“Go back and look at the capabilities or reasons we used carriers 20 and 30 years ago and then look today,” Polmar said. “You’re going to reprogram a satellite — it’s cheaper, easier, faster.You’re going to send [an unmanned aerial vehicle], you’re going to dispatch a U-2 or you’re going to try to do it with cyber.”and...
The Navy has more than 50 submarines and more than 80 surface combatants that can launch Tomahawk missiles.
While Preble believes 11 is too many, he doesn’t necessarily buy into the idea that the heyday of the super carrier is over. Large numbers of relatively low-cost anti-ship missiles and quiet submarines can cause serious problems for an aircraft carrier task force, but these threats are not insurmountable, Preble said.Seems like the establishment is having the same conversation we are.
“There are some people who believe that subs are such a game-changing technology and the advantage so disproportionately in the subs’ favor that a carrier is a sitting duck. I don’t believe that,” Preble said. “They’re big and they’re targets, but we have other big targets. Yes, we’re investing a lot of resources and money and time and people in a really, really big vessel. And so we invest a lot in protecting that vessel. This is not a new phenomena. We did the same thing with battleships.”
Interesting.
But it brings me to the real issue. 11 carriers is definitely too many. Especially in light of how we're using them and the utility that the bring to the fleet.
If we lack the courage to change the size of our carriers then its time to change the number. We need 8 max, 6 minimum. I'd lean toward the 6. We could have one deployed, one doing workups and one on a rest period. Duplicating that on both coasts and you have it.
What do we get out of the deal? A surplus instead of a deficit. We will finally have enough aircraft to fully man our aircraft carriers. Going to sea with 60 airplanes on deck is a crime. We can pump that number up to a little over 100.
Its doable.
