The United States Navy just came up short on carriers

[ringpriest]

As I've been saying on this forum for years, the United States power projection has been headed for trouble - multiple problems on the logistical, decision-making, and project-management levels are leading to a degradation of capabilities that was going to come home to roost sooner or later; "sooner or later" has become now:

Pentagon announces new troop deployments to Saudi Arabia

The Pentagon will deploy about 1,500 extra troops to Saudi Arabia in answer to requests by the leading US military commander in the Middle East and, in part, because the US Navy is unable to send a relief aircraft carrier to deter potential Iranian aggression, multiple US officials tell CNN.

(This is likely a follow-on effect from last month, when the USS Harry S. Truman Strike Group deployed... without the Truman, which was down for repairs - the Truman was the designated reserve carrier for the US East Coast when it suffered an electrical failure back in August; in theory the Eisenhower Strike Group should be available "soon" as it just finished a shakedown cruise, but soon is not now - and unless the United States gets its act together (to which all signs point to "no") instances like this are going to become more frequent.)

[Thekri]

Well I think it is also fair to say that the constantly escalating requirements for force projection were unsustainable in the first place. It isn't that we are really short on carriers, it is that we overtask them like crazy, because we have increasingly come to rely on having one everywhere.

[PACOX]

How about we just stop backing up the Saudis.

[Breccia]

"sooner or later" has become now

Well, I guess the aircraft carrier...just ran out of steam?

Yeah, when Trump said "no more Endless Wars" I guess he should have added "we'll just rotate between new ones".

We wouldn't need anyone there at all, if Trump hadn't unilaterally ended the Iran Nuclear Deal. It's his job, as Commander in Chief, to fix this. And it's the job of the voters to rate his performance.

[Mihalik]

(sip.)

This is also an argument for really downsizing the number of fleet carriers and to replace them with a larger number of escort carriers. Maintain the same number of aircraft available for deployment but from more, smaller, cheaper, tactically flexible platforms.

This would allow more mission specific numbers of carriers assigned to specific areas of need, and make it easier to plug holes in unforseen situations.

[sarahtasher]

It's a major problem that happens (across the world) when the military is worshipped : the military is not by essence more competent than any branch of the government. This is compounded by the US problem of throwing money at problems.

[Thekri]

This is also an argument for really downsizing the number of fleet carriers and to replace them with a larger number of escort carriers. Maintain the same number of aircraft available for deployment but from more, smaller, cheaper, tactically flexible platforms.

This would allow more mission specific numbers of carriers assigned to specific areas of need, and make it easier to plug holes in unforseen situations.

Like the 10 LHAs we already have? Not sure what else would really count as an escort carrier in this day and age, and we do use the LHAs for force projection, they are just a lot less formidable then a carrier unless they deploy the marines they carry.

[CostinR]

A temporary gap caused by, more so then anything, the fact the first Ford carrier has been plagued by fairly significant issues...and the US in their infinite wisdom did not think to maintain their older non-nuclear carriers.

This is also an argument for really downsizing the number of fleet carriers and to replace them with a larger number of escort carriers. Maintain the same number of aircraft available for deployment but from more, smaller, cheaper, tactically flexible platforms.

America has escort carriers. They are called the Wasp Class. Then there's the America class which the US is building without having a plan to replace their existing Wasps, at least not right now.

For an idea the US currently has 10 carriers and 9 "escort" carriers. It will soon add one more escort and replace one Nimitz class carrier.

[Fantomen]

because the US Navy is unable to send a relief aircraft carrier to deter potential Iranian aggression

Ger real, if one carrier (USS Abraham Lincoln) cant be a deterrent, why would two carrier make a difference?

[Wermys]

It also shows the carrier is not needed

[Deja Thoris]

No.

Wars deplete military stockpiles and readiness.

But they keep the orders coming in for the defence companies!

[Zan15]

just throw more money at the problem what could possibly go wrong!!!

[ringpriest]

Ger real, if one carrier (USS Abraham Lincoln) cant be a deterrent, why would two carrier make a difference?

Lincoln isn't on a standard deployment, and isn't assigned to the 5th or 7th - she's en route to her new home in San Diego with the 3rd, and is supposed to be there by the end of this month (despite denials by the Trump admin, a long stopover with CENTCOM was clearly not in her initial itinerary); that's not a hard deadline or anything of the sort, but the more she's late the more things will slip and the more likely the USN will end up looking at a situation like this again, again sooner than they'd like, which is doubtless why the US DoD has not extended her deployment with them (plus, her crew is awfully green - this was supposed to be a working cruise to help smooth things out, not full steam ahead into a shooting war; the absolutely last thing US international prestige needs is to abruptly abandon an ally to slaughter at the whims of a Chekist's bootlicker, but only slightly above that is losing a carrier in a skirmish with a 3rd-tier regional power like Iran).

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

Oh
my
god.

This is so sad.

Do they need more money? Will that fix it?

Here! Take my money! United States government! Take my energy!

[Hammerfest]

It's no surprise to me that after eight years of Obama, the Navy can't send another aircraft carrier out there to relieve the current one. Nobody should be surprised by this at all.

[unfilteredJW]

It's no surprise to me that after eight years of Obama, the Navy can't send another aircraft carrier out there to relieve the current one. Nobody should be surprised by this at all.

I’d figure you'd see them as a waste of money, since they could fall off the rim of the Earth.

[Hammerfest]

I’d figure you'd see them as a waste of money...

I tend to think that frigates and destroyers, if anything, are the wastes of money... but obviously they aren't since the Navy does indeed find uses for them.

[Easo]

I tend to think that frigates and destroyers, if anything, are the wastes of money... but obviously they aren't since the Navy does indeed find uses for them.

Escorting/air cover is a thing and stuff like Baltic Sea is hardly a place for a carrier.

[Zan15]

It's no surprise to me that after eight years of Obama, the Navy can't send another aircraft carrier out there to relieve the current one. Nobody should be surprised by this at all.

takes longer than 8 years to get an aircraft carrier approved and out the door.

You have to go back at least 1 more president for blame if there is a current shortage, sorry your blame is misguided as normal

We are just rolling out carriers approved under the bush term

JFK carrier for instance started in 2007.

Enterprise was awarded in 2016 and won't be ready till 2025

Ford started in 2005, contract awarded in 2006 and expected not to be deployed till 2021.


maybe complain in 2025 about Obama.

[cubby]

100% expected this to be a Skroe thread!

Agreed. When is he due back?

Does anyone else have production numbers on the latest class of aircraft carriers?