[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

Network,  Mk 41 Vertical Launch System, Federation of American
Scientists, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-41-vls.htm
(accessed October 30, 2006).
17. See Robert O. Work (colonel, USMC, ret.), The Challenge of Maritime
Transformation: Is Bigger Better? (Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments, 2002), 70.
18. The calculations are as follows. 1989: 13 carriers x 162 aimpoints a
day = 2,106 aimpoints a day; 2004: 11 carriers x 693 aimpoints a day =
7,623 aimpoints a day. Again, it is important to emphasize that these are
simply theoretical maximums used for comparative purposes only. The
number of aimpoints hit per day in a real-world operation, over long ranges,
or in the face of credible air defense, would be much less. For a more sober
view on the number of aimpoints that can be hit per day, see B. W. Stone
(lieutenant, USN),  A Bridge Too Far, Proceedings 131, no. 2 (February
2005): 31 35.
19. See, for example, A. D. Baker III,  World Navies Are in Decline,
Proceedings 130, no. 3 (March 2004): 32 49.
20. See Stephen Saunders (commodore, RN), ed., Jane s Fighting Ships,
2004 2005, 107th ed. (Surrey, England: Jane s Information Group, Ltd,
2004); and Eric Wertheim, ed., Combat Fleets of the World 2005 2006
(Annapolis, Md.: U.S. Naval Institute Press, 2005).
21. Saunders, Jane s Fighting Ships; Wertheim, Combat Fleets of the World.
22. Department of the Navy, Interim Report to Congress on Annual Long-
Range Plan(s) for the Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2006 (Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, March, 2005). For good summaries of
this report, see Christopher P. Cavas,  U.S. Navy Sets 30-year Plan, Defense
News, March 28, 2006; and David Ahearn,  Navy Carrier Force Drops to 10
in 2014, But Surge Ability Unchanged, Defense Today, April 5, 2005.
23. For a description of the Navy s complete plan, see U.S. Department of
the Navy, Report to Congress on the Long-Range Plan for Construction of
NOTES TO PAGES 87 94 159
Naval Vessels for FY 2007 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
2006).
24. I am indebted to Dr. Eric Labs, Congressional Budget Office, for pro-
viding me with these figures.
25. Congressional Budget Office, Options for the Navy s Future Fleet
(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, May 2006), xvi.
26. These assumptions were illuminated by a series of briefings and dis-
cussions among Navy officials, the author, Ron O Rourke, senior defense
analyst at the Congressional Research Service, and Eric Labs from CBO s
National Security Division.
27. Admiral Clark called for a diversion of funds from R&D to ship pro-
curement, pointing out that the R&D budget in his last year was nearly
$9 billion higher than when he took office in 2000; see Christopher P.
Cavas,  U.S. CNO: Find Ship Funds in R&D, Defense News, July 11,
2005, 24.
28. Copy of the Navy s FY 2007 Unfunded Deficiency List, provided to the
author by Steve Kosiak, senior budget analyst, CSBA.
29. See Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of Force Transformation,
Alternative Fleet Architecture Design (Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 2005).
30. U.S. Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report,
February 6, 2006, http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/QDR20060203.
pdf (accessed October 30, 2006).
31. For a good summary of the development of the AirLand Battle Doc-
trine, see John L. Romjue,  The Evolution of AirLand Battle Concept, Air
University Review (May June 1984), http://www.airpower.maxwell
.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1984/may-jun/may-jun84.html (accessed
October 19, 2006).
32. The references to Navy shipbuilding plans in the following sections
come from two main sources: the aforementioned U.S. Department of the
Navy, Report to Congress on the Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval
Vessels for FY 2007; and J. F. McCarthy Jr. (captain, USN),  Recapitalizing
the Navy s Battle Line, a PowerPoint presentation given at a Department of
the Navy Media Roundtable on June 8, 2006.
33. The French, Brazilian, and Russian navies operate one each.
34. This plan assumes Congress will approve the early retirement of the
conventionally powered John F. Kennedy.
35. David Brown,  Ready to Hone Ship s Details, Defense News, April 12,
2004; Christopher P. Cavas,  DoD Cancels Review of Healthy CVN-21
Program, Defense News, June 6, 2005; and Lorenzo Cortes.  CVN-21
160 NOTES TO PAGES 94 99
Will Be the  Big Hammer of ESF, Admiral Says, Defense Daily, April 9,
2004, 4.
36. Lorenzo Cortes,  Navy Aims For Higher CVN-21 Sortie Rate Over
Current Nimitz-class Aircraft Carriers, Defense News, January 23, 2004; and [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]