We Need More Carriers and More Marines

National Security Online ^ | 12/6/2002 | Christopher W. Holton

[LSUfan]

Recent developments in the Middle East have driven home two points that members of the Navy/Marine Corps team have known for decades: The U.S. needs more aircraft carriers and more Marines to man Amphibious Ready Groups.

This will be even more true in the future than it has been in the past.

The early stages of Operation Enduring Freedom were complicated by the refusal of several key Middle East "allies" to allow U.S. forces to stage out of U.S. facilities within their borders.

The key example has been Saudi Arabia. Not only did Saudi Arabia not allow U.S. aircraft to strike Afghanistan during Enduring Freedom, they have, until very recently, steadfastly refused us basing rights in any campaign to rid the world and the region of Saddam Hussein's regime and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Saudi Arabia has been anything but a reliable ally, however, even well-meaning allies in the region are subject to internal and external pressures that could limit American military flexibility in a variety of military operations. In Muslim and Arab nations in particular, America is often unpopular among the masses and regimes in the area are often in untenable positions. The Saudi regime is particularly unstable with an unhappy populous and Wahabbi Jihadists waiting in the wings--even within the royal family.

Now we find that even our NATO ally Turkey is waffling on the use of Turkish soil to go after Iraq, sending mixed signals over whether to allow U.S. aircraft to fly from Turkish bases and refusing outright to allow U.S. ground forces to invade Iraq through Turkey.

The problem is nothing new. In April of 1986, France refused to allow U.S. F-111s to fly from England over France to raid Libya in response to a terrorist attack.

Many of these problems will be ironed out...this time. But they make prior planning very difficult. How can a U.S. commander plan operations not knowing for sure where his forces can stage and fly from? And in future operations necessitated by the war on terrorism or other nations with weapons of mass destruction in the region (notably Iran), who knows what allied support we would have?

Moreover, outside the region, there are other hot spots that could present similar problems: the Korean peninsula, the Taiwan strait to name two. Would Japan and South Korea allow U.S. aircraft to raid Kim Jong il's nuclear complexes? If we had to defend Taiwan, where would we stage from?

All of this points in one direction. In order to defend our own national security, we must have the capability to bring powerful forces to bear which are independent of allies often fettered by domestic political considerations, weakness and outright fear.

The most flexible and realistic means are naval forces: the Navy-Marine Corps team. The key forces in that team are the Carrier Battle Groups (CVBGs) and Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs).

Carrier battle groups are obviously task forces centered around aircraft carriers. They usually include one carrier and 4 to 5 cruisers, destroyers and frigates as escorts--along with a nuclear powered submarine.

Amphibious Ready Groups are task forces containing amphibious transport vessels such as LHDs, LHAs, LPDs and LSDs. These ARGs usually consist of one LHA or LHD accompanied by a pair of LSDs or LPDs. Embarked on board is a Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) (MEU(SOC)). That unit is a Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) consisting of a reinforced rifle battalion with armor, artillery, helicopter and fixed wing aviation support. It consists of about 2,000 Marines. Larger MAGTFs are the Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) and the Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF). These units are unique in the world in that they are self-contained warfighting units with everything needed--including the beans, bullets and band-aids to keep fighting for at least 30 days.

These forces can steam anywhere that we choose in international waters, provide a visible deterent force, and strike quickly to defend American lives and security around the world. They are America's 911 force. They are not designed to fight extended, fixed-piece campaigns. They are strike forces designed to "kick in the door" or punish an adversary and get out. In other words, they are exactly what we need in today's world: flexible forces unfettered by allied intransigence with enough firepower and staying power to take on any foe short of a superpower confrontation.

The problem is this: we don't have enough CVBGs or ARGs any more. And the ones we have are overused and overworked.

Today we have 12 carriers in service, with as many as 3 or 4 in long-term maintenance or overhaul at any point in time. Twelve simply is not enough.

In the late 1970s and 1980s, the Navy created a program called SLEP (Service Life Extension Program). This program was a modernization program that was designed to extend the service life of each aircraft carrier from 30 to 45 years. Had the Navy been allowed to follow through with that program, we would have at our disposal, right now, as many as 17 aircraft carriers. (Of course we would not have the airplanes or personnel that make aircraft carriers what they are, but that is a different subject.)

What happened to the aircraft carriers? Bill Clinton happened.

The USS Forrestal went through a SLEP and was decommissioned after only 38 years of service. The USS Saratoga went through a SLEP and was decommissioned after 38 years of service. Neither ship is even available for recommissioning any more.

The USS Ranger went through a SLEP and was decommissioned after 36 years of service. The USS Independence lasted 39 years.

Not one of these ships stayed in service for the 45 years they were designed to last simply because the Clinton administration was intent on cutting the military. But it gets worse.

The USS America was decommissioned after only 31 years of service and never even went through the SLEP program. Her sisters USS Kitty Hawk and USS Constellation, both now headed to the Persian Gulf will never go through a SLEP and will be decommissioned soon---after a SLEP in the early 1990s--with nearly the full 45 years service.

We need more aircraft carriers. As part of his defense build-up, President Bush needs to establish a plan to increase America's carrier might. The same goes for the ships and equipment of the Amphibious Ready Groups.

In the early stages of Enduring Freedom, it was carrier based aircraft that provided almost all of the air support. And when U.S. ground forces deployed into Afghanistan, they were led by a Marine Expeditionary Unit which was deployed inland from the sea--further inland in fact that any Marine unit in history.

In the future, we will need these forces more and more to bring the war home to the Jihadists in places like Iran and the Bekaa Valley and to prevent rogue regimes such as those in Iran and Libya from obtaining or using weapons of mass destruction. Without a properly funded and equipped Navy-Marine Corps team, the issue will be in doubt.

[Jen]

Come visit the new daily thread in the VetsCoR Forum -- The FReeper Foxhole! Click the logo.

U.S. Military History, Current Events and Veterans Issues

Where Duty, Honor and Country
are acknowledged, affirmed and commemorated.

[Keyga8tor]

Great post. Had an argument with a recent graduate of the Naval War College. He was convinced of the value of small carriers. Imho, they cannot supply the combat power necessary! And, 20 sailors! Cant' work. 20 sailors would just keep up with the unnecessary administrative burden most ships have to endure! Give me a Nimitz class anyday, preferably the USS John C Stennis!

[Willie Green]

You've begun really shooting some heavier caliber than a 22 at Bush, X-41, and all their staffs.

There's nothing "erattic" about that.
In fact, I've been quite consistant over the years in my attitude toward Papa Bush. Stopping short and leaving Saddam Hussein in power is one issue. The "humanitarian" Public Relations campaign in Somalia was another. (You recall the weirdo-bizarro scene where the special forces were trying to sneak ashore fully equipped with their night-vision equipment and were chased around the beach by the international press corps with all their camera lights?)

Man, all I'm doing is pointing out that it was Papa Bush & company who started the whole transition AWAY from having the carriers and subs that Reagan had, and the 'bots go into a paranoid frenzy trying to blame it all on the 'Toon. Good grief.

[Willie Green]

BTW, just in case anybody is wondering... I favor the additional carriers. I just don't think the Navy/Marines are gonna get them under this administration. Heck, we don't even have the capability of building a couple diesel subs for Taiwan.

[gitmogrunt]

I'm not a naval weapons system expert by any means, particularly with all the new high powered gadgets and missiles, but in IMHO, I would love to see the Battleships Missouri, Iowa, and Wisconsin(?) reactivated, for this so called war on terror.

[tanknetter]

I agree with the author's conclusion that carriers are the first, best means of projecting US power globally, but I have some issues with how he wants to implement a "fix" to the deficiencies he sees

First, a few corrections to factual errors in the article. The SLEPS for Forrestfire and Saratoga apparently weren't as effective at extending their lives as was claimed at the start of the SLEP program. At the time they were pulled from service, both were in poor material condition. Forrestfire was undergoing modifications at Philly to replace Lexington as the training carrier, and my understanding is that the yard workers up there were finding all sorts of problems. Could they have been dragged, kicking and screaming, out to 45 years? Sure ... but the cost to do so would have been far in excess of what could have been gained in decomming them and expending the money elsewhere.

Ranger was never SLEP'd. The plan was to forward base her in Japan and allow a combination of TLC from the Yokosuka yard workers and a less rigorous deployment schedule work in concert to extend her useful life. When the carrier fleet was scaled back, Independence (which had been SLEP'd) was available to take her place.

The ability to SLEP America was/is a huge question mark. The ship was in extremely poor material condition when pulled from service - the reason why she was immediately stricken while the older Ranger and Independence were held in reserve. For this you can't really blame Clinton - LBJ and Bob McNamara are to blame. To help pay for Vietnam, lesser-grade steel was used in America's construction. As a result, her hull was pretty well deteriorated. As it stands right now, Forrestfire, Saratoga and the older Midway are all available for donation as memorials/museums/civic centers. Ranger and Independence will be once they are stricken. America isn't ... because the Navy isn't convinced that she would stay afloat for any appreciable length of time.

Now, about the substantive points of the article. When looking at the carrier fleet, start with the following calculation: take the total number of carriers and subtract by one (this is the nuke that is always undergoing comprehensive overhaul and refueling). Take that number and divide by three. You get the total number of carriers that can be maintained on station. The rest are either undergoing light overhaul, workups prior to deployment, or in transit to/from deployment.

Current carrier force is 12. Minus one (currently Eisenhower), that leaves 11. Dividing by three results in three and two thirds - iow, the US can maintain three carriers on station, with a fourth on station 66.7% of the time. In reality, you can also count 1/2 to 2/3 of the remaining carriers (4 to 6) as "surge" assets that can be deployed quickly (arriving on station in a matter of weeks). So the total force that can be deployed at a given time (with some notice) is roughly 7 to 9.

Now, where do we want to deploy our carriers? Top priorities are WestPac (covering the ChiComs), and the IO/Persian Gulf area. To a lesser extent there's the Med, but that particular pond is about the one place on the planet where the Harrier carriers operated by our NATO allies can actually be effective in the power-projection role. Just in case Libya or Syria start getting frisky.

My conclusion, therefore, is that the US doesn't necessarily need more carriers. We can put at least 7 (and sometimes up to 9) into play at a given time - which is enough to cover all major contingencies.

The issue isn't the number of carriers ... it's their airwings. The Nimitz class was designed for an airwing of 90 aircraft (I've seen some studies hypothesizing that they are really capable of effective operating an addition 24 - two squadrons worth of F/A-18Cs). Yet they currently deploy with around 75. This is a HUGE waste of capability, especially given the quantum jump in efficiency conferred by the introduction of JDAM - a significant force multiplier. So my solution would be to build more aircraft to put on the carriers - filling their airwings out to their rated capacity. Not only that, but the USAF should be forced to integrate one heavy bomber squadron (including assorted tanking assets) with each USN CVW. They train/workup together and when the carriers go out to WestPac or IO, the bombers go out to Guam or Diego - and operate under the direct control of the CVBG commander.

[tanknetter]

I'm not a naval weapons system expert by any means, particularly with all the new high powered gadgets and missiles, but in IMHO, I would love to see the Battleships Missouri, Iowa, and Wisconsin(?) reactivated, for this so called war on terror.

Battleships are great - I used to be a huge advocate of reactivation, but have slowly come around to the conclusion that they are fairly limited in capability compared to what has entered the force in the last 10 years (GPS weapons like JDAM). Given an equivilant amount of resources, I'd rather invest in more carrier aircraft and long-range bombers.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

You made a statement. You were wrong. Whatever, who cares. Then you continue by calling who ever...bots. Stick with the discussion you started. I have seen no posts that require any bot' alert. You seem to always be erratic and hard headed. Whatever, but stop straying off the discussion with your view of why you were wrong being your assumption of others highly favoring anyone.

[rmlew]

If you can't fight 2 wars simultaniously, you cannot afford to fight any war, since you will be vulnerable.

[Willie Green]

C'mere an give my dupa a smutz.

[BenR2]

Man, all I'm doing is pointing out that it was Papa Bush & company who started the whole transition AWAY from having the carriers and subs that Reagan had, and the 'bots go into a paranoid frenzy trying to blame it all on the 'Toon. Good grief.

I agree on virtually all counts. But, it is ironic, as the Army feels like Rumsfeld is against them, too -- killing Crusader outright (after some $2Billion had been invested in it), and threatening both the Comanche (now approved) and the Stryker weapons systems.

I guess those of us who served under Reagan remember what it was like to serve in a military that was second-to-none . . . and THEN some!

[El Gato]

Wasn't Rumsfeld the one who originally planned these cutbacks?

Nor did Cheney when he was SecDef. Cheney and Bush I did plan some cutbacks, but nothing like we actually got under the StainMan.

[El Gato]

Am I the first person you've heard offer up the concept of submarines capable of being sizable troop carriers as well as UAV launch and recovery points?

Am I crazy?

No, and No, it's been proposed before. I think I may have first read such a proposal in a science fiction novel, which is not to put the idea down, communications satellites in geosynchronous orbit s(Clarke orbits after the SciFi writer) were first mentioned in science fiction. I also think I read a proposal somewhat later, maybe 20 years ago, in the U.S. Naval Institute's Proceedings.

Of course it's not just been mentioned, it's been done, albeit on a small scale. Regulus was an early (and large) cruise missle lauched from a surfaced sub. Of course having to surface to lauch is a big disadvantage. Early soviet ballistic missle subs had to surface, or at least get the sail out of the water, to lauch their *liquid fueled*, missles.

[El Gato]

If you can't fight 2 wars simultaniously, you cannot afford to fight any war, since you will be vulnerable

A very good point. However nothing says both must be fought with carrier aircraft. B-2s, or in a more permissive air environment, B-1s and more permissive still B-52s, armed with JDAMs or LGBs, represent sent a heck of a lot of firepower. If necessary they can be based right in the US, although something closer would obviously be better, as they would eat up fewer tanker assets and be able to fly more sorties per aircraft, from closer in.

[KiaKaha]

The Royal Navy was never happy in respect of having to build the Invincible class they were considered a "better than nothing" option, although these ships have proved effective but hopefully these,

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/index.html

will soon on the way.

These should at the least become two more carriers to augment the US navy operations like the present situation in the Persian Gulf

[Spandau]

I think the latest generation of ramjet cruise missiles designed to take out big carriers might make them obsolete. The Sunburn missile comes in at over mach 2. It flies right on the surface and is too fast for the Phalanx to deploy and stop it. There's another supersonic cruise missile called Shipwreck that's pretty nasty. Shipwreck is launched in salvos of 5 or 6.

[Polybius]

the Corsair, is envisioned as a vessel of only 6,000 tons displacement. The Corsair might carry half a dozen of the Vertical Take-Off variant of the Joint Strike Fighter being developed for the Marine Corps. Alternatvely, the Corsairs might employ Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles [UCAVs]. Vessels like the Corsair might be built for several hundred million dollars, compared with the $4 billion construction cost of a Nimitz carrier. The Corsair could allow the Navy to operate in coastal waters, within range of shore-base anti-shipping cruise missiles, according to proponents of the concept. It could also allow the Navy to provide air cover for smaller post-Cold War operations, such as the peacekeeping missions in Haiti or East Timor, that either divert a Nimitz-class carrier or are conducted without air support.

This concept was floated around in the early 1980's when they were referred to as "Gary Hart carriers".

As to how well they fare in combat, one only needs to see how the British fared in the Falkland Islands with VTOL aircraft. Without air superiority fighters and the advanced warning aircraft that a CV can carry, the British fleet was subjected to attack not only by Super Etendards carring Exocet missiles but also ancient Skyhawks dropping "dumb bombs".

If the British had possesd a single CV or CVN, the Argentinian aircraft would not have gotten within striking distance of the British fleet.

Such "Gary Hart carriers" can be used only against a country that lacks any airpower such as Haiti. Against even a Third World country with airpower, the price that you pay for using these things is shown in the photos posted below of the HMS Sheffield which were taken before she sank.

[Polybius]

This may seem like a pipedream, but this is what I think we should do. A small aircraft carrier is Great, but then add to that concept a submarine. A GIANT submarine with aircraft within it's belly.

A submarine aircraft carrier?

Of course it's a pipedream. Nobody would ever go for such a ridiculous idea.

H.I.J.M.S. I-400: JAPAN'S SUBMERSIBLE AIRCRAFT CARRIER

[rmlew]

A very good point. However nothing says both must be fought with carrier aircraft. B-2s, or in a more permissive air environment, B-1s and more permissive still B-52s, armed with JDAMs or LGBs, represent sent a heck of a lot of firepower. If necessary they can be based right in the US, although something closer would obviously be better, as they would eat up fewer tanker assets and be able to fly more sorties per aircraft, from closer in.

Bombers cannot provide air superiority and are still limited in close air support. Carrier aircraft are simply more flexable in the Littorials. They are a sovereign Us airfield floating off almost any shore and backed up by a task force carrying cruise missles.
When a crisis happens, presidents don't ask "Where are the B-2's?", they ask: "Where are the Carriers?"

[tanknetter]

If the British had possesd a single CV or CVN, the Argentinian aircraft would not have gotten within striking distance of the British fleet.

Actually, it has been hypothesized that had the RN had a CV (even the old Ark Royal with her Phantoms, Buccs and Gannetts) Argentina wouldn't have even thought of making a play for the Falklands.

The VSTOL carriers actually fared pretty well in the Falklands ... the big limiting factor was lack of organic AWE&C, something that was quickly rectified by bolting an AEW radar onto the side of Sea King helicopters. Altho the modified Sea Kings didn't make it into service in time for the Falklands, they (now having been upgraded several times)are still an integral part of the RN CVLW. In fact, in North Atlantic exercizes where an Invincible was pared with a US CVBG, there were cases where atrocious sea states kept the USN E-2C Hawkeyes chained to the deck, but where the Sea King AEWs could operate with impunity.