ANALYSIS – In another sign that the Pentagon is preparing for a very high-intensity, high-attrition war with China, one prominent naval analyst explains why the U.S. Navy’s Indo-Pacific Fleet may consist of so many older nuclear-powered carriers and submarines.
To Craig Hooper, writing in Forbes, all these older ships in the Pacific are not an “embarrassing sign of American weakness,” rather, it shows the U.S. is preparing to lose quite a few capital ships in an upcoming war with China.
And it would rather lose ships at the end of their service lives than far newer ones.
In other words, these warships reaching the end of their nuke reactors’ 50-year lifespans are ‘expendable.’
And China should take note; this makes them far more dangerous because, in some ways, they have nothing to prove. And they are preparing for a hard fight.
While the loss of life will be huge and tragic, if we are going to lose ships in the first days of a fight with China, it’s best to lose highly capable but far older nuclear-powered ships.
Having these ships on the front lines of any conflict with China gives U.S. commanders a different ‘risk calculus’ than having newer vessels in the line of fire.
It should make commanders more aggressive and less risk-averse.
As Hooper notes:
If America’s older ships and subs are being positioned to bear the brunt of any sudden Pacific provocation, then everybody needs to know that these old ships grant the U.S. Navy an unprecedented opportunity for disruption.
This is likely why the “Pacific Fleet’s aircraft carriers are, on average, a decade older than America’s East Coast-based carrier fleet.”
To drive this point home, America’s oldest aircraft carrier, the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) has spent most of the past two months operating virtually uncontested in the South China Sea.
Meanwhile, the Pacific Fleet’s 23 Los Angeles and Virginia Class nuclear-powered attack subs are almost seven years older than their 23 equivalents in the Atlantic.
Hooper explains:
Nobody wants to lose a ship. But if aggressive operations or some unexpected Chinese mischief sidelines a carrier, the loss of the 48-year-old USS Nimitz—with only a few years of service life left—is far less consequential to the U.S. fleet than the loss of the 6-year-old USS Gerald R Ford (CVN 78), a platform expected to serve for the next 45 years or so.
It’s important to note that this same warship’s ‘combat value’ calculus doesn’t necessarily apply to the conventionally powered fleet.
In the rest of the Navy’s 217 non-nuclear-powered vessels, more modern platforms usually offer quantitative improvements in combat effectiveness, survivability, and reliability. The Navy celebrates modernization, trumpeting the swap this month of the 30-year-old Yokosuka-based destroyer, USS Barry (DDG 52), with the newly-modernized, 21-year old, Flight IIA Arleigh Burke Class destroyer USS Shoup (DDG 86).
Still, when it comes to our nuke fleet, Hooper concludes:
Having old nuclear-powered ships in the arsenal is a big change for the Navy’s flamboyantly ageist ship management practices. Facing contested seas, rather than allow the oldest craft in the fleet to decay, America’s venerable nuclear vessels must be brought to a fighting pitch, and then kept ready to duke it out until the day they decommission. For a hard-pressed combatant commander, well-maintained older carriers and subs get better with age. A naval analog to Clint Eastwood, an old ship’s operational freedom often outweighs their increasingly cantankerous ship systems.
It seems the Navy understands this and is preparing for a high-intensity, high attrition with China in the near future. And in that fight, the Navy will need to be aggressive and take big risks.
It also means America needs to prepare for big losses, including the sinking of some major nuke-powered capital ships.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
READ NEXT: Notorious Dem Suffers Humiliating Defeat. Is It Too Late To Save Once-great City?
It makes sense to put the older ships nearing their “best by” dates than to sacrifice newer ships in the opening battle. The Chinese will likely use their very effective anti-ship missiles to destroy the carriers and their battle groups, rather than using nukes to take them all out at once. Using nukes would risk retaliation in kind and lead to the complete destruction of both sides.
I’m sure that’s great comfort to the personnel on those older ships…
Means we lose the whole Nimitz class CVs alone.
& the damn BS to get Ford class CVs up & running.
Remedy
Or rerun Battle of Coral Sea with More ships Lost