Strategypage writes:
To fix the current readiness problems means you will not be able to afford some new ships. The fix is replacing older equipment in current ships, with new, more reliable and easier to maintain systems. Most of the problems are on surface ships (the "surface combatants" like frigates, destroyers and cruisers). Most admirals see the carriers and nuclear ships as the key naval vessels. Should money be shifted from subs and carriers to fix the surface combatants, and similar problems aboard carriers and subs? The navy budget is shrinking, and the answers to these questions will be pretty obvious over the next few years. There are definitely two factions in the navy on this subject, and keeping score is as simple as counting new ships built, and the number of existing ships failing their readiness inspections.
We can't afford carriers in the numbers we have if we want to maintain numbers of other ships and maintain them so they can actually fight. This might seem like a dilemma until you realize that our carriers just aren't worth the expense given what they can do versus what other platforms can do more cheaply--while being less of a target to an enemy.
Our carriers have become such prestige vessels that they are objectives in war--for our enemy to sink and for us to protect--rather than being tools to win a war. Phase them out over the next several decades and reserve them for peacetime prestige missions and war against enemies without navies and air forces that could attack them while they carry out their missions.
And use the better-maintained ships and subs that would have escorted the carriers (and additional ships and subs from money saved building carriers) to form surface action groups for missile-based offensive task forces.
