I am a political economist studying innovation, industry, and international security. Since September 2001, I have been advising industries and ministries on their issues of strategy, planning, and policy. My work aims to inform investors, industrialists, technologists, and policy-makers on how to effect, economically, a secure future.

Recent Articles

« The Ground Combat Vehicle: to GCV or not to GCV? | Main | Parkinson, Krulak, and now Romney on Overstaffing in the US DoD »

08 September 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This is a very bad idea. It only means longer deployments for the Carrier Force.

I cannot but agree that, ceteris paribus, the carrier battle group forces would face longer or more frequently deployments if the fleet were reduced to eight. I doubt that the resulting personnel tempo would be sustainable. But I'm not suggesting that it should even be attempted..

Rather, I'm proposing that the government stop deploying two battle groups at once, and instead just deploy at most one. I may not have been completely clear about that in the article above. Here's my proposal, quite specifically. To begin, there's no reason to routinely send American flotillas to the Mediterranean; indeed, there's not much reason for a robust Sixth Fleet. This hasn't been done for some time, and without ill effect, so it shouldn't be restarted.

For the time being, there is a perceived need to send one to the Arabian Sea, but that need will abate after American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan winds down.

In the long run, there may not be enough reason to routinely send American flotillas from San Diego or Puget Sound to the western Pacific. There's a carrier group in Japan to cover that area. There might be reason to send one occasionally, but the full deployment cycle may not be necessary.

But whatever the case, the suggests that a little operational discipline from the top will solve the problem. Just stop steaming back and forth. Given the infrequency with which the immediate presence of those groups has been critical, it's just not worth the money.

You are not watching carefully what China is doing, or Russia are you. We are rapidly loosing our capability to respond. Moth balling carriers, not till they can be replaced. Building will depend on the economy. My thoughts are, we need a very strong, military, with the latest tecnology to keep America safe. We have four main enemies, possibly five.

It is not only the Navy, but also the rest of the armed forces also. A strong military will mke aggressors think twice.

Thanks for your comments. By my count, the Chinese Navy has one carrier that isn't fully operational. The Russian Navy has one carrier, but I consider the Russians a rather implausible opponent, and one with which the navies of European NATO can deal quite effectively. Moreover, I'm suggesting that the US Atlantic Fleet be left with two operational supercarriers, which would have more than twice the aerial firepower of the Russian Northern Fleet's one. So, I'm arguing that outnumbering one's opponents two- or six-to-one is pretty adequate.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Accolades

  • Read only the first few pages. The clarity and eloquence of them is highly unusual. Extremely un-boring. Everything that one does not need to know seems to have been removed before publication.
    — Attorney, politician, academic, and strategist
  • I'm continually amazed and impressed with what appears to me to be some magical ability you have to synthesize a tremendous sweep of ideas and sources and to cogently streamline into a tight and, most importantly, readable essay.
    — Test engineer, Naval Air Systems Command
  • One of the most insightful analysts on issues of defense economics...
    — Senior defense industry equities analyst
  • I need a Jim.
    — DC think tank director
  • Simply outstanding.
    — Deputy Under Secretary at the Pentagon, on recent analyses of future force structure requirements
  • You and Aboulafia are the only two publicly-quoted defense consultants worth paying attention to.
    — Public policy advocate
  • You’re one of the few guys who brings me real numbers. Most people just try to blow smoke...
    — President of a major military trucks and armored vehicles manufacturer
  • You are an impressive madman whom I am glad to know.
    — Vice President and M&A practice leader with an aerospace & defense consultancy
  • One of the best strategic moves we could have made, short of starting another war.
    — General Manager, leading weapons manufacturer, regarding recommendations for using the lessons of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq to plan the future of the company’s product lines
  • Exactly what we needed.
    — CEO of a defense buy-out firm, on market insights and financial projections regarding an acquisition target
  • Your ability to infer from open sources is wonderful.
    — Vice President for Corporate Strategy, leading armored vehicles manufacturer, on recent studies of fatality patterns in military vehicles in Afghanistan and Iraq
  • We should have done [this] a year ago, but I could never find someone like you with the right perspective.
    — Vice President for Business Development at a fast-growing manufacturing firm, on recommendations for managing the company’s problematic alliance with a Fortune 500 defense contractor