Carrier Retirement Rationale

Much is being made of the Navy’s “plan” to forego the USS Truman’s midlife refueling and overhaul (RCOH) and retire the Nimitz class carrier decades early.  ComNavOps has stated that it’s just a ploy by the Navy to get additional funding from Congress.  However, for sake of discussion, let’s take the Navy at face value and see if their rationale holds up.

There appear to be two ?related? reasons being offered by the Navy for early retiring the carrier:  money and survivability.

Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan made the hard call to retire the USS Truman decades early — cutting the Navy’s carrier fleet by nine percent — to free up funding for new weapons more likely to survive a war with China. (1)

So, the Navy sees the carrier as not being survivable in a future war with China and wants more funding for weapons that it believes will be more effective.

What are the projected savings from retiring the carrier?

Not refueling the nuclear reactor core of the USS Truman would save the roughly $6.5 billion it would have cost to overhaul, plus $1 billion a year in operating costs thereafter, at the price of retiring the carrier about 25 years early. (1)

These savings figures are highly suspect but, again, let’s take them at face value.  After all, the Navy wouldn’t lie to us, right? 

So, what would be done with these savings?  The Navy/military would acquire new types of weapons supposedly better suited to future combat.  These weapons would include,

...large numbers of smaller, robotic vessels, both small surface ships and mini-submarines … a mix of robotic scout ships … and unmanned missile boats … arsenal of long-range, precision-guided, non-nuclear missiles …  hypersonic missiles … (1)

All right, we’ve laid out the Navy’s rationale.  Now, let’s examine the logic of it.

Survivability – If the Navy believes carriers are not survivable then why are we not retiring more carriers given how expensive they are to operate?   More to the point, why are we building new carriers?  The Navy’s position, as they’ve laid it out, appears to be:  “Our carriers aren’t survivable so let’s build more of them.” 

Let’s take it a step further.  If carriers aren’t survivable, does it make more sense to lose $1B-$8B (the construction cost range of the Nimitzes from first to last) as each is sunk or to lose $15B which is the cost of the Fords that the Navy wants to continue to build?  Wouldn’t it be better to let China sink cheaper, older carriers instead of brand new, hideously expensive carriers?

I’m beginning to think that the logic of survivability does not support the Navy’s rationale.

Money – Here’s where it gets tricky because you can make almost any case you want by manipulating what is and is not considered.  Still, let’s give it a look.

The Navy wants to retire a carrier so as to save money that can then be used to finance new, alternate weapon systems.  Okay, how much money is really being saved?  Using the Navy’s own, suspect figures,

Truman Savings
Refuel/Overhaul*	$6B
Operating Cost at $1B x 25 yrs	$25B
Total Savings	$31B
*Published costs range from $4B-$7B, depending on what is included in the figure.

That’s a lot of money!  No wonder they want to retire a carrier early.  Hmm …  Just for shits and giggles, I wonder how much money the Navy could save if, instead, they simply didn’t build a Ford?

Ford Savings
Construction	$15B
Midlife Overhaul*	$2B
Operating Cost at $1B x 50 yrs**	$50B
Total Savings	$67B
*A carrier intended to operate for 50 years will still need a midlife overhaul even if its reactor does not need refueling. ** Presumably, the operating costs will be the same but the lifespan will be double that of the Truman.  Reduced personnel costs will be offset by greater complexity and maintenance costs.  Manning will, undoubtedly increase as it did for the LCS and will for the Zumwalt.  Costs will probably be a wash, in the end.

Wow, I thought the Truman savings was a lot of money but simply not building one Ford would save over twice as much! 

Wait a minute …  If foregoing a Ford would save twice as much money shouldn’t the Navy want to keep the Truman and drop a Ford?

I’m beginning to think that the logic of the money savings does not support the Navy’s rationale.

Well, there you have it.  Even accepting the Navy’s rationale and cost figures at face value, the scenario is illogical.

I’m beginning to think the Navy has concocted a nonsensical scenario in a transparent attempt to extort more budget funds from Congress.  No.  No, wait.  I apologize.  The Navy has the utmost integrity and is the most honest and transparent organization this proud nation has.  The Navy’s leaders have nothing but the good of America foremost in their hearts and minds.  So, despite the illogic, I’ll place all my trust in the Navy.  Go get ‘em, Navy!  Stick to your guns, do the illogical, and make me proud!

____________________________________

(1)Breaking Defense, “Why DoD Cut A Carrier in 2020 Budget: Survivable Robots & Missiles Vs. China ”, Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr., 12-Mar-2019,

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/why-cut-a-carrier-to-fund-survivable-robots-missiles-vs-china/

Bagikan Artikel ini