Aircraft Carriers - What is their future?

[Bengalzona]

It may sound weird coming from an Army guy, but I have a ton of respect for our Navy. We need it, and we need it to be strong. When our country was first founded, one of the first things the Continental Congress did was call for the production of 5 frigates to form the base of our fleet. Because of our location and economic goals, having a strong fleet was always an economic priority. And so it continues today.

One of my favorite battles in history was the Battle of Midway, where our outnumbered fleet of carriers opened a can of whoop-ass on the Japanese. The more I read about it, the more I am awed by the steely determination of the admirals and airmen who went into that battle confident they would triumphant, despite knowing that the odds were against them in almost every way.

But that was 75 years ago. There are now questions about the future of aircraft carriers.

We currently have 21 aircraft carriers in our Navy: 11 CATOBAR and 10 STOL. CATOBAR is Catapult-Assisted Take-Off, Barrier-Assisted Recovery. These are the biggest aircraft carriers capable of holding and launching a large number and wide array of fixed-wing aircraft. They most resemble their smaller ancestors from WWII. Only 1 other country in the world (France) operates a CATOBAR (i.e. there are only 12 in the world and we have 11 of them).

STOL is Short Take-off and Landing. These carriers generally carry VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) aircraft such as the Harrier jets, tiltoprop aircraft and helicopters. These types of aircraft are often inferior to fixed-wing aircraft in performance areas such as range, speed, payload, etc. We have 10 of these which are mostly used coordination with the Marine Corps and for anti-submarine operations. These types of aircraft carriers are cheaper to build and to operate and are more common throughout the world (France 3, England 2, India 1, Russia 2, Italy 2, Spain 1, Australia 2, Thailand 1, Japan 4, and South Korea 1), but they are also more limited in the types of operations and scope of the operations they can conduct.

Another type of carrier is the STOBAR. STOBAR is Short Take-Off, Barrier-Assisted Recovery. These carriers use a ramp to assist the aircraft to take off on a shorter deck than a CATOBAR. STOBAR carriers carry some smaller fixed-wing aircraft (generally fighter and attack aircraft), but are limited from carrying larger aircraft. Additionally, the number of aircraft they can carry is smaller than a CATOBAR carrier. The U.S. has no STOBAR carriers. The carrier acquired by China from Russia in recent years is a STOBAR carrier. Additionally, England and India eanch have 2 STOBAR carriers and Russia has 1.

CATOBAR carriers are expensive to build, maintain and operate. Additionally, a CATOBAR carrier requires a minimum support fleet of at least five surface-combat vessels and an attack submarine. The cost to operate a carrier group is around $2.5 million per day. However, the operating cost over the lifespan of the carrier (including overhauls and periodic upgrades) is $6.5 million per day (@$2.37 billion per year). This does not include acquisition costs ($6.2 to $12.8 billion). As noted above, we have 11 such carriers.

What do these large carriers do for us, you might ask. They provide us with the ability to plant one or more fully supplied airfields supporting air wings nearly anywhere in the world within hours. This capability protects our (and international) shipping lanes and commerce from interference. It also provides us and our allies with rapid air support to respond to any trouble areas in nearly everywhere in the world. The protection of world seaborne commerce alone is considered to offset acquisition and operating costs during peacetime.

The question at this time is, "What about wartime?". Most countries in the world are no threat to our carrier groups. There are exceptions. Nations with nuclear weapons capable of being placed upon missiles could be a threat. These would include: England, France, Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan. North Korea is rapidly becoming a threat as their missile technology is improving at a very fast rate. England and France are our allies, so we don't worry about them too much. Also, we generally consider Israel an ally as well. India and Pakistan have not shown an inclination to point their nuclear weapons over water at this point (they prefer to point them at each other and at China).

Russia has drawn-down most of the Soviet-era navy and has limited its maritime power footprint dramatically during the past couple of decades (although there are recent signs that they may begin to rebuild some of their capabilities). They have ICBM's that are capable of taking out a carrier group in addition to conventional ground-to-ship and air-to-ship missiles capable of penetrating a carrier group's defense when launched en masse.

That leaves China, which has become our main concern as a potential maritime war opponent. China also has ICBM's in addition to conventional ground-to-ship and air-to-ship missiles. The development of their "East Wind" missiles in the 1990's has been of particular concern to U.S. naval strategists. The East Wind missile use a MaRV (Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicle) warhead capable of speeds exceeding mach 10, five time the speed of a typical bullet. Doctrine for using this missile is to saturate a target with multiple warheads. The target has to defeat all warheads, while the attacker only has to have one missile penetrate. The Chinese are believed to have several hundred of these missiles.

In addition to the threats posed by missiles, China and Russia are also able to field attack submarines and unmanned aerial vehicles to attack carrier groups.

What are your thoughts on the future of aircraft carriers?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Honestly, I would rather up those 21 carriers to 30-40 and just pull out of Germany, England, Italy, Spain, etc.

If the excuse for us having to pay massive sums of money to defend other countries is so we can be anywhere and everywhere in the world, I would rather just up our carrier game and shut down those bases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
58,500 troops in those four countries, plus their dependents, plus private contractors. All need housing and food, and if you need to send new people there, they have to fly across the Atlantic, etc.

We could also massively scale back our presence in Japan if not leave outright, with another 40k troops, plus dependents and private contractors.

Consolidate and downscale our bases around the world, probably also down-scaling the size of our military, while still maintaining our ability to bring force anywhere.


- - - - - - -- - - -

EDIT: Some stuff I forgot to add....

This is from 2012... http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/one-soldier-one-year-850000-and-rising/
It says $850k-1.4m/year in Afghanistan per soldier.
This is from 2013... https://www.yahoo.com/news/it-costs--2-1-million-per-year-for-each-soldier-deployed-in-afghanistan--report-133150602.html
It raised to $2.1m/year in Afghanistan per soldier, costing more as the total number dropped.

Did the math, so that would make 1 carrier group's cost even at the increased number including overhauls and such cost less than 1,129 troops in Afghanistan in 2013. I would rather have the carrier, 5 or so ships, and 1 submarine, capable of going anywhere in the world than those 1,129 troops in Afghanistan.

Then get rid of some stupid crap, like the F-35 program.

[*michaelsean*]

I don't know enough to say, but just their ability to rapidly move a lethal force anywhere on the globe seems pretty useful.

I always hear of a carrier group. What other ships travel with them? Do they travel with the cruise missile carrying ships?

[Bengalzona]

(07-19-2017, 04:56 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't know enough to say, but just their ability to rapidly move a lethal force anywhere on the globe seems pretty useful.  

I always hear of a carrier group.  What other ships travel with them?  Do they travel with the cruise missile carrying ships?

My thinking is they are extremely useful and cost-effective in peacetime or in conflicts with minor powers. And that probably makes it worthwhile to keep them for the present time and into the short-term future. But they would be less useful and a bit of a liability in an all-out war with a major power like Russia or China. Also, the expected proliferation of unmanned aerial and submarine vehicles by smaller nations may make them more of a liability in those conflicts in the future.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a carrier group would include 1 or 2 nuclear guided missile cruisers capable of launching cruise missiles, and 4 or more destroyers, 2 for anti-aircraft/anti-missile support and 2 for anti-submarine support. 

Combat radius' for our current carrier aircraft (how far they can go when loaded for bear) range from about 450 to 750 miles. That is about the maximum they can penetrate inland for an attack. 

[Bengalzona]

(07-19-2017, 04:52 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Honestly, I would rather up those 21 carriers to 30-40 and just pull out of Germany, England, Italy, Spain, etc.

If the excuse for us having to pay massive sums of money to defend other countries is so we can be anywhere and everywhere in the world, I would rather just up our carrier game and shut down those bases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
58,500 troops in those four countries, plus their dependents, plus private contractors. All need housing and food, and if you need to send new people there, they have to fly across the Atlantic, etc.

We could also massively scale back our presence in Japan if not leave outright, with another 40k troops, plus dependents and private contractors.

Consolidate and downscale our bases around the world, probably also down-scaling the size of our military, while still maintaining our ability to bring force anywhere.


- - - - - - -- - - -

EDIT: Some stuff I forgot to add....

This is from 2012... http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/one-soldier-one-year-850000-and-rising/
It says $850k-1.4m/year in Afghanistan per soldier.
This is from 2013... https://www.yahoo.com/news/it-costs--2-1-million-per-year-for-each-soldier-deployed-in-afghanistan--report-133150602.html
It raised to $2.1m/year in Afghanistan per soldier, costing more as the total number dropped.

Did the math, so that would make 1 carrier group's cost even at the increased number including overhauls and such cost less than 1,129 troops in Afghanistan in 2013. I would rather have the carrier, 5 or so ships, and 1 submarine, capable of going anywhere in the world than those 1,129 troops in Afghanistan.

Then get rid of some stupid crap, like the F-35 program.

There are quire a few people who feel that way. 

My concern about carriers isn't their usefulness in peacetime or during conflicts with minor countries, but more of their usefulness against someone like China and Russia. 

Afghanistan may be one of the most expensive places for us to send troops on the planet. We have had to secure overland supply routes through Pakistan and air support bases in places like Uzbekistan. Of course, that is one of the reasons why terror organizations choose hard to get places like that. They fester in the armpits of the world. Naval aviation can't help us a whole lot there because of how far inland it is.

Not sure about the $2.1 million figure, but the lower figures ($850K to $1.4 million) don't surprise me.  Plus our nation-building experiment efforts are massively expensive. Not sure if it is worth it. But by the same token, as soon as we move out, the cockroaches move back in.

[Benton]

(07-19-2017, 04:52 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Honestly, I would rather up those 21 carriers to 30-40 and just pull out of Germany, England, Italy, Spain, etc.

.....

Then get rid of some stupid crap, like the F-35 program.

That's my thinking. And one of the reasons for years I've advocated for closing bases.

Pro-base people say that will impact our ability to put a significant military force anywhere in the world in a short period of time. I've never understood that given the capabilities of our navy, specifically our carriers. They give us flexibility and that ability to be anywhere, any time.

To me, and to many of the military folks I know, keeping bases open is more about protecting supply contracts and assisting us companies operating in some areas. It's the business side of things, not the defense side. And it's waste.

Go more mobile, use the tech we have instead of trying to use a centuries old approach of keeping as many people spread out as far as possible.


Btw, good thread zona, and interesting subject. And surprising. I honestly thought France, England and Russia had more carriers.

[NATI BENGALS]

Less expensive smaller drone carriers would come in handy.

Until we are 99.9% confident in a missile defense system for our carriers i would rather invest in that than new carriers. Get thrm damn laser guns going.

[HarleyDog]

I appreciate your research on this BZ. I'm an Army guy as well. Love to see our strength. I'm not a supporter of a smaller military for many reasons, but I am a supporter of a smart military. Our Generals have always been the best in the business of war and keeping the edge. Some are not proud of that. Yet I am. Good Information.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

(07-19-2017, 07:52 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a carrier group would include 1 or 2 nuclear guided missile cruisers capable of launching cruise missiles, and 4 or more destroyers, 2 for anti-aircraft/anti-missile support and 2 for anti-submarine support. 

That's about right.  Carrier battle groups typically contain the ships you mentioned along with attack submarines too.  

[Dill]

(07-19-2017, 04:34 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: We currently have 21 aircraft carriers in our Navy: 11 CATOBAR and 10 STOL. CATOBAR is Catapult-Assisted Take-Off, Barrier-Assisted Recovery. These are the biggest aircraft carriers capable of holding and launching a large number and wide array of fixed-wing aircraft. They most resemble their smaller ancestors from WWII. Only 1 other country in the world (France) operates a CATOBAR (i.e. there are only 12 in the world and we have 11 of them).

Why do the French need an aircraft carrier???  

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-19-2017, 08:10 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: There are quire a few people who feel that way. 

My concern about carriers isn't their usefulness in peacetime or during conflicts with minor countries, but more of their usefulness against someone like China and Russia. 

Afghanistan may be one of the most expensive places for us to send troops on the planet. We have had to secure overland supply routes through Pakistan and air support bases in places like Uzbekistan. Of course, that is one of the reasons why terror organizations choose hard to get places like that. They fester in the armpits of the world. Naval aviation can't help us a whole lot there because of how far inland it is.

Not sure about the $2.1 million figure, but the lower figures ($850K to $1.4 million) don't surprise me.  Plus our nation-building experiment efforts are massively expensive. Not sure if it is worth it. But by the same token, as soon as we move out, the cockroaches move back in.

If we are in a situation where we needed aircraft carriers to be useful against someone like China or Russia, no military force would be all that useful anyway, because the world would be a barren radioactive ball.

Really, I can only ever imagining there being 3 states for the military anymore:
-Peacetime
-Conflicts with minor countries
-Nuclear war

So if they are good for #2, and help reinforce #1 so that #3 doesn't come around, then I am good with carriers.

Either way, so long as nukes aren't thrown into the mix, aircraft carriers ensure you can have domination over the oceans and skies. Might be a different thing if we come to a point where all combat is done by drones and such, but until then it's good to go.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Besides, the SciFi lover in me knows that once we fully expand our civilization into space, the closest comparison a military spaceship will have will likely be a submarine mixed with a carrier. Best not to lose the technology/knowledge/experience like we did with NASA. 

[Dill]

(07-19-2017, 09:03 PM)Benton Wrote: That's my thinking. And one of the reasons for years I've advocated for closing bases.
Pro-base people say that will impact our ability to put a significant military force anywhere in the world in a short period of time. I've never understood that given the capabilities of our navy, specifically our carriers. They give us flexibility and that ability to be anywhere, any time.
... keeping bases open is more about protecting supply contracts and assisting us companies operating in some areas. It's the business side of things, not the defense side. And it's waste.
Go more mobile, use the tech we have instead of trying to use a centuries old approach of keeping as many people spread out as far as possible.

Benton and Leonard. I know a lot of people agree with you about reducing bases and alliances. I think some bases could be consolidated or abandoned, as we have many in A-stan and Iraq. But I am concerned that so many think US bases don't do much for the national defense and economy, not to mention our allies economies.

When the US was attacked on 9/11, it not only had to attack Al Qaeda, but to engage the Taliban and occupy their land locked country. No matter how mobile you are, that means thousands of troops on the ground, bases, supplies, and supply routes. And it means an occupation reckoned in years. No Naval task force is up to that, even if we have 3 or 4 and rotate them. If the US leaves A-stan in March of 2002, the Taliban simply reconstitutes and Al Qaeda is back in force by fall 2002, dug in deeper this time.

10 years before, the US invaded Kuwait with a massive army. It left bases there and in Qatar, Djibouti, and Egypt which greatly helped the US project power in 2001 (and in the unfortunate invasion of Iraq). Among other things, this meant a patchwork system of international agreements about air lanes as well. E.g, we could not fly certain missions from Turkey and not over Iran at all. I don't know what our agreement was with Pakistan, but I am sure it was limited. We had an airbase in Uzbekistan for several years, very valuable for staging the initial invasion, then suddenly the Uzbekis said "no more," which complicated the mission. Bases, and the ability to project power, are inextricably bound with diplomacy and "presence" as well.

Further, the Gulf bases were also occupied by our NATO partners, augmenting US power. If you like aircraft carriers, then think of Qatar as like a giant one sitting in the Persian Gulf. It afforded a kind of staging ground impossible for ships to provide. Not to mention runways for B-1 and B-2 bombers. Much easier to maintain and hold supplies there, than on a ship or ships with much more limited space--yet still within bomber reach of A-stan and many other countries in the region as well.  Not to mention that it has been a check on Iran, for those who worry about that nation.

(07-19-2017, 04:52 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Honestly, I would rather up those 21 carriers to 30-40 and just pull out of Germany, England, Italy, Spain, etc.
If the excuse for us having to pay massive sums of money to defend other countries is so we can be anywhere and everywhere in the world, I would rather just up our carrier game and shut down those bases.
We could also massively scale back our presence in Japan if not leave outright, with another 40k troops, plus dependents and private contractors.
Consolidate and downscale our bases around the world, probably also down-scaling the size of our military, while still maintaining our ability to bring force anywhere.

Leonard, we are not simply paying for other countries protection.  They help protect us as well. And there is far more to protection than just being able to get anywhere quickly in force. There is also a need to prevent conflict. We
 have a "buffer" zone of allies across both the Pacific and the Atlantic, should we ever face a real war with Russia and China. They would have to reckon with those allies, not just us.  Much of our current conflict with Russia and China is over buffers--e.g., Ukraine and North Korea.  Were the US presence in Europe and the Far East to disappear, then a deal of instability would follow as Russia and China would seek to acquire them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you and Benton are picturing short term conflicts like Grenada or maybe the Gulf War--There's a problem. We don't ask for permission or help. We send in the Navy and Marines, kick ass, get out. No nation building. Problem solved and money saved.

But if you are thinking in strategic terms, and working with national intel estimates for Africa, the Middle East and East Asia, you are worrying about preventing conflicts as well, and where there is potential for conflict then you want many things to be in place, potential staging grounds, flyover rights, agreements and alliances with other national militaries--these are valuable assets you cannot gin up in 24 hrs.

[Dill]

(07-19-2017, 08:10 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Afghanistan may be one of the most expensive places for us to send troops on the planet. We have had to secure overland supply routes through Pakistan and air support bases in places like Uzbekistan. Of course, that is one of the reasons why terror organizations choose hard to get places like that. They fester in the armpits of the world. Naval aviation can't help us a whole lot there because of how far inland it is.

The Uzbekis shut us out 10 years ago. Bases in A stan were largely supplied by the overland routes you mention.  At FOB Salerno in 2011 a single spaghetti dinner cost the US taxpayers $22.  But as you say, its geographical situations imposed unique costs which were not there for most other bases.  The overland supply route was far from secure.

[Benton]

(07-20-2017, 12:38 AM)Dill Wrote:
Benton and Leonard. I know a lot of people agree with you about reducing bases and alliances. I think some bases could be consolidated or abandoned, as we have many in A-stan and Iraq. But I am concerned that so many think US bases don't do much for the national defense and economy, not to mention our allies economies.

I realize they have an impact. On the other hand, we have a trade deficit with many of the countries where we have several bases, including allies like Germany and Japan, two of our largest deficits. We're spending a lot of money to, in part, make sure they can afford to sell us stuff more cheaply. That's insane. And I realize part of the agreements with those two countries in particular goes back to arrangements made after WWII.... but that's kind of the point. That was nearly 3/4ers of a century ago. They aren't the same; our approach doesn't need to be, either. And they're also just two examples of places where we have bases and deficits.

Quote:When the US was attacked on 9/11, it not only had to attack Al Qaeda, but to engage the Taliban and occupy their land locked country. No matter how mobile you are, that means thousands of troops on the ground, bases, supplies, and supply routes. And it means an occupation reckoned in years. No Naval task force is up to that, even if we have 3 or 4 and rotate them. If the US leaves A-stan in March of 2002, the Taliban simply reconstitutes and Al Qaeda is back in force by fall 2002, dug in deeper this time.

Eh, we're probably going to veer off top a little here. But — in my opinion as an arm chair general — we never should have engaged in that ground war. 

We can handle a clear battle with definable lines. When you're fighting a group that doesn't really care about holding specific positions, you've got to change your tactic. We didn't. We took mostly the same approach of 'occupy here, bomb there, move; occupy here, bomb there, move.' Our military leaders should have listened to our intelligence community before 9/11 and they should have let them handle it after 9/11. 

Quote:10 years before, the US invaded Kuwait with a massive army. It left bases there and in Qatar, Djibouti, and Egypt which greatly helped the US project power in 2001 (and in the unfortunate invasion of Iraq). Among other things, this meant a patchwork system of international agreements about air lanes as well. E.g, we could not fly certain missions from Turkey and not over Iran at all. I don't know what our agreement was with Pakistan, but I am sure it was limited. We had an airbase in Uzbekistan for several years, very valuable for staging the initial invasion, then suddenly the Uzbekis said "no more," which complicated the mission. Bases, and the ability to project power, are inextricably bound with diplomacy and "presence" as well. 


Further, the Gulf bases were also occupied by our NATO partners, augmenting US power. If you like aircraft carriers, then think of Qatar as like a giant one sitting in the Persian Gulf. It afforded a kind of staging ground impossible for ships to provide. Not to mention runways for B-1 and B-2 bombers. Much easier to maintain and hold supplies there, than on a ship or ships with much more limited space--yet still within bomber reach of A-stan and many other countries in the region as well.  Not to mention that it has been a check on Iran, for those who worry about that nation.


Leonard, we are not simply paying for other countries protection.  They help protect us as well. And there is far more to protection than just being able to get anywhere quickly in force. There is also a need to prevent conflict. We
 have a "buffer" zone of allies across both the Pacific and the Atlantic, should we ever face a real war with Russia and China. They would have to reckon with those allies, not just us.  

Understandble.

The problem is maintaining peace time buffer zones is bankrupting us well before war time. The equipment we have needs updated. We need more troops. Contracting some allows that to happen. Like pruning a bush — you trim off the limbs so they are stronger when you need them. 

Quote:Much of our current conflict with Russia and China is over buffers--e.g., Ukraine and North Korea.  Were the US presence in Europe and the Far East to disappear, then a deal of instability would follow as Russia and China would seek to acquire them. 


Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you and Benton are picturing short term conflicts like Grenada or maybe the Gulf War--There's a problem. We don't ask for permission or help. We send in the Navy and Marines, kick ass, get out. No nation building. Problem solved and money saved. 

But if you are thinking in strategic terms, and working with national intel estimates for Africa, the Middle East and East Asia, you are worrying about preventing conflicts as well, and where there is potential for conflict then you want many things to be in place, potential staging grounds, flyover rights, agreements and alliances with other national militaries--these are valuable assets you cannot gin up in 24 hrs.

I don't think it's our job to prevent conflicts. We should not be in the ME right now. I prefer our approach in Africa. There's countries in conflict and in great need of help, so we send in people who teach them how to handle their own situation. We provide them with information, give them the keys to dealing with atrocities and work with groups to provide relief to the victims. That's largely how we operated in the ME, too, until Bush I decided to go ***** deep to protect oil wells and an ally agreement. 

[Dill]

(07-20-2017, 12:21 PM)Benton Wrote: Eh, we're probably going to veer off top a little here. But — in my opinion as an arm chair general — we never should have engaged in that ground war. 

We can handle a clear battle with definable lines. When you're fighting a group that doesn't really care about holding specific positions, you've got to change your tactic. We didn't. We took mostly the same approach of 'occupy here, bomb there, move; occupy here, bomb there, move.' Our military leaders should have listened to our intelligence community before 9/11 and they should have let them handle it after 9/11.

Benton! Thanks for that response. It was substantive, well informed and well expressed.  I want to respond in two posts. In this one I just want to address your remarks on Afghanistan.

First, The bolded remarks puzzle me. I don't understand how the US could have defeated Al Qaeda in Afghanistan without going and rooting them out.  Sending in a naval task force with aircraft carriers to send out fighter bombers and cruise missles would have done little damage over all and left the Taliban in charge of the country.

Except for the fact the US did not block the Pakistan border fast enough, and relied too much upon Pakistani's to tell them who was Al Qaeda, I don't have a big problem with the initial phase of the war, which accomplished its goal of taking down the Taliban and rooting out Al Qaeda.

Second, had the US simply left Afghanistan without an occupation, both the Taliban and Al Qaeda would have simply reconstituted themselves, and dug in more deeply.  Your remarks above seem to assume either that this reconstitution would not occur or, if it it did, would no longer pose a threat to the US, so we would not have to come back.
I'm pretty sure that if we leave A-stan now, we leave another broken state--a haven for ISIS and Al Qaeda, or whatever new group we'll see forming from their remnants over the next 5 years.

Third, the occupation following the US victory arguably failed (or partially failed) because Bush/Cheney supported Rummy's doctrine of lean and mobile force, and because all three were against "nation-building." After the victory, they basically turned the country back over to the warlords--creating the conditions rather like those which gave rise to the Taliban in the first place. The lack of commitment to creating a stable A-stan has led to our present dilemma.

When the US is attacked by an adversary which doesn't really offer "defined positions" to bomb and fight, it can hardly respond saying, "well, we aren't good at that so we can't fight those guys."  It has to figure out how to fight them, which may take years.
Just for the record, the US did not bomb and "move" in A-stan (if I have understood your point). They set up many FOBs to project power in the southern provinces and those bordering Pakistan. These did not "move" though there were not permanent either.

One larger point I hope to make with this post and the next is that we suffered the Bush era disasters in large part because people who ignored history and diplomacy came to power with the idea they could manage international problems simply and cheaply. The lesson to take from that is not that we should disengage from international problems, but that we should choose our leaders more wisely. Unfortunately, we seem to have gone in the opposite direction, as now some look back on the Bush era and, confusing the Bush team with "experts," claim expertise got us bogged down in Iraq and A-stan, so let's get an outsider in the top position, someone who lacks experience--how could he do any worse?

[Dill]

(07-20-2017, 12:21 PM)Benton Wrote: I realize they have an impact. On the other hand, we have a trade deficit with many of the countries where we have several bases, including allies like Germany and Japan, two of our largest deficits. We're spending a lot of money to, in part, make sure they can afford to sell us stuff more cheaply. That's insane. And I realize part of the agreements with those two countries in particular goes back to arrangements made after WWII.... but that's kind of the point. That was nearly 3/4ers of a century ago. They aren't the same; our approach doesn't need to be, either. And they're also just two examples of places where we have bases and deficits.

The problem is maintaining peace time buffer zones is bankrupting us well before war time. The equipment we have needs updated. We need more troops. Contracting some allows that to happen. Like pruning a bush — you trim off the limbs so they are stronger when you need them. 

I don't think it's our job to prevent conflicts. We should not be in the ME right now. I prefer our approach in Africa. There's countries in conflict and in great need of help, so we send in people who teach them how to handle their own situation. We provide them with information, give them the keys to dealing with atrocities and work with groups to provide relief to the victims. That's largely how we operated in the ME, too, until Bush I decided to go ***** deep to protect oil wells and an ally agreement. 

Part II

1. Trade deficits come and go. We are not spending money so the Germans and Japanese can sell us cheaper products. It is up to our industry to compete with theirs. We are spending money to maintain an international peace favorable to our interests, which is the foundation of commerce, cultural exchange, and similar good things.

Yes, present agreements with many nations go back to WWII. Those arrangements--including economic ones like the IMF and World Bank, were created to avoid the conditions which would lead to another world conflagration.  From their success, we should not conclude that they are outdated, but that they are working and we need to keep them working.  If you are the mayor of a large city with a high crime area, and you manage to tame that area with police/community initiative of some sort. You probably wouldn't, after a few years, assume the problem will stay gone if you defund the initiative and pull out the police/community workers.

And something is the same since WWII and before--wherever there is an international power vacuum, conflict appears with the potential to expand when larger powers compete for influence. Right now, the Pacific Rim is unstable. China wants control of the South China Sea, preventing Vietnam and the Philippines from fishing there, and attempting control air space over the area. If that goes uncontested, China will eventually have all the "buffers" there and set the terms of any US trade in that region. How will that affect our trade deficit with PR countries like Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and S Korea?

2. I agree that limbs can be trimmed. But that also hurt us under Rummy. So how we trim is important as well. Privatization as pushed by Rummy was often driven by corporate rather than national interest, sending hundreds of billions of dollars down various rat holes in Iraq and Afghanistan. ( E.g., hiring civilians to guard military bases is pretty silly, and turns out not to be cheap after all.)  The same logic applied to bases abroad, without some overall strategic sense of their value, abandoning them will end up costing us FAR MORE than we save.

These are points we should take into consideration while assessing the value of Aircraft Carriers.  It is a mistake to view them either as moveable bases or substitutes for land bases--at least in most cases.  Remember with bases come all manner of trade agreements and right-of-ways for air space and sea lanes that don't come with aircraft carriers. With bases come supplies "in place" and staging grounds as well, and with safety from missile strikes that ships don't have.

3. It is our job to prevent conflicts, if we want to maintain our current standard of development and don't want a world war. It is our job because 1) at the moment, no one else can do it. And 2) if someone else could take the job, it would necessarily be with less favorable terms for the US. 

Think of China's development over the last three decades; then imagine where it might be in three more decades, possibly with Russia and/or India as a junior partner. Considerations like this ought to be factored into strategic vision, not just today's trade deficit with this or that country.

PS thanks for helping me formulate my argument a little better.  Still needs work of course . . .

[StLucieBengal]

(07-19-2017, 04:52 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Honestly, I would rather up those 21 carriers to 30-40 and just pull out of Germany, England, Italy, Spain, etc.

If the excuse for us having to pay massive sums of money to defend other countries is so we can be anywhere and everywhere in the world, I would rather just up our carrier game and shut down those bases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
58,500 troops in those four countries, plus their dependents, plus private contractors. All need housing and food, and if you need to send new people there, they have to fly across the Atlantic, etc.

We could also massively scale back our presence in Japan if not leave outright, with another 40k troops, plus dependents and private contractors.

Consolidate and downscale our bases around the world, probably also down-scaling the size of our military, while still maintaining our ability to bring force anywhere.


- - - - - - -- - - -

EDIT: Some stuff I forgot to add....

This is from 2012... http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/one-soldier-one-year-850000-and-rising/
It says $850k-1.4m/year in Afghanistan per soldier.
This is from 2013... https://www.yahoo.com/news/it-costs--2-1-million-per-year-for-each-soldier-deployed-in-afghanistan--report-133150602.html
It raised to $2.1m/year in Afghanistan per soldier, costing more as the total number dropped.

Did the math, so that would make 1 carrier group's cost even at the increased number including overhauls and such cost less than 1,129 troops in Afghanistan in 2013. I would rather have the carrier, 5 or so ships, and 1 submarine, capable of going anywhere in the world than those 1,129 troops in Afghanistan.

Then get rid of some stupid crap, like the F-35 program.

Agreed .

Honestly I am ready to pull out of Germany anyway. Tired of defending them while they turn the EU inside out to boost their economy.

[Dill]

(07-22-2017, 06:52 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Agreed .

Honestly I am ready to pull out of Germany anyway.   Tired of defending them while they turn the EU inside out to boost their economy.

How many Germans died defending the US in Afghanistan?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-23-2017, 12:05 PM)Dill Wrote: How many Germans died defending the US in Afghanistan?

54 soldiers, spanning 2002-2013.

That includes suicides, firing range accidents, car crashes, non-combat helicopter crashes, etc.

[Dill]

(07-23-2017, 03:28 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 54 soldiers, spanning 2002-2013.

That includes suicides, firing range accidents, car crashes, non-combat helicopter crashes, etc.

If you are going by Wikipedia, you can add three policemen and 250+ Casualties, added to the cost of sustaining 5,000+ troops in Afghanistan for almost ten years.

So it looks like they are ready to defend the US.