-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Pentagon To Retire USS Truman Early, Shrinking Carrier Fleet To 10
- Thread starter Maxillarious
- Start date
In other news, I too have opinions upon which I am marginally qualified to comment.
“Pickle sez moar Growler BFM time is great! Future VCNO...pick now!”
Background (from article):
"The backdrop for the move is an ongoing “civil war” over the future of carriers in the military, according to a recent report in Foreign Policy. Under Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, OSD began pushing the idea that by 2040, the carrier would no longer be relevant against peer adversaries, Foreign Policy reported. Furthermore, Mattis’ acting successor Shanahan has also taken up the cause, pushing for a gradual step-back from carriers"
Hendrix's Tweet and in-article quotes don't exactly jive. Almost like he's playing both sides......:
"“The history of warfare is a history of the ebb and flow between offensive and defensive capabilities,” said Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain and analyst with The Telemus Group. The supercarrier has been the exemplar of offensive power projection for a century now but it appears that either the enemy has gained an advantage in defensive fires from shore or that the Navy has decided that the cost of investing in a new longer ranged carrier airwing is just too great a burden at this time.
“It appears that we have taken the first step towards moving away from the carrier as the centerpiece of American naval power perhaps toward more submerged capabilities, or hypersonic missiles launched from surface or submerged platforms. Either way the Navy seems intent on regaining the ability to project power ashore and hold the enemy at risk effectively.”"
"The backdrop for the move is an ongoing “civil war” over the future of carriers in the military, according to a recent report in Foreign Policy. Under Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, OSD began pushing the idea that by 2040, the carrier would no longer be relevant against peer adversaries, Foreign Policy reported. Furthermore, Mattis’ acting successor Shanahan has also taken up the cause, pushing for a gradual step-back from carriers"
Hendrix's Tweet and in-article quotes don't exactly jive. Almost like he's playing both sides......:
"“The history of warfare is a history of the ebb and flow between offensive and defensive capabilities,” said Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain and analyst with The Telemus Group. The supercarrier has been the exemplar of offensive power projection for a century now but it appears that either the enemy has gained an advantage in defensive fires from shore or that the Navy has decided that the cost of investing in a new longer ranged carrier airwing is just too great a burden at this time.
“It appears that we have taken the first step towards moving away from the carrier as the centerpiece of American naval power perhaps toward more submerged capabilities, or hypersonic missiles launched from surface or submerged platforms. Either way the Navy seems intent on regaining the ability to project power ashore and hold the enemy at risk effectively.”"
Funny thing, if you click the link, Jerry didn’t write the article, and he literally copy pasted his tweet from its title.
That’s what CDR Salamander probably calls “value-add.”
I'm all for becoming mobile infantry a la my Starship Troopers-inspired Heinleinian fantasies.
On a more serious note, do we really need 11 carriers? We have the largest carrier force in the world and are the only country who operates multiple supercarriers (catapult/ramp-capable, angle-deck carriers). I think we as a nation need to have a serious damn conversation about our OPTEMPO and our commitments overseas and whether or not we really need to keep policing the world like we have been.
Well I wonder what POTUS view of CVN concept is after the AF pitched this briefing slide. Did SECNAV and CNO pitch a similar case for CVN's?
It doesn’t mention Cap Troopers or the building the Rodger Young.
I’m not interested.
BTW my favorite book ever as well
My dog eared copy is 30 years old.
We could always have one on hand as a "loaner." Seriously, one could be kept in low operational state and be called from the bullpen in case of an emergency. After both the Oriskany and Forrestal fires the US would have loved to have a standby carrier.
I don't think that spiel will hold for that much longer, and I always caution folks not familiar with military aircraft or ships to cut the total number by 2/3rd's and that is how much you often have deployable at one time with 1/3rd in long term maintenance and the last 1/3rd getting ready to go or winding down after just getting home.
Given the current threat environment and our commitments 11 carriers, or a few more, is about the number we need right now. Now whether we want to adjust those commitments...
That is a separate question and one for our political leaders to address. I would prefer we still keep our current commitments, we have an outsized influence in the world even taking our predominant economic position into account and I would prefer we kept that influence in the political, military and economic spheres.
Last edited:
That didn't work out so well with the JFK, which was supposed to be used just as a training and reserve carrier in the late 90's. Real life got in the way though and she was deployed as a regular carrier after they shorted the overhaul (just didn't do most of it) and screwed the crew over, Skipper included if I remember right who was relieved partly because of the material deficiencies on the ship that were largely out of his control.
Funny, I missed the bullet point, after the second, where they fail to note that after becoming a separate service they became the only service to have never faced a peer or near peer enemy. I do, however, love their final point.