The Navy and Marine Corps are overextended and stressed, with not enough ships to meet demands and maintenance deferred as deployments become longer and longer.
A new study by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments proposes the forward basing of additional ships as a way to increase naval presence around the world. More specifically, the Navy could forward deploy a second aircraft carrier in the Pacific, and together, those carriers would be able to support all 7th Fleet needs.
“What that means is now your West Coast carriers in the United States can deploy entirely to the Middle East,” said Bryan Clark, who authored the study, called “Deploying Beyond Their Means: America’s Navy and Marine Corps at a Tipping Point.” The four carriers stationed on the U.S. East Coast could cover demands in Europe, including addressing threats from Russia.
“That makes a lot more sense than trying to just base the carrier in Europe because the carrier in Europe only has about a week transit time back to the United States,” he told reporters during a Tuesday conference call previewing the report. It takes six to eight weeks for a carrier to back and forth from the West Coast to the Western Pacific, and that transit time can amount to about 20 percent of a deployment.
United States Fleet Activities Yokosuka, in Japan, offers enough space pierside to accommodate two carriers, he said. “You would have to do some construction there to bring an additional pier up to standard, if you want to have the ability to bring them both into port at the same time.”
Instead of adhering to the Optimized Fleet Response Plan model—which includes eight months deployed in a 36 month cycle—forward-deployed ships spend eight months a year operating, and then receive four months of maintenance.
If an additional carrier is forward deployed to the Pacific, “the operational model you would have is that the carriers would not generally be in port at the same time,” Clark said. One carrier would be operating while the other would be undergoing maintenance, although there would be periods where both carriers could be deployed.
Forward basing has several downsides, including increased costs—about 30 percent more than basing ships out of the United States, he said. That model would also wear out ships and aircraft more quickly than planned because they would be operating more often.
One solution, at least on the aircraft side, is for a single air wing to support both Pacific-based carriers, Clark said. When both carriers are underway at the same time, the air wing would split into two smaller forces would operate with the carriers.
“If you have two full air wings that are out there, both of which are operating, training, staying proficient and then deploying on two different carriers, that’s going to generate a lot more aggregate wear and tear than if you have a single augmented air wing,” he said.
Another option mentioned by Clark—to buy more ships—was echoed by lawmakers who attended the roll out of the study on Wednesday.
“Our budget is not large. It is not adequately sized to meet our needs,” said Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.).
The Navy in 2007 procured ships at a rate of three a year, and that slow procurement put pressure on the rest of the fleet, said Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee’s seapower and projection forces subcommittee.
“We are paying the price for what was going on ten years ago in terms of the under-investment in shipbuilding,” he said.
However, Clark noted that the current shipbuilding plan is already strained, and in future years will require more money than the Navy usually receives.