Megan Scully. Government Executive, 28 October 2009.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1009/102809cdpm1.htm
Posts Tagged ‘USN’
Galrahn. Information Dissemination, 16 October 2009.
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/10/cbo-on-ballistic-missile-defense.html
Excerpt:
In January 2009 (on the basis of the 2009 FYDP), CBO projected that total investment costs for missile defense would be at least $10 billion per year, peaking at $17 billion in 2018; unbudgeted costs could add another $4 billion annually. The Secretary announced in April 2009 that the ABL program would be limited to a single aircraft, that no additional ground-based interceptors would be deployed in Alaska, and that the Multiple Kill Vehicle program would be terminated. With those and other changes, the 2010 request for the Missile Defense Agency would be $1.4 billion smaller than the amount provided in 2009. Incorporating those changes, CBO now projects that total investment costs for missile defense would average about $8 billion annually through 2028, peaking at about $10 billion in 2014. The total savings, averaging $2 billion per year, include the specific savings from restructuring the ABL program…
The CBO report – http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10633/10-14-DoD_2010_HBC_Testimony.pdf
Christopher M. Lehman. Boston Globe, 14 October 2009.
http://defensealt.org/HcpOCe
Editor’s Comment:
It has been several decades since simply counting the numbers of weapon systems or platforms has been anything like a reliable measure of military power. In a modern military effective power is achieved by the combination of well-trained men and women, advanced communications, agile allocation of forces, precision controls and, of course, good weapon systems and appropriate platforms for this complex package.
Christopher Lehman’s op-ed in defense of the eleven carrier fleet (Boston Globe 14 October 2009) fails to mention, let alone assess, any of these crucial aspects of the modern Navy. Nor does he mention the numerous expeditionary strike groups, surface action groups, and missile-armed submarines that also project American power around the globe. And he does not mention that a term of preference in today’s Navy is “network-centric.”
Although the number of platforms (ships) in today’s Navy is considerably fewer than during the Cold War, the firepower on today’s collection of ships has more than doubled, and is still growing. And that is only a starting place for measuring the effective power of the Navy. Reducing the size of the carrier fleet by one or two flattops is not a high risk proposition for the national security of the United States.
References:
- http://www.comw.org/wordpress/dsr/osd-considers-nine-carrier-fleet
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/navy_network.htm
http://thewillandthewallet.squarespace.com/blog/2009/10/8/possible-savings-from-decreasing-the-aircraft-carrier-battle.html
Reader Comment from a letter to the Boston Globe:
Isn’t it inappropriate for the Globe to publish an oped advocating the construction of aircraft carriers when the author works at a consulting firm that represents Northrop Grumman, the company responsible for carrier construction? In Christopher Lehman’s Oct. 14 oped, “Keeping the aircraft carrier fleet afloat,’’ the Globe did not bother to disclose the author’s financial stake in the position he was arguing, which would have helped readers evaluate Lehman’s credibility (or lack thereof) as a dispassionate analyst.
Lehman doesn’t base his case on military or strategic grounds, conceding at the very beginning that “the United States does not need aircraft carriers to counter those of other countries.’’ Instead, he asserts that carriers are valuable as power projectors that the United States uses to affect crises “without releasing a single weapon.’’ In other words, while carriers might not actually do much militarily, they make us feel like we’re shaping outcomes. Proponents of building more carriers can then cite such shaping, which is impossible to prove or disprove, as evidence that we need more carriers.
Lehman also points out that carriers both act as “levers of American good will’’ and are being built by many other countries, including some considered potential future adversaries of the United States. On the first point, humanitarian missions are not sufficient justification to build $11-billion-per-ship carriers that spend most of their time floating around in the middle of the ocean. Other ships are more practical. A carrier is a weapon of war, and arguments that try to frame it as anything else are disingenuous. On the second point, Lehman implies that because other countries build carriers, the United States should build them, too. “Keeping up with the Joneses’’ is the antithesis of strategic thinking, particularly when the United States already maintains such a large advantage in military capability.
– Travis Sharp, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Washington, D.C.
Galrahn. Information Dissemination, 09 October 2009.
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/10/fiscal-year-2010-budget-final.html
Stephen Abott. Budget Insight, 08 October 2009.
http://defensealt.org/HaIeCV
For background and an assessment of the carrier “requirement” see http://www.comw.org/wordpress/dsr/osd-considers-nine-carrier-fleet
Information Dissemination, 23 September 2009.
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/09/fact-check-technicals-of-aegis-bmd.html
Information Dissemination, 23 September 2009.
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/09/latest-fy-2011-navy-plan-rumor.html
Tony Capaccio. Bloomberg, 23 September 2009.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNMlnU1TAETo
Katherine McIntire Peters. Government Executive, 15 September 2009.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0909/091509kp1.htm
David Axe. Budget Insight, 08 September 2009.
http://www.warisboring.com/2009/09/08/stimson-centers-budget-insight-blog-navys-chance-for-reform-slipping-away/
Greg Grant. DoD Buzz, 26 August 2009.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/08/26/osd-considers-chopping-flattop/
Editor’s comment
The Project on Defense Alternatives recommended in 2007 reducing the carrier fleet by two saying “reform along these lines would allow a 9-carrier, 8-wing fleet to surge ‘five plus one’ for crisis response. In 2010, these six carriers, fully utilized and equipped with weapons now being fielded or procured, should be able to strike well over twice as many targets per day as the five that deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
Antonie Boessenkool. Defense News, 03 August 2009.
excerpt:
“They must, they absolutely must, enter the fleet on time and on budget,” [Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations] said, standing before a green-painted F-35C at Lockheed Martin’s assembly plant here. “If we don’t get this airplane on time, we’re going to realize a gap in the number of airplanes we take to sea.” Roughead said the Navy may extend the service life of its older F/A-18 models as it waits.
Editor’s comment:
The Navy could relax its delivery schedule for the new fighter by five years or so if it downsizes its carrier fleet (without sacrificing strategic power projection) as recommended by the Project on Defense Alternatives. This would free up newer F/A-18s to replace older ones in the Navy’s remaining active air fleet.
See also: “No Navy Fighter Gap: PAE” — http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/05/no-navy-fighter-gap/
Ronald O’Rourke. Congressional Research Service, 09 July 2009. Posted on the Commonwealth Institute server (printable .pdf file).
Michele Flournoy and Shawn Brimley. Proceedings Magazine, US Naval Institute, July 2009.
John D. Jogerst. Air & Space Power Journal, Summer 2009
Colin Clark. DoD Buzz, 05 May 2009.
VADM McCullough, Presentation to National Defense Industrial Association, 6 May 2008. Posted on the Commonwealth Institute Website (printable .pdf file).
USN, USMC, USCG. October 2007. Posted on the Commonwealth Institute Website (printable .pdf file).
Receive notice of new posts on this site through 
