Home » Aviation » Navy: Half the Carrier Fleet Tied Up In Maintenance, Other 5 Strained To Meet Demands


Navy: Half the Carrier Fleet Tied Up In Maintenance, Other 5 Strained To Meet Demands

The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) arrives pierside at Naval Base Kitsap Bremerton prior to a planned incremental availability at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility. US Navy photo.

The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) arrives pierside at Naval Base Kitsap Bremerton prior to a planned incremental availability at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility. US Navy photo.

The Navy has run its 10 aircraft carriers hard since USS Enterprise (CVN-65) decommissioned in December 2012 and is now paying the resulting maintenance bill, with half the fleet tied up in repairs and the other five trying to keep up with combatant commanders’ needs.

During a House Armed Services Committee hearing on aircraft carrier presence, Program Executive Officer for Aircraft Carriers Rear Adm. Tom Moore said that five of the 10 carriers are unavailable for tasking due to maintenance work.

USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) is in the middle of its Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) at Newport News Shipbuilding, and USS George Washington (CVN-73) is making a slow, engagement-filled voyage from its previous homeport in Japan to Newport News Shipbuilding, where it will await the start of its RCOH in 2017. USS Nimitz (CVN-68) is in a 14-month availability at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Washington, USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) is in an eight-month availability at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, and USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) is in a six-month availability in San Diego, Moore said.

“I think what we’ve seen here recently, as a result of being down to 10 carriers and having to run carriers at a pace faster than they were designed for – for instance, Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) just finished a 24-month availability, which was only scheduled for 14 months; she had deployed four times since 2008 with only one maintenance availability in there. So much faster than we had designed, consumed the service life of that ship much faster, so it’s really no surprise that you saw some of the impacts there.

“We’ve got to get our arms around that, I’ve certainly spend a lot of time looking at Eisenhower to figure out where we can do better going into maintenance periods,” Moore said.

Moore said during the hearing that the operational tempo for the carrier fleet has gotten higher since Enterprise decommissioned but that not all carriers have been used equally in the last three years. Nimitz and Eisenhower in particular have been pushed hard, and it shows in the maintenance periods. Ike’s 14-month maintenance availability had to be extended by nearly a year, forcing USS Harry S Truman (CVN-75) to take on an unscheduled deployment this fall with only a reduced maintenance availability after its last deployment – which may hurt Truman down the road.

And Nimitz will spend the better part of three years in maintenance to make up for work that has been skipped previously to allow for greater overseas presence, Moore said.

“We really run her at a higher optempo than some of the other carriers, so of the availabilities we have going on right now I would tell you that the Nimitz one up in Bremerton is the most challenging in terms of the size of the work package,” he said. To compensate, rather than send Nimitz straight into its regularly scheduled docked availability, the Navy inserted a 14-month “extended maintenance availability” to be followed by the docked period, “so she’s going to have, in the span of three years, a significant amount of maintenance done on her to try to catch back up.”

Even if Nimitz and Eisenhower took the worst of the combined carrier shortfall and uptick in combatant commander demand since 2012, the other ships have been pushed hard too.

“In the last three years in order to meet the demand signal from the COCOMS … we’ve run the carriers harder than we’ve typically done and harder than they were designed,” Moore said.
“We’ve had, since 2012, seven aircraft carriers that have gone more than 300 days deployed time between maintenance availabilities – not all consecutive (deployed days), but that’s an awful lot of run time, and that’s a challenge we’re going to have to continue to face here until we get” USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), which will commission next year but not be operationally available until 2021 due to first-in-class test and evaluation.

The Navy is transitioning into its new deployment schedule, the Optimized Fleet Response Plan, which would limit deployments to seven months and ensure proper maintenance and training time for the ships, crews and air wings. However, given that only five carriers are currently available for tasking, HASC seapower ranking member Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) asked if the Navy could realistically stick to its plan.

“You’re going to be showered in demands, and it’s going to take discipline to sort of maintain this for the next three years or so,” he said to the four Navy officials testifying at the hearing.
“Do you all feel confident we’re going to be able to get through this patch and accomplish the goals of a fleet that is ready to meet all the requirements that are out there?”

Vice Adm. John Aquilino, vice chief of naval operations for operations, plans and strategy, responded that “we’re confident that our model and our plans will get us where we need to be, absent the fact that the world gets a vote.”

Already the Navy has chosen to accept gaps in carrier presence around the world to deal with the current condition of the carrier fleet. There is no aircraft carrier in the Middle East presently, though Truman will deploy later this year to U.S. 5th Fleet. Aquilino said the Navy would risk having carrier gaps in the Middle East or Pacific, where there had previously been at least one or two carrier strike groups in each theater at all times, until 2021.

Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley added that “we’re operating a small number of carriers, low-density, high-demand, and if the temperature rises in a risk area around the world, then senior leadership is going to have to decide is it more important to do that maintenance, which is a long-term investment, or do we have to respond today to the immediate crisis.”

He said that returning to an 11-carrier force in 2021 will help create a more sustainable schedule for maintenance and deployments, but being down a carrier now means driving the other 10 ships harder, which puts more ships in maintenance than planned, which forces even fewer ships to work even harder to meet global requirements.

Moore told USNI News after the hearing that he learned a lot of lessons from the Eisenhower maintenance availability, after back-to-back deployments without maintenance and four total deployments in seven years. He will apply those lessons to Truman when that carrier returns from what is essentially a back-to-back deployment, with just a couple months maintenance for only the most necessary work rather than a full planned maintenance availability.

Moore noted than Truman might not come back in as bad a condition as Eisenhower did after the double deployment, given than Truman is only 18 years old compared to the 38-year-old Ike.

“So a little bit younger ship, so it has the ability to kind of absorb a little bit more than say Eisenhower did,” Moore said.

Still, “we made a conscious decision to shorten the maintenance period, we don’t like to do that but we’ll keep a very close eye on that when she comes back for her next availability.”

  • Secundius

    I got an Idea? Tell the CEO’s and Board of Director’s of the Newport News Shipyard’s, that If they want to STAY OUT OF PRISON, ALL SHIP REPAIR’s are covered under their GUARANTEED LIFETIME WARRANTY…

    • sferrin

      Stupidest idea I’ve seen on here yet. (And that’s saying something.) Take your car that’s got 180,000 miles on it down to the shop and tell them they need to fix it on their dime or they’re going to jail. They’ll laugh you out of the shop. Same thing. Agreements are made, up front, as to what is or isn’t “guaranteed”. I believe it’s called a “warranty” or “contract”. If the USN was stupid enough to try your stunt companies would just stop building ships for them and go out of business. They’d be driven out of business anyway under your brilliant “plan”.

      • Michael Rich

        @michael_flower:disqus isn’t exactly known for being that bright.

        • Secundius

          @ mike46, sferrin, and Michael Rich.

          To the Three IDIOT’S I’m referring too, IT’S CALLED “SARCASM”. Or, maybe you THREE are to STUPID TOO SEE IT…

          • Michael Rich

            It’s hard to notice sarcasm when you post serious posts that are just as stupid.

          • Secundius

            @ Michael Rich.

            Like 95% of your “Posting’s” RIGHT…

          • Michael Rich

            Yep, i’m sure that’s why plenty of people agree with them. I’m sure you don’t get much support because people are just too shocked at how right you are to even respond, right?

          • Chief

            I served on both the Midway and the Kitty Hawk. Both flew the F4 and F/18. The Midway class would be an excellant mid-size carrier by today’s standards. Her lifetime is 50 years.
            I’m too old to serve again, but they would do the job.

          • Chief

            One other thing, they don’t need a 1200 PSI propulsion system, we had 600PSI on the Midway and had no peoblem getting the aircraft into the air. The Midway was the first carrier to test the F4.

    • mike46

      Most of that time in RCOH is not ‘repairs’. It is upgrading and updating systems with new technology.
      Where did you ever get the mindless idea that they gave a LIFETIME WARRANTY? The Nave doesn’t specify what a lifetime is.

  • Bush+Obama=Satans love child

    None of this makes sense. Why does it take 6 years (2190 days) to test Ford? Why does it take 3 years (1095 days) to repair a carrier? They are wearing the other carriers out trying to meet the demands of a Navy that requires 7 operational carriers to fulfill missions placed on them. This seems to me to be a cost savings operation to pay for Ford class, Ohio replacement, Littorals, & F-35 acquisition costs. How you leave the Middle East without a carrier in times like these is completely insane. Mabus & Obama make me sick.

    • Michael Rich

      To be honest, the ‘carrier gap’ isn’t that big of deal. We have enough land based aircraft to make up for it until we get a new one in there. The carrier is good for time sensitive operations before we get the “go” from our allies to use their airbases.

      Although I do agree that 10 is not enough, cutting back was a mistake.

      • publius_maximus_III

        And our NATO “ally” Turkey has been VERY cooperative thus far, right?

        • aloxxley

          Recently yes.

          • publius_maximus_III

            A Middle Eastern magic carpet that could easily be pulled out from under us at any moment. We’re considered intruders by everyone in that end of the Mediterranean except Israel and the Kingdom of Jordon.

  • sferrin

    Wow, nobody saw this coming when they decided to cut back to 10 carriers. *FACE PALM*

    • Fred Stanley

      This goes back decades. The America was retired after 30 years. The JFK was basically driven into the ground so she had to be retired.
      Both ships could still be active and helping to fill the gap but the navy was chomping at the bit to have an all nuclear carrier fleet.
      The navy seemed to think they could just ask congress to jack it back up to 11 or 12 at any time. The navy played a part in reducing the fleet and now they’re reaping what they sowed.

  • Matt

    We need more carriers, they need to be cheap, UAVs are cheap, BUILD A FRIGGIN FLEET OF UAV CARRIERS based on a commercial hull like the MLP, also cheap. It’s called “INNOVATE” “ADAPT” “OVERCOME”. I know… too simple. How many years does a cruise ship sit at the pier in its life? I am aware of the need to continually modernize the most advanced warship mankind owns but there could be a more efficient and more lethal solution. And a good high/low mix works well too.

    • TomD

      This is not a bad idea. The 21st century CVE? Why not?

      The Falklands War told us that the CVL is not such a good idea anymore, even with Harriers. The CVA has much more ability to defend itself, especially with the ability to carry E-2s. But a fleet of CVEs with UAVs would be a game changer. One could imagine all sorts of tactical synergies from a CVA / CVE composite group, just like you would get with a CVA / CVL composite group, but for less money. Think it over guys.

    • Chesapeakeguy

      Back in the 80s or so, there were articles in venues like Proceedings that had discussed an idea that had the assigned name of “The Arapaho Project”. The idea behind that was to take container ships and via the containers they could haul construct a flight deck on top of them, with the containers themselves housing the shops and other support and operational spaces and materials needed to carry and operate VTOL aircraft. Back then that meant LAMPS helicopters and Harriers. While that concept still seems viable to me (operating manned aircraft like helicopters and the new F-35Bs), flying UAVs off them has a lot of appeal as well. They could be great compliments to any kind of task group, as well as be the centerpiece of their own groups for certain missions.

  • disqus_zommBwspv9

    Time for SAG’s to become the Forlorn hope for the Navy. I always though 12 CV’s was the low number due to the deployment tempo. Or The Navy can build 120 Burkes and sent them in Harms way in groups of 6, with an SSN too.. Add a Tico cruiser too. That’s 500+ Missiles, Maybe the Marines know that a Forlorn Hope is?

    Or we need to build some islands of our own

    • sferrin

      Useless. A 6 Burkes don’t have the capability of a carrier. This shouldn’t need to be said.

    • publius_maximus_III

      Love the DDG’s, especially packs of them.

  • publius_maximus_III

    In private industry, everybody tries to reduce their inventory costs. A ship out of service for whatever reason is the same thing as inventory. It’s a huge chunk of change, tied up, and not being “productive” while the meter is running. JMO

  • gunnerv1

    By “Official” Proclamation, (by this Article) we have just realized we’re now a “Second Rate” Navy. Japan, China, Russia, and India are building Carriers (some classed as “Super” Carrier status) Who’s about to outclass us next, The Netherlands or Canada?

  • John B. Morgen

    Our Fleet needs to have a composite force of aircraft carriers, or a mixture of CVB(N)s, and CVs of (medium tonnage of 60,000 tons). More CVs, the better to filled in the gaps when CVB(N)s are not available for service. Or two/three CVs should be require per one CVB(N) be built in order for resolving this aircraft carrier shortage problem.

  • Fred Stanley

    The Navy has no one to blame but themselves for this issue. They couldn’t be content with having Nimitz class carriers, or even return to an updated Kitty Hawk design, which are 3 generations ahead of anything else afloat and which could be built on a 4-5 year cycle.
    The Navy HAD to have the Ford carriers and they HAD to jam every new and unproven technology into it because they had to be FOUR generations ahead.
    As a result you have a carrier more than twice as expensive as a Nimitz and which will take at LEAST 12 years from laying down to being ready for active duty!!!!!!!!

    To put it in perspective the Enterprise CVN-65 was laid down in 1958 and about 3.5 years later was on station off Cuba as part of the blockade. And the Enterprise was the FIRST nuclear powered carrier and had several new technologies like SCANFAR. So it would be expected she would take significantly longer to build and work up to operational status than the preceding Kitty Hawk class. But there was almost no difference in the amount of time needed to complete the Enterprise.

    I’m a Navy guy but they, more than any other service, has mostly refused to adapt to the times and look at alternatives besides just building the most sophisticated platforms available. Seawolf, Virginia, Zumwalt, Ford…. all amazing ships….all slow and expensive to build. And I don’t care how good the Ford class is, it can’t be in 4 places at once. Yet the Navy can’t seem to grasp this obvious math and is always needing more hulls in the water.

    Even the big attempt at a cheaper and more flexible, the LCS, had ended up being an expensive ship whose value is dubious so far.

    • Secundius

      @ Fred Stanley.

      For What? They probably ASSUMED that Congress Would Be There For Them When Needed. Instead of trying to Find Ways to Destroy the very Foundation that OUR Country Stands For. Congress in more interested in SELF ENRICHMENT, then for the Prosperity of People of this Country and the Legacy of this Country…

  • James Corley

    We obviously need more carriers, then. They don’t need to be CVNs either. An updated Midway-class sized ship would suffice for many of our missions. Think of it as a High-Low mix (The Pentagon planners love High-Low) of the 10 CVNs plus maybe 6 “CVL” sized ships with 50 planes for the low intensity missions. We kept the Midway and Coral Sea until after they were very much “outclassed” by the supercarriers, and they did great jobs in their roles.

  • Secundius

    The Only way to get Carrier’s built FAST and CHEAP, is too go “NON-NUCLEAR”. UNTIL CONGRESS and the US NAVY see that, Were Severly “F^CKED”…

  • Brian Pilkington

    Maybe this is stupid, but doesn’t the U S have 4 conventional “Kitty Hawk” class aircraft carriers in mothballs? Couldn’t 2 of these hulls be recommishioned and brought up to current operational standards to fill this obvious void that sounds to me like is going to reacure again in the future. Let them fill the voids as needed. I understand they are older ships, but aren’t they already built and after a 2 year refit would they not fill this gap? They have a proven record! Maybe not nuclear Powered, but able to do the job for the next10 to 15 years?

    • Fred Stanley

      The only conventional carrier in inactive reserve is the Kitty Hawk.

      The Forrestal, Saratoga, Ranger and Constellation are currently being scrapped in Texas and the Independence is due to join them soon. They had all been rusting away unmaintained and stripped for parts for over a decade and couldn’t realistically be returned to service anyway.

      The JFK is on hold for a possible museum. But has been stripped so heavily it’s impractical to return her to service.

      The America was sunk in tests in 2006.

      So yes the Kitty Hawk could be returned to service. She couldn’t be ready before 2017 I imagine but if the situation is as critical as the navy says, why not do it? The Ford isn’t going to be ready to deploy until at least 2021. What’s the point in keep a carrier in inactive reserve if you won’t use it?

    • disqus_zommBwspv9

      I think they are going to be scrapped at the end of the year. From what I could find on the internet only token maintenance has been done on them .

    • Joey Gibson

      Yep…All in Bremerton Ship Yard……The Kitty is actually the “stand-by” carrier.

  • disqus_zommBwspv9

    Well the navy could build another USS Sable IX-81

    • Secundius

      @ Sailboater.

      I don’t recall any Great Lake’s Side-Paddle Wheel Aircraft Carrier’s operating outside the Great Lakes…

    • Fred Stanley

      I’m all for it! Can you imagine the fear it’ll inspire in our enemies when a converted paddle wheel carrier appears on the horizon 😂

  • omegatalon

    What demands are there given that we’re essentially at peace with no military action which requires jets from an aircraft carrier and given how even our allies don’t appreciate our presence, there’s no urgency to whether we send a carrier battle group anywhere given that Russia won’t be invading anyone soon.

    • Joey Gibson

      Dude…….Put the crack pipe down……

  • As others have pointed out there is no short term solution to this problem the Navy has made for themselves but there is a really good medium term solution, build more smaller non-nuclear carriers to support our needs.

    Take an America class hull, give it an angled deck and CATOBAR capabilities and you have a modern and effective CVL for 1/3 the cost of a CVN. Build 6 of them and you no longer have a carrier gap.

    Sure this thing won’t be your first choice in any conflict against a near-peer adversary but for keeping flight ops going against targets like IS it’s more than adequate.

    • Secundius

      @ raitchison.

      The problem with the Midway’s, were that they NEVER thought through with the design. They Took a New Concept and Added it to a Old Design. Which cause her to “Hog” or Bow-Up, so they compensated by adding more weight. Which just made things WORSE. You can do whatever you want with the America class Design, but she’s still going to be SLOW and UNGAINLY. And NEVER fulfill the Job Requirements you’ll need. Buy the “QE” class Medium-Carriers, or their Plans and Improve the Design. Even a 60-Aircraft Medium Carrier, is better than “Nothing At All”…

      • That’s why an America class is the ideal choice, already designed with aviation facilities for planes the size of the F-35.

        Really the only limitations compared to the Nimitz class are the number of planes she can carry, her sortie rate and the speed she can go. Of course the “unlimited” endurance goes away but that’s a problem for anything that doesn’t have an “N” in it’s classification.

        CVNs rarely (never) deploy with all the planes they can carry anyways, sortie rate might be a limiting factor in the opening phase of a major operation but really you’d have a CVN for something like this with a CVL augmenting that capability.

        Speed is rarely a factor because 95% of the time the Navy steams along at 14 knots, the oilers that any non-nuclear carrier (and her escorts) would be dependent on can’t go faster than an America class can (not even the Supply class)

        IMO the biggest factor is we already have the plans and capability to build America class based ships, we already have sailors trained to operate them and the plan & design changes would be minimal compared to adapting a QE class.

        Even on an ongoing basis you save because the commonality between the America class LHA and the America based CVL. Just like you could move GSE’s and GSM’s between Spruance class and Ticonderoga class ships with zero retraining required you only need one set of schools for everybody who works below the hanger deck.

        • Secundius

          @raitchison.

          Explain the Rationale of “Best Choice”, 22-knots maximum speed. You’d have to take them out of service, add ~20,000-ton to her displacement. Which is NOT GOING to make her ANY FASTER. Plus the added fact, of at least 18-months to two-years before the are returned to the Fleet. It would be EASIER to take an Existing Design and Improve on it and BUILD a Complete Functional Carrier OUT OF IT…

          • Who said anything about converting America or even the still under construction Tripoli?

            I’m talking about taking the America class design and creating a new CVL/CVB/CV (whatever) class out of it. For the sake of argument let’s call it the Yorktown class.

            As I already said 22 knots is plenty fast when the existing CVNs and every other Navy ship only ever exceed 14 knots when they are doing exercises to see how fast they can go.

            Yorktown class ships aren’t intended to replace CVNs they are intended to augment them and in a pinch, to fill in for them.

          • Secundius

            @ raitchison.

            Even if you were to take ALL the Museum Aircraft Carrier, and Reactivate them. You’re are STILL look at least a 2-years minimum before they are capable of Active Sea Duty…

          • Not sure who you are replying to since i didn’t say anything about reactivating the old CVs, Honestly I suspect you are just trolling at this point.

            In any case to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not trolling: The navy needs _modern_ ships designed for today’s (and tomorrows) aircraft and the fastest & cheapest way to do that is to start with the design for the existing America class.

            Just like the Spruance class design was adapted to create the extremely successful Ticonderoga class the America class design could serve as a great foundation for a new CV class.

          • Secundius

            @ raitchison.

            Unfortunately, this is NOT WW2 and Harry J. Kaiser and his Wonder Shipyards aren’t available to us. Where we could Crank-Out a Fletcher class Destroyer every 212-days, or a Liberty Ship every 4-Days and 15-1/2-Hours. THOSE DAY’S ARE GONE, CHIEF. GET REAL. We have a CONGRESS that DOESN’T WANT TOO FUND “ANYTHING”. They RATHER STRIP THE ECONOMY, THEN BOOST THE ECONONY…

        • Fred Stanley

          Yeah but most of the advantages of unlimited endurance are negated when all the escort vessels are conventionally powered. It’s not like the carrier can just take off and leave all its escorts behind.
          And even if the carrier doesn’t have to refuel its own engines it still has to take on fuel and weapons for the air wing as well as food and other provisions for 6000 people on a regular basis. The main benefit of a nuclear carrier is it frees up room for greater fuel storage for the planes.
          This whole idea that being nuclear frees it from reliance on supply ships is a total fallacy.
          Yeah the nuc option is nice but when it’s limiting production to one ship a decade and costs 12 billion, I don’t think it’s worth it compared to getting 3-4 conventionally powered Kitty Hawk style carriers that would have almost the same strike capability each.

      • Fred Stanley

        For a carrier that was built in WWII and was altered for the jet age and served until 1991 I think the Midway did pretty well.
        Her transformation wasn’t perfect but pretty effective considering the scope of the changes.
        Obviously a smaller carrier wouldn’t be a Midway redux but I’m talking in terms of size and capabilities of a Midway.
        The navy wants more carriers, but they also want the fanciest and most expensive design possible.
        Sorry USN you can’t have it both ways. If you’re determined to build nothing but Ford class, than you’re going to be a 10 carrier fleet at most

    • TomD

      One quibble: the current America class is too large to be a CVL, it’s more like the CVB designation the Midways used to carry.

      Still, they are almost $4b a pop.

      • Everything’s larger than they used to be. 🙂 Look at the Arleigh Burke (or especially the old Spru-cans) compared to the “destroyers” of old. 🙂

        I don’t think they would use the CVL designation regardless, they would probably be classed CV cor political reasons regardless of their inability to do 30 knots.

      • Fred Stanley

        Yeah but for 4 b a pop you could get 3 carriers with Midway like capabilities as get them built and operational in 5 years. As opposed to 1 Ford class which is taking 12 years to build and make ready.

        • TomD

          Certainly. I just recall a college prof complaining that the Nimitz cost too much at $1b. Ah, inflation…

          • Fred Stanley

            How times change. I remember when a billion dollars was a lot of money.

        • Secundius

          @ Fred Stanley.

          A Single Ford class Supercarrier in 2015 Prices, is about ~$12.9-Billion USD. a Single Queen Elizabeth class Medium Carrier in Standard Configuration, is roughly $4.2-Billion USD in 2015 Prices. To reactivate Kitty Hawk, would cost about $2.349-Billion USD. in 2015 Prices. Add an S1B Nuclear Reactor, about $500-Million USD extra…

  • disqus_zommBwspv9

    CNN did an article recently saying that Aircraft Carriers are vulnerable and are not needed anymore. Due to lack of long range airframes needed to protect the carrier aircraft. Airframes that CNN is saying that the powers to be failed to procured

  • disqus_zommBwspv9

    More hulls, yes. Just read an article in a defense magazine that it would be cheap to build more versions of the current Burke without all the bells and whistles and use them in place of the LCS. How small can a carrier be and still carry 40 aircraft

  • themaskedblogger

    If we’re going to keep basing fleets around carriers– I question the utility for some missions– we need more of them. Like minimum 3, maximum 5.

  • disqus_zommBwspv9

    Is it true the carriers when they now deploy only carry about 70 aircraft

  • brickman

    Imagine how stretched the carrier fleets of our potential enemies are. When one of their carriers goes back for repairs, their ENTIRE carrier force is depleted.

  • RRBunn

    With NO OTHER NAVY IN THE WORLD having more then two carriers, it is amazing that we cry when we have 5 deployable while we have bunched up on 5 in the yards. Our large deck amphibious ships are as big as the other nations carriers, to the count is not exactly 10 assets. We need to look beyond the CBG to better weapons to do the same functions or to adjust to new warfare technologies.

    • Michael Rich

      That’s because other countries have drastically different policies than we do. Russia, China, France, etc none of them have to project power in multiple places at once.

    • disqus_zommBwspv9

      Isn’t the Chinese Navy building carriers 2,3 AND 4?

  • vetww2

    The problem is that relatively little is actually considered from preliminary design through contract design. The individual components may each have good maintenance plans, but the consideration of the item within the system is often overlooked. A good example;e of this is on most of the hydraulic lines on the Nimitz are BEHIND the cable trays, so a small repair becomes a big time item. Just because the work is not usually needed is no excuse for ignoring it. We need a change in design policy.

  • Secundius

    6 November 2015.

    This might be the ONLY SOLUTION to a BAD WAY OUT! The Freedom Caucus and Forty Democrats, are Pushing a House Bill through Congress. To keep the WAR with ISIS ALIVE. By doing this, the Military is Virtually Guaranteed A BUDGET to keep it AFLOAT. Not the BEST WAY by any means, but with a “TEA PARTY” Congress, probably the ONLY WAY OUT to a “BAD SOLUTION”…

  • disqus_zommBwspv9

    well it looks like the French are going to have the Big Carrier in the Eastern Med for the time being. Maybe we should be looking into buying into another naval air station in the med. Say Cyprus and share a base with the brits on Crete , Since we already have one on Sicily. And we could build an Island in the Aborean Basin

  • OLDNAVYVET

    Who did not see this coming?

    • Secundius

      @ OLDNAVYVET.

      WHO DIDN’T SEE IT COMING, YOU ASK? EVERYBODY ON THIS WEBSITE, THAT’S “WHO”!!!

      • OLDNAVYVET

        Who elected you spokesman?

        • Secundius

          @ OLDNAVYVET.

          NOBODY, AND THAT INCLUDES YOU TO CHIEF…

          • OLDNAVYVET

            Tell it to your mother junior. I would include your father but all indications are you don’t know who he is! Your phony pseudo- intellectual comments impress no one! Come back when you learn respect or better still when you grow up.

  • Secundius

    A couple thing’s NOT mentioned in the Article. Ship’s were Home Ported due to the Sequester, Specifically the Budget Control Act of 2011. And was Implemented in 1 January 2013. The President’s Administration, had NOTHING to do with it, it WAS AUTOMATIC. What Obama, did was “SACRIFICE” a $12.9-Billion USD. Gerald Ford class Super Carrier, to DIVERT the funds to do NEEDED REPAIR on the FOUR Ported Aircraft Carriers. And the Additional Money Left Over, was used to BUILD “THREE” Arleigh Burke class Flight III Destroyers. SO STOP “WHINING” and “POINTING FINGERS”. “Get Over It”, and let’s get back to the Business On Hand…

  • Pingback: Driving Aircraft Carrier | teacher - driving instructor()

  • Pingback: Report: Navy and Marine Corps Strained to Breaking Point; Second Forward Carrier in the Pacific Could Help | Aircrew Systems()

  • Pingback: Report: Navy and Marine Corps Strained to Breaking Point; Second Forward Carrier in the Pacific Could Help - Association of Naval Aviation in Virginia Beach, Virginia - Hampton Roads Squadron()

  • Pingback: USS Nimitz to Remain in Bremerton Until 2019 to Avoid Homeport Changes Between Maintenance Periods | Aircrew Systems()