Word on Capitol Hill is that the Quadrennial Defense Review should result in the demise of two Navy carrier groups and the Marines’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. On top of that, the Joint Strike Fighter pro gram is likely to lose a so-far uncertain number of planes and the Air Force looks to lose two air wings.
Folks on the Hill are watching the carrier cuts particularly closely. They were willing to accept the temporary loss of one carrier but two groups may just be too much for lawmakers to swallow though it would conveniently answer the hot debate about whether the Navy faces a fighter gap.
“Even if they cut two carrier strike groups (which will be an uphill battle for DOD), they still face a significant USN fighter gap,” said a congressional aide following this. “The Navy seems to recognize this, but everything we’ve heard thus far from OSD seems to indicate that they’d rather try funny math then address a clear gap.”
The 2010 defense authorization report noted carefully that Congress was willing to accept the “temporary reduction in minimum number of operational aircraft carriers” from 11 to 10 until CVN 78 is commissioned in 2015. The report also noted that “the Navy has made a long-term commitment to field 11 aircraft carriers outfitted with 10 carrier air wings composed of 44 strike-fighters in each wing.” Congress, the report’s authors said, is “very concerned” about “current and forecasted short falls in the strike-fighter inventory.” Given the totemic nature of carriers for the Navy and the numbers of jobs and the money at stake for members of Congress, a battle royal over plans to permanently reduce the fleet by two carrier groups seems assured.
On the Joint Strike Fighter, one congressional aide said a cut to the F-35’s over all numbers would not be surprising given the program’s rising costs and the tightened budget situation the country faces for 2011. And now we have some detail about just how big those cuts may be, Our colleagues at Inside Defense are reporting that a draft Pentagon directive would result in extending, “development by at least a year, reduce production by approximately 100 aircraft and require the addition of billions of dollars to the effort through 2015.”
Now, Galrahn also listed out the likely lifespans of the current carrier force
With an understanding the USS Enterprise will be retired in 2012 at a healthy age of 52 years old, lets look at the 10 Nimitz class aircraft carriers.
USS Nimitz (CVN 68) was commissioned May 3, 1975 and is scheduled to retire in 2025.
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) was commissioned October 18, 1977 and is scheduled to retire in 2027.
USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) was commissioned March 13, 1982 and is scheduled to retire in 2032.
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 70) was commissioned March October 25, 1986 and is scheduled to retire in 2036.
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) was commissioned November 11, 1989 and is scheduled to retire in 2039.
USS George Washington (CVN 73) was commissioned July 4, 1992 and is scheduled to retire in 2042.
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) was commissioned December 9, 1995 and is scheduled to retire in 2045.
USS Harry S Truman (CVN 75) was commissioned July 25, 1998 and is scheduled to retire in 2048.
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) was commissioned July 12, 2003 and is scheduled to retire in 2052.
USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) was commissioned January 10, 2009 and is scheduled to retire in 2058.
More to follow as we develop it from out there on the web.
By: Brant
I understand politicians like to keep their jobs, I do, and I get it! However, sometimes you have to make very difficult decisions for a better future. I know ten seems like a scary number to adjust to, but the U.S. may need to face the fact that they do not need more than seven or eight to remain a superpower, i.e. have at least one carrier in two different trouble spots at all times. Having nine or ten is a luxury in comparison to that and 11-12 is overkill and a waste of money. * The carrier forces must be reduced. England cannot even afford the implementation of their two big carriers!! England is a country that has one fifth of the U.S. population, and they can not afford 2 large carriers, it makes some mathematical sense to me that the U.S. can not even afford 10! 10*1/5=2. #
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. is in big financial trouble and the rest of the world sees it, even the current administration sees it. Why can't the people of the United States Congress? I lost my job this year, but I budget and rebuild. That is the way of the future. The whole world except maybe China or India all have to adjust to these facts The West is a little past broke. U.S. Congressman will need to grow up or they will not have any voters to vote for them at all as everyone in the states will be to busy rioting for bread.
*Further on this fact no mention is made of the Amphibious Carriers, of which there are ten which usually carry up to 25 aircraft. (Although these will probably be numbering no more than eight soon) Albeit smaller, no one else in the world has more than two of these types and 80% of those countries have no more than one! If you count nations that have carriers at all you would not get past your two hands and most of these find it to expensive to run them let alone build more. Does the U.S. need naval parity with the whole planet combined?
#Other countries that have Heavy Carriers 40-60 aircraft etc.
China 1
Russia 1
England future 1
France 1, (future, 2)?
India? 1? India Admirals fantasies maybe.
Even if the all allied and took umbrage with the U.S. at the exact same moment they would still be outnumbered by the U.S. by two to one in hulls and probably by at least fifteen planes per carrier AND you would have to wait 6 years for half of these ships to even exist! England arrival six years, India arrival, probably never, France, just shrugged their shoulders a lot, China, soon but no date, Russia, if it can find the gas for the thing.
All I can say is God bless Gates he will need it, congressman are a cranky bunch.