Death of the Lone Warrior

[RPM 26222]

Haven't seen a thread on this. "They" are mothballing the Harry S Truman instead of refueling the reactor in 2024. This drops our carrier fleet from 11 to 10.

OpEd from the WaPo

Who is mothballing a U.S. carrier? And why?

In the shadow of summit and scandal last week, there was stunning news from the Defense Department: “The Pentagon has decided to cut the aircraft carrier fleet from 11 today to 10,” Breaking Defense reported. “By retiring the Nimitz-class supercarrier USS Harry S. Truman at least two decades early, rather than refueling its nuclear reactor core in 2024 as planned, the military would save tens of billions on overhaul and operations costs that it could invest in other priorities.”

This jaw-dropping announcement — first noted by The Post’s David Ignatius — shocked even civilians with an amateur’s interest such as myself, because of the widespread assumption that President Trump had committed to a significant expansion of naval power on his watch, not a drastic cut in the force most associated with the projection of U.S. power. Who made this decision? Breaking Defense’s story begins “the Pentagon has decided.” While the Pentagon does indeed decide a lot of things, it doesn’t get to decide the size of the carrier fleet. That is a joint decision made by the commander in chief and Congress. Not even the most able of defense secretaries, chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or chiefs of naval operations get to “decide” to cut a carrier.

Spoiler

 

The Pentagon’s leadership and bureaucracy has effectively slow-rolled the president on his campaign promise, repeated after his election on the deck of the USS Gerald R. Ford, to get the Navy to its "needed" ship count of 355. That expansion has been quietly deferred again and again, with only Adm. John Richardson, the chief of naval operations, admitting that that goal is in doubt. But the president was clear: He wanted a 355-ship Navy and, specifically, a fleet of 12 aircraft carriers. My reporting is that this “decision” is counter to the advice of the uniformed professionals. It is unclear whether the Office of Management and Budget, headed by Mick Mulvaney — who is also Trump’s acting chief of staff — had a role here, but it is difficult to imagine that national security adviser John Bolton is complicit in this proposed slashing of the capacity to project U.S. power.

Rarely does bureaucratic mutiny among the civilians at the Pentagon appear in such an unvarnished fashion as with this announcement about the decision to essentially halve the USS Truman’s lifespan. Leaking this “decision” through the media was the most obvious of trial balloons. But that the Pentagon’s senior leadership has begun down this road without even a whisper in public to, say, the Senate Armed Services Committee and its chairman, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), suggests that the Pentagon respects neither Congress nor the president and his national security team. If acting defense secretary Patrick Shanahan is nominated to fill the position full-time, this story should greatly complicate his confirmation path. Indeed, it wouldn’t surprise me if a Shanahan opponent leaked it for that very purpose.

Given that any new carriers will take a decade or longer to be commissioned, the presence or absence of the USS Truman in the fleet will impact at least three future presidents, possibly more. You can’t deploy assets that have been mothballed. You can’t project U.S. power with a so-called ghost fleet. Expect defenders of this move to claim, “This is a temporary drop in size of the carrier fleet. We will get back to 12 carriers quickly.” That boat doesn’t float, and congressional oversight will get into the details of the supposed “plan of transition.” Even if persuasive, it isn’t the sort of decision the Pentagon gets to make on its own.

The issue of carrier vulnerability has been aired for years among Navy professionals, such as my frequent radio guest Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain and defense analyst. But none of this discussion has been the focus of public debate. No one has stood up and said anything like: “The president is wrong. Carriers are too vulnerable to long-range missiles from the People’s Republic of China or swarms of drones from anywhere.” If carrier critics want to make a case, they need to unveil arguments, not announcements.

The Pentagon fired the first shot at the president and his on-the-record plans. Let’s see what the response is. If Trump has been sucker-punched, expect the reaction to be loud and public.

 

 

[High Plains Drifter 10974]

Quote

the Pentagon respects neither Congress nor the president and his national security team.

 

Well, I actually agree with the pentagon on something.

 

What we see here are the actual adults in the room, pushing back against the retards (executive branch) and the political hacks (Congress). Normally, I would be worried about the military going against the wishes of the CIC, but when the CIC is The Dotard...

 

Unfortunately, ultimately, the civilian oversight of the military may be one of the worst norms The Dotard's incompetence and idiocy has broken.

 

[WhatTheBuck 28710]

“By retiring the Nimitz-class supercarrier USS Harry S. Truman at least two decades early, rather than refueling its nuclear reactor core in 2024 as planned, the military would save tens of billions on overhaul and operations costs that it could invest in other priorities.”

Trump's going to use it to build his stupid wall. 

[RPM 26222]

The only thing that bugs me is shrinking the carrier fleet. Carriers are quickly becoming the battleship as far as vulnerability. But they are also the greatest projection of US military force. Just sending one into an area changes the balance of power. Do we need 11 or is 10 plenty? I'm in the more is better group.

[bad_teammate 13132]

4 minutes ago, RPM said:

The only thing that bugs me is shrinking the carrier fleet. Carriers are quickly becoming the battleship as far as vulnerability. But they are also the greatest projection of US military force. Just sending one into an area changes the balance of power. Do we need 11 or is 10 plenty? I'm in the more is better group.

Uh, that's why cutting them is Very Good, Actually.

[retread 2951]

Doesn't make sense to cut the useful life in half b/c you don't want to upgrade it?

[Guest Lobo]

I think we'll see more resources put into Amphibious Assault and Command ships like the new America-class.  We'll need fewer destroyers going forward.  But yeah, I think the more Aircraft Carriers, the better.  Other than Somali pirates trying to get their big break into Hollywood, a core mission of the Navy---to protect shipping lanes---was pretty quiet since WWII.  

That's about to change drastically in this next century.  And playing referee in littoral water skirmishes is also going to be a key objective.  We need different shit than ever before, but we need ways to get our toys to the next venue.  Tanks and Bradleys aren't needed as much anymore.  Move the money.  

[David Dennison 18655]

33 minutes ago, RPM said:

The only thing that bugs me is shrinking the carrier fleet. Carriers are quickly becoming the battleship as far as vulnerability. But they are also the greatest projection of US military force. Just sending one into an area changes the balance of power. Do we need 11 or is 10 plenty? I'm in the more is better group.

We've had 11 for fewer than two years. The Gerald R. Ford was commissioned in 2017. Before then we'd been at ten since 2007.

[Guest Lobo]

So our Navy goes up to 11?  For when you need that final push over the edge against ISIS?  

[elfenix 34171]

i guess it's the next one to be refuelled for which actual prep hasn't started, so in that sense it makes sense.  but that ship is only 20 years old right now.  it's one of the newest in the fleet.  the nimitz is 45. 

keep in mind we also have 9 LHA/LHD ships, which every other navy on earth would consider aircraft carriers. 

 

 

 

is truman the most under appreciated president?

Edited March 8, 2019 by elfenix

[Parliament 14133]

Can we sell it to Canada?  Or trade it for maple syrup?  Seems a waste to just park it in the fence row.

[Nivek 16858]

i guess it's the next one to be refuelled for which actual prep hasn't started, so in that sense it makes sense.  but that ship is only 20 years old right now.  it's one of the newest in the fleet.  the nimitz is 45. 
keep in mind we also have 9 LHA/LHD ships, which every other navy on earth would consider aircraft carriers. 
 
 
 
is truman the most under appreciated president?

Well, he was a pussy wimp.

[Parliament 14133]

2 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Well, he was a pussy wimp.

Woah there, Son.  He was an artillery officer in WW1, and is the only person in History to order the use of a nuclear weapon.  Twice.  In the same week?  You and I have done none of those things.  If he is a "wimp," what does that make us?

[Macanudo 12926]

Harry also had the balls to sack Dugout Doug and keep the Korean War from turning into WW III.   

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, Parliament said:

Woah there, Son.  He was an artillery officer in WW1, and is the only person in History to order the use of a nuclear weapon.  Twice.  In the same week?  You and I have done none of those things.  If he is a "wimp," what does that make us?

Sir, learn your Back to School phrasing.

[Parliament 14133]

Fair enough.

Back to the ship named after him.  Let's start a gofundme.  

[Nivek 16858]

23 hours ago, Parliament said:

Woah there, Son.  He was an artillery officer in WW1, and is the only person in History to order the use of a nuclear weapon.  Twice.  In the same week?  You and I have done none of those things.  If he is a "wimp," what does that make us?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3cb09hVH_g

[RomaVicta 29781]

A carrier battle group is enormously expensive. Commissioning a carrier includes a number of ships and subs to defend it and even more to support the group. 

The carrier is very vulnerable to submarine and missile attack. In a major conflict with a capable enemy, the carriers' vulnerability would, in my opinion from stuff admittedly read years ago, make them likely early (and devastating) casualties in the conflict.

The carrier's principle use is cowing lesser nations by putting a superior air force right alongside them. How many carriers do we need for this purpose? The main reason we have so many carriers is for speed of response. How much is it worth to have a carrier arrive on the scene in a few days versus a week or so?

There's a lot you can do with the money you save on a carrier battle group including just lowering the national budget. Unless someone can prove a mission for the fleet beyond the vague "projection of American power," I wonder why we wouldn't be fine with around six carriers. Five at sea and one being refitted. We may only need three. 

We must stop thinking that future wars will resemble WWII. They won't. 

Edited March 10, 2019 by RomaVicta

[maninblack 7974]

We've had 11 for fewer than two years. The Gerald R. Ford was commissioned in 2017. Before then we'd been at ten since 2007.

But how will we ever survive with only 10 Carriers?!?!?!?! Think of the children you monster.

[RPM 26222]

5 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

There's a lot you can do with the money you save on a carrier battle group including just lowering the national budget.

[Guest Lobo]

5 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

A carrier battle group is enormously expensive. Commissioning a carrier includes a number of ships and subs to defend it and even more to support the group. 

The carrier is very vulnerable to submarine and missile attack. In a major conflict with a capable enemy, the carriers' vulnerability would, in my opinion from stuff admittedly read years ago, make them likely early (and devastating) casualties in the conflict.

The carrier's principle use is cowing lesser nations by putting a superior air force right alongside them. How many carriers do we need for this purpose? The main reason we have so many carriers is for speed of response. How much is it worth to have a carrier arrive on the scene in a few days versus a week or so?

There's a lot you can do with the money you save on a carrier battle group including just lowering the national budget. Unless someone can prove a mission for the fleet beyond the vague "projection of American power," I wonder why we wouldn't be fine with around six carriers. Five at sea and one being refitted. We may only need three. 

We must stop thinking that future wars will resemble WWII. They won't. 

Correct, future warfare is either sea/air-based, cyber-based, or urban-based.  Carriers dominate 2 of those 3.  

[RomaVicta 29781]

28 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Correct, future warfare is either sea/air-based, cyber-based, or urban-based.  Carriers dominate 2 of those 3.  

I'm having trouble making sense of this.

The vagueness of your premise about future warfare doesn't really illuminate much of anything. 

Accepting your premise, how do carriers dominate either of cyber- or urban-based warfare?

Even at sea, are carriers dominant against other sophisticated weapon systems and weapons? They've not been engaged in actual combat by submarines. Their record against American subs in war games is disastrous. They've never been subject to a wave of cruise missiles. 

They do dominate the sea if war is fought prior to the extreme advances of submarine and missile technology.  The carrier dominates the sky with air power, the ship the planes fly off of is mostly just a huge, easy target for a sophisticated enemy. 

The destruction of a modern carrier would be devastating in loss of life, loss of war-fighting ability, and psychologically.  We have too many eggs in that glass basket.

I'm not a navy expert, but I think a fraction of the money spent on the excess number of carriers would be more effectively spent on a fleet of swift, stealthy missile-firing surface vessels armed with a modern cannon. This vessel could serve multiple roles including patrolling endangered sea lanes. Drones could augment their response to small enemies such as pirates.

 

 

[RomaVicta 29781]

I'm bumping this in hopes someone with expertise in naval warfare has an opinion to add.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20343]

On 3/10/2019 at 3:58 PM, Lobo said:

 Carriers dominate 2 of those 3.  

 

Not from the bottom of the ocean.

[Brisketexan 104596]

5 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I'm bumping this in hopes someone with expertise in naval warfare has an opinion to add.

I checked....his people said he was unavailable for comment.

[RomaVicta 29781]

At first I thought the epaulets were his hands. Creepy.

I was a sailor with Cap'n Crunch for years of sugar-fueled childhood fun.

[Guest]

I would like to have heard what Mattis had to say on this topic...

[Dbeasy 14966]

Meh. Big Navy fleets became a bad idea a long time ago when air-based weapons became so good. The only reason the Navy hasn’t shrunk significantly is because they are a huge bureaucracy that somehow dominates the military. They always have. This money saved should be removed from the Navy coffers and put into deficit reduction, but it won’t. Because we suck.

[Brisketexan 104596]

Just now, Dbeasy said:

Meh. Big Navy fleets became a bad idea a long time ago when air-based weapons became so good. The only reason the Navy hasn’t shrunk significantly is because they are a huge bureaucracy that somehow dominates the military. They always have. This money saved should be removed from the Navy coffers and put into deficit reduction, but it won’t. Because we suck.

Actually, I would like to get some input from someone with real thoughts as to what a 21st century navy should look like.  While carriers are very effective against certain types of enemies, they are becoming increasingly vulnerable high-dollar targets.  And as perhaps an even greater emphasis for the navy in this century should be keeping sea lanes open, maybe there's more need for fast destroyers/missile boats and the like, and/or smaller drone carriers.

[Guest Lobo]

13 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

Not from the bottom of the ocean.

We haven't lost one in 75 years.  I haven't talked to a general officer in the Army or the Corps yet that hasn't acquiesced that Cyber and Navy are the future of defense and that should be where more of the resources go in the near to mid term.   

[Brisketexan 104596]

10 minutes ago, Lobo said:

We haven't lost one in 75 years.  I haven't talked to a general officer in the Army or the Corps yet that hasn't acquiesced that Cyber and Navy are the future of defense and that should be where more of the resources go in the near to mid term.   

I agree with that.  The question is what KIND of navy.

We've had multiple shifts in naval power.  Wood to iron.  Battleships to carriers.  Carriers to.....?  And nevermind the curveball that remains submarine fleets.

[DigglerontheHoof 21060]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I agree with that.  The question is what KIND of navy.

We've had multiple shifts in naval power.  Wood to iron.  Battleships to carriers.  Carriers to.....?  And nevermind the curveball that remains submarine fleets.

I imagine it will be drone heavy.  Both in terms of aircraft and ships.  It will be cheaper and put less folks in harms way.  It will be fantastic until the drones become self-aware and then we're all fucked.  

[Brisketexan 104596]

4 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I imagine it will be drone heavy.  Both in terms of aircraft and ships.  It will be cheaper and put less folks in harms way.  It will be fantastic until the drones become self-aware and then we're all fucked.  

I suspect that it will go with a blend of high-tech like drones, and "low tech" like more traditional frigates, destroyers, etc. (all of which will be able to deploy drones as part of their attacks and defense).  Not that the frigates and destroyers won't be technologically advanced -- they'll just be much smaller and cheaper platforms, designed not for the purpose of huge projections of power against land masses, but rather to control sea lanes - to act as an anti-naval and anti-enemy/illegal shipping force.

Carriers made battleships obsolete.  Will drones and drone swarm tactics make carriers obsolete?  I'm sure there's been a good bit of homework done on this.  

[SquishMitten 10400]

On 3/7/2019 at 4:02 PM, Lobo said:

So our Navy goes up to 11?  For when you need that final push over the edge against ISIS?  

Took me a second, but I see what you did

[SquishMitten 10400]

Seems like dropping a carrier group or two, and reinvesting that money in drone-support for the remainder of the groups would be a good thing. They will continue to be extremely valuable assets in future warfare, but only if we can defend them. Doesn’t matter if we had 30 carrier groups if they can’t stop a missile swarm.

[SquishMitten 10400]

In other words, having a handful of indestructible, mobile military bases is far more valuable than having a greater number of kinda indestructible bases.

[RomaVicta 29781]

Glad to see the responses.

[Macanudo 12926]

3 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

The only reason the Navy hasn’t shrunk significantly is because they are a huge bureaucracy that somehow dominates the military. They always have. 

Define "always".   We weren't a sea power until Dewey sank a bunch of obsolete Spanish ships in Manila Bay.  Then we spent the next 30+ years playing by everyone else's rules (Washington Naval Treaty says HEY").   It wasn't until the Japanese showed the way with naval aviation that we woke up and realized that airplanes with (ever increasing) ordnance could project power beyond our shores on a way Billy Mitchell, Bull Halsey and Chester Nimitz never foresaw.  

And now, with drones, and in all probability satellites and robot technology, we might just eliminate the human element from the battlefield.   We'll control it from further afar than even manned aircraft..

[Guest Lobo]

Do most of our drones still takeoff/launch from land?

[RPM 26222]

Navy has several drones in development and has launched/landed on carriers. 

 

[Guest Lobo]

WhAt are the “ideal” combat sortie ranges of our bread n’ butter drones?

[Nivek 16858]

Someone get me Gregory Hines

[RPM 26222]

2 hours ago, Lobo said:

WhAt are the “ideal” combat sortie ranges of our bread n’ butter drones?

Don't know about the older gen, but we have drone tankers now and this next gen could be virtually unlimited.