Back to news

April 22, 2020 | International, Naval

Defense Department study calls for cutting 2 of the US Navy’s aircraft carriers

By: David B. Larter

WASHINGTON – An internal Office of the Secretary of Defense assessment calls for the Navy to cut two aircraft carriers from its fleet, freeze the large surface combatant fleet of destroyers and cruisers around current levels and add dozens of unmanned or lightly manned ships to the inventory, according to documents obtained by Defense News.

The study calls for a fleet of nine carriers, down from the current fleet of 11, and for 65 unmanned or lightly manned surface vessels. The study calls for a surface force of between 80 and 90 large surface combatants, and an increase in the number of small surface combatants – between 55 and 70, which is substantially more than the Navy currently operates.

The assessment is part of an ongoing DoD-wide review of Navy force structure and seem to echo what Defense Secretary Mark Esper has been saying for months: the Defense Department wants to begin de-emphasizing aircraft carriers as the centerpiece of the Navy's force projection and put more emphasis on unmanned technologies that can be more easily sacrificed in a conflict and can achieve their missions more affordably.

A DoD spokesperson declined to comment on the force structure assessment.

"We will not comment on a DoD product that is pre-decisional,” said Navy Capt. Brook DeWalt.

The Navy is also working on its own force structure assessment that is slated to be closely aligned with the Marine Corps' stated desire to become more closely integrated with the Navy.

Cutting two aircraft carriers would permanently change the way the Navy approaches presence around the globe and force the service to rethink its model for projecting power across the globe, said Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain and analyst with the Telemus Group.

“The deployment models we set – and we're still keeping – were developed around 15 carriers so that would all fall apart,” Hendrix said, referring to standing carrier presence requirements in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific. “This would be reintroducing reality. A move like this would signal a new pattern for the Navy's deployments that moves away from presence and moves towards surge and exercise as a model for carrier employment.”

A surge model would remove standing requirements for carriers and would mean that the regional combatant commanders would get carriers when they are available or when they are needed in an emergency.

With 9 carriers, the Navy would have between six and seven available at any given time with one in its mid-life refueling and overhaul and one or two in significant maintenance periods. The net result would be significantly fewer carrier deployments in each calendar year.

The assessment reducing the overall number of carriers also suggests that the OSD study didn't revamp the Carrier Air Wing to make it more relevant, Hendrix said.

Esper has taken a keen interest in Navy force structure, telling Defense News in March that he had directed the Pentagon's Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), along with the Navy, to conduct a series of war games and exercises in the coming months in order to figure out the way forward toward a lighter Navy, but said any major decisions will be based around the completion of a new joint war plan for the whole department, which the secretary said should be finished this summer.

“I think once we go through this process with the future fleet — that'll really be the new foundation, the guiding post,” Esper told Defense News. “It'll give us the general direction we need to go, and I think that'll be a big game changer in terms of future fleet, for structure, for the Navy and Marine Corps team.”

When it comes to carriers, Esper said he saw a lot of value in keeping carriers in the force structure, and that it wasn't going to be an all-or-nothing decision.

“This discussion often comes down to a binary: Is it zero or 12?” Esper said. “First of all, I don't know. I think carriers are very important. I think they demonstrate American power, American prestige. They get people's attention. They are a great deterrent. They give us great capability.”

Revamped Surface Fleet

The OSD assessment also calls for essentially freezing the size of the large surface combatant fleet. There are about 90 cruisers and destroyers in the fleet: the study recommended retaining at least 80 but keeping about as many as the Navy currently operates at the high end.

The Navy's small surface combatant program is essentially the 20 littoral combat ships in commission today, with another 15 under contract, as well as the 20 next-generation frigates, which would get to the minimum number in the assessment of 55 small combatants, with the additional 15 presumably being more frigates.

The big change comes in the small unmanned or lightly manned surface combatants. In his interview with Defense News, Esper said the Navy needed to focus integrating those technologies into the fleet.

“What we have to tease out is, what does that future fleet look like?” Esper said. “I think one of the ways you get there quickly is moving toward lightly manned [ships], which over time can be unmanned.

“We can go with lightly manned ships, get them out there. You can build them so they're optionally manned and then, depending on the scenario or the technology, at some point in time they can go unmanned.

“To me that's where we need to push. We need to push much more aggressively. That would allow us to get our numbers up quickly, and I believe that we can get to 355, if not higher, by 2030.”

The Navy is currently developing a family of unmanned surface vessels that are intended to increase the offensive punch for less money, while increasing the number of targets the Chinese military would have to locate in a fight.

That's a push that earned the endorsement of the Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday in comments late last year.

“I know that the future fleet has to include a mix of unmanned,” Gilday said. “We can't continue to wrap $2 billion ships around 96 missile tubes in the numbers we need to fight in a distributed way, against a potential adversary that is producing capability and platforms at a very high rate of speed. We have to change the way we are thinking.”

Aaron Mehta contributed to this report from Washington.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/04/20/defense-department-study-calls-for-cutting-2-of-the-us-navys-aircraft-carriers/

On the same subject

  • Will the stars finally align to upgrade Britain’s ‘obsolete’ tanks?

    June 7, 2019 | International, Land

    Will the stars finally align to upgrade Britain’s ‘obsolete’ tanks?

    By: Andrew Chuter LONDON – Britain has fallen behind its allies and potential adversaries in key armored combat vehicle capabilities and must do more to become a force to be reckoned with, Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt has warned. “The future may look very different in years to come, but meantime, while armour is relevant it must be capable, and we must be competitive. We have not been,” Mourdaunt told an audience of senior international army chiefs and industry executives at a land warfare conference in here June 4. The Challenger 2 main battle tank and the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle, two of the key elements of the British army's battle formations, were both labeled as “obsolete” by a defense secretary who only started the job a month ago but could move on once a new Conservative prime minister is elected in July to replace Theresa May. “Challenger 2 has been in service without a major upgrade since 1998. During this time the U.S., Germany and Denmark have completed two major upgrades, whilst Russia has fielded five new variants with a sixth pending,” she said. “Warrior is even more obsolete, and is twenty years older than those operated by our key allies. Since Warrior's introduction in 1988 the United States and Germany have conducted four major upgrades and Russia has invested in three new variants,” said Mordaunt. What does she mean by obsolete? In the case of Warrior its best known shortcoming is the inability to fire on the move, and a 30mm cannon that has to be manually loaded with three round clips of ammunition. As it stands, the vehicle is unlikely to scare potential adversaries like the Russians. The British have been under-invested in combat armored capability for years aside from meeting the urgent operational requirements to counter improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan. Many of those vehicles remain in service, even though the threat has changed. Efforts are finally underway to improve the situation, sparked, in part, by the army's move to form two armored strike brigades by 2025. That force is planned to include tracked reconnaissance vehicles, an 8x8 mechanized infantry vehicle and a new 155mm artillery system. General Dynamics UK has started delivering the first of 589 Ajax reconnaissance and support vehicles in what has been touted by the government as the largest armored vehicle investment in three decades. Germany's Artec has been nominated as the preferred supplier with its Boxer 8x8, although no contract has been signed yet. A competition on the artillery is getting underway. Programs to upgrade both the vehicles named as obsolete by Mordaunt are in the works, but there is no manufacturing contract yet for either. In the Warrior's case Lockheed Martin UK secured the upgrade development program from the defense ministry in 2011, but is only now undertaking the reliability trials on which a final production contract depends. At one time the number of hulls to be updated was in the region of 380, but suppliers at a recent Lockheed Martin briefing said that as the British Army has shrunk and budgets got tighter, that figure is now down to around 265 and could go even lower. As for Challenger 2 upgrades, an assessment phase involving BAE Systems and Rheinmetall has been completed and is now under review. It seems no final decision has been made, but the signals coming out of the defense ministry suggest the Army may get what they want, which is a Challenger 2 sporting a German turret and smoothbore cannon. Tank numbers to be upgraded are unclear, with defense procurement minister Stuart Andrew telling Parliament recently that the final decision would be informed by “the assessment phase, the defense requirement and a balance of investment consideration.” The British Army currently has a fleet of 227 Challenger 2 tanks. BAE and Rheinmetall recently announced their intention to form an armored vehicle joint venture including the British companies activities in the sector, with the German company having the majority shareholding. Final approval of the deal is expected this month and a decision about the way forward on Challenger 2 could follow in the following two or three months. The scope and size of the armored-vehicle effort depends, like everything else, on the availability of funding. The defense ministry has budgeted £18.4 billion ($23.4 billion) for land-warfare equipment purchases over the next 10 years. Shorter-term budget considerations, though, will be resolved in the next few months. A government-wide review of departmental budgets, known as the comprehensive spending review, is currently underway. That will dictate whether the currently cash-strapped military will get the sizeable spending increases they are hoping for over the next three years. In opening remarks to the RUSI conference this week, Gen. Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, the chief of the general staff, made it clear he saw the threat of the tank diminishing in the military of the future as the focus shifts to issues like cyber warfare. “The main threat is less missiles and tanks. It's the weaponization of those elements of globalization that hitherto have made us prosperous and secure, such as mobility of goods, people, data and ideas," he said. "Living on an island gives no guarantees against the corrosive and intrusive effects of disinformation, subversion and cyber.” Perhaps for now, at least, the last word over the utility of the tank in today's information-rich environment should go to the conference speaker who voiced the opinion, “You can cyber all you like, but there comes a time when only a tank will do." https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/06/05/will-the-stars-finally-align-to-upgrade-britains-obsolete-tanks/

  • Boeing’s Air Force One charges now top $1.3 billion, drag down profits

    October 25, 2023 | International, Aerospace

    Boeing’s Air Force One charges now top $1.3 billion, drag down profits

    A $482 million loss on the VC-25B Air Force One program helped sink Boeing's defense sector's profits and lead to a nearly $1 billion quarterly loss.

  • US Army capabilities integration chief talks multidomain ops

    October 9, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR

    US Army capabilities integration chief talks multidomain ops

    By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — Lt. Gen. Eric Wesley is the new Army Capabilities Integration Center director and the first director to guide the center's efforts under the purview of the brand-new Army Futures Command, as opposed to Training and Doctrine Command, where the center lived since its inception. ARCIC will be responsible for the development of future operational and war-fighting concepts that align and inform the service's major modernization priorities that Futures Command is tasked to develop in a new and rapid way. In an unprecedented method, concept and capability development will be formed in parallel. In a wide-ranging interview with Defense News, Wesley discussed how the Army is evolving its major operational concept — Multidomain Operations 1.5 — and how ARCIC will continue to align modernization strategy with the concept as the Army heads toward a fully modernized force by 2028 — one that can provide overmatch against peer adversaries. When are you coming out with the new version of the Army's Multidomain Operations concept (MDO 1.5)? Will it be at the Association of the U.S. Army's annual conference? We're teasing it out. What we're going to do is deliver all of the principles and tenets of this new concept, and then you'll see the signed version within 30 days of that. Why is getting the MDO concept right so critical? I'll say upfront this is the most fundamental rewrite of an operational concept since AirLand Battle that was published in 1982. Concepts are critical, particularly at a point in time when you see the world's dynamics fundamentally shift in a way that you've got to, in many ways, reconfigure or redesign and modernize your army. What has changed in the world that requires multidomain operations? I'd say there are a number of things. But if there's a word that you want to remember in terms of identifying the challenges we face within the pacing threats, it is the word “standoff.” And what [our adversaries] have invested in are things that mitigate against the United States and our partners and allies' strengths. We're very good at close combat, and they've watched us over the last 30 years or so. And when you give the United States and our coalition partners and allies time to build up against it, usually the outcome is preordained based on ability to get into position and conduct operations the way we like to conduct them. So recognizing that, they've invested in what we oftentimes refer to as anti-access, area denial capabilities, which serendipitously came parallel with our withdrawal from the continent of Europe and the Korean Peninsula over the last 30 years. Fll article: https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/08/us-army-capabilities-integration-chief-talks-multidomain-ops

All news