Hello to fellow members of Tailhook. I hope your winter was a mite better than the one we had in D.C., with snowdrifts as high as the hangar bay and about as difficult to move around in. At N88, we are neck deep in not only snow and slush, but also Congressional testimony and the ever-evolving churn known as the budget process. It’s challenging, but never dull! Your community representatives on my staff are hard at work defending our programs and keeping the senior folks on Capitol Hill informed.
Recently, I was surprised when I opened the January 2010 issue of U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings and read the article by CDR John Patch entitled, “Fortress at Sea? The Carrier Invulnerability Myth.” I checked my calendar to make sure it wasn’t 1978 after I read it. The essay is intended to create a controversy over the utility and defensive capabilities of carrier strike groups, asserting that Navy senior leadership is complacent regarding defense of ships at sea. I disagree with the premise and the observations. As a former intelligence officer, Patch does a thorough search of worldwide threats while attempting to link them to aircraft carrier defense. None of the observations are new or particularly compelling regarding military threats to carrier strike groups.
On the asymmetric side, his concerns of terrorism, sabotage and infiltration are not only carrier concerns, but national. As the resource sponsor for aircraft carrier requirements, I support and participate in countless studies of ship and aircraft vulnerabilities and tactics … all of which conduct hard and penetrating analysis on asymmetric and hybrid threats. It is in no way being ignored. In fact, one important facet of the current Quadrennial Defense Review is an emphasis on hybrid warfare. These threats apply to any military unit, from Bagram AB to Fort Hood. Patch also asserts that many admirals “discount such threats outright” or “avow carrier invulnerability.” Having flown off carriers for 29 years, I have yet to meet any one who feels that way. Certainly the men and women who fly from the aircraft carrier flight deck as well as those who drive them over the oceans don’t.
In my former command, I prepared carrier strike groups and expeditionary strike groups for deployment. During six months of work ups, strike groups must earn certification of their ability to meet and defend against multi-axis threats, symmetric or otherwise. In training for forward carrier operations, I did not observe any examples of “complacency” or any ship presuming to be a “fortress at sea.” Instead, I saw professionals assessing their tactical situations and taking prudent and decisive action. Our nation deserves no less.
As the readers of The Hook are well aware, designing and building aircraft carriers are not trivial tasks. With a construction cost of more than $10.8 billion, CVN-78 is the most expensive capital ship we have ever built. Still, the enhanced operational flexibility and future growth capacity we derive from new ships make the investment worthwhile. Critics often ask, “Why do you need such a large deck?” and “Why nuclear power?” Debate regarding the relevance of aircraft carriers, in general, and more specifically, large-deck carriers, may long be argued.
For over 60 years, study after study has been commissioned at every level of our government to analyze the question — should we have large carriers or small carriers? And nearly every one of those studies has reached the same conclusion: large-deck carriers are the choice. Smaller carriers provide only marginal cost savings, while significantly limiting operational flexibility and sortie-generation rates, and increase vulnerability and the potential for aircraft mishaps.
The advantages of nuclear power also have been well established over years of study and operational experience. When asked to do so, a Nimitz-class carrier can easily transit thousands of miles at “best possible speed” without the need to stop and refuel. In fact, the carrier can refuel her accompanying non-nuclear strike group from her more than 3.5-million-gallon internal fuel capacity. This is a 75 percent increase compared to conventionally powered carriers. Combined, the CVN strike group arrives on station, ready for any contingency. Again, many studies have confirmed the clear advantage of nuclear power over gas turbine or diesel-fueled propulsion. Nuclear power is safe, reliable and efficient. For all the trepidation the word “nuclear” invokes in some, in nearly 50 years of nuclear carrier operations, the U.S. Navy has not suffered a serious mishap on any of its ships. And, while those selected to command a CVN have to face the tremendous challenges of nuclear power training and certification, our unblemished safety record highlights how valuable and important that training is.
With that said, naval officers know, that even with all their tremendous capability, aircraft carriers cannot do it alone, nor can their strike groups, nor can the entire Navy. In reality, it requires a highly choreographed and closely coordinated Joint effort among all our military services to ensure the quickest possible solution to any conflict or crisis. Patch feels it is “high time to renew the carrier vulnerability debate,” but I offer that we have never stopped. The simple fact is that right now carrier strike groups are providing power projection from the sea, protection of sea and air lines of communication, freedom of navigation operations, peacetime presence and humanitarian assistance around the world. And there is a seemingly endless demand for more.
I call upon the members of Tailhook to be vigilant in responding to those who question the need for carriers. Reply to Proceedings, give them your views and help me tell the story of why the CVN remains relevant! Generate comments in the blogosphere and write your own articles … we need to keep up the full court press and remind the American people that despite being 100 years old in 2011, Naval Aviation is far from obsolete and far from vulnerable … and it is more and more in demand every day!
Take care and keep the ball centered.