Aircraft Carriers - What is their future?

[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.