Ed. Note: Congressman Kasich is one of the more influential members of Congress. He is the present chairman of the House Budget Committee and the fourth ranking member of the National Security Committee. The Hook is pleased to have an opportunity to publish his views.
Carrier aviation is expensive. An aircraft carrier and its air wing costs about $9 billion, and a battle group requires about $800 million a year in direct operating costs. However, this cost shrinks in comparison with the cost of fighting a war. The success of carrier aviation should not only be counted in wars fought but also in wars not fought. This spring, few would doubt the presence of USS Independence (CV-62) and Nimitz (CVN-68) off Taiwan served to moderate bellicose Chinese behavior. United States' interests were made clear without a direct threat. The possibility of a Chinese miscalculation leading to an inadvertent war was reduced sharply.
With this recent history, carrier aviation has an assured future in Congress. However, we in Congress also face the need to exercise the budgetary restraint to eliminate the federal deficit through which interest payments take increasingly larger shares of federal expenditures. Even national security must stand the scrutiny of the test of wise use of taxpayers' dollars. I am not sure current plans for carrier aviation pass this test.
The question is not whether to fund carrier aviation. The question is what carrier aviation to fund? Recent testimony by Navy leaders admits a "bow wave" in funding requirements in Fiscal Year 2002 -- a year when both Houses of Congress and even the President agree the budget will be brought into balance. Although the Future Years Development Plan does not yet extend that far, Navy plans suggest the FY 2002 procurement of CVN-77 and of 48 F/A-18E/F aircraft. Also, there will be ongoing large development expenditures for the Joint Strike Fighter.
The first question that will be asked in Congress is why? The Navy will not have had an all-weather strike aircraft since 1998 and will not have one until at least 2012 -- possibly later. In the meantime, the Marine Corps Short Takeoff-Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of the Joint Strike fighter will be coming into service at about the same time as CVN-77. One of the chief arguments for the large-deck carrier is to accommodate all-weather medium strike aircraft. The Navy will be without such an aircraft for 15 to 20 years. In that case, why buy another large deck carrier? Could the present mission be performed by existing carriers or, if replacement ships are needed, can they be smaller ships designed to carry Advanced Short Takeoff and Landing (ASTOVL) versions of the Joint Strike Fighter?
The FY 2002 aircraft procurement will face similar questions. The bulk of Navy aircraft procurement dollars will be sucked up by the F/A-18E/F, but this is not a long-range, first-day-ohwar, all- weather strike aircraft. The S-3 Viking will be running out of service life, the E-2 Hawkeye will be getting old and the F-14 Tomcat will be reduced in numbers. Carrier aviation will have difficulty playing a sign)ficant role in a major regional conflict. At this point, Congress has a duty to ask whether the F/A-18C/D can still perform the presence and low-intensity missions for the next decade. The Marine Corps plans on maintaining their F/A-18D force through 2010 until the Joint Strike Fighter is available. Why cannot the Navy follow the same course?
When faced with the myriad of details of the Defense budget, Congress must make judgments. Waste is evident but sometimes hard to prove. For example, I have tried for years to get a full just)fication of the $75 billion Defense Business Operating Fund -- I am still trying. In other cases, track records help form our judgment. The A-12 and P-7 disasters still are fresh in congressional memories. Congress will be skeptical of Naval Aviation plans unless the Navy makes a convincing case for current plans. So far, this case, encompassing the entire spectrum of conventional conflict, has not been made. Until it is made, Naval Aviation budgets will risk tough questions in Congressional debate.