| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Committee OKs funds for aircraft carrier | |
| 2005-05-21 | |
| The House Armed Services Committee yesterday did what military shipbuilding supporters have lobbied for by authorizing an extra $86.7 million to make sure the U.S. Navy's next new aircraft carrier begins development in 2007. The boost also comes on the heels of the committee's decision to raise the president?s fiscal year 2006 defense budget request from four ships to seven. The additional $86.7 million for the advanced procurement of the Navy's CNV-21, a new generation of nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, comes with a caveat. The Pentagon must certify that the extra money would allow the Navy to begin production of the carrier in 2007 before Congress makes the funds available. The money would be transferred out of defensewide operations and maintenance accounts. The administration's plans were to start production in 2008. The Navy's goal is to deploy the carrier by 2014.
The House panel's move yesterday came after the Senate Armed Services Committee marked up its defense authorization bill, adding $86.7 million to advance by one year the delivery of the carrier, moving it from 2015 to 2014. The moves in both the Senate and House coincide with the Navy's decision to retire the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy, thus reducing the carrier fleet to 11. The Navy's assessment of war plans has shown that 11 carriers would meet commanders' requirements, Secretary of the Navy Gordon England told the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee in March. He also said that it may be possible that the number of carriers could be further reduced, as the Navy plans to use other, smaller ships that would allow aircraft to take off and land, such as the new amphibious assault ship LHA-R. The Senate, meanwhile, has directed the Navy to retain 12 aircraft carriers until 180 days after completion of the Pentagon's sweeping review of capabilities, called the quadrennial defense review, and the achievement of necessary basing agreements for carriers in the Pacific Command's area of responsibility. The fear of further shrinkage of the carrier force raised the stakes for carrier advocates in Congress and industry who were trying to prevent a production delay of CVN-21. Last year, Northrop Grumman Newport News received $1.3 billion for construction preparation on the CVN-21. Innovations on the new carrier, often referred to as the centerpiece of the future carrier strike groups, include an enhanced flight deck, a new nuclear power plant and reduced manpower. It has been estimated that the cost of the carrier will rise to $13.7 billion, almost double the initial projections, sparking concern among lawmakers that the cost of advanced weapons systems is skyrocketing and that the CVN-21 is unaffordable. Davis argued that the additional $86.7 million for advanced procurement is necessary to prevent the cost of the ship from further escalating and to ensure that the Navy's fleet would not drop below 12 aircraft carriers. The Navy's budget projection for the years 2006 through 2011 calls for cutbacks in various ship programs, spurring a spirited debate about the future of the Navy's fleet, which has already been slashed in half since the end of the Cold War. | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #8 but Germany had qualified naval servicemen, no? I'm under the impression that, like the USSR, China deepwater would be overburdened by political control vs competence. Would like to hear different if evidence shows....? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-05-21 22:48 |
| #7 You don't build a (competent) blue-water navy like that Germany did. In the end, it wasn't quite good enough to beat the RN, but it was close. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-05-21 22:43 |
| #6 China's projection of power is via the boots of the PLA and the threat of thermonuclear war via their missiles. Their navy couldn't currently take Japan. You don't build a (competent) blue-water navy like that *snap* |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-05-21 18:54 |
| #5 In other words, Super Hose, it doesn't matter how good China's ships are, so long as our missiles continue to be better and more numerous? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-05-21 18:14 |
| #4 I used to read Proceedings quite often, it is a good source as long as you understand that its writers will consitently promote increased naval spending. During the Cold War the military establishment consistently exagerated the capabilities and quality of the Soviet threat. I disagree with their theory of a naval war with China. It is my opinion that large scale naval spending by the Chinese would only result in improvements to the reef structure around the coast of the PRC in the event of a shooting war with the US. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2005-05-21 17:30 |
| #3 China's major navy, huh? LOL |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-05-21 13:48 |
| #2 Looking forward to see what a CVN-21 can do. If we do get into a serious conflict with any major navy (China's for example), the schelduled delivery in 2014 might be postponed. I wouldn't worry too much over what "Proceedings" says, it's no different than any other opinion that America will lose against China. |
| Posted by: shellback 2005-05-21 13:34 |
| #1 There was a terribly bitter commentary in the May 2005 issue of 'Proceedings', published by the U.S. Naval Institute, which is the premier naval journal in the world. It begins, "The United States is headed for a naval war with China. We are going to lose. The combination of inadequate shipbuilding and procurement of the wrong types of ships sets us up to be run out of the Western Pacific in five to ten years..." This is scary stuff, published in a magazine whose contributors are almost exclusively senior U.S. naval officers and retired officers, many of flag rank. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-05-21 10:50 |