Posted on 10/08/2011 3:10:17 PM PDT by GATOR NAVY
WASHINGTON — Could the USS George Washington be sunk by budget cuts?
A report in Defense News on Thursday, citing anonymous sources, said naval officials are considering decommissioning the nuclear aircraft carrier decades before the end of its scheduled lifespan.
That’s the second time this week the 25-year-old behemoth has been mentioned as a potential fiscal casualty. In budget analysis released Tuesday, officials from the Center for New American Security, a Washington, D.C. think tank with close ties to President Barack Obama, listed the early decommissioning of the ship as a way to save up to $7 billion over the next decade.
Navy officials refused to directly comment on the idea.
“Until the 2013 president’s budget request is submitted to Congress in February 2012 … it would be inappropriate to discuss specific details,” Navy spokeswoman Lt. Courtney Hillson said.
The idea of shelving the ship, based in Yokosuka, Japan, has been mentioned by lawmakers and budget experts in the last few months, as Congress struggles to find billions in savings to help balance the federal budget.
In 2016, the George Washington is scheduled to begin a three-year refueling overhaul expected to cost more than $200 million. While decommissioning the carrier would also cost money, the CNAS report estimates that the overall savings would outweigh those short-term costs, and the associated risk to military readiness would be “significant but acceptable.”
In July, House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee Chairman Randy Forbes, R-Va., blasted rumored plans to delay purchase of a new aircraft carrier for several years, out of budget concerns. He also confronted Navy officials on whether other cost-cutting carrier moves were under consideration, but received no specifics.
Currently, the Navy is mandated by law to maintain an 11-carrier fleet, so any move to decommission the George Washington would require cooperation from lawmakers.
Nimitz-class aircraft carriers like the George Washington were built to operate more than 50 years and typically cost more than $30 billion over that lifespan in construction, maintenance and staffing.
And Navy budget officials have announced that in other cases, ships will be kept in use past their scheduled retirement dates, because that will cost less than purchase of new ones.
For example, the Japan-based USS Blue Ridge and Italy-based USS Mount Whitney, both with more than 40 years in service, will be in kept active until at least 2029, and the Navy is developing plans to see if they can be used for another decade after that.
shanel@stripes.osd.mil
I also notice it's not mentioned whether or not GW would replaced with another forward-deployed CVN.
Insane. Save $7 billion? That’s less than Stephen Chu can give away in a few days to Obama’s green energy cronies.
Navy family ping list
having served on board two carriers, the Ranger anf Kennedy, it’s sad when these machines are retired..
This may be of interest to your NAVAIR ping list.
wasn’t that a corollary in obama-soros’ thinking—
that if you borrow trillions of dollars eventually
you’ll have to cut the military?
the left hates the u.s. intervening abroad.
they’ll never cut the pensions of public employees pulling in $100-300k/yr
but they sure won’t slow down to cut anything relating to the military
Seven billion bucks? Hell, the “stimulus” pissed away more than that on park benches and bike paths.
Obama is going to borrow $1,400 BILLION next year. They want to say $0.7 BILLION next year by mothballing the George Washington. That is 0.05% of the shortfall.
Typcial Dems — expose our flanks to our enemies, leave us defenseless and vulnerable. While not making a spit’s worth of difference to the annual deficit.
Obama and the left figure they can disarm us and end our space lead by bankrupting us. It is going as planned.
Are they Treasonous and working for our enemies? You betcha.
See my post at #14.
I think several Air Force Ones/Twos and multiple limos should be decommissioned. And staff the travels with Barack should be cut in half. Michelle’s vacations should be limited to places she can go on a Greyhound bus. Canned tuna should replace lobster. Congressional “junkets” should be severely restricted. Staff should be gut way back. And trips back to their home states should be paid by their state tax payers, not the U.S tax payer. If Camp David is not good enough for him, it should be open for developement.
Feel free to add to this endless list.
I hate to correct you, but I have seen have seen the Isolationist here would praise this type of move. Mainly the Paulbots
I guess this depends upon what the definition of signifigant and acceptable, IS
I think I'm going to be sick.
Does this think tank want to save $7 billion, or do they want to weaken the armed forces of the USA? Barack Obama is doing a good job of weakening our country by watering down the military with social experiments, green experiments, trashing R&D, cutting back on new aircraft, and mothballing active warships.
Would Ronald Reagan have gone in this direction?
INSANE IS RIGHT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.