A Navy of One

Mike Burleson

Since the Second World War America has built its world-spanning navy around a single warship class, the giant supercarrier. Practically every ship in the fleet is geared toward supporting this unique and technically awe-inspiring vessel, including submarines to combat other submarines,and escorting surface ships to defend against aerial threats. With so much of our shipbuilding resources going to this unmatched capability, we truly have a Navy of One.

Over at Forbes.com. Professor John Arquilla claims the USN could save $100 billion by canceling the next planned carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford class:

“Over the next few decades the Pentagon is planning to spend more than $50 billion on its Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carriers. The first of these 100,000-ton ships is due for completion in 2015, with others following as vessels in the existing 12-carrier fleet are retired. Since aircraft carriers are near helpless without a protective ring of about ten destroyers, frigates and cruisers, the military wants to invest in newer versions of these, too, at a cost of an additional $50 billion.
This plan constitutes a huge waste of taxpayer money and exemplifies the Defense Department's fixation on preserving legacy systems designed for a kind of war that the U.S. is likely never to fight again.”

Naturally some type of carrier is needed, but do they of necessity need to be huge billion dollar flattops that must be escorted? And the escorts themselves are getting ever fewer. The technology exists with vertol planes and UAVs that almost any warship can become a carrier. Potentially we could spread the capability around the fleet on vessels that are truly multi-purpose, rather than a few single-purpose and increasingly vulnerable hulls. The future carrier replacement shouldn't’t have to be a single warship class, or even a ship for that matter.

Today we have finally reached bombing perfection: almost guaranteed with one bomb one hit. Yet the Navy still insists it must have a 100 plane aircraft carrier just as in WW 2, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm. They would have a study “proving” the giant flattop still viable even if the bombs could fly from ocean to ocean without the need of a parent aircraft. Oh wait, they can! They are called guided missiles.

By single purpose, considering their immense cost, I mean that carriers are only good for ferrying aircraft. The admirals resist unmanned aerial combat vehicles (UCAVs), and you don’t need a giant ship for them anyway. They probably shouldn't’t carry troops, because a converted cruise liner could do it better and cheaper. They don’t carry heavy guns or long range missiles. They can’t sweep mines or perform boarding operations in a littoral role.

Before the Soviet Union fell, we were using the bulk of the airwing to defend the carrier, including the airborne early warning planes (AEW). The F-14 Tomcats were to protect the ship against cruise missile bombers, while others aircraft guarded against submarines. Hi-tech Aegis ships defended against more cruise missiles which made it through the combat air patrol, and Los Angeles subs shielded the big ships from undersea threats. Lack of a peer enemy at sea since 1991 has given the carrier a new lease on life, but do we really want our entire fleet defending a single class of warships, or should they be used more offensively?

The two principle roles such as anti-submarine warfare and close air support for land troops is a dangerous mission for such large, vulnerable warships. The British lost one of their big flattops, HMS Courageous in the world war when it was used to hunt U-boats. The great carrier admirals such as Spruance and Halsey knew it was dangerous to sail their fleet carriers near to shore where high-performance land based aircraft were prevalent (And today with guided missiles the threats have multiplied). In both cases small, cheap, and expendable escort carriers were used and often paid the ultimate price for this dangerous duty.

As with the $1/2 billion stealth bombers, we have only used our $8 billion sacred vessels to bomb mud huts in the Third World, or in other words benign military environments against non-naval powers. We have to find a better, less costly way before we get into a real war of attrition at sea as the Army is fighting on land. The finality is the technology exists that can perform the same missions the 100 plane supercarriers do now, UAVs, long range missiles, ect., if we can only be weaned off this unaffordable dependency we have made for ourselves. Otherwise, with the cost of shipbuilding rising and defense budgets decreasing, we may soon have only “A Navy of One”.

My blog on military reform issues is at newwars.wordpress.com

###

Mike Burleson is a regular columnist with Sea Classics magazine and an advocate of Military Reform. He resides in historic Charleston, SC. http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/honestnews/ http://newwars.blogspot.com/

charbookguy@myway.com