It is the job of the military to have contingency plans for
every conceivable scenario sitting on the shelf, ready to execute and to ensure
that the force is properly trained, maintained, and equipped to execute those
plans on a (figurative) moment’s notice.
When the Administration decided to strike Iran, it should
have required nothing more than to pick a plan off the shelf and assemble the
required assets. We should have been
ready and able.
Let’s digress for a moment. How many aircraft carriers did we use during
Desert Storm? The answer is 6. They were:
Compare that assemblage of power to the current Iran
conflict. How many carriers are active
for this? The answer is 2. They are:
And Ford was at the end of a long deployment and overdue to
return home. We should also note that
air wings during Desert Storm were larger than today’s air wings which makes
the two carriers for Iran more like one and a half carriers!
An obvious question arises;
did operational requirements only need two carriers or were there only
two carriers physically available? Not
knowing the detailed operational plan, we can’t say for sure but a common sense
assessment sure seems to indicate that we needed more especially when we
compare the needs of Desert Storm to this conflict.
Consider:
-We seem to lack sufficient air and naval coverage to keep
the strait open.
-We clearly lack the air coverage to protect our bases and our Middle East allies from Iranian drones and missiles.
-USS Ford is approaching its one year deployment anniversary which clearly says that the vessel was used because no other carriers were available.
Were we ready or were we caught unprepared?
A peripheral piece of evidence is the attempted deployment
of a MEU during the early Ukraine conflict.
Despite having around 30 amphibious ships, the Navy was unable to form a
ARG and provide ships for the MEU. This
suggests that the Navy is nowhere near combat ready and, further, has zero
surge capability.
One might also ask why the Japan based carrier was not moved
to the Middle East? It’s not as if
anyone believes that carrier serves any legitimated purpose in Japan.
I can’t offer any definitive answers but the circumstantial
evidence suggests that the Navy is woefully unprepared for combat.
- USS Midway
- USS Roosevelt
- USS America
- USS Kennedy
- USS Saratoga
- USS Ranger
- USS Ford
- USS Lincoln
-We clearly lack the air coverage to protect our bases and our Middle East allies from Iranian drones and missiles.
-USS Ford is approaching its one year deployment anniversary which clearly says that the vessel was used because no other carriers were available.
There are two plans, the Mossad's Bomb & Revolution plan.
ReplyDeleteThe USAF & IAF did a fine job of bombing, the Revolution
part, is still awaited.
The USN is working a plan from off the shelf, the Anaconda Plan.
Now, Im not saying it has anything to do without, just an observation BUT notice that all the carriers deployed for GW1 except 1 (Roosevelt) were non nuclear at the time which is pretty crazy to think of since in1991, I would assume we had a couple of CVNs in use compared to today, they are all nuclear and we only have 2 on site!!! One would be tempted to think that a nuclear CV would be more ready to deploy on quick notice but looks like the regular CVs did pretty good getting there when needed. I'm sure its not all about the nuke vs conventional, there's plenty of other factors, just an observation.....my 2 cents is maybe USN screwed up on the whole CVN fleet, maybe a mixed CV/CVN fleet would be better?
ReplyDeleteThat was the first thought that came into my head as well. Surely CVs must be cheaper and quicker to build, and Im not sure that "hulls in the water" does not make up for the perceived lack of "unlimited steaming". Historically, how was the decision made that all carriers had to be CVN's? Was it perhaps a remnant of Cold War limitations of fueling that may or may not be salient now?
DeleteTo be fair, in 1991, of the 12-15 carriers we had, only 6 (5 Nimitz + 1 Enterprise) carriers were nuclear.
Delete"unlimited steaming".
DeleteThis has never been a relevant factor in the conventional vs nuclear debate and never will as long as carriers require conventional escorts who require refueling.
"Surely CVs must be cheaper and quicker to build"
It all depends on how you look at it. In order to operate conventional carriers, you MUST build a gigantic fuel supply industry and delivery system along with a fleet of oilers. That is the mandatory, added cost of conventional powered carriers and MUST be included in any cost comparison. I've looked at this many times and once you include ALL relevant factors, there is very little cost difference between conventional and nuclear. The only difference is where and when you pay for it. Yes, conventional carriers have smaller construction costs but you eventually MUST pay for the oil industry, supply system, and oilers. The money is simply spread out. The same kinds of considerations hold for nuclear power.
Isn't the fuel supply system already paid for as you said the escorts and amphibs are already oil fueled. Is 10 carriers really adding that much when you have over 70 Burke's, other surface combatants and 30 odd amphibs plus all the resupply ships already requiring logistics for refueling.
DeleteRegarding the surface fleet, we are constantly altering, maintaining, and adding to the fuel storage and distribution system. For example, the Navy just shut down the entire Pearl Harbor fuel storage system and is in the process of attempting to build replacement facilities for that at some other location. Thus, the fuel system is constantly and repeatedly being paid for.
DeleteIn addition, our oiler fleet is continuously retiring old ships and building new ones. It's a never-ending cost of having conventionally powered ships.
What do you think the addition of, say, ten carriers (11 by law if we replace all our nuclear carriers) with conventional powered carriers would do to the fuel storage and distribution system? We'd have to significantly increase it, of course. I'm sure you're also aware that a carrier would require several times the fuel load that, say, a Burke would. We would need additional facilities and oilers among other components. And the additional costs go on and on.
I have no doubt you know all this so I have to ask, are looking to discuss something or start a pointless argument?
Admirals will ignore calls to end constant deployments. Yet they may agree to adding another phase in the cycle. Add a "ready" phase with trained groups on 72 hour standby at home. So you have: 1) Rebuild/Refit 2) Work up 3) Ready (a new one) 4) deployed. So you only have a quarter of the fleet deployed rather than a third, but can quickly double the deployed force in a few days when needed.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget that there were also two battleships along with those six carriers and their escorts. A couple of (modern) battleships or heavy cruisers would be handy over there these days.
ReplyDeleteSomthing else I wonder about- why the Ford? In my mind it's the least capable carrier we have, as it's new tech still seems to be working poorly. I read an article a few days ago that said EMALS was still hitting under 30% of the spec'd failure rate, and the context suggested that was during recent Iran ops. Now, no citations were given, and stupidly my copy of the statement/link got deleted from my clipboard... but, what reason do we have to doubt it, besides some Admirals rosy statements to the contrary?
ReplyDeleteI understand that the Iran ops probably came about on relatively short notice, and you only have the carriers you have during the rotation...but... did the Navy really send a carrier to war, that still can't do what a Nimitz does routinely??
"why the Ford?"
DeleteWell, this is the premise of the post. My strong suspicion is that we had no other carriers able to surge so it was Ford or nothing.
They just kicked the "planned" delivery of the fourth Ford carrier out two more years despite a massive budget increase. Now 15 years to construct her. Maybe this is part of a cancellation plot.
ReplyDeletehttps://news.usni.org/2026/05/08/future-aircraft-carrier-doris-miller-delayed-by-2-years
I believe they're doing a review of the Fords and.looking at the cost of them... and whether to continue or possibly look at lower-cost alternatives...
Delete"Now 15 years to construct her."
DeleteCome on, now, you know that isn't true. CVN-81 hasn't begun construction yet. It is scheduled to begin later this year. For a 2034 delivery date, that would be an 8 yr construction period. The 15 yr figure is using the Jan 2019 block buy date as the starting point and that's completely misleading. The block buy doesn't begin construction, it just reserves future funding and, perhaps, puts some long lead items on the account books.
There is much to criticize the Navy about but we have to be fair and factual when we do so.
"I believe they're doing a review of the Fords "
DeleteSomeone is always doing a review of carriers. This has been true since the very first carrier built. I'm unaware of any specific, credible review. Do you have a reference?
There is this:
Deletehttps://news.usni.org/2026/04/21/navy-reviewing-ford-class-carrier-design-ahead-of-future-contract-awards
And this:
Deletehttps://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2026/04/23/us-navy-is-reviewing-cost-of-future-ford-class-carriers-to-ensure-they-make-sense/
When the Trump administration took office, they initiated a review of ALL Navy acquisition programs for cost effectiveness and other factors. The intent was simply to justify the expenditures. This is that effort. It is not a serious examination of the combat effectiveness or value of the Ford class. I'm sure they'll use this to justify to Congress even bigger and "better" carriers that need bigger budgets. They're not looking at Fords in relation to operational plans which is what they should be doing.
DeleteCarlton Myers (G2Mil) had lots of light infantry ideas. Today your ideas are technically possible. But we don't hear them anymore.
ReplyDeleteThe Pentagon doesn't listen to anyone nowadays except defense contractors.
DeletePerhaps the military warned US government that resources were stretched thin, as well as that the blockade of Ormuz was a likely outcome, and were not listened to ?
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps not. Try to inject at least a modicum of facts and logic in support of your comments.
DeleteDid part of the Ford’s air wing redeploy to the two remaining on station carriers before it returned for its refit, or were the ships already carrying their maximum complement of aircraft, as you would expect in wartime?
ReplyDeleteTo the best of my knowledge, carriers don't transfer their air wings and the Ford did not do so. Our carriers are not carrying any increase in air wing size.
DeleteThank you.
DeleteThat sounds strange, but I expect there’s a good reason for it.
I agree with the general thrust of this post. However, from an apples-to-apples standpoint, we should note that the Navy did have 5-6 months to get all those carriers deployed.
ReplyDeleteTthat is to say, 5-6 months when we were unambiguously, methodically building up toward launching an overwhelming attack that everyone knew was coming.
In the current instance, an attack on Iran has obviously been possible since, well, whatever date you want to pick. But as far as what's been publicly reported, it seems like the actual decision to go came rather quickly. If we'd started an overt, all-out buildup in February, could the Navy have had >2 carriers there by August 1. Maybe...?
Superficially, you make a valid point, however, Trump has been ratcheting up the pressure on Iran since he took office. In other words, conflict was not only a possibility from day one but an increasing probability for the last year. Any prudent naval commander would have been preparing carriers for combat deployment for many months.
DeleteThe PUBLIC announcement of hostilities was fairly abrupt but it is clear that, internally, the administration knew this was a probability for the last year which means the Navy knew it as well.
I read more and more rnews articles pretending that Iran has still a lot of intact missiles and drones stocks and production capabilities - maybe they were ready ?
ReplyDelete