U.S. needs more carriers

Editorial: U.S. needs more carriers

By Herald StaffYesterday 0:00 AM

Republican presidential hopeful John Kasich says one of his goals as president would be to "get closer to 15 aircraft carriers" instead of the 10 the Navy now operates. We hope he carries his point and stimulates fresh thought on the subject.

Ten carriers are not enough. The Navy no longer maintains a carrier in the Mediterranean Sea, a key sentry post for the turbulent Middle East.

Of the 10 carriers, two are undergoing heavy overhaul, one is based in Japan, one is visiting ports of India after its planes dropped 832 bombs on ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq and one is in the Arabian Sea. The other five are in training or maintenance in U.S. waters. No doubt some could be "surged" to a crisis area, but that takes time.

An 11th carrier, the new USS Gerald R. Ford, will join the fleet next year. The Navy plans nine duplicates, one every five years.

Kasich, the current governor of Ohio, is a former chairman of the House Budget Committee and knows the realities of Defense Department budgeting. Supplementing the nation's supply of carriers is "not going to be done in a day. It has to all be done calmly and over time," he told reporters after a speech in South Carolina.

One staggering reality is cost, almost $13 billion for another USS Ford. Kasich could cut costs by building somewhat smaller ships.

The Navy prefers large carriers (90,000 to 100,000 long tons) because the cost per attack plane carried is less than with smaller ships.

Very often what matters is not, say, 70 or so attack planes on hand at a trouble spot, as a super-carrier can provide, but any at all. Several smaller carriers can be in more places than a few large ones. More carriers per dollar could well outweigh more planes per dollar.

Kasich might study buying or building duplicates of the 65,000-ton British aircraft carriers under construction. He could get three for roughly the cost of one USS Gerald R. Ford.