God Forbid we actually do anything sane like cut billions of dollars of spending on pointless Imperial Navies we don't need.  In an actual fight with any country with even basic anti-shipping capabilities, those surface fleets are going to be giant targets that will be ravaged within weeks.  I believed the Navy wargamed WWIII with the Soviets on serveral occaisions and found the Carrier Groups would last about two weeks.

What is wrong with a small, but serious Navy that protects our shores and our shores only?

"Now Gates is making noises about going below 11 carriers. Well, we just went through a period with 10 carriers because of an extensive overhaul to the 48 year old USS Enterprise and it created problems. "

The Navy can't indefinetly accomplish it's current mission if the fleet drops below 11 carriers.   At some point in the very near future we will have to change the mission.  Simple as that.  We go below 10 carriers and we can no longer be Team America, World Police. 

Would it not be better to have more of something moderately awesome than a few of something freakin' awesome?

No.  Down that path lies the F-22 road where we talk ourselves into thinking that, effectively, it isn't "fair" to outclass potential adversaries by orders of magnitude in capabilities.  That is dangerous and leaves the U.S. and international shipping lanes vulnerable to Chinese breakout, Russian resurgence or any of a host of thing we haven't even thought of yet. 

Back in the 80's, super genius Gary Hart and all sorts of others tired to talk us out of a big carrier mentality in favor of much smaller platforms.  Remember when all those small missle carrying Iraqi vessels gave us some much trouble in the Gulf in Desert One?  No, you don't because one 500-lb laser guided bomb did them each in.

We need an integrated fleet capable of dealing with multiple threats with multiple levels of technology in multiple locations.  You can't do all those things without carriers any more than you can do them without destroyers or submarines.

One more thing:  Ask the Brits if they wished they had still had a big Ark Royal flattop available for the Falklands War.

Nobody else is keeping the sea lanes open as vigorously as the US Navy. Big economy == foreign trade == safe shipping.

They are doing a bang up job off the coats of Africa, that is for sure!  Seriously, is that a joke?  What possible "threat" could possibly justify 11 exorbitantly expensive Carrier Groups?  Is the North Atlantic awash in Buccaneers?  Did Bluebeard buy a battleship?

The Bismarck. How long did that bad ass battle ship last? Two weeks?

All alone against the entire Royal Navy is no way to go through life, son.

Bismarck was on a suicide mission when she left port.

Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2010 11:26 AM (QrA9E)

SOVPACFLT Second best in the West, IIRC.

Whats really odd, I met the CO of a Russian SSN at a conference once at the Navy War College.  Turns out he used to track the Carrier (MIDWAY) I was on back in the 80s.

What possible "threat" could possibly justify 11 exorbitantly expensive Carrier Groups?

Iran.

China.

Russia.

North Korea.

Pakistan.

Shall I continue?  Your moniker is very poorly chosen.

And airplanes can fly, right?  Why do they need to land in the ocean?  There's land everywhere!

Yes, and we have access to exactly what percent of that land?

Buy a globe.  All that blue?  We can use it.

They are doing a bang up job off the coats of Africa, that is for sure!  Seriously, is that a joke?  What possible "threat" could possibly justify 11 exorbitantly expensive Carrier Groups?  Is the North Atlantic awash in Buccaneers?  Did Bluebeard buy a battleship?

That is down from 14, mind you.

Look at the map. While the Army and Air Force needed serious pruning pot-Soviet Empire, the Navy is going to be the foundation of security (along with a Marine Corps as an adjunct that can project power when needed). The billions spent on it are really a pittance given the enormous benefit control of the seas gives us.

Don't make the mistake the Brits did and skimp on it.

Submarines:  No mention was made of the nuclear weapons capability or the intelligence gathering capability of submarines.  One can't forget the SSGN, which can carry over 100 cruise missiles.

The weakness of our current submarines is an electric boat in a green- or brown-water area.   In a blue-water area against a large navy, our submarines would allow us to dominate a rival surface fleet even if we don't have air superiority.

Grim

That is down from 14, mind you.

18 under Ronaldus Magnus.

4 surface action groups and 100 fast attacks.

I miss the Gipper.

It was crippled in an air attack by a torpedo that jammed its rudder and sent it straight into the pursuing UK fleet.

My point exactly.  One ship against the Royal Navy.  Bismarck was never going to win that in even the short run.

In a blue-water area against a large navy, our submarines would allow us to dominate a rival surface fleet even if we don't have air superiority.

Word.  The weapons load out on a Virginia class is mind boggling.

18 under Ronaldus Magnus.

4 surface action groups and 100 fast attacks.

I miss the Gipper.

Good point, I forgot about Uncle Ron. But I don't think retiring the older Forrestal Class (or was it Kitty Hawk Class?) ships and having all nuclear carriers was a bad thing.

But I don't think retiring the older Forrestal Class (or was it Kitty Hawk Class?) ships and having all nuclear carriers was a bad thing.

I'm totally in agreement and think 11 is a solid number.  Ignoramuses like Moltke think all 11 are available all the time.  The Morons Assembled^tm know this is not the case.

Also, the Ford class will have significantly fewer crewmen than the Nimitz class (I've seen up to 2,000 fewer), so that lifetime expense figure should be lower if all those factors are taken into account.

Here's my counter argument to the anti-carrier contingent:  Is it easier to plan to take on the U.S. with or without the carriers?  The answer is pretty clear cut.

And why are we spending all that money on submarines?  People can't breathe underwater!  Who are we going to fight, sharks?

Red Chinese, who are going ape-shit and building a blue-water navy?

Maybe the Japanese could be encouraged to re-arm again.

Neither do I. But hey 2 of them are still docked up in Newport RI if anyone wants to buy one.

You think a Tory Government in the UK would grow a pair and buy at least one? Even the Frogs have one supercarrier (and are said to be planning another).

Then I guess the fact that the F-35 is years behind schedule and the F-18s are wearing out is not a good thing?

BTW, was retiring the Tomcats a good move? I hear some who claim the F-14 is still teh awesome and this was a mistake. Others claim the F-18 is just as good and much cheaper, so economically it was a plus. Smart military people, fill me in.

The pussies in Washington swore they wouldn't fuck over the troops again like they did in Vietnam. But now the blind bastards are trying to fight wars on the cheap again.

That said, I think we are overextended and need to scale back our commitments. For example, why are we policing the Balkans, instead of telling the Eurotrash to man up and police their own backyard?

BTW, was retiring the Tomcats a good move?

I vote no since a souped-up Phoenix would do wonders on the anti-cruise missile front. 

Why don't they just merge the air force back in with the navy. Get rid of the redundancies?

Without question we need to cut some funding from our Armed forces. American Procurment in this field is often corrupt and wasteful.

Just look at the development of the Bradley and Osprey. The Osprey took thirty years and billions upon billions of dollars, and it is little more than vehicle that can carry more men and supplies than a helicopter but less than a cargo plane. Why was it needed when he already have helicopters and planes?

Also, the Bradley started out as a Armored Personnel Carrier, then became a quasi tank, then went back to being an APC, but with a cannon in it.

Look, I love our military, but even the most die hard person can't argue that there isn't billion upon billions of waste in their budget.

However, when it comes to the Navy, I am more willing to accept the extra spending.  The Navy patrols the oceans, allows us to project power anywhere in the world, prevents regional wars from breaking out, and is our first line of defense if someone were to challange america.

I don't think the Aircraft carrier is obsolete nor will it be for many decades to come. There is simply nothing that will replace it on the horizon.

BTW, was retiring the Tomcats a good move? I hear some who claim the F-14 is still teh awesome and this was a mistake. Others claim the F-18 is just as good and much cheaper, so economically it was a plus. Smart military people, fill me in.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 06, 2010 11:54 AM (ujg0T)

The F-14 was way past it's self life.  It took about 10 hours of maintenance for each hour of flight at the end.

Speaking of India, there was talk of us giving them the Kitty Hawk if they agreed to buy f/a-18s for her. Alas, then decided to get screwed by the Russians instead but that would have been awesome on a number of levels.

That's hilarious. India also is having massive problems with their MiGs. They keep crashing and as a result they have to ground all of their planes.

I don't think it would be wise for us to sell any of our aircraft carriers. If these nations want them, let them take the 20+ years to develop and perfect one.

I'm not sure it is a great idea to sell cutting edge weapons or platforms(an i consider aircraft carriers to fall into that category) to any nation. You never know who will be your enemy tomorrow. 

Come to think of it, the Air Force is pretty stupid, too.  All we really need is the Army.  What are we going to fight with airplanes?  Birds?  Are the airspaces suddenly thick with Red Barons?  C'mon...

Look at all that land out there!  We just need an Army to walk to the fight.

Yes, defending against a threat from China or another upstart power is expensive but itÂ’s a lot cheaper than actually fighting one you arenÂ’t prepared for or worse, one you let grow because they saw an opening.

When you don't intend to fight anyone under any circumstances, having a viable national defense is a waste of money. Money than can be used in social handouts to buy votes. You have yet to embrace the new paradigm.

America's only real future hope given the global Asian ascent is a strong alliance with India.

I don't know if that is needed. India and China will never be allies. So I don't think we need to be "extra nice" with India as a counter balance to china. That is not to say we can't be allies, but I don't think we should be signing treaties that would pull us into an Asian war.

Also keep in mind their are many asian nations that might be friendly to china, but would turn on her in a second if they had the opportunity. I would include Singapore, Malaya, Japan, South Korea, Russia, India, maybe Vietnam etc. 

I think India, Japan and Russia have more to be worried about in China than we do.

Why don't they just merge the air force back in with the navy.

Wha?
Posted by: Dang Straights at May 06, 2010 12:02 PM (fx8sm)

It's ok, he's on a roll

I meant to type Army. Jeez

Would it not be better to have more of something moderately awesome than a few of something freakin' awesome? And this doesn't even begin to address the fact that there is going to have to be a defense budget cut at some point, and the cuts can't come to the Army/Marines/AF while we're in the middle of a land war.

This has been an argument of the Reform movement within the military and various Pentagon bureaucrats for decades (of which Col John Boyd and his acolytes were simply the most notorious)--that it's better to focus on low-cost, high-asset capabilities in order to apply overwhelming force in times of war, as opposed to high-technology, high-cost, low-asset forces that are impressive when they perform but can quickly drain resources over time.

It's an argument I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss, seeing as we've had a continuous presence in the Middle East for nearly 20 years now, and it's resulted in the degradation of our military assets much more quickly than was originally anticipated.  An inventory of low-maintenance military assets could potentially give us more bang for the buck if they can perform many of the same operations that the more advanced aircraft, ships, etc. can at a lower cost.

The fact that our national debt keeps ramping up at an exponential rate will likely make this an issue of priority sooner rather than later, regardless of who is in office.  As Lunatic pointed out at 11:22, it's highly unlikely China will continue to finance our deficit spending to build up a military that can kick their ass.

Why don't they just merge the air force back in with the navy. Get rid of the redundancies?--Ben

and an Army Air Corps?

Perhaps merging could be a good idea so far as coordination goes. Better than mandating another military bureaucracy to oversee that all the military branches communicate "better" than they have (prelude to Pearl Harbor) given the current Joint Chiefs organizational meetings with the potus, all needing someone more powerful still to enforce militant statism--precedent model being Bush's birthing DHS as if the CIA and FBI "needed" nanny-state DHS in order to properly function.

that's my point.  Just throwing it out there.  Its not like the Airforce has the greatest record in the past few years in certain areas. Specifically with forgetting that nukes are on planes and the like.

Posted by: joncelli at May 06, 2010 11:22 AM (RD7QR)

Then it's time for our so-called trading partners to step up.  I would even say that includes China.  We refuse to acknowledge that we're at war with them economically, so why should we fear their construction of a navy?  They're just our friendly yellow brothers, right?  But even though they're our enemy, the only kind of vessel China could build that should make us worry much is troop carriers.  If they want to seriously invade any of mainland Asia, there's nothing we can do about it regardless, short of using nukes.  Which we soon won't have any more, and don't have the guts to use now.  As long as the Red Menace can't make it to North America, I really don't care.

It's not just the Navy that is now too big and expensive for what the US can afford.  Time to face reality - we were never going to be able to keep this up forever.  We built up to bankrupt the Soviets, and we won that fight.  We shouldn't bankrupt ourselves. 

If it were up to me, every dime of welfare money, every penny of higher ed subsidy, would be diverted to fueling the machine of war.  And then we'd be using that big damn machine to establish global hegemeny once and for all and wipe out every other pipsqueak power on earth.  But that's not going to happen.  We're going broke.  We need to protect what's ours, and fuck all the other ungrateful foreigners.  We have, what, 3 allies left?  And our dumbshit prez is shedding them as fast as he can.  Protect US interests, and that's enough.  No more bases in Europe - no matter how many beer halls and bowling alleys have to shut down as a result.  Close every base that is not vital to protecting our own stuff.  Keep bases necessary to allow us to keep killing muslim scum.  

The Eurotrash can start paying their own way, since they're so smug and superior.  The Japanese are adequately reformed these days - they can afford to pay up, too.  Spend some of those trade surplus monies.   

14  What is wrong with a small, but serious Navy that protects our shores and our shores only?

Err, what's wrong would be that someday we might just need to go to a foreign country, kick their asses hard, and assume power over their people and territory, as their by-God conquerors. That's hard to do with a half-sized flotilla of small, serious weenieboats.

"I am cancelling all weapons systems except for one, a giant catapult. We can fling the carcasses of the unicorns killed by republicans at our enemies."

I can haz SecDef job?

Who thinks that North Korea is going to still be around in 10 years ? Iran ? With democracy flowering all over that neighborhood since the surge ?

I think Iran will still be around. It may be a different government, but it will still exitst(heh).

North Korea who knows? As long as Kim Jong Il is alive the country will survive. I'm actually concerned about the North's collaspe. I don't think the reunification of North and South Korea is going to go as smoothly as Germany's did. Especially considering China not wanting a unification under south korea rule.

"And, really, why do we need an army?  Are the Chinese going to march across the ocean?"

You, sir, just won a free year's subscription to my newsletter.

We had 124 carriers in WWII, 31 large. We had 22 in 1969.  We currently have 11 and the jug-eared asshole wants to decrease that.

We can't wait out the entire 4 years. Take back congress in 2010 and impeach the asshole in 2011.

Yeah, but I would be willing to bet our 11 carriers today could have wiped out all 124 WW II carriers in a few hours. Quality replaced Quantity.

We shouldn't go below 11 though.

I think Moltke's just playing at stupid. No one could possibly be as ignorant and naive.       Posted by: J. Wilde at May 06, 2010 11:36 AM (ZE0Hi)

The White House begs to differ with you.

From time immemorial, the purpose of a navy has been to influence, and sometimes decide, issues on land. ... The sea has supplied mobility, capability, and support through Western history, and those failing in the sea-power test-notably Alexander, Napoleon and Hitler-also failed the longevity one."

Edward Beach

Yeah, i've always felt the best way to view the oceans was as a highway that connect the world. And like roads some are tougher to get through than others, like the arctic or North Atlantic, and your ability to traverse these highways always depends on the kind of vehicle you have and how many.  Personally I want america to have, if not the most, than the highest quality.

Yeah, but I would be willing to bet our 11 carriers today could have wiped out all 124 WW II carriers in a few hours. Quality replaced Quantity.

And to my mind, "jeep" carriers, mini-carriers like the UK has, and helicopter- only carriers don't count.

 Quality replaced Quantity.

Absolutely. And the Gary Hart-esque nonsense about how we can have "3 F-5's for 1 F-16" was always nonsense. Get mass production and mass mobilization going, and you can get the real cost of F-16's down to that of old F-5's

Yeah, but I would be willing to bet our 11 carriers today could have wiped out all 124 WW II carriers in a few hours. Quality replaced Quantity.

And to my mind, "jeep" carriers, mini-carriers like the UK has, and helicopter- only carriers don't count.

Does any navy in the world have an aircraft carrier on par with america anyway?

The French Clemceau(sp?) is always broke.  As you said, the UK ones aren't anywhere on par with ours. India has one or two 1950 era UK ones, and they just bought an old Russian one. Brazil, Spain, Thailand, Italy, South Korea and Thailand have one a piece, but they are all smaller versions.

Does russia still even have the Admiral Kuznetsov ?

I am unaware concerning china. I can only assume they bought old decommisioned carriers from Russia and are refiting them.

If our enemies have old 1970 and 1980 Soviet Carriers, that weren't amatch for us then, I guess we shouldn't be overly concerned about them challenging us with carriers for some time.

Come to think of it, the Air Force is pretty stupid, too.  All we really need is the Army.  What are we going to fight with airplanes?  Birds?  Are the airspaces suddenly thick with Red Barons?  C'mon...

The separation of the Air Force from the Army in 1947, looking back, seems to have been largely motivated by a Cold War-perception that the interdiction bombing philosophy needed to be codified in a separate force.  Bomber generals ran the Air Force for years and it's only after the Fighter Mafia started gaining influence that this mindset has tempered.  Thanks to Desert Storm, GWOT, and Gen Schwartz (whose background is special ops) now being in charge, that's been modified quite a bit.  Up until Desert Storm, the Air Force treated the A-10s like red-headed stepchildren because the old guard detested the idea of performing close-air support--it's become arguably the most popular plane in the Air Force.  Of all the services, it's probably been the slowest to adapt to change, and I say this as an Air Force vet.

The Air Force might be better off having their personnel rolled into the Navy and Army based on their respective missions, but I can't see it happening by choice.  Look how hard the Marines fought to keep the Osprey alive in order to preserve their tradition of amphibious assault--there's no way the Air Force and its advocates would integrate without being dragged into it kicking and screaming. 

Saw some video on the net a month or so ago of the first MiG-29 navalized for India being tested on a carrier. I think it was the Kuznetsov.

We could start hiring illegals to build the planes and ships.

Except for the grass stains everywhere, the labels all being in Spanish, and the reactors shutting down from noon to three in the afternoon, we could save a lot of money.

funny funny shit.

If our enemies have old 1970 and 1980 Soviet Carriers, that weren't amatch for us then, I guess we shouldn't be overly concerned about them challenging us with carriers for some time.

Posted by: Ben at May 06, 2010 12:30 PM (wuv1c)

Well the fact of the matter is, whether Obama wants to recognize it or not, is that the USA since 1945 has defended the entire Free World from the forces of evil. Sounds like a Star Wars Movie Intro, but it is what it is. We have done it without much help from anyone else. Maybe a some help every now and then from the Brits and the other English speaking Commenwealths around the world and some help from our local allies like Israel. We have kept open the Trade Lanes and ensured Democracy around the world. Yada Yada yada. Well that don't come cheap. It takes a big and well equiped Navy, Marine, Air Force, Army and Coast Guard. And the job ain't getting any easier.

oh i agree completely. We shouldn't get rid of our carriers. All i am saying it that no nation will try to "out carrier" us for many decades, if ever.

that was kinda the point of Gates speech i think. That most if not all nations have resigned themselves to american carrier superiority, and that is why they are focusing on anti carrier technology so much.

Posted by: Merrill McPeak at May 06, 2010 12:36 PM (7+pP9)

Sockpuppet name of the day.

Unless weÂ’re prepared to cede our defense responsibilities and prerogatives in the Western Pacific to the Japanese and / or Australians, we need to maintain a 12 carrier fleet with all the associated support ships.  We need those LSD and other amphibious support craft and the worldÂ’s largest naval infantry because we are the worldÂ’s sole superpower.  Without them, we canÂ’t effectively project power, and would no longer be a superpower.

We need a large, and the worlds best submarine fleet because our boomers are the most critical part of our strategic defense, and our attack submarines are critical to securing the boomers as the enter and leave port.  They also provide the ability to control most of the oceans sea-lanes without a carrier battle group.

If Messrs. Gates or Obama choose to come right out and say weÂ’re giving up our position as sole superpower, let them go ahead.  I think we can commence impeachment proceedings as soon as the next major blow-up occurs anywhere on the planetÂ…

Having said all that, our Navy does need to fix some issues in a big hurry, mostly due to horrible decisions in the past.

Our carrier fleet provides presence, and controls sea-lanes very effectively, but for projecting power ashore, especially far ashore, in places like Afghanistan, weÂ’ve been handicapped since retiring the A-6 Intruder.  The F-18E and especially the F/A-18 are piss poor substitutes for the Intruder, which had much greater range, with a heavier payload.

The Littoral Combat Ship, or whatever weÂ’re calling it this week, is an enormously expensive joke.  A ship with corvette armament and survivability, but with the price tag of a major combatant like a destroyer.  The taxpayer is taking a bath on this one, and getting awful return on our investment.  So far as I can tell, for the missions theyÂ’re capable of doing, and are likely to do, the U.S. would be better off buying a off the shelf large, shallow draft corvette design from the Germans or French, and licensing production in Norfolk, Pascagoula, etc.  If admirals want to play with high-speed ships, let them buy their own cigarette boats or powered catamarans with their personal money and take them out to play with on the weekends.  We have smaller fast boats for naval special warfare already. 

Since the retirement of our battleships and many cruisers, our navy has lost nearly all of itÂ’s effective bombardment support to ground forces.  The proposed solution of using refitted submarines to launch cruise missiles to support ground forces at $1.6 million+ a pop is daft (stupid and crazy).  It is horribly expensive, and provides no presence or intimidation factor.  If weÂ’re going to continue playing world policeman in third world sh!tholes across the globe, a battleship is an incredibly effective tool.  Anchoring one off shore from Somalia, in the proper place, would do wonders to reduce piracy.  Parking one off the coast of Lebanon pr Gaza, would give HezbÂ’allah and Hamas a serious case of the jitters if a real man were President.  Instead of funding a marginally effective and incredibly expensive class of littoral combat ships, lets bring our Battleships out of mothballs, equip them with nuclear propulsion, and refit them with modern electronics and strengthened structures to serve in our active fleet for the next 50 years.

The Osprey took thirty years and billions upon billions of dollars, and it is little more than vehicle that can carry more men and supplies than a helicopter but less than a cargo plane. Why was it needed when he already have helicopters and planes?

The Osprey was put on the back burner until the rarefied air of the operating in the  Hindu Cush mountains brought it into service.  Planes can't land in mountainous territory and the air is too thin for helos to operate at such high altitudes.  The Osprey fits the bill perfectly, it can fly at altitudes that helos can't and land troops and supplies plus perform evacs.

weÂ’re going to continue playing world policeman in third world sh!tholes across the globe, a battleship is an incredibly effective tool. 

But wouldn't large enough cruisers or even large enough destroyers suffice?

The carrier provide little if any defense for America.  They're mostly used to prop up our puppets.

How much of Hugo Chavez's semen, and how much leftover Sandinista semen, is fermenting in this guy's stomach?

Out of curiosity, is it even possible for a nation to curl up in the fetal position and stick their thumb in their mouth?

Posted by: Rep. Hank Johnson at May 06, 2010 01:11 PM (/wM3B)

No.  Not Guam.  It's already about to tip over and sink as it is.

 Circa (Insert Year Here),

 "Ask the Brits if they wished they had still had a big Ark Royal flattop available for the Falklands War."

 If the British had a credible carrier force in 1982, the Falklands War would have never happened. There's a lesson there for all those deep thinkers in the Obama administration. I doubt they'll bother to learn it though.  

Out of curiosity, is it even possible for a nation to curl up in the fetal position and stick their thumb in their mouth?

See post #182. There is an element of this nation that does this daily.

Out of curiosity, is it even possible for a nation to curl up in the fetal position and stick their thumb in their mouth?

See post #182. There is an element of this nation that does this daily.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 06, 2010 01:19 PM (ujg0T)

Wow.  You're right.  How would you even begin to be able to argue with a steaming pile like that?  And further, why bother.

Drones will work just fine.

Yeah, because providing top cover is just like CoD: Modern Warfare 2.  Even the most optimistic military gurus and defense reformers don't buy that bit of stupidity.