Commander says carriers' success leaves no doubt about value

Commander says carriers' success leaves no doubt about value By JACK DORSEY, The Virginian-Pilot © November 28, 2001

NORFOLK -- There should be no doubt now about the value of the aircraft carrier, after their successes in the war in Afghanistan, the commander of the Navy's Atlantic Fleet said Tuesday.

``Anyone who ever thought the carrier was dispensable is a . . . nut,'' Adm. Robert J. Natter said.

``Who would have thought carriers launching strikes into a landlocked country 700 miles from the sea was an option?

Natter made his comments to reporters at the Norfolk Naval Station during a ceremony at which he introduced his new Atlantic Fleet command master chief, B.L. ``Buck'' Heffernan, who takes over from retiring Master Chief Tom Hefty.

While the value of the Navy's mammoth aircraft carriers has been disputed politically for decades, their use in providing air power in the war against terrorism now centered in Afghanistan is undeniable, Natter said.

``Certainly, we didn't do it alone,'' he said, adding that Air Force refueling tankers and B-52 bombers flying combat sorties ``are a big part of it. So are the surface ships and submarines launching cruise missiles far inland. ``But try doing this without carriers,'' he said.

At the beginning of the Bush administration, there was widespread questioning in the White House and the Pentagon about the utility of carriers in 21st-century combat.

There was talk of smaller carriers and the need to reduce from 12 to eight the number of big-deck carriers. One senior adviser to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- Andrew W. Marshall -- allegedly argued that the ships were fat, inviting targets for the cruise missiles of U.S. adversaries.

Since the war against terrorism began Oct. 7, the carriers Enterprise and Theodore Roosevelt, both from Norfolk, plus the Pacific Fleet carriers Carl Vinson and Kitty Hawk, have made the Navy's case that they and their battle groups should continue indefinitely as the centerpiece of U.S. naval power, Natter said.

``Two years after this effort ends,'' Natter predicted, the old arguments will return on whether carriers have outlived their usefulness. ``There are a lot of field marshals out there. Some don't know the first thing about the business end of a rifle . . . but they sure got opinions.''

Natter said his fleet remains well-prepared to carry out any mission required in the ongoing war and will be able to sustain whatever it is called to do.

``Our ships and squadrons are doing a great job. They know full well they may have to deploy and get into the serious business in that war against terrorism,'' he said.

``The president has been straightforward, as has Secretary Rumsfeld. This isn't going to be a short-term effort. This is a bigger problem than just what is happening in Afghanistan.''

Supplemental funding to obtain additional ordnance, to complete a backlog of maintenance and repairs to ships and planes, plus to purchase additional port security devices, such as boats, guard towers and munitions, is helping to sustain the Navy's readiness, he said.

``Our ships and squadrons exist for one purpose; that is the defense of this nation.

``And I am prepared to deploy every ship and squadron I've got if that's what it takes.''

But the Navy needs to sustain this war effort over a period of time and wants to do that in a way that gets ships and their crews into a good rotation, he said.

In introducing Heffernan as his new command master chief, Natter thanked outgoing Master Chief Hefty for his 26 years of service, the last four as the fleet's senior enlisted adviser.

``He worked to improve the (sailors') quality of life, improve retention . . . and has been a great confidant, great adviser and very forceful fleet master chief,'' Natter said.

Heffernan comes to his new job from the carrier Ronald Reagan, which is under construction at Newport News Shipbuilding.

The author raises some good points here, but he hasn't made a very good case for large-deck carriers. Most of the damage in Afghanistan has been done by ground-based aircraft (with the exception of helicopters, which don't need a large-deck carrier), and if these carriers were truly effective there wouldn't be a need for the U.S. to establish airfields in adjacent countries.

The one major complaint about large-deck carriers still holds true -- a substantial number of their aircraft are dedicated to protecting the carrier group and therefore cannot be used to attack distant targets.

Carriers carry planes capable of coordination of every concieveable air attack with a central and mobile command center. You have AWACS, survielance, fighters, attack, radar jammers, and I'm sure I left a few more out that are not dependent on land bases. That is a big variety. As well they afe self sufficent in repair and command center. Today it's here tomorrow 500 plus miles elsewhere while still continuing missions.

Land air bases are for bombers and larger craft {still sitting ducks but on the airfield} due to weight and mission constraints. Notice the Navy had first on station capibilities with carrier air wings. We may not have a months ready time when needed again. The aircraft carrier is still the most effective short of a nuclear launch to war.

As for the substancial nimber of aircraft being used to protect the group? To a small extent yes rather the ships are there to protect the carrier, carrier group, and other ships in it that as well serve other missions in support of both the carrier and especially the war effort itself. I can tell you this much an enemy plane approaching an aircraft carrier will have more holes in it by the time it gets there than a Clinton deposition. Gatallin guns especially computer ehnanced and guided are a mean weapon.

The simple fact is that no other kind of ship can project force as aggressively, effectively and as flexibly as a modern nuclear aircraft carrier.

At sea, a carrier battlegroup owns a bubble more than 1000 kilometers accross. Nothing exists long in that bubble if the Group Commander doesn't want it there.

People have been trying to get rid of, downsize, or otherwise modify the current US Navy CV battlegroup strategy for as long as I can remember.

Anyone else remember Gary Hart and his mini-CVs?

But, you know, it's funny. Everytime the brown organic matter hits the rotary air impeller, the first thing the President asks is "Where is the nearest carrier?"

It is force projection that matters, and no other ship can do it.

The sailors on the U.S.S. Cole probably had similar thoughts as that $35 dinghy pulled up alongside them

The present force reductions started in 1989 onward led us to the situation of the USS COLE. The USS COLE blows the smaller Navy is better theory out of the water literally. The Cole did not have one shred of business away from fleet much less two days away from it remember? It's saftey in numbers with many groups spread out so one group being destroyed doesn't substancially reduce capabilities. The COLE was due to the arrogance of the State Department, Pentagon, two congressional houses, and the two POTUS post Reagan.

An aircraft carrier can refuel any other ship if a tanker isn't present. BTW the Carriers guns unlike the Cole can fill up every square inch of a football field in seconds it doen not miss. The Cole was manned by sailors with mountable 50 calibers who were taught they were diplomats of the United States and not sailors. This is not to put that crew down this is to make the point that those in charge teaching such are the loudest screamers for abolishing proven methods.

The point is not that carriers are ineffective, but that they do not project sufficient force for their size and cost.

Say what? Tell me of any other way 70 plus aircraft per carrier with all necessary support can be deployed, stay mobile, operate in international waters out side of begging for a landing strip, and substain it for long periods of time. Better yet show me an air base ready to take on NBC warfare and is trained for it and expected to survive it. A Bio or chemical attack can be dealt with rather quickly. While decontamination is in progress the ship is as well in the process of transisting to decontaminated seas and air. You close up an Navy ship and you stand a good chance of surviving it. We practiced for it and expected it. What can the land base do about it. I'm not saying land bases are bad either but they do not afford elements needed in warfare that only a carrier can deliver.

The simple fact is that no other kind of ship can project force as aggressively, effectively and as flexibly as a modern nuclear aircraft carrier.
At sea, a carrier battlegroup owns a bubble more than 1000 kilometers accross. Nothing exists long in that bubble if the Group Commander doesn't want it there.
People have been trying to get rid of, downsize, or otherwise modify the current US Navy CV battlegroup strategy for as long as I can remember.
Anyone else remember Gary Hart and his mini-CVs?
But, you know, it's funny. Everytime the brown organic matter hits the rotary air impeller, the first thing the President asks is "Where is the nearest carrier?"

It is force projection that matters, and no other ship can do it.

The cost comparisons between air force and naval aviation dot't take into consideration that an aircraft carrier is not a fixed-location asset like an air base. Without carriers we would need to maintain a lot more bases around the world. One of the reasons there are not fighters operating out of Uzbekistan is the lack of surface transportation to bring in munitions and fuel. Aircraft carriers can be resupplied at sea without requiring the building of special infrastructure. The ability to strike from international waters means that we don't have to station forces in countries where a sizable portion of the population does not like Americans, (eg. the Beirut, Saudi Arabia, etc.). Imagine how much more complicated the politics of the war in Afghanistan would be if we had to station thousands of support personnel in Pakistan. When the Afghanistan campaign is finnished these same carriers can move to some other location; try doing that with an air force base.

I do remember Gary Hart's mini-carrier proposals; he liked the carriers that the Brittish used in the Faulklands. If the mini-carriers are so great why didn't Blair send them to help out in Afghanistan. Also, the Royal Navy was lucky in the Falklands. The Argentine Air Force sank one ship and had five more Exocet missiles. The Exocet missle would not have gotten through our defenses.

Also, the Royal Navy was lucky in the Falklands. The Argentine Air Force sank one ship and had five more Exocet missiles. The Exocet missle would not have gotten through our defenses.

Actually, it was more Argentine stupidity than RN luck that won in the Falklands.

If the Argentines had put a major push on after capturing the islands and had lengthened the runway at Port Stanley to accomodate their Air Force jets, the RN would not have been able to come within Harrier range and the RN troop transports would have been facing aircraft with plenty of fuel for aggressive anti-shipping strikes.

Instead, the long distance between the mainland land bases and the islands forced Argentina's Air Force pilots for fight at the very end of their operational range, leaving them approximately 15 minutes or less of actual combat time.

To this day, I have never heard a satisfactory explanation for that blunder.

One other point. If the Argentines HAD lengthened the runway, Harriers would not have been able to take it back. The only way to to take out an airfield like that would have been by fully capable strike aircraft operating from a full-sized carrier. An asset the RN simple does not have anymore.

Actually, it was more Argentine stupidity than RN luck that won in the Falklands.

The Brittish were lucky that the Argentinians acted stupidly. Argentina had more Exocets from France and external fuel tanks from the US on order when they attacked. Once they attack both the EU and US cancelled all military orders from Argentina.

The US made Harpoon missle is better than the Exocet. It has the marketing disadvantage of never having been used in combat.

Thanks for the heads up.

Yeah, but these armchair commodores with their opinions have wreaked havoc with the current carrier fleet, to the point that they are having trouble conducting even the current mission. See: Navy seeks to bolster overworked carrier fleet .

Carriers seem to be an ideal way to flexibly project force, without having to worry about whether or not some Depends-wearing diplomat can get his old Harvard pals in the Whoknowswhere foreign ministry to pick up the phone.

That's just it. In the Cold War we kept two deployed MED Sea carriers and Two West Pacific carriers in that part of the world 24/7 365 by rotating schedules with other carriers. If trouble popped up we were already there or could be within days not weeks to any part of the world.

The ships as well as the crews got the needed rotations. We now do not have sufficient quantify or number to maintain rotations and still give time for the needed maintenance required. There are four mothballed carriers right now that would take at least a year more likely two years to ready one not counting qualifing work ups afterward. Of these four carriers the Navy states one has a hull corrosion problem so severe it can not be even saved at all. It is the second newest conventional powered carrier built. That alone says maintenance is suffering due to a decreased rotation schedule and I've seen further proof of it. That stands at a possible 15 carriers with 12 active in commission. Of these 12 three at least should be in the yards right now or at any given time. That's nine left ready to go. You can not continue forever a pace of 6&6 deployments as has become more frequent. ^&6 meaning deploying for 6 months coming home for six and redeploying. In the Cold War a carrier averaged seeing 3 six month deployments in 5 years. In 1993 they were doing three deployments in three years.

When crisis such as the Gulf War, Iran, and others pop up carriers are deployed. Before the Gulf War we had sufficient number as to not disrupt the rotation. The Gulf War showed a weakness that was overlooked and still is. A reduced carrier fleet does harm to those that are in commission. I likely cost us at least one probably two carriers an early life cycle due to it. We need Reagans 600 ships not the current 300 we have. The 600 would be a third less than that of the Cold War strength.

We've made some bad choices and it wasn't a party issue because both were negligent in the decision making process.

The military would really like to have more carriers. But they cost a lot. Also, if you build them, then you need support vessels, they cost too. Then to operate this larger quantity of vessels costs a lot. We should spend a lot though. It is good insurance. In times of war it keeps the enemy far away from us and it gives us tremendous flexibility to have more aircraft carriers as well as support vessels.

Our government is wondering how to stimulate the economy in a time of war. How did FDR do it? He built things, like aircraft carriers. They kept us safe and won the war.

This war is dangerous, as are other military threats. We should invest in all the other military services and intelligence agencies as well.

Anything military related down to the socks worn by the GI should be American made. If a company doesn't make the item the nation is full of know how and willing investors to start one up if a contract is awarded. No military electronic components, steel, or even drinking cups should be stamped made in China or any other nation. This is not a matter of free market or free trade it's common sense national security issue that is being tossed aside for political purposes.

What ever is needed to fight the fight or supply the troops should come from within our nations borders. That would as well generate revenue for defense in jobs. FDR had some sorry social policies but he did put America first on the employment line I give him that credit. As it stands now more of this nations capitol actually goes toward China's defense rather than our own. Any penny going into China for trade purposes must be assumed to be used for furthering their military strength.

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.