19 October 2018

Cogito Ergo Non Serviam

Pentagon Questions Navy's Proposal for More Carriers
 

Deputy Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan is reviewing the Navy's plan to build a third and fourth aircraft carrier in the Gerald R. Ford class. He has said that the final decision will be designed to ensure the US can win any war it fights, strengthens America's industrial base and delivers the best value for taxpayers. If those are the criteria, canceling the extra carriers is the only plausible decision.

The Navy's current plan is to expand the number of carriers from 11 to 12 as it boosts its fleet to 355 vessels, a 25% increase from today (helicopter carriers are not counted as carriers in this number). The argument made for the extra Ford-class carriers is the cost savings that economies of scale can produce. Four carriers are cheaper per ship to build than two. As Bloomberg reported this morning, "Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., the builder of the new carrier class expected to cost $58 billion, would benefit if the Navy commits to the purchase of an additional two carriers, which the service has said it's exploring to determine whether significant savings in labor and money can be achieved."

But the news service also observed, "But the carrier program remains troubled, with Huntington Ingalls falling short of the Navy's demand to cut labor expanses on the second of the warships to stay within an $11.39 billion cost cap mandated by Congress." The saying is "throwing good money after bad." It took 49 million man hours to build the Gerald R. Ford, and the Navy wants it to take 40 million, a significant labor savings of 18% or so.

The real question that the Navy isn't asking, but Deputy Secretary Shanahan might be, is why does America need more aircraft carriers? No one disputes that an aircraft carrier and its accompanying support ships represents a significant projection of power. In combat situations, they allow America to position friendly assets wherever commanders want them (at least on water). In humanitarian situations, they are floating cities providing immediate resources needed to save lives.

However, the issue is just how many does the US actually need? Is a dozen sufficient or is it over-kill? There are two ways to look at the question. The first is to determine what the opposition in any war might have. The second is to define what the mission of a carrier is and to decide how many are needed to provide a sufficient level of national security.

Including helicopter carriers, the US has 20 in service, according to ArmedForces.eu. France and Japan are second with four each. It is difficult to envision a situation where those eight would be in service against America, and in all likelihood, America's system of alliances would bring those onto the USA's side. The same applies to the two belonging to Italy and Australia. Britain, Spain and South Korea each have one, bringing the total of America and its allies to 35. China, India and Egypt have two each. Russia and Brazil have one apiece. That is eight at most that would be against the US. America could reduce its fleet to 5 and still maintain superiority.

The other consideration is their use. Patrolling the world's oceans is their job, and five might well be too few. Two in the Atlantic, three in the Pacific, a couple in the Indian Ocean and one in the Mediterranean would not be an unrealistic deployment. Eight in the field, a couple in port, and the dozen the Navy wants seems plausible. But consider again that the American-led alliances of the world have 35 carriers of one sort or another. Australia can patrol the South Pacific perfectly well. Britain and Spain can manage the Mediterranean, or Italy could. The point is that the Navy is presuming America has no allies.

If Mr. Trump's America First/Alone approach is used as the basis for naval construction, then a dozen might be about right. This journal prefers the NATO and ANZAC alliances, among others, to the American eagle flying solo. If those are shored up, America's taxpayers can save twenty or thirty billion dollars and be no worse off.

Diplomacy is the greatest force multiplier of them all.

© Copyright 2018 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.


Kensington Review Home