By Robert Farley
The United States’ Navy still faces a vibrant debate on the future of its aircraft carriers and supercarriers.
Last Friday, Commander Bryan McGrath (USN, ret.) and Captain Jerry Hendrix (USN, ret.) debated the future cost-effectiveness of the nuclear supercarrier. The United States Naval Academy provided the venue, the midshipmen the audience. The debate shed some light on how the USN thinks about its aircraft carriers, and potentially portended the future of the aircraft carrier debate across the Indo-Pacific.
Both McGrath and Hendrix have published extensively on military and naval affairs. McGrath was a national security advisor to the 2012 Romney campaign, and Hendrix currently heads the Defense Strategies and Assessments Program at CNAS.
McGrath took a pro-supercarrier position, arguing that the USN’s large nuclear carriers provide unique military capability and symbolic import. Large carriers enable high sortie rates, and big decks give the USN flexibility with respect to the development of an air group. McGrath argued that long-range nuclear carriers will continue to remain the critical platform for projecting US military power, even as the constitution and responsibilities of the air group change.
Hendrix was more circumspect with respect to the longevity of the carrier, noting that the United States is building ships in anticipation that they’ll serve for most of the 21st century, a virtually unprecedented run for a specific system in the modern era. Hendrix suggested that the roles played by carriers could be better filled by a combination of other ships and aircraft. Hendrix also noted the vulnerability of the modern carrier to anti-access/area denial systems.
Read the full story at The Diplomat