Posted on 08/10/2003 10:06:42 AM PDT by LibWhacker
The United States might have scored an overwhelming victory in Iraq, but some people think it still needs more aircraft carriers.
Five of these massive cities on the waves were called to duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom — but that left only three others deployable elsewhere.
The worry is that as the sole remaining superpower, the United States might not have enough carriers if too many of the world's simmering hotspots boiled over.
Policymakers feared a conflict in North Korea could have erupted at the same time as the Iraq War, but crises surrounding Taiwan, Pakistan or Israel might have also called for an American presence. The United States military is increasingly being drawn into smaller conflicts as well, like the one currently unfolding in Liberia.
The United States has more carriers by far than anyone else in the world. Britain has three, and Russia, France, Spain, India, Italy, Brazil and Thailand have one.
But John Birkler, a military analyst for Santa Monica think tank RAND, says the current United States carrier fleet may not be enough. There's a saying in the Navy, he said: "In national security matters having too much capability is a misdemeanor, but too little is a felony."
However, retired U.S. Gen. William Nash, said the American military always needs more of everything, since it's so small relative to its duties around the globe.
"The problem in all of this is when you discuss these issues it's seldom an either/or issue," said Nash. "It's how much of each, how do you find the right mix."
"You're looking for balances that give you a maximum capability at a reasonable cost."
Power Projection Problem
The United States' involvement in global affairs is only one reason for the increased interest in carriers.
Several of America's most recent conflicts have taught Washington it may have problems projecting power in the future — in part, due to rising anti-American sentiment.
NATO's assault on the Balkans in the late 1990s was at times stifled by native anti-war protesters approaching air bases in Greece.
Turkey frustrated Washington's desire for a northern front in the most recent Iraq war by refusing coalition ground troops or use of Incirlik air base.
Before the war, peace activists even sabotaged several U.S. aircraft at Ireland's Shannon Airport, which was being used as a stopover point by the Air Force.
Saudi Arabia also refused to let the United States use long-standing Prince Sultan Air Base to launch air strikes during Operation Iraqi Freedom. After the war, U.S. forces abandoned the base.
The United States used to have more than 100 land bases on foreign soil, Birkler said. "Now it's something like 20-plus and will probably continue to decline." Plus, he added, much of the areas where the United States is focusing now hardly have the infrastructure to support land-based aircraft.
Non-Alternatives
With the cost of a carrier coming to around $6 billion each though, American lawmakers are hard-pressed to give any more money to shipbuilders.
"It's a big ticket item," said Nash. "And by the way, you have to buy aircraft for them." Each carrier also comes as part of a battle group, which means up to a dozen additional ships, he said.
Washington may find itself with more responsibilities nowadays — but advances in technology also give it more options.
Military planners have long considered using mobile platforms — fixed constructs that look like oil rigs, placed in international waters — to take the place of aircraft carriers.
The advent of long-range bombers, which can launch from bases in the United States or one of its allies and strike anywhere in the world also raises questions over the need for more carriers.
Paul Bracken, a Yale professor who has studied management aspects of the military, said the idea of mobile platforms has "comes up every once in awhile," but has attracted very little attention.
Birkler said that's because deploying the mobile platforms would take months. "Plus there are concerns about this technology. We have not built these structures before and, I suspect, there will be lots of technical surprises," he said.
The aircraft carrier also has a special role that few other manners of projecting power can beat, Bracken said. "Washington likes the signaling effect of putting aircraft carriers forward because you don't have to pull the trigger," he said.
Technological Loopholes
While technology won't negate the need for carriers, it does suggest alternatives. Carriers and their jets were once considered obsolete, until improvements in technology allowed each jet to strike three or four targets instead of just one, Bracken said. It's possible that one carrier-based aircraft might even be able to tackle more targets in the future.
Military designers are also already dreaming up blueprints for carriers for UAVs — unmanned aerial vehicles, like the Global Hawk and Predator. With a reduced need for manpower, such carriers could be much cheaper and smaller than aircraft carriers.
The United States' central position in a multi-polar world will also affect the kind of ships it needs. Most of the conflicts going on in the modern world are small-scale, and largely internal.
"All the ships we've got now are designed to defeat Japan or defeat the Soviets," said John Pike, director of Washington thinktank Globalsecurity.org. "Modern security requirements are different."
Amphibious assault ships and maritime preposition ships, used by the Marines, might be higher priorities, he said. These ships are smaller and can move forces more quickly, can house strike units, provide reconnaissance, put soldiers in the area, and serve as a base for special operations forces.
They provide an "integrated power projection solution," he said.
Crystal (Cannon)ball
One way to bridge the carrier shortage may be to change the schedules by which carriers operate.
The United States actually has 12 deployable carriers, but at the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom, only eight were deployable because of the way they're scheduled.
A new deployment schedule "will get you one to two more carriers," Bracken said. "Maybe three depending on condition."
"We have to change the mindset from peacetime to war time. Lots of things are possible in wartime than in peacetime," said Pike.
The new geopolitical climate calls for a "surge" deployment rather than a "rotation" deployment, Bracken said — keeping crews at home and well-rested until they are called upon, and moving them en masse when they are.
Military planners are also moving to capabilities-based planning as opposed to threat-based planning, he said — which means an emphasis on flexibility, rather than programming against a defined enemy, as the United States did during the Cold War.
Another consideration is that although the United States faces a number of hotspots today, few of them will last long enough for military manufacturers to respond to, said Pike.
The war after the Cold War "is a come as you are party. It will be a short war," he said. "It'll be over before we build anything new."
I question this statement. Brazil and Thailand have carriers?
The bigger the Navy the better.
Force projection.
That has to be one of the stupidest sentences I have ever read. Yes it is a "come as you are party", that's why we need to build stuff now.
Otherwise, this is preaching to the choir. I continue to say we need to build the USN back up to 450+ ships. Less butter, more guns.
They are relatively small ships, carry maybe 20 aircraft, not big monster carriers like our's.
I'm leaving for RTC at Great Lakes, IL in exactly eight days. Then I'm off to Pensacola, FL for A-School (I'm going to be an AO or Aviation Ordnanceman).
I enlisted a little late in life (I'm in my early 30s) but decided that it was something I really wanted to do and wish I had done earlier (plus, I couldn't find a job).
I'm nervous and anxious about it. Signed up for five years. I think it is going to be fun.
Thanks, learn something every day.
A carrier can maintain sustained operations without additional support outside it's battlegroup. The difference is apples and oranges. A carrier is a strategic weapon, the B-2 is a tactical weapon.
Wrong. We need the guns to defend our butter. More guns, more butter. Fewer guns, no butter. Yes, we can have both butter and guns; we're that big to have such an efficient, diversified economy. But if we can't produce butter, then the terrorists surely will have won. We need the guns to ensure that the terrorists don't win.
Thank You. This is the first time in my life that I've read this comment that it has been directed towards me. It gave me a warm feeling.
My decision for enlisting was far more than "I needed a job" (it is nice that the Navy was hiring). I always wished that I had done it earlier but I grasped the reality that my window of opportunity was closing quickly.
In other words, "now or never." I have maturity, experience and leadership on my side and I'm sure the Navy appreciates this. Plus, it is nice to be able to serve this country that I love dearly.
There is practically no danger of a carrier falling victim to a missile from an enemy nation or from terrorism. Nothing is better defended then a carrier battle group.
Absolutely! (Might not be for a while though.)
Interestingly, even our "small" carriers are bigger than just about anyone's else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.