The Carrier Question: The Drift, S. II, Vol. XIII

Sponsored by:

Navigation Brief

ALEXANDRIA – Good Evening, Drifters

Oh, the carrier question. The tiresome, ad nauseum, tale-as-old-as-time carrier question. The question of whether the carrier is worth the investment given the threats it faces.

If you cover the Navy, you spend a lot of time, whether you want to or not, Navsplaining aircraft carriers to people who don’t get it. “Can’t China just blow it up with a long-range missile?” How the hell are you supposed to answer that question succinctly? “Can’t a Russian sub just torpedo it?” The answer to both those questions is obviously “yes” but we know it’s so, so much more complicated than that, quite apart from the fact that we have a whole rest of the fleet designed to try and stop that from happening.

But the carrier question isn’t an impertinent one and given the rising threats its one we should be asking the Navy all the time.

And so, that’s what I did the other day, and that’s what I want to talk about tonight.

Let’s Drift!

DBL

Putting Back Margin

The acting Secretary of the Navy is talking about fewer carriers in the fleet, saying the number is going to be less than the current requirement of 12. But nobody is talking about canceling the Ford class. Indeed, Thomas Modly just made quite the splash naming CVN-81 after an African American enlisted hero, and it would sure be awkward at this point to cancel it.

Those two things are important to put into context: The Navy thinks the Nimitz is spent and that the things they can do to keep the carrier survivable are not options for the aging class.

That was one of the messages they were sending during my trip out to Ford last week: Ford is flexible in a way Nimitz isn’t. Read more about that here:

With laser weapons coming, the US Navy’s newest super carrier has space and power to spare

But at the same time, a new talking point has taken root in the Navy, and maybe you’ve heard it: “The aircraft carrier today is the most survivable it has ever been.” That’s usually followed by a wink and a nod and a suggestion that they’d say more if they could, but they can’t.

Well, as you can imagine, those kinds of answers bug the hell out of. I hate BS secret-squirrel answers about $10 billion investments that house thousands of sailors. So, I asked the Navy’s top acquisition official to explain the talking point a little better, and his answer was interesting. It links back to the point I made up top about nobody talking about canceling Ford, despite the cost overruns and buggy new technology. Here’s what Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition James Geurts said when I asked him to explain why the Navy thinks the carrier is more survivable today.

The Quote:My take on it is that we should always be concerned that we’re always ensuring that the carrier can be as safe and survivable as it can be. That’s what we owe the sailors, that’s what we owe the taxpayers. So it’s a great question and should always be asked, because it’s part of the sovereign territory of the United States floating around. We want to make sure we can operate with it and be effective.

I think where you are hearing that feedback of “it’s as safe as it has ever been” is that we have spent a lot of time looking at the defensive systems, we’ve spent a lot of time looking at the combat systems, we spent a lot of time looking at our adversaries; and we’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the best way to operate these carriers in the future conflicts. Then as you put those together, a carrier, when operated properly and in the proper manner for the threat it’s facing, make it extremely survivable.

Part of the reason Ford is so important is because it gives you the flexibility to generate the next set of systems you’ll need to stay survivable. So, increased power, increased flexibility in the airwing we can put on board in the future, is why I’m comfortable saying: this is why we designed it, and why Ford class is important for the Navy. It’s not just to replace Nimitz, it’s to ensure we continue to have he aircraft carrier capability we need that will be survivable in the future fight.

But the threat is getting harder. None of this is to diminish the fact that our competitors are spending a lot of time on how to gain a competitive advantage. Part of our advantage is putting back that margin so that American ingenuity – whether that’s directed energy systems or things that none of us have even thought of yet – we’ve got the capability to put it on the ship. Right now, we’ve run out of that capability on the Nimitz. And that’s why we need to recapitalize.

So, if you put that together with intimations from Modly that carriers might be on the table, I don’t think he’s talking about Ford class. I think he’s saying that in the near future, we might be seeing more proposals such as the one we saw earlier this year to cancel Truman’s midlife refueling.

Now on to The Hotwash.

The Hotwash

Breaking Rust News: I think we’ve finally gotten through to the bigwigs on topside preservation. Fleet Forces Commander Adm. Chris Grady dropped a subtle rust reference during his remarks at SNA a few weeks ago, and I didn’t catch it at the time. But I listened to his remarks again today and, low and behold, in all its glory:

The Quote:We must dispense with the mindset where we build material readiness just in time for the next deployment and instead adopt the attitude where we constantly prepare ourselves for the unknown. Being relentless on readiness means upholding standards at a steady strain in areas such as preservation and preventive maintenance.

Did you see that!?!? A Drift reader, for sure. Thanks for reading, Adm. Grady.

More Reading

Navy jet damaged in mid-air refueling mishap

Rest in Peace, Spartacus: Kirk Douglas, WWII Navy vet, Hollywood star, dead at 103

SECNAV Modly: Path to 355 Ships Will Rely on New Classes of Warships

Eying China, Navy Refits P-8 Plane For Deeper Strike

In challenging China’s claims in the South China Sea, the US Navy is getting more assertive

Welcome back, Fitz. Destroyer damaged in deadly 2017 accident returns to sea

.