Wednesday, November 4, 2015

U.S. Navy Informs Congress To Expect More 'Carrier Gaps' In Middle East And The Asia Pacific

The aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush, front, and the guided-missile cruisers USS Philippine Sea and USS Gettysburg participate in a group sail. All three ships are part of the George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group and are underway conducting training operations in the Atlantic Ocean. Navy Visual News Service.Photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Matthew Bash

The Hill: Navy anticipates more carrier gaps in Middle East and Asia Pacific

There will be more gaps next year where the U.S. will not have an aircraft carrier in the U.S. military's areas of responsibility in the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific, a top Navy official said during a congressional hearing on Tuesday.

"There are in the next year, some periods similar to what we are seeing in the [Central Command area of responsibility] now," Navy Rear Adm. John Aquilino, vice chief of naval operations for operations, plans and strategy, told the House Armed Services Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Aquilino declined to say in public how many days the anticipated gap would last.

Update #1: Congress Considers the Carrier 'Gap' -- Defense News
Update #2: US Navy Down to Five Aircraft Carriers at Sea, None in the Mideast -- Military.com
Update #3: Rep. Forbes says carrier fleet 'numbers don't add up' when considering worldwide threats -- Daily Press

WNU editor: To solve the carrier gap problem is easy .... spend money. But that is the heart of the problem .... there is not enough money to spread around, and Congress has other spending priorities.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

It is not clear what value U.S. super carriers have brought to the U.S. in recent years except power projection without much payback. Non-stop wars of choice have not made the U.S. more secure or made the U.S. many friends. Air, sea and land based missiles and other platforms have made it very dangerous to deploy carriers or other warships near many targets. In contrast, Russia deploys a relatively small force of land based aircraft and obtains a level of influence that stuns the U.S. military and Administration.

Just as battleships had their day, so too massive aircraft carriers. Perhaps it is time to listen to innovative sea planners and build for modern conflicts and stop building targets too big to deploy and lose to modern weapons systems.

Alex said...

Anonymous,

Well said!

Jay Farquharson said...

WNU Editor,

The "answer" is not a case of "spending" more money.

The Ford Class is way behind schedule, and is loaded with unproven, none working technology, like mag-lev catapults.

The two unfinished Carriers were designed, developed and built using the same "concurrence" philosophy as the F-35.

If they can't get the mag-lev catapults to work, it will add another 3 years to their "commissioning" trials, as they rip them out ant retrofit steam catapults.

James said...

WNU,
Did you notice the strange super structures forward on the Philippine Sea and the Gettysburg?