NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Naval Air Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

USN Wants To Retire Carriers Early

April 15, 2009: The U.S. Navy wants to decommission its oldest aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) three years early, in 2012. Originally, the Enterprise was going to stay in service until the USS Ford entered service in 2015. But changes in aircraft weaponry, namely smart bombs and targeting pods, have reduced the need for eleven carriers. The navy believes ten will get the job done. Plus, the Enterprise, as the world's first nuclear powered carrier, will also be the first to be decommissioned. That will mean removing eight nuclear reactors. Unlike later nuclear carriers, which had only two reactors, the Enterprise was designed so that one reactor replaced one of the steam boilers of a non-nuclear power plant. The navy had decommissioned nuclear powered surface ships before, having retired nine nuclear powered cruisers in the 1990s. This was done because these ships were more expensive to operate and upgrade.

The Enterprise was an expensive design, and only one was built (instead of a class of six). While a bit longer than the later Nimitz class, it was lighter (92,000 tons displacement, versus 100,000 tons). The Enterprise was commissioned in 1961, almost 40 years after the Langley entered service (1923). In the two decades after the Langley, the first U.S. carrier, went to sea, there were tremendous changes in carrier aviation. While the innovation slowed after World War II, major changes continued into the 1950s (jet aircraft, nuclear propelled carriers, SAMs). But in the ensuing half century there has been no particular innovation in carrier design. This has not been a problem because the carriers have proven useful, at least for the U.S. Navy (the only fleet to use large carriers.) Only the U.S. has a constant need to get air power to any corner of the planet in a hurry. But no navy has been able to give battle to the U.S. carrier force since 1945. The Soviets built new weapons and made plans to do so, but that war never occurred. Many naval planners worry that the next war will find carriers coming off second best to nuclear submarines and missiles. As in the past, we'll never know unless there's a war to test any new theories about how you give battle to aircraft carriers.

Smart bombs, shipboard automation, computer networks, UAVs and major advances in electronics have created another burst of change for carriers. The USS Ford will incorporate many of those innovations. But the biggest change was the predictable precision of the JDAM (GPS guided bomb). Unlike dumb (unguided) bombs, JDAM can hit the target in any weather. Even in clear weather, it would take over 100 dumb bombs to obtain the same effect. This is a big deal for a carrier, which only has a few dozen bomber aircraft, and limited quantities of jet fuel and bombs. But with one F-18 now able to do the work of a hundred, carriers suddenly became far more powerful. Thus the navy would rather save some money, and retire the Enterprise early. The Nimitz, due to retire in 2024, might also be stricken five or more years early. The navy knows it needs more money for new tech, like combat UAVs operating from carriers. These are smaller and burn less fuel than manned fighter-bombers, further increasing the combat capabilities of existing carriers.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article WARPLANES: Manned UAVs


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
LB    How Low Can We Go   4/15/2009 8:32:17 AM
Navy Times reported on April 6  that "beltway insiders" were talking about going down to 9.  CNO says going to 10 is temporary till Ford comes online in 2015 and that the requirement is still 11 carriers.
 
Quote    Reply

flyingarty    Moritorium on Aircraft Carriers   4/15/2009 12:48:27 PM
Frankly, I would put a moritorium on building any new Aircreaft Carriers until the USN can launch stealthy birds off them. What the USN needs is the F35-C.right now the only deep penetration weapon at its disposal is the tomahawk missile, and thats not enough. telling the USN to get off its kiester and get F-35C into production seems like an excellent way to motivate them. Flyingarty
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    USS Ford   4/15/2009 1:46:19 PM
Quite honestly if the Enterprise is being decommissioned before the Ford is launched the new Carrier should be named the USS Enterprise...there is a lot of history in that name.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       4/15/2009 2:02:29 PM
I'll second the motion.
 
Quote    Reply

Chris    Hmmm...   4/15/2009 4:09:37 PM
Where the article states that due to enhancements in weapon technology, the Navy can get by with 10 instead of 11 carriers.  That may be the case if all the trouble is in a concentrated area - but that it seems to me that this still limits our overall global coverage...
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Enterprise   4/15/2009 4:17:55 PM
Only if they have hawt Yoeman chic's on it......
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    Enterprise   4/15/2009 5:40:35 PM

Only if they have hawt Yoeman chic's on it......

And at least one Vulcan not of the six-barrel variety.

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

Ted-T    A few questions   4/15/2009 7:58:54 PM
Ask folks to describe to you the drag race between the nuclear powered Bainbridge, the bravado, the bet, the race and the outcome.
 
Then, ask folks to tell you of the shipyard assembly defect.  The very tall island was installed one inch off the amrk and the ship was launched with a five degree list.  But, how was the list overcome?
 
Quote    Reply

Bob Cortez       4/15/2009 8:44:58 PM

Actually, the Navy isn't giving up much, and in sense saving for the future.  A warship has a forty year use life, and when you put in mothballs, you stop the clock. 

 
Quote    Reply

sjdoc    Consider ASAT technology   4/15/2009 11:58:34 PM
--
Dependence upon JDAM and similar GPS-guided "smart" weapons technology begs the question: "What happens if the GPS satellites get jammed or knocked off?"
 
We already know that the ChiCom military is working hard on information systems attack capabilities ("cyberwarfare"), and that it is possible to find the satellites of the GPS system in their Clarke orbits.  They're not stealthed.  Dependent as the U.S. military is upon satellite assets for communications, targeting, reconnaissance, and suchlike, it makes sense for a potential attacker to do whatever can be done to degrade or destroy these satellite systems' functionality.
 
Anyone care to discuss what this will do if major physical assets - like aircraft carriers - are reducd in number?  A "force multiplier" that's been nullified can leave the Navy on the wrong side of the equation.
--
 
Quote    Reply

PowerPointRanger    With all due respect   4/16/2009 12:15:26 AM
The carrier has proven itself to be a versitile offensive weapon, especially in the age of super-smart weapons.  It can also take a lot of punishment.  But that doesn't mean we should make do with less.  If the Somali pirates have proven anything, it is that our navy is too small to cover all the areas that need coverage.  The reduction proposed is based on economic need rather than military need.  Our military has become obsessed with the notion that we can get by with fewer as long as they are better.  As Nazi Germany discovered, quantity has a quality all its own.  The economic need is artificial.  The military need is real.  The US has spent so much on skipping a generation of technology that hasn't met the needs of the current generation.  Now BO wants to cancel the future generation, leaving us with the older generation of weapon systems, which is wearing out from age. This is especially true now that we are in a two-front war, with additional obligations.
 
And BO wants to cut the very military that has helped preserve his plummeting approval ratings.
 
It's just goes to prove:
 
Stupid is as stupid does.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Ted-T    Ship locator and my views   4/16/2009 12:49:41 PM
This website is just a snippet of what is available via the web.
link
 
With a receiver and license, one can plot any ship in the world.  See:
link

But there are many good "points" herein.  My beef is that the military always looks back to its last battles and then asks:  "How to we better prepare for past battles?".
 
On the other hand, the military has not demonstrated that it can think and plan strategically as evidenced by the many aborted super high cost projects.  And yes, the civilian leadership and the incompetent congress people who only want military programs that benefit their constituents are even more to blame.
 
Every major military program has about a ten year gestation effort.  So military and congressional folks plan today, looking backwards for a program to suit the unknown ten years out.
 
Admittedly this is an extremely tough process, but at the moment the process lacks bounds, controls, etc.
 
Unfortunately, strong leadership at the military, civilian and congressional level is totally lacking.
 
Oh, and the manufacturing folks in the mega corporations that supply the military with hardware, components, systems, etc. just continue to devise favorable contracts(for the mega corporations and suppliers) regardless of suitability, delivery or non-delivery.
 

 

 
Quote    Reply

Ted-T    Ship locator and my views   4/16/2009 8:59:23 PM
This website is just a snippet of what is available via the web.
link
 
With a receiver and license, one can plot any ship in the world.  See:
link

But there are many good "points" herein.  My beef is that the military always looks back to its last battles and then asks:  "How to we better prepare for past battles?".
 
On the other hand, the military has not demonstrated that it can think and plan strategically as evidenced by the many aborted super high cost projects.  And yes, the civilian leadership and the incompetent congress people who only want military programs that benefit their constituents are even more to blame.
 
Every major military program has about a ten year gestation effort.  So military and congressional folks plan today, looking backwards for a program to suit the unknown ten years out.
 
Admittedly this is an extremely tough process, but at the moment the process lacks bounds, controls, etc.
 
Unfortunately, strong leadership at the military, civilian and congressional level is totally lacking.
 
Oh, and the manufacturing folks in the mega corporations that supply the military with hardware, components, systems, etc. just continue to devise favorable contracts(for the mega corporations and suppliers) regardless of suitability, delivery or non-delivery.
 

 

 
Quote    Reply

RHylton       4/17/2009 9:21:56 AM

Quite honestly if the Enterprise is being decommissioned before the Ford is launched the new Carrier should be named the USS Enterprise...there is a lot of history in that name.

 If for no other reason, than to keep a ship being commissioned with the name "Ford", a less likely name for one of the most powerful weapon system ever made I can scarcely imagine
 
Quote    Reply

kirby1       4/19/2009 4:02:47 PM
The Only ship with a worse name is the USS Jimmy Carter. Someone in the navy should be hung from the nearest yard arm. Personally I think that naming ships after people is a little trite. I like the old British ship names, (Defiant, Indefatigable, Repulse, Vanguard, etc.)
 
I personally never liked the idea of building the JSF CATOBAR models.I always thought that the navy should have gradually reequiped with nothing but Superhornets and growlers, and that the JSF program should have been focused on the other two models. So much for that idea I guess.
 
its my perception that carrier mods to a land based plane never seem to work out too well.
 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy