Oh?
When the Navy revealed plans in February to retire the “supercarrier” USS Harry S. Truman early instead of paying for a $4 billion mid-life overhaul and nuclear refueling, bipartisan howls of outrage echoed across Capitol Hill, particularly from politicians in Virginia, where the carriers’ sole manufacturer resides. Two months later the proposed plan — rather than the carrier — was scrapped by an ostensible presidential fiat.
Naval strategists worry that even as the cost of building and operating supercarriers continues to rise, they are growing increasingly vulnerable to advanced weapons.
That decision allowed the Truman to sail another day. But it leaves in place the bigger issue that a 2006 law mandating 12 operational supercarriers is too big a burden for the Navy, and arguably no longer makes sense. Indeed, a growing number of naval strategists worry that even as the cost of building and operating supercarriers continues to rise, they are growing increasingly vulnerable to advanced weapons proliferating across the globe, including Russian and Chinese systems specifically designed to target these huge vessels from hundreds of miles away.
I want a seapower debate:
Instead of having a carrier debate, can we have a sea power debate?
Our defense budget is in question. We can't spend without regard to harming the economy and fiscal strength that is the base of our economic power. Deficit spending and debt matter. So we have to spend money more wisely rather than count on surges in defense spending. Should aircraft carriers give way to other vessels?
But too often we just get a pointless carrier debate with each side arguing past the other by basing their arguments on different missions:
Carriers have responsibilities in two areas: power projection and sea control.
Power projection is what we've done with our carriers since world War II. Sail them off the coast of some country that doesn't possess a potent navy or air force, and use it as a floating air base. Without the need to fight for control of the sea, we exercise that control of the sea from the start of a conflict. We've done this a lot. And the carriers have performed superbly.
This history of power projection is what the defenders of carriers point to.
But what the anti-carrier side points to is usually the sea control mission. In this mission, by definition we face a nation with a navy and air force capable of fighting us for control of the seas--or at least denying us full control.
And for nations without carriers, advances in persistent surveillance and guided missiles give them a potent weapon to use against our big carriers.
And because I don't think carriers can't be sunk (or just mission-killed along with CNN-worthy film of flames shooting into the air), I worry about the belief that they are virtually invulnerable. What happens to our public's morale in war when one--or several--are sunk (or mission-killed)?
Maybe the cost of the Ford will get us to question the need for carriers in sea control.
And instead of picking the number of carriers the Navy should have, we should pick the number of ships/subs we need and let the Navy figure out the mix to reach that number.
