"Does The U.S. Navy Need 12 Aircraft Carriers To Meet..." Topic

… Today's U.S. National Security Needs?

"The US Navy aircraft carrier is an iconic asset that demonstrates American power and resolve, ensuring peace around the world — a peace the US and other nations benefit from greatly. This peace encompasses the oceans on which nearly all US goods and commodities are transported to market. But the aircraft carrier's survival — a critical part of our naval strategy and US security — is in danger.

Today, the aircraft carrier is the target of populist arguments that may sound reasonable at face value for those unfamiliar with our security operations, but instead obscure the facts. The purpose of these arguments is to eliminate the carrier from our fleet, by arguing the carrier is an expensive, outdated platform. However, at a time when the world is becoming more dangerous, decreasing our carriers or retiring them altogether for short-term monetary gain is unconscionable and will only limit our ability to defend ourselves. Any short-term benefits will have dramatic and costly effects on our safety now and in the future…"

See here
link

Amicalement
Armand

As I've said here TMP link you need a mix. Where you have a fixed base, you don't need a carrier. They can't sink, can carry far more munitions and planes and are generally able to be more able to domionate an area. However, fixed bases can be captured or neutralised, so you need to be able to get carriers there – just in case.

Basically, you need both fortresses and field armies – the bases are the fortresses, the carriers are the field army.

These numbers are off the top of my head, so don't shoot me, but the other thing is that 12 carriers is really something like 6 – 3 being in long-term upgrades and 3 back for regular maintenance at any given time, 6 being on active duty.

Carriers are probably quite useful in the modern world. While threats change the abilities of carrier borne aircraft will also change.

However I'm disgusted by the way the US [especially but not uniquely] manages its military procurement. Often stuff is built and supplied that is not needed at all just to improve the economy in a key district or blatantly to get kick-backs.

Eisenhower had it spot on.

Maybe the US Navy needs 12 or 15 or 10 or 0 carriers. But the people to ask would be them.

The issue with availability is real but in wartime a lot of maintenance is postponed and crews do not need to be rested/rotated. So if you had 12 then maybe 10 could be used at one time.

A force of 10 carriers plus land based air from Japan and South Korea [not to mention Diego Garcia] could devastate China's navy and naval facilities in a matter of days.

I know China is a nuclear power so that complicates matters somewhat.

Bottom line in all these discussions is that for the most part the US military has ample means available. What it usually lacks is the political will or a coherent strategy. The former is not the fault of the military. The latter partly but not entirely.

These numbers are off the top of my head, so don't shoot me, but the other thing is that 12 carriers is really something like 6 – 3 being in long-term upgrades and 3 back for regular maintenance at any given time, 6 being on active duty.

No, the numbers are worse than that. 12 carrier hulls means 4 on active duty, 4 just back from deployment and in shipyards, and the other 4 getting ready to deploy.

So the US *might* be able to surge 8 carriers, but at the cost of maybe not having ANY in 9 months.

A quick look at Wikipedia indicates the US have 10 carriers in service and 2 being built with a third planned.

Unless they decommission one of the older ships before 2020 they should then have 12.

Ability to deploy 6 carriers with extra airwings available to replace losses would swamp any likely adversary.

The enemy may get lucky and sink one or two carriers but we're talking a massive war with a major power [China or Russia are the only two that seem to come close].