Twitter Facebook Google RSS
 
National Defense > Blog > Posts > Budget Crisis May Portend Smaller Navy Carrier Fleet

2/13/2013

Budget Crisis May Portend Smaller Navy Carrier Fleet
By Sandra I. Erwin



A potential funding shortage of $8.6 billion over the remainder of this fiscal year has prompted Navy leaders to call off the deployment of one aircraft carrier and delay the overhaul and refueling of another.

These decisions have been blamed on Congress’ failure to pass a 2013 budget and on looming automatic spending cuts of 8.8 percent across the Defense Department that are scheduled to begin March 1.

Officials predict the budget crunch also will have cascading effects on future construction of aircraft carriers and other ships that escort the carrier in a battle group. “We will be compelled to delay the start of construction of John F. Kennedy CVN-79, the completion of America LHA-6, as well as cancel procurement of an Arleigh-Burke class destroyer and hundreds of weapons,” said Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mark Ferguson.

“Without congressional authority, the carrier Abraham Lincoln must remain moored at Naval Station Norfolk, rather than start her overhaul, and we will not be able to complete the current overhaul of the USS Theodore Roosevelt,” Ferguson told the Senate Armed Services Committee Feb. 12.

“Over the long term, the discretionary budget caps under sequestration will fundamentally change our Navy,” he said. “We'll be compelled to reduce our force structure, our end strength and investments.”

This fiscal turbulence could not come at a worst time for the Navy’s fleet of 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, naval experts said. These enormous ships, which are modern emblems of American military power, have created a financial burden that the Navy cannot sustain much longer, warned Norman Polmar, senior aviation and naval analyst at the U.S. Naval Institute.

The current budget crisis, he said, should precipitate decisions to downsize the fleet.

“The situation will only get worse,” Polmar said. Of the 11 carriers in the fleet, only one — the USS John C. Stennis — is deployed on operational duties in the Persian Gulf, he noted. “This is unprecedented.”

The Navy’s ability to deploy more than one or two carriers at one time is going to be diminished, Polmar said. A scheduled mid-life overhaul and refueling of the USS Abraham Lincoln has been postponed pending the resolution of the budget sequester. The upshot would be a delay in the scheduled mid-life overhaul of the USS George Washington.

The George Washington is forward based in Yokosuka, Japan. The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower returned from deployment in December and is scheduled to relieve the Stennis in the Persian Gulf. The Navy has kept two carriers on duty in the Gulf since 2010: one inside the Strait of Hormuz and the other patrolling waters outside the gulf.

Polmar faulted the political establishment for allowing its dysfunction to cause these problems. But he also blamed Navy leaders for having failed to prepare for a fiscal crunch that has been in the making for years. The Navy for 37 years during the Cold War was able to keep one-third of its carriers forward deployed. But as the cost of building, maintaining and operating the fleet soared over time, the Navy put off maintenance work and remained in denial for years about the readiness of the fleet, said Polmar.

Canceling the Truman deployment helped to draw attention to the problem, but it could also lead to a reevaluation of whether the Navy needs two carriers in the Gulf, he said.

Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the decision appears to be partly propaganda aimed at demonstrating to Congress the real consequences of budget cuts. There is also a legitimate justification for not sending the ship to the Gulf if there is not going to be enough money to pay for fuel and logistics support, he said. The crew of 4,500 sailors has to be paid regardless of whether they go out to sea or stay home, as they are legally exempt from furloughs.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., of the House Armed Services Committee, decried the Truman deployment cancellation as a stunt. In a letter to Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Hunter said the decision to keep the ship docked  was only intended to “add drama” to the sequestration debate.

The larger predicament for the Navy is that carrier readiness has been in decline for years, said Polmar. Given the current budget climate, there is little the Navy can do “other than stop ships from sailing,” he said. “The Navy’s leaders have not thought out how to handle the problem,” he said. “It’s pathetic that from 10, 100,000-ton nuclear powered carriers in commission with 70 aircraft, we can only get one forward deployed.”

Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command, raised eyebrows last month when he lamented the shortage of available carriers. He called out the retirement of the USS John F. Kennedy in 2007 as an example of a ship that could have stayed in service longer had it been properly maintained.

Polmar said Gortney’s concerns should motivate the Navy to find lower-cost alternatives to big-deck carriers.

Polmar is a proponent of buying more amphibious LHA and LHD class ships, which cost $2 billion to $3 billion apiece, compared to $12 billion-to-$14 billion for a big-deck carrier.

Four or five LHA/LHDs can be operated for the cost of one CVN, he said. Amphibious ships are obviously not equivalent to a nuclear-powered carrier, but a combatant commander who needs ships to patrol waters might not care, he said. Within the Navy leadership, however, the suggestion has been strongly rejected. In the future, though, admirals might have to reconsider, said Polmar. “We have reached the point where we can’t afford the big carriers.”

Photo Credit: Navy


Posted at 3:08 PM by Sandra Erwin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (1)

Comments

Re: Budget Crisis May Portend Smaller Navy Carrier Fleet

Dr. Polmar's opinion regarding the U.S. Navy comes up often as he's considered an expert in Naval matters, having written several books on the modern U.S. Navy.  I would really like to read an article, blog, or interview done with Dr. Polmar and see what his views and plans are if he were Sec. of the Navy.  What would he do and what would be his solutions?

The U.S. Navy often talks about flattops and ships that could handle planes.  But there has been some wild ideas also such as barges, oil platform decks, floating runways, etc.  Much of the focus has been on airpower.  I would be most interested if Dr. Polmar proposes other alternatives to this issue than just naval airpower focus.
P at 2/18/2013 7:56 PM

Add Comment
Items on this list require content approval. Your submission will not appear in public views until approved by someone with proper rights. More information on content approval.

Name: *

eMail *

Comment *

Title

Attachments

Name: *


eMail *


Comment *


 

Refresh
Please enter the text displayed in the image.
The picture contains 6 characters.

Characters *

  

Legal Notice *

NDIA is not responsible for screening, policing, editing, or monitoring your or another user's postings and encourages all of its users to use reasonable discretion and caution in evaluating or reviewing any posting. Moreover, and except as provided below with respect to NDIA's right and ability to delete or remove a posting (or any part thereof), NDIA does not endorse, oppose, or edit any opinion or information provided by you or another user and does not make any representation with respect to, nor does it endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other material displayed, uploaded, or distributed by you or any other user. Nevertheless, NDIA reserves the right to delete or take other action with respect to postings (or parts thereof) that NDIA believes in good faith violate this Legal Notice and/or are potentially harmful or unlawful. If you violate this Legal Notice, NDIA may, in its sole discretion, delete the unacceptable content from your posting, remove or delete the posting in its entirety, issue you a warning, and/or terminate your use of the NDIA site. Moreover, it is a policy of NDIA to take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If you become aware of postings that violate these rules regarding acceptable behavior or content, you may contact NDIA at 703.522.1820.

 

 

Bookmark and Share