Today, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, made the following opening statement on the joint hearing, "Aircraft Carrier – Presence and Surge Limitations. Expanding Power Projection Options:"
"Today the subcommittee meets to discuss our aircraft carrier fleet and the challenges we face in meeting presence and surge requirements and sustaining our ability to project power overseas.
Our panel of distinguished guests testifying today includes:
• The Honorable Sean J. Stackley, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition
• Vice Admiral John C. Aquilino, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Operations, Plans and Strategy (N3/N5)
• Rear Admiral Michael C. Manazir, Director for Air Warfare (N98)
• Rear Admiral Thomas J. Moore, Program Executive Officer for Aircraft Carriers
Distinguished guests, thank you for being with us today.
In preparing for this hearing today, I was reminded of a quote by a former president: 'When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it’s no accident that the first question that comes to everyone’s lips is: Where’s the nearest carrier.'
Even President Obama has realized that this axiom is alive today. When the ISIL blitzed across Syria and into Iraq, a forward-deployed carrier was the first responder, providing the entirety of strike capacity for the first 54 days of conflict.
Our carriers are incredibly capable platforms that can carry out a variety of missions in all the phases of military operations. But for all their advanced technology and tactics, our carriers are still only capable of being in one place at one time, and remain subject to the tyranny of distance and arithmetic.
For decades, it has been U.S. policy to maintain a '1.0' carrier presence in both the Middle East and Asia, with one carrier and its strike group continuously on station in each region. Unfortunately, if another crisis or conflict were to break out in the Persian Gulf today, and the President were to ask where is the carrier, the only sound he would hear would be the sound of silence.
This is because for the first time since 2007, the United States is unable to provide a carrier to Central Command for a three-month period. Meanwhile, despite talk of a 'pivot' or 'rebalance' to the Asia-Pacific, carrier gaps have been even more frequent in that region.
This shortfall in forward presence is concerning by itself, but it is only part of the carrier deterrence and warfighting equation. To deter and prevail in large-scale conflicts, the Navy assesses it needs two carriers forward and three more carriers ready to 'surge' into action under short notice. Unfortunately, as the former CNO recently said, we currently have only one carrier ready to 'surge,' leaving our Navy well short of the warfighting requirement.
In short, '2+3' is what we need from our carriers—two carriers forward deployed in the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific, plus three more ready to surge.
That is the demand side of the carrier equation. But on the supply side, our ability to meet that demand is constrained by a fleet of only 10 carriers—1 below the statutory requirement—and the prospect that deployment of our newest carrier, the GERALD FORD, could be further delayed. In short, the numbers just don’t add up.
I am pleased that this administration has recognized the harm that the high OPTEMPO has been doing to the ships and sailors that make up our overextended fleet. But while we seek to stabilize the demand for carriers, we should also seek to maximize their supply.
In 2013, one of our witnesses today said that we had an '11-carrier navy in a 15-carrier world.' In the two years since, our carrier fleet has shrunk, and the world has indisputably grown more dangerous. Our “carrier equation” is out of balance, and it is incumbent upon this committee, to work with our witnesses and the rest of the Navy to make sure that our carrier fleet is capable of meeting the demands for forward presence and surge capacity in a sustainable fashion.
I am committed to making that happen, and look forward to our discussion."
