"In era of tight budgets, how many aircraft carriers ..." Topic

…are enough?

"Aircraft carriers are perhaps the most powerful expression of U.S. military might. They're also expensive and potentially vulnerable. In an era of fiscal constraint, defense officials, lawmakers and the commander in chief must answer a question that could have enormous strategic consequences: How many are enough?

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the Chief of Naval Operations, believes he knows the answer.

"We need 11, when you add [combatant commander requirements] with the contingencies that we are tasked to respond to, in the time that we have to respond, and the capabilities that we have out there. … And so when I look out into the future, we need at least 11 carriers," he told reporters last month…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

It takes 3 carriers to have one deployed at all times. One carrier is deployed, one just came back from deployment and is in the shipyard, and the third is just out of the shipyard and working up to get ready to deploy.

So 11 carriers is 3 and 2/3 carriers deployed.

I would say America needs.

15 carriers.
9 amphibious deck ships (better than most other nations carriers)
24 large air defensive destroyers/cruisers.
48 smaller destroyers.
96 frigate class vessels (proper multirole ships, with limited air defense, anti ship missile, a gun, a defensive anti air short range phalanx style system, a helicopter with anti ship and anti sub capability)

I also think USA needs an amphibious squadron for each zone.

So Atlantic/med
Indian and gulf
Australia and Indochina.
Japan and Korea
Pacific (Hawaii)

Each squadron would have a full marine brigade, and a marine rapid deployment force. It would have use of the amphibious helicopter cruisers, and of course full landing ships and hospital ships, fleet replenishment, and suchlike.

I think each squadron needs a full complement of warships, so a proper air defense ship, and two or three destroyers and a similar number of frigates.

A LOT of money!. (smile).

Amicalement
Armand

Without the will to use them, they are all superfluous…..

And a battleship or four.

Just because.

Nothing says Power Projection like a battleship…

I don't care if they are white elephants.

Eric

Uh, Mako, the idea is having them so you DON'T have to use them. You know, deterrence? (Strange concept, that….)

Well, if you want to go on being the World's Policeman™, then 15 are not enough. I suggest names like Wasp, Hornet, Bonhomme Richard… NOTHING named after a ing senator or President!!!!
If you think that it's time to let the world sort itself out by itself, then 11 are too many.

Eric, battlecruisers would be cheaper. Unless you want to take out of mothballs what we have now. Let's not say it is impossible, they are fine government "make work" project!

Agreed on that naming point, John. I'd support things like Valley Forge, Constellation, Lexington, that sort of thing. Good old names with traditions. And, especially, don't name ships after still-living politicians. That's particularly obnoxious.

Yeah, the US has no shortage of names for big-deck ships (whether they're carriers or amphibs).

But it still takes 3 hulls to keep one out steaming to let people know that the US is not amused by the latest shenanigans…

Too true, Lion. IIRC, there have been a couple of experiments at cutting down the turnaround time, but those never ended well.

Yeah, the Navy tried a multi-crewing exercise on a couple FFGs, and even with only 6 months for each crew the ships were beat to hell and needed to be scrapped afterwards!

Trident Submarines run two crews, but were designed for that, along with a 3 months deployed/1 month in shipyard operational tempo. And that month in shipyard has all hands from both crews fixing stuff, along with another 500 shipyard workers!