Don't cut the nuclear carrier force

By Talbot Manvel

The Obama administration is considering decommissioning the nuclear aircraft carrier George Washington (CVN 73) instead of refueling it.

Beginning in 2016, the GW is scheduled to receive a new core of nuclear fuel, along with many improvements to enable it to steam another 25 years. Along with the ship, administration officials are also considering disbanding one of the Navy's 10 carrier air wings, a move that would save as much money as decommissioning the carrier.

This is a bad idea. By law, the size of the carrier force is required to be 11. Why 11? We build a carrier every five years to replace the oldest one that has run out of its service life of about 50 years. That keeps 10 carriers.

For example, the Enterprise (CVN 65) will retire after 50 years of service in 2013 and will be replaced (with a gap of two years that requires a waiver from the law) by the Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) in 2015. An 11th nuclear carrier continuously permits one carrier to be out of service in a long refueling overhaul at its midlife point. The Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) is being refueled now in Newport News.

Since World War II, the Navy has routinely deployed three aircraft carriers forward, now to the Mediterranean/Middle East, the Persian Gulf and the Western Pacific, to provide a ready and able presence in areas of potential conflict.

In a major conflict, the Navy can usually muster another three carriers from the three recently returned from deployment and/or from the three preparing to deploy. We surged six for Desert Storm in 1991, four for Enduring Freedom in 2001 and six for Iraqi Freedom in 2003.

So to deploy three at the same time all the time, plus have three more to surge at any time, you need nine deployable carriers. A force of 11 allows you to have a 10th carrier not to be readily deployable but rather on the blocks for a year in a dry-docking repair period, and the 11th one to be out of service for the long refueling.

During the Vietnam War, when we had 15 carriers, they routinely deployed for seven to nine months. Some of those carriers turned into rust buckets. After Vietnam, the Navy learned to keep the carriers on six-month deployments that kept the crews and ships in better shape, even as it downsized the force from 15 to 12. But now with our force of 11, their deployments are routinely stretched to seven months and more.

So what happens if we reduce the force? We have two options. Continue to lengthen deployments and shorten the maintenance and training periods, or deploy less than three at the same time.

The first option will deploy less-prepared crews and ships forward, turn the carriers into rust buckets and drive good people out. We've done that before, so we don't want to do that again.

More likely is option two: Deploy fewer carriers simultaneously and accept the risks of not being there to prevent a crisis from becoming a conflict.

If there is a crisis, can't we quickly return a carrier to the fleet? After all, we reactivated 10 carriers for the Korean War. But that was when we had the industrial capability of WWII. We no longer have that capability.

Moreover, if we decommission the GW, we will not put it in mothballs for possible return. We will strip the nuclear plant out of the ship and safely dispose of that, then scrap the hull. Once a nuclear ship is decommissioned, it is gone forever.

So how long would it take to restore the force by building a new one? Twelve years!

Why? Because we build carriers at a rate of one every five years at only one yard, Newport News Shipyard. But we can't do that immediately. We have to get the next new one out to replace the oldest one that is retiring. That takes five years.

While we do that, we can ramp up the effort to build the next two ships, one for the next replacement and finally one more. That will take another six to seven years, hence 12 years total. Once cut, the force cannot be restored quickly.

If we decommission the George Washington, the carrier and its 80 aircraft spots are gone for at least 12 years, if not forever. Do we think we exist in a safer world now, or do we just wish it so?

China is building a modern fleet, including aircraft carriers. Nuclear-armed North Korea launched a ballistic missile to threaten the world. Nuclear-armed Pakistan is at odds with us and its Asian rival, nuclear-armed India. With Vladimir Putin back in charge, Russia is coming back nastier than ever. And Iran continues to promote terrorism while building a nuclear capability.

No matter what we wish, cutting the carrier force will make us weaker. We do so at our peril.

Talbot Manvel, a retired Navy captain who teaches at the U.S. Naval Academy, served on three carriers and led development of the maintenance plan for the Nimitz class and design of the Ford class of carriers. The opinions expressed here are his own. A version of this appeared previously in the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings.