Skip this site's navigation and go to its main content


Receive Updates From Heritage

Receive Updates From Heritage

The Heritage Foundation
Leadership for America

Our Vision

Building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.

About The Heritage Foundation

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles.


Maintaining a Double-Digit Carrier Fleet

Posted May 1st, 2008 at 10:26am in Protect America 0 Print This Post Print This Post

Last week, House Armed Services’ Seapower Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) affirmed that he does not plan to include language in the FY 2009 defense authorization bill that would allow the Navy to reduce the aircraft carrier fleet below the current legal requirement of 11 carriers. According to Taylor, the Navy has a “responsibility” to fund 11 ships. With the USS Gerald R. Ford joining the fleet in 2015, the Navy has argued that the $2.2 billion it would cost to keep the aging USS Enterprise operational from 2012-2015—thus maintaining the 11 career requirement—is not worth the cost.

Congressman Taylor and other members of his Committee are correct to hold the Navy to their carrier requirement. Last month, Heritage analyst Mackenzie Eaglen and James Dolbow laid the groundwork for this argument in their Web Memo, SOS: Congress must Save the Aircraft Carrier Fleet. Eaglen also took part in a Heritage Podcast on the issue. And just last week Ed Feulner, President of The Heritage Foundation, made a similar case in the pages of the Washington Times.

During the 1980’s, the U.S. Navy had 15 aircraft carriers available to meet its Cold War responsibilities. Today that number has dipped to 11, and 10 when you factor in that one Nimitz-class carrier is undergoing lengthy Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) at all times. According to Eaglen and Dolbow, “Congress should carefully examine whether the Navy currently has enough carriers to meet the services global commitments.” After factoring in the increased operational tempo the Navy has undertaken during the Long War, its global commitment to protecting the world’s shipping lanes, and the unprecedented modernization rate of the Chinese Navy, it is clear that the current carrier fleet size is insufficient to meet the challenges at hand—much less a smaller carrier fleet.

What can be done? Eaglen, Dolbow and Feulner all argue that not only should Congress reject the Navy’s request, but they should also considering accelerating the delivery of the USS Gerald. F. Ford and hold the Navy leaders’ “feet to the fire” to ensure the goal of a 12-career fleet is met by 2019, if not sooner. Chairman Taylor is right to stand firm and maintain the size of our carrier fleet. Let’s hope that the Senate is just as committed to doing the same.

Tags: ,

Leave a Comment

In order to leave a comment, you must supply information for all of the required fields below (which are indicated by bold text).

Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.