for keeping our present CV/CVN inventory seaworthy and spend all our future resources on methods and systems to help keep the present inventory from being put on the Ocean's bottom by a 3rd world nations submarine force.
The CVN is a dinosaur when being considered as a offensive Naval weapon.. It does provide for a mobile airbase and a political demonstration of power projection and presence, but it is too easy to take out and really not worth "further" investment especially as a "capitol" investment in the USA's security plans.
The US Navy hasn't been seriously challenged by another Navy on the high seas in combat since WW2.. They are lucky.. Because I do think if they were the CVN's true weakness would have been revealed over and over again by smaller and much more affordable weapons systems.

Very true Walt.

I guess it is time to increase our emphasis on ASW, on land and on sea.

By the way, the P8 MMA is supposedly coming down the pike for the USN. Do you, or anyone else have any insight on the future for Nimrod?

Jack

[Filipe Ramires]

Though I've been a big submarine defender and still think that it is the most powerful weapon in the world for the time being there are things that a submarine cannot do and that a carrier can do. For instance, giving air support to an amphibious operation; providing CAP to other surface ships (in convoy for instance or in task force). The big advantage for a submarine, though not as cheaper as in the past, still remains its stealth capability. A carrier task force can be detected hundreds of miles away giving the enemy sometime to take counter-measures or think twice if it is doing something bad or not. One single submarine can reach the coast of the enemy without notice and put a few dozens of cruise missiles in specific targets for the biggest surprise of the adversary. Gunboat diplomacy is practically overdue; carrier diplomacy did and still shows its capabilities and submarine diplomacy can reach unmeasurable dimensions if properly used.

[chuck]

In the current environment, where the US enjoy near total domination of space and air, and thus enjoy vast real-time situational awareness advantages over any potential adversary in a combat situation, the efficacy of some diesel, AIP or even nuclear submarines in interdicting a US carrier task group, with its ability to strike any sea-born or coastal target from a within a circle 500 miles in radius, is so limited as to be little more than a moderate inconvenience than any serious hindrance, much less threat.

Were the submarine fantasists who dream about finding a carrier in their periscopes to actually think about what it might take for a 17 knot diesel put-put, whose underwater range is at most a couple of hundred miles at any useful transit speeds, to actually be able to find and approach a much faster carrier task force, screened by its own SSN, somewhere within 250000 square miles (1/4 the size of continental US), that is determined not to be found, and that can carry out its mission at anytime from anywhere inside that 250000 sq miles, they would slink away in despair and stuff their heads into the diesel exhaust snorkels of their submarines.


The only reason why during the cold war the Soviet submarine fleet was a force to be reckoned with was:

1. The Soviets had 15 times more Nuclear submarine than any adversary today. The soviets had more nuclear submarines that all the non-US navies of the world, combined, have all types submarines now.

2. The Soviets had a vast and creditable air and space real-time intelligence gathering and targeting capability that would survive the first few hours of conflict. The Soviets can actually count on real-time intelligence on where to send their submarines, and without their submarine being in direct contact with the US CVBG, they can direct their submarine where to shoot their beyond horizon ASMs. No comparable capability exists in the world today except in the hands of the US military.

That is not to say that it is impossible for US CVBG to comport themselves in such a way as to make them vulnerable to a submarine threat. But if the USBG were to act intelligently and prudently, they can easily carry out vast majority of the missions plausibly assigned to them in total defiance of any submarine threat that exists today.

When China has 150 nuclear submarines, a fleet of 25 maritime surveillance satellites, and an integrated air-defense system comparable to those around Moscow in 1989, then I would say maybe US CVBG should approach China with caution. But even then, there is still the rest of the world where US CVBG would remain useful.

[Filipe Ramires]

I was kind of expecting a proper reply to the submarines status vs carrier task force...and actually I was expecting that reply to come from you Chuck!!!
I'll take in fact that it is hard today for any submarine to take action against a well protected carrier Task Force. It was difficult already during WWII but yet some managed to pass and when they do pass they are dangerous. Torpedoes today are far more powerful then WWII standards (the image of a Leander class frigate being literally torn apart by a MK48 ADCAP torpedo comes to mind) and therefore most hazardous to any ship that receives an hit from them...this if indeed one submarine (regardless if it is SSK or SSN) gets within firing range. Intelligence of course is of most importance...after all it dictated in majority the victory of the Allies in the Atlantic and the destruction of the Japanese merchant navy.
However, the submarine still carries today a punch far greater then any carrier task force...it is called SSBN. Regardless if we live today in a moderately non-nuclear-conflict environment there is no weapon platform in the world that can put from 192 to 288 100kt warheads against its enemy in a matter of one hour...a single SSBN can do that. Call it "Dooms Day Device" if you want...they are surely worth carrying the name.

[Admiral John Byng]

I think the real point here is that Aircraft Carriers provide the sort of flexibility that you can't get any where else.

In addition to providing defensive assets to a Carrier Group (ASW, AEW, lifting capabilities) they provide an unrivalled ability to project power. If you have this capability you can choose (within limits) where and when to attack and you can keep the enemy off balance.

There was an outcry when the new RN carriers were ordered because they "aren't needed".
Well if you sit at home and allow the Russians (for instance) to bully you then that it quite true - they aren't needed for that.

[bengtsson]

Perhaps the professor-dude would send a littoral combat ship for power projection!

Indeed! He can send one in right close to the shore so it can absorb a few supersonic antiship missiles.
I guess I should add, that submarines are no longer limited to torpedos when it comes to weapons systems. A modern submarine force can use sub launched versions of anti ship missiles. My USN experience was that our own subs made a career out of sinking our own carriers in exercises. And those carriers had their own surface and submarine screens. Still they were sunk. Maybe that says how good our submarine force really was at that time. The proof was in periscope photos taken of the the carriers. You see, to convince Carrier Admirals that they have been sunk, you gotta have the goods on 'em. And a nice close range photo is hard to argue with.

Bob B.

[Walt]

Perhaps the professor-dude would send a littoral combat ship for power projection!

Indeed! He can send one in right close to the shore so it can absorb a few supersonic antiship missiles.
I guess I should add, that submarines are no longer limited to torpedos when it comes to weapons systems. A modern submarine force can use sub launched versions of anti ship missiles. My USN experience was that our own subs made a career out of sinking our own carriers in exercises. And those carriers had their own surface and submarine screens. Still they were sunk. Maybe that says how good our submarine force really was at that time. The proof was in periscope photos taken of the the carriers. You see, to convince Carrier Admirals that they have been sunk, you gotta have the goods on 'em. And a nice close range photo is hard to argue with.

Bob B.

This is so true. Many people are not aware of a modern submarines capabilities. Heck I rode the boats in the late 60s to mid 70s and even back then we could hear, I.D., and plot, and kill a CV that was 100 Miles away or further depending on ocean temps etcs. The CVNs were well into our strike range at 100 miles.. I read about these newer Diesel boats being built in other Navies and about their capibilities and I am amazed. And that's only reading what they want us to know.
As for the Soviet Navy we never took them lightly but most of their equipment was loud and more dangerous to their crews ( appearently this is still the case in the Russian navy) than they were to us. Yes they had developed some better boats but not in the numbers needed to present an advantage over The NATO Boats. Heck we were operating FBM patrols in the Barents undetected for almost 10 years which is when the longer range birds like the A3 Polaris , Poseidons and Tridents..allowed for patrols to operate much further out.
We will always need CVNs to support military ops in far off locations but to kid ourselves that they will be major Naval offensive Naval weapons is only to spend our resources unwisely like the good Prof is trying to say.

[chuck]

Perhaps the professor-dude would send a littoral combat ship for power projection!

Indeed! He can send one in right close to the shore so it can absorb a few supersonic antiship missiles.
I guess I should add, that submarines are no longer limited to torpedos when it comes to weapons systems. A modern submarine force can use sub launched versions of anti ship missiles. My USN experience was that our own subs made a career out of sinking our own carriers in exercises. And those carriers had their own surface and submarine screens. Still they were sunk. Maybe that says how good our submarine force really was at that time. The proof was in periscope photos taken of the the carriers. You see, to convince Carrier Admirals that they have been sunk, you gotta have the goods on 'em. And a nice close range photo is hard to argue with.

Bob B.

Many are the commaders who made a peacetime career out of sinking stuff and then who couldn't sink s%^&t when war came. The proof of a "periscope" photo is nothing. Every CVN is escorted by its own SSN whose commanders can make a fish story out of taking a portrait of his charge. The only proof is a carrier on the bottom.

[MichelB]

Is the development of anti-torpedo defences keeping up, and if not,why the &&&& not? I can understand a silent, well-piloted sub approaching a battlegroup to withing torpedo range, but after that, will a launched torpedo automatically mean a kill? What are the scores when a sub launches a volley of modern torpedoes? Werner occasionally referred to close-in hardkill torpedo defences being developed, but how much of that is fact?

[chuck]

The carrier task group's 30 knot speed is its best anti-torpedo defense. Even for a 30 knot nuclear submarine, getting itself into position to attack the carrier would be no mean feat. And this is without the carrier having to conduct any basic ASW defense beyond going at flank speed. Once one figures in such elements as accoustic decoys, screening SSNs, Sonar bouy barriers, ASW surface escorts, the chance of even an modern SSN in intercepting a surface task group is quite poor. For a diesel SSK, it's virtually non-existent.