The Cost Argument Displaces Little Weight With Carriers

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.

The Biggest Boondoggle - John Arquilla 12/08/08

Yankee Sailor previously discussed this story, but when I read the article I got annoyed, and can't help myself. I have no problems at all with the suggestion to reduce the number of aircraft carriers, what I have a problem with is how it is done in this case.

I don't know Professor Arquilla, but the argument to simply discontinue the weapon system that has defined seapower for the last 6 decades simply because he thinks it is expensive, and with no rationale why it should be so casually discarded with the exception that it is "legacy" is really an opinion piece beneath the expectations we in the Navy community should demand from those whose responsibility it is to instruct our Navy officers. Where is the substance, depth, strategic thought, analysis, facts, or even misguided statistics, etc..? I can't find it in the article, so perhaps the professor is leveraging his reputation alone as the sole authority for his opinions.

I would have loved to hear the arguments, because I think there is a great debate on this topic waiting for someone to take it on. For example, after a rather dismal showing during Desert Storm in 1991, the aircraft carrier made a significant impact to the warfighting efforts in both Afghanistan and Iraq, with the Kitty Hawk demonstrating a remarkable amount of flexibility in the early stages of Afghanistan. That is hardly trivial, Afghanistan is a land locked country.

However, think about it, even Yankee Sailor made an interesting observation in his post. The aircraft carrier is going to be sorely needed to fight China and Russia if that war was to ever happen, and yet the platform vulnerability that everyone talks about only really applies to China and Russia. Very few other nations have the capabilities necessary to operate in the vast sea where we can contest, so with the likelihood of war between major powers decreasing as Professor Arquilla suggests, the vulnerability of aircraft carriers is actually reduced in the 21st century, not increased. It is noteworthy that in the CDI report America's Defense Meltdown (PDF) William S. Lind makes that exact point, a good point further highlighting that there really is an interesting debate here when people bring their A game to the discussion.

Second, can someone explain how fielding the most capable weapon system at sea is "preserving legacy systems designed for a kind of war that the U.S. is likely never to fight again." What "kind of war" would that be? Iraq from 1991-2008? Afghanistan? Kosovo? Iran in 1988? Libya? Lebanon? Vietnam? Korea? WWII? Give me a break, the aircraft carrier hasn't been used for just 'a specific type of war' rather it has been called to action in every kind of war.

It begs the question, what is the opposite of legacy? Transformational? I've often heard calls that we should be building new and interesting ways to put naval aviation at sea, including building more numerous smaller carriers with VSTOL aircraft. First, that assumes the F-35B will be as capable as a F-35C, which I would suggest we wait and see. Second, while it is strategically wise to disperse our naval aviation, no one seems to consider just how expensive it is going to be to put all the crew necessary to maintain an air wing distributed on a larger number of ships. Hello? Do the math, the most cost efficient way to put large numbers of aircraft forward deployed at sea is with big deck carriers, ask the entire world who happens to be trending that way knowing that it is the most cost effective way to put aviation to sea.

If you note, this could be a great debate, if someone of the caliber of John Arquilla would actually make an argument instead of use buzzword bingo to publish on a controversial topic. There is a lot of bad information in this debate, a debate I think would be fantastic fun as the record got straightened out on a number of bad assumptions and perceptions. For example, we currently build big deck carriers not because they are the most capable or most survivable, even though both might be true.... we build them big because big deck aircraft carriers are the most economical. That is what A) makes the whole cost point Professor Arquilla is making ridiculous and why he would be better off B) raising important questions that look at naval aviation capabilities and how we need to manage the trade offs of costs, particularly as we approach the introduction of unmanned combat systems making up large portions of our air wings.

Am I being too tough on Professor Arquilla? Maybe, but I'd like to think the Navy blogosphere has raised the expectations of debate and discussion among professionals in this sphere of thinking, and that includes not allowing such shallow, hollow, empty rhetoric getting a free pass especially when it comes from someone of his caliber. I'd never let any Admiral in the Navy get by with such generics, so I'm not about to make an exception for a professor of defense analysis at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. Look, I get it, he was being provocative to sell his book. Too bad whoever gave him that advice doesn't get it, if you want to sell a book the first rule is to be compelling enough in argument to get the reader to want more. This editorial was a good example how not to sell a book, make a compelling argument, or otherwise make a compelling contribution to a complicated but important issue. Color me unimpressed.

More here.