The Pentagon's latest Defense Planning Guidance identifies four weapons
programs as candidates for cutbacks in the 2004-2009 spending plan. The
Navy's candidate is its next-generation aircraft carrier, CVNX ("CV"
for carrier, "N" for nuclear, and "X" for experimental). Prior to
mid-summer, most people assumed the only reason CVNX was on the list
was so there would be one program from each service. But on August 5
the Navy gave an inept briefing of why it needed a new class of
carriers to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and the program
has been in jeopardy ever since.
The Navy's plan is to begin
building a transitional carrier dubbed CVNX-1 in 2007, and then
complete the transition to the new class with CVNX-2 in 2011. But
large-deck carriers take eight years to build, so CVNX-2 wouldn't join
the fleet until 2018. Senior policymakers think that is too long to
wait. They want to skip the transitional carrier and move the
"transformational" CVNX-2 forward by two years so it begins building in
2009. (They are also looking at other options like small carriers and
an oversized amphibious assault vessel that can host more
vertical-takeoff jets, but these have no hope of surviving serious
analysis).
The Bush Administration's eagerness for a better
carrier is understandable. The current Nimitz-class carriers were
designed in the 1960s, when manpower was cheap and information dear.
But conscription has disappeared and the information revolution has
arrived since then, making Nimitz a dated design. The Navy needs a new
carrier with the energy and architecture to handle torrents of
information, but also automation to cut manpower. CVNX-1 would achieve
part of this with a new nuclear reactor -- more power, fewer sailors --
but CVNX-2 would save billions by cutting crew size in half. It also
would assimilate the full benefits of cutting-edge technology.
The
problem with skipping CVNX-1 is that it would reduce the number of the
carriers in the fleet from 12 to 11, because aged carriers currently
limping toward retirement would not be replaced in a timely fashion.
CVNX-1 is supposed to replace the USS Enterprise in 2014, at which time
Enterprise's nuclear fuel would be depleted. Refueling costs a billion
dollars and takes years. Because Enterprise is a costly ship to operate
(40 years old, 8 nuclear reactors), nobody will be willing to spring
for that bill and the fleet will lose a carrier.
The Navy can't
do another Nimitz carrier, because the industrial base for its outdated
reactor has already shifted to working on the new powerplant for CVNX.
Given these constraints, policymakers look likely to let the fleet
shrink to 11 carriers rather than build CVNX-1 on schedule. But the
resulting fleet can't meet the administration's "4-2-1" planning
guidance of being able to deter forward in four theaters, halt
aggression in two, and decisively defeat in one. That requires at least
12 carriers, even with gaps in coverage of Europe. With America
preparing to confront Iraq, North Korea and global terrorism all at the
same time, cutting back the carrier program sounds like a
less-than-timely idea.
