Renewing versus Refitting: The Case Against Reactivating Mothballed Nimitz-Class Carriers
Introduction
When considering the viability of reactivating mothballed Nimitz-class carriers, several factors come into play. This article will explore why building new carriers might be a more cost-effective and efficient approach. We will delve into the complexities and costs associated with refitting carriers, the challenges in securing the necessary personnel and resources, and the eventual limitations of an aging vessel's service life.
The Cost and Complexity of Refitting
The process of refitting a mothballed Nimitz-class carrier is not only time-consuming but also extraordinarily expensive. When a carrier is mothballed, various decks that are exposed to the elements are susceptible to corrosion, weather damage, and structural issues. Refitting such a vessel would involve a complex series of steps that can take several years to complete.
One of the major components of refitting is the reactors. Refueling a nuclear reactor involves complex operations that can take anywhere from 3 to 5 years. This procedure, known as Reactor Change Out Hardware (RCOH), necessitates extensive access to multiple decks to service the reactor. Additionally, the process of mothballing a carrier involves leaving decks exposed, which can lead to issues if not properly maintained. Ensuring the integrity of these decks requires either a specialized crew to manage maintenance or a significant amount of time and funding.
The Intractable Challenge of Human Resources
The human resource requirement for operating and maintaining a Nimitz-class carrier is substantial. A typical Nimitz-class carrier requires approximately 5,000 sailors and air wing personnel. Securing and training such a large number of individuals for a refitted vessel is a daunting challenge. Moreover, modernizing existing warships is already a resource-intensive process, and the Nimitz-class is slated for a shorter lifespan compared to other types of vessels, making it a less viable option.
Furthermore, the task of finding the necessary support ships and escorts to form a carrier battle group is non-trivial. Specialists in shipyards, naval architects, and altogether qualified personnel are essential, but they are in high demand and often come at a premium cost. Introducing an older vessel back into active service would require either a large displacement of current efforts or a substantial increase in training and deployment timelines, both of which come with additional financial burdens.
Comparing New Construction to Refitting
Comparing the cost and efficiency of new construction with refitting, it becomes apparent that building a new carrier is a more economically sound decision. The current cost to modernize an Nimitz-class carrier, considering inflation, is in the billions of dollars, making it a third of the cost of a new carrier. Nexicon, for instance, took over 6 years to build from the time it was laid down to commissioning, while a new carrier built today would only take around 5-6 years, proving a quicker and less costly solution.
The cost of refitting a nuclear reactor, such as the one on the USS Roosevelt, took 4 years and nearly $3 billion. In contrast, the estimates for new carrier production are much more straightforward and would allow for faster deployment. Additionally, when a carrier goes into service, it requires a continuous supply of spare parts. Building a new carrier guarantees the availability of these parts, unlike an older vessel where spare parts can be scarce and difficult to procure.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the challenges associated with refitting mothballed Nimitz-class carriers are significant and can be outweighed by the benefits of building new vessels. The time, cost, and personnel requirements for refitting not only make it a less economically viable option but also present logistical challenges that can be avoided with new construction. It is therefore more logical to build new carriers rather than trying to reactivate old ones.