Jewish World Review April 7, 2005 / 27 Adar II, 5765

Political intentions are clashing with military needs

By Jack Kelly

	>

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The political fuss over the Navy's plans to retire the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy illustrates how difficult Congress can make it to cut defense spending in ways least harmful to national security.

The Navy would prefer not to retire the Kennedy, which was launched in 1968 and had been scheduled to remain in service until 2018. But the Office of Management and Budget has ordered cuts, and the Navy brass has decided that retiring the Kennedy is the least painful way of complying.

If the Kennedy is retired, the Navy will have only 11 aircraft carriers in service, the first time in more than half a century there would be fewer than 12.

"Every single assessment by the Defense Department until last December showed the need for 12 carriers," said an aide to Sen. John Warner (R-Va), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

But a vast increase in the capabilities of carrier-based aviation indicate this is no longer true, said retired Marine Col. Robert Work, who analyzes naval issues for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

In 1990, the maximum number of targets that could be engaged in a day by a carrier air wing was 162, Work said. Thanks to precision-guided weapons and an increase in the speed with which fighter-bombers can be refueled and rearmed, a carrier air wing today can strike 1,000 targets in 24 hours.

Work said he thought the number of aircraft carriers could be reduced to 10 without endangering the Navy's ability to perform its missions.

Peter Brookes, a commander in the Navy Reserve who analyzes national security issues for the Heritage Foundation, disagrees.

"Going down below 12 is problematic," Brookes said. "The first thing the president asks when there is a crisis is: 'Where are the carriers?'"

But Brookes said he had no idea where else the Navy could get the $1.2 billion it expects to save by retiring the Kennedy.

Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla) and George Allen (R-Va) have introduced a bill to require the Navy to maintain 12 carrier battle groups. Their bill has more to do with protecting local economies than with national security.

The Kennedy is based at Mayport, Florida. Its 2,900 sailors and their families pump an estimated $250 million into the local economy each year. If the Kennedy is retired, Florida politicians — including the president's brother, Gov. Jeb Bush — want one of the five carriers based in Norfolk, Va. transferred there. The Chief of Naval Operations, Adm, Vernon Clark, is sympathetic. He doesn't want all of his Atlantic carriers based in one port, lest there be another Pearl Harbor.

But there is a problem. The Kennedy is one of only two conventionally powered aircraft carriers left in the Navy. Mayport is not equipped to handle a nuclear carrier. It could cost north of $140 million to upgrade facilities.

If the Kennedy is retired, Virginia loses even if a Virginia carrier isn't transferred to Mayport to replace it. The Kennedy was put on the chopping block because it is the most expensive of our carriers to maintain, and because it is scheduled for a major overhaul later this year. The work would be done at the shipyard in Hampton Roads, Va.

The skyrocketing cost of shipbuilding is the chief source of the Navy's financial woes. The projected cost of the next aircraft carrier to enter service, the George H.W. Bush, is $5 billion. The carrier built before that, the Ronald Reagan, cost $400 million less. The next carrier to be built, the CVN-21, is estimated to cost $10.5 billion.

"We're caught on the horrible horns of a contradiction," said Harlan Ullman, a retired Navy captain who is now works for the Center for Naval Analyses. "Big decks are very valuable, but we have a horrendous budget problem." The solution, Ullman said, is to decommission the Kennedy and another carrier, but keep them maintained with skeleton crews so they could be recalled to duty in an emergency.

But politicians will resist this solution, he predicted.

"Congress is going to be on the side of maintaining ships (in active service) and the shipbuilding base, but we don't have the money to do that," Ullman said. "The huge debate is between what the Navy thinks it needs and how Congress represents its constituents."