The Fleet Will Evolve

The Congressional Budget Office doesn't think the Navy can reach the numbers it says it wants with the plan it sets forth because there is no way the price of the ships will not exceed Navy estimates.

Given that I think that big aircraft carriers are just too expensive and will soon be too vulnerable to wage war against any but the most enfeebled enemy, why not transition to more survivable networked missile-armed ships. Use smaller carriers for fleet aviation needs--and Lord knows if I'm not being too conventional by thinking even these will be useful against a networked enemy.

But at least the morale hit of losing a small carrier won't match the shock of losing a big super carrier, which are such symbols of our power that they've become objectives (for us to protect at all costs and for enemies to sink) and no longer just means to achieve objectives at sea.

We need to pick a number for the amount of hulls we need to meet deployment needs, surge needs at war, and war replacements until shipbuilding can start replacing losses. If that number--considering appropriations to build the ships--means we start easing our big carriers out of their central role in our naval strategy, so be it.

Heck, I think we should do that if we had all the money in the world for our fleet. And if we don't lower the number of carriers we have, saving them for niche uses like supporting wars against small countries without the means to attack them, we'll lose those carriers at war against an opponent with the means to hit our carriers.

One way or the other, the fleet will evolve to come to terms with reality. Will it be on our terms or in combat?