U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers Are Here to Stay
6
2,001
by Leighton W. Smith, Jr.
On March 4, the Navy christened the aircraft carrier USS Ronald
Reagan (CVN 76). The customary bottle was smashed on the Reagan’s
bow by the former first lady.
Ironically, as USS Ronald Reagan was being christened, a thoughtful
strategic analysis was being finalized in Washington. The experts
charged with doing so are expected, on the one hand, to advocate
the U.S. Navy as the “force of choice” for projecting
influence into the corners of the globe but, at the same time, question
the metrics (namely the carrier battle groups) used by the Navy
in measuring its active forward presence contributions.
One can make the case that it is not the Navy who is using that
metric. It is, in fact, the unified commanders, who are responsible
to the National Command Authority for carrying out U.S. military
strategy. These general and flag officers establish the requirements
for forces, including naval forces, in their areas of responsibility.
The arbiter in charge of setting requirements for greater naval
presence is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
He does this through periodic global naval forces presence conferences.
In these conferences, representatives of the unified commanders
meet to bid, in effect, on Navy overseas presence. After careful
analysis of the risks and regional treaty obligations in each geographical
area, the force distributions and deployment locations are determined.
The reality is that there aren’t enough resources to meet
the stated requirements.
So why do the unified commanders demand a naval force presence
that exceeds our Navy’s ability to provide? Because they realize
that, indeed, naval forces are the force of choice when faced with
ever-decreasing access to bases ashore. They also know that, despite
accusations that today’s military leadership is building for
and focusing too much on past threats, that they are justifiably
worried about the dangers on their strategic horizons.
The fact is there are dangers ahead that could well become serious
conflicts, the nature of which will require unencumbered forces,
which have the strategic agility to be in place early and the ability
to engage rapidly and decisively either unilaterally or as part
of a coalition.
Today, we have no serious global or regional peers. That will change
over time.
While U.S. leaders probably will have some warning in advance of
future conflicts, it is possible that they could flare up rapidly,
giving little time to react.
The location of future crises will be distant from U.S. shores,
but probably on or near someone else’s shores. The news media
will be on scene, sending with incredible clarity, the horrors of
war into our homes. Citizens will demand of their political leaders:
“Do something.” That “something” will inevitably
equate to a military response. The force of choice will be the carrier
battle group, whose presence in the region will allow it to respond
without delay.
The reasons? Local political deals to employ these forces are not
required. Massive movement of support material is not required.
Host nation support is not required. All that is required is the
decision to engage.
Future adversaries will attempt to deny or limit U.S. options.
They will employ a variety of means to undermine regional political
support for U.S. involvement. They will possess excellent intelligence,
in part because of its availability through commercial means. Operations
will be information intensive and information dependent, so we can
expect that our adversaries will intrude into our databases and
attack vulnerabilities in our information distribution systems.
Access to media sources, all of whom will be well represented at
or near the scene of conflict, will offer adversaries the opportunity
to conduct effective battle-damage assessments.
We will face opponents who will have capable weapons at their disposal.
These include conventional munitions (rockets, land and sea mines,
long-range guns, aircraft that can deliver stand-off weapons), as
well as weapons of mass destruction.
Potential enemies undoubtedly will continue to seek new ways to
threaten U.S. global security interests. Despite this, there are
those who continue to shout that these carriers, and the ships and
submarines that sail with them, are not affordable.
Hogwash. Our nation cannot afford not to maintain the asymmetric
capabilities needed to meet the challenges of the 21st century and
those challenges must be met at their origin. In other words, to
be effective, our forces must be engaged forward as a matter of
routine. A Navy built around a minimum of 12 carrier battle forces
will, of necessity, remain on the cutting edge of technology and
must operate forward on a global scale to counter threats to our
national interests. Between our Navy’s ability to develop
and bring to bear a vast array of transformational technologies
and our capability to sail anywhere anytime, the Navy will continue
to be the force of choice in preserving the peace.