Replies

For instance, we have all but one of the world’s supercarriers (the French Charles de Gaulle being the other). We have 11 supercarriers, and we are planning on replacing them. Do we really need to?

While Charles de Gaulle is nuclear-powered, at ~40,000 tons displacement she's hardly a "super carrier (for reference, at the end of their careers the modernized WWII US Essex Class CVAs and CVSs were above 40,000 tons), and the significant weaknesses inherent in her design and operational capabilities have been readily apparent throughout her use in the Libya war.

The US doesn't maintain 11 carriers (in reality the number is only 10 because one is always in multi-year layup being refueled and overhauled) because it's some number a Pentagon bean counter came up with on a whim over Dos Equis and Coronas some evening at the local Chevy's.

The number comes from the simple mathematical equation that it takes three carriers to keep one deployed. You have the deployed deck, then a second deck that is in mid-level overhaul (NOT the one deck that's going to be in the multiyear RCOH) and then a third deck that is either working up for deployment, transiting to/from deployment or going through post-deployment activities (which culminate in one of the several varieties of mid-level overhaul, but also include getting new pilots carrier qualified, being ready for surge operations, etc).

So the first question is, where do we need to have a carrier always on station? The two biggies are the Western Pacific (to counter the ChiComs) and the Indian Ocean/Arabian Gulf (obvious reasons). So that requires six carriers (not counting the one that's sitting with its sides cut open for RCOH at Newport News). Then throw in that we really should have one operating in the Atlantic/Mediterranean. So that's three deployment locations, for a total of 9 carriers (plus 1 in RCOH)

That's not counting surge ops, when we'd want to essentially triple or even quadruple the number of carriers we have in a location. Our carriers may be nuclear powered, but they still have a hell of a lot of consumables that they burn through, specifically jet fuel and weapons - AND crew endurance. IIRC a US carrier can maintain 3-4 days of continuous combat operations before it needs to be pulled off the line to replenish stores and rest the crews. These are called "surge ops", and the US needs to be able to surge 4-5 carriers into certain locations (look at Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom) if needed.

A 10th carrier (with +1 RCOH) is needed for gap operations (so those weird times in the deployment/overhaul schedules when we'll be short a deck in the 3 for 1 ratio), plus surge operations, plus unanticipated situations (like the Tsunami and Japan Earthquake operations) that arise. And even with 10 decks there are STILL gaps. Like the one in Libya where the US could only deploy one of our amphibious assault ships with Harriers instead of a big-deck.

For reference, there are a number of sites you can visit by googling "where are the carriers" that will show you where our carriers are and are doing at any given time. For additional reference, here are the carriers currently in the US fleet:

USS Enterprise (just finished what is supposed to be her final deployment)
USS Nimitz
USS Eisenhower
USS Vinson
USS Roosevelt (currently RCOH at Newport News)
USS Lincoln
USS Washington (forward deployed to Japan, which provides relief to the deployment schedule)
USS Stennis
USS Truman
USS Reagan
USS Bush

Note that the Enterprise is being decommissioned "early" - before her replacement (USS Ford) is in service. This will drop the US carrier fleet from 10+1 to 9+1, and while the Navy is going to reap significant cost savings from taking Enterprise (a one-off ship commissioned in 1961 that was designed as a technology demonstrator with a 25 year service life) out of service, they are anticipating gaps in deployment coverage as a result.