‘Do What We’ve Always Done’
“What do we need to do with the carriers?” rhetorically asks Republican J. Randy Forbes, chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on seapower. “We need to be doing what we have always done with the carriers.”
Forbes represents a district that borders the Newport News area of Virginia where carriers are built, but many in Congress share his sentiment. The belief that the United States must maintain 11 carrier strike groups approaches theology on Capitol Hill.
This faith, though, is being tested by the spending limits Congress has imposed on itself, which have led to difficult trade-offs. National security experts aren’t predicting the demise of carriers anytime soon, but some suggest its mission necessarily will change, perhaps becoming narrower.
The Navy acknowledged this reality in its fiscal 2015 budget proposal when it chose not to request money for the midlife refueling and overhaul of the carrier USS George Washington.
Both the House and Senate Appropriations committees have shuffled around money to at least begin the three-year overhaul. The Defense Department plans to ask for more money next year, and if Congress doesn’t go along, the Navy has made it clear that it intends to permanently retire the Washington and deactivate its aircraft wing.
That would further strain the Navy’s ability to meet tasks each administration has set for its carriers. Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, the chief of naval operations, says 11 is the minimum number of carriers the Navy needs to fulfill its responsibilities. Trying to meet the current defense strategy with 10 carriers comes at a significant cost, he says.
“Some folks say deployments will be longer,” Greenert says. “There is a limit to that. There is an optimal response you can provide, and we have to take care of our sailors. They have a vote too.
“So if you just turn the crank faster, if you will, the cycle of the deployment, the ship gets older faster,” Greenert says. “The uranium burns out faster” and the ship’s lifespan shrinks.
Beyond the cost of refueling the George Washington and maintaining the number of carrier strike groups the Navy needs, there is the question of the growth in the cost of the first three Ford-class carriers, which in a finite budget environment means subtractions from other Navy priorities.
The Ford will cost some $12.9 billion — about $2 billion more than what was promised. Using the Navy’s inflation index for shipbuilding, the Congressional Budget Office converted the projected purchase figure to $13.9 billion in 2013 dollars, and asserted that the cost of the Ford will actually be more like $14.5 billion in the end.