Why January Will Be About Aircraft Carriers

So the other day Yankee Sailor wrote about an article written by Professor John Arquilla about the high cost of carrier aviation. I enjoy the topic, so I blogged about the article too. If you missed it, the gist of my argument is "what a weak argument from a guy trying to sell a book." Well, little did I know but it would appear Professor John Arquilla is very well liked by many of his former students, because after my posting on the subject ran in CHINFO's daily CLIPS on Tuesday, I got fragged by friendly fire in the inbox.

I love that this guy has former students scattered across the globe who will defend a former professor who they feel has been slighted, so in the spirit of their loyality, I accept the challenge from the CDR who suggested that I quit "dumping" on the messenger and see if I can put out a better message. You want to be pissed off about carrier aviation? OK, fine, chew on this...

My fellow USNI blogger Jim Dolbow and Heritage Foundation's Mackenzie Eaglen wrote a very interesting article back in April of this year titled SOS: Congress Must Save the Aircraft Carrier Fleet. The Navy requested a waiver from the requirement in 10 USC §5062 that it maintain an aircraft carrier force of at least 11 operational ships, and wanted instead to retire the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) early in 2012 to save a lot of money that will be required to keep the ship operational until the delivery of the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). It is hardly an unreasonable request by the Navy, just to make the next 2 deployments for the Big E, Peter Frost reported earlier this month that the Navy has spent $474.9 million during the current unavailability period.

The request to retire the Big E was included in the FY09 budget request, but what also became noteworthy during FY09 budget discussions was the necessity for the Navy to buy at least 69 new Super Hornets, a proposal expected in FY10. What is frustrating, at least from my point of view, is that the Navy wants to reduce the number of aircraft carriers and yet build more new fighters. Wouldn't it be nice if the left arm was talking to the right arm? If we are going to retire an aircraft carrier, do we really need to buy a new wing of Super Hornets?

But lets not stop there, has anyone noticed that the commissioning date for the USS George H W Bush (CVN 77) has been set for 3 weeks from Saturday? That's right folks, on January 10th, 2009 we will commission a new aircraft carrier. We are supposed to be very happy about this, except there is a small problem, the USS George H W Bush (CVN 77) hasn't conducted builders trials yet, it hasn't conducted acceptance trials, nor has it even been delivered to the Navy. Why the rush? Tim Colton thinks it is so President Bush can deliver the carrier named for daddy, a political stunt in the final days of office that I'm kind of surprised Democrats have ignored, after all, one would think the $8 billion price tag for the new aircraft carrier would make the platform serious enough not to be used for political games. Unfortunately, even if Tim Colton is right and this is a political stunt, it is one the Navy fully endorses.

Why? Because regardless of the condition of the never sailed USS George H W Bush (CVN 77), the Navy needs the aircraft carrier added to the Navy register before January 31, 2024 so they can decommission the USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) on schedule. Nothing, not Congressional law, not operational availability, and certainly not a yet to be completed aircraft carrier is going to get in the way of the Navy retiring the USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) on schedule. because with all the dates already announced the Navy is basically telling Congress "you ain't going to do shit about it."

So lets just think about this a minute...

The Navy is trying unsuccessfully to retire the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) in what is legitimately a cost saving move, but at the same time they want to buy a new wing of Super Hornets, which costs about 3x as much as operating the Enterprise until 2015. Aircraft carriers takes 5 years to build, we can build Super Hornets in less than 5 weeks. The Navy is also retiring the USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) and is even going to commission a ship into service that has never once been to sea to insure the schedule for retirement is met.

You see, Professor Arquilla is speaking WITH the Navy, not AGAINST the Navy when he calls for fewer aircraft carriers, because the Navy is pulling every rabbit out of the hat they can to keep to the law requiring 11 aircraft carriers. If it is solely about saving money, you could retire Kitty Hawk now and Enterprise after the next two deployments, and save money by not buying new Super Hornets. If the Ford is delayed, all that really means is that the Joint Strike Fighter can afford to have delays too, after all we are supporting one fewer air wing. If you really want to reduce costs, retire Lincoln when it comes her time to refuel, refit Stennis to be a Sea Basing aviation support platform instead of an aircraft carrier, saving on another fighter wing.

Clearly it isn't just about the money. If it was me, I'd simply drop the aircraft carrier requirement to 10 and call it a day. A commitment of 10 keeps the shipyard open, the platform in production, and allows the Navy to save money short term during this transition period to the new class. It also allows the Navy to either save billions on new Super Hornets or moving to the Joint Strike Fighter before it is ready.