May 10, 2008

USN Cutting Back on Aircraft Carriers- But Not on the War

I was reading this article (more like an opinionary) and I found it very interesting, if the information is true. I believe it is because the website is the New York Post. It has a kind of conservative "ring" to it, but I understand a lot of valid points that the writer is making.

Congress, due to a lack of money is limiting the amount of aircraft carriers the Navy can operate and wants to spend billions of dollars refitting carriers such as the 50+ year old USS Enterprise. I could not disagree with Congress more; and now is the time for the investment into the Gerald R Ford class to replace the aging class of nuclear aircraft carriers. The Gerald R Ford class will be much more economical and cost effective, costing the Navy less in the long run. But still, Congress really wants to shell out the money now for these monstrosities of steel.

The fact is that we need to put old betsy out in the field, and it might be best to shoot her too. With the rising costs in steel, it would be good economically if the 3 oldest aircraft carriers can be recycled. For what the value of steel is today, please, for the love of god do not sink any of them for artificial reefs.

I think Congress has good intentions on protecting this nation: however I feel that they are missing the point and communication with the USN (it's how it's always been) that replacements for these aircraft carriers is vital to the success of national security. Aircraft Carriers are not the end all, be all of warfare (that is the submarine), but their power in their presence is undenyable. The navy has the thought process right: we need to replace our old aircraft carriers- but is taking one out of service really that big of a deal for security? What do you think?

Innovate. Make costs cheaper. Produce. Replace old technology- Technology is the only way that a civilization can advance- that a civilization can protect itself. Another opinionary also stated:

"The big-ticket items in next year’s budget—the CVN-78 Advanced Aircraft Carrier and the DDG-1000 Zumwalt-Class Destroyer—are of little use in fighting terrorism. The Pentagon’s long-range plan to build a 313-ship navy is apparently meant to counter the only potential great power that the United States sees on the horizon: China. "

I completely disagree that the Zumwalt and the GRF class are ineffective against the fight in terrorism. GRF class carriers will carry UAVs and the new F-35 Lightning II. UAVs, as well as the F-35 are capable of carrying light bomb loads (I am talking about 100-500 pound bombs) which can accuratly pin point a terrorist's location and end any business they are conducting. UAVs will also be cost effective in the fuel department. Without carrier strikes, marines on the ground would be slaughtered at a much faster rate, and without carriers in the area our forces would be underestimated, and eventually devalued by the enemy.

There are many rogue nations and organizations now acquiring weapons of mass destruction. By replacing our old tech with new tech, and implementing stealth designs- our nation has that much more of an insurance policy.

No comments: