The Nimitz-class aircraft carriers USS John C. Stennis (front) and USS George H. W. Bush steam alongside one another in the Strait of Hormuz in this November 12, 2011 file photo. Photo by Reuters
Carrier Calculus: How Many Do We Need? -- John T. Kuehn, War On The Rocks
Recently, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel framed the scale of choices foisted on the Department of Defense if it had to plan for sequestration level cuts. In this context, he floated decreasing the number of nuclear powered aircraft carriers from ten to eight in his Strategic Choices and Management Review (SCMR). This decision presumably would also result in a reduction of the escorts and other ships required for a larger number of carrier strike groups (although not necessarily so). Hagel’s proposition, while not an official recommendation, should have surprised no one, least of all the U.S. Navy. A debate over how many large aircraft carriers—sometimes called super carriers—to keep in service has been going on since at least the very first Quadrennial Defense Review in the 1990s (or for purists we can go back to 1949 and the conflict over the first super carrier). Prior to Hagel’s recommendation, then-Commander (and carrier aviator) “Jerry” Hendrix wrote a startling article called “Buy Fords, Not Ferraris” that recommended reducing the 12 carrier force down to as few as nine. This past March, Hendrix published an updated version of his original argument, this time focusing exclusively on the rationale for super carriers and what they bring to the table from a cost-benefit perspective. Although he gives no numbers, his article calls for shrinking the overall force structure as well as individual ship sizes.
Read more ....
My Comment: As to what is my take on this debate .... the deciding factor will be money .... something that the US defense department is presently sorely lacking. Bottom line .... declining budgets will mean declining aircraft carrier strike groups, and nothing is going to change that.
