THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, January 7, 1995 TAG: 9501070265
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY DALE EISMAN, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium: 96 lines
After a holiday cease-fire, the Air Force and Navy have resumed a bureaucratic war over the size of America's fleet of aircraft carriers and the Air Force's suggestion that smaller, cheaper amphibious ships can handle some carrier missions.
In a letter circulating at the Pentagon this week, a senior Air Force official appeared to stand by arguments that the amphibious ships can meet part of the need to provide an American presence in overseas trouble spots. The service had signaled in November that it might back off that position, which had triggered a public tiff between the Air Force and the Navy.
The new Air Force letter also aggressively defended its contention that land-based Air Force bombers can supply overseas presence. The Navy says land bases, particularly those in foreign countries, are more vulnerable to attack than are carriers and that their use can be limited by host countries.
The dispute is central to a study ordered by Congress into the proper roles of all the services. A commission created last year is to report this spring on ways to stretch defense dollars further by reducing unneeded duplications of effort between service branches; the study has sparked efforts in each branch to mark off and protect its turf.
The Navy says its 12 carriers and their air wings, the single most expensive part of the nation's military arsenal, are irreplaceable in projecting American power abroad.
Carriers and amphibious ships ``have fundamentally different missions,'' Adm. Jeremy Mike Boorda, the chief of naval operations, said in a letter to the Air Force last month.
The Navy's 11 amphibious ships carry attack helicopters and Harrier ``jump-jets,'' along with up to 2,000 Marines. Their air power is used to support Marine landings. They do not carry the bombers and higher performance fighters of a carrier air wing.
Former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill A. McPeak suggested last year that the amphibious ships be considered mid-sized carriers and argued that they effectively give the Navy a 23-carrier fleet. That enraged Boorda.
After McPeak retired in October, his successor, Gen. Ronald Fogelman, agreed to let the Navy review and correct information McPeak had submitted to the study commission. Boorda says the Navy really has just 11 carriers, with the 12th available for emergencies but designated a training ship.
Boorda laid out his case in a letter to Fogelman in mid-December, drawing sharp distinctions between the two classes of ships and including a handwritten note praising the ``new spirit of cooperation'' between the two services.
But Fogelman's response, delivered to the study commission this week in the form of a letter signed by Maj. Gen. Charles D. Link, the Air Force's point man on roles and missions questions, essentially ignores Boorda's argument. ``We leave it to the commission'' to evaluate the Navy's position, Link wrote.
If the amphibious ships are classed as carriers, and assume carrier responsibilities, the size of the carrier fleet could be cut. That presumably would free up cash for the purchase of additional long-range Air Force bombers.
Link's new letter tersely dismisses Boorda's concerns about the vulnerability of foreign-based Air Force bombers or the possibility that host governments could limit their use.
``We are frankly perplexed'' at the Navy's arguments, Link wrote. ``Since the establishment of the United States Air Force, we know of no significant operation in which land-based air power has failed to contribute because of basing constraints.''
Navy officials argued privately that Air Force contributions to some operations have been limited by host country restrictions. Last fall, when American forces were rushed to the Persian Gulf to counter a possible Iraqi threat to Kuwait, they noted that Saudi Arabia limited the deployment of additional U.S. planes to bases in that country. ILLUSTRATION: Aircraft Carrier
George Washington, Nimitz class
Mission: Navy's ``airports at sea,'' operating aircraft that
attack targets on land, air and sea.
Length: 1,040 feet
Width: 252 feet (flight deck)
Cost: $3.6 billion
Aircraft: 85 Navy attack, bomber and support planes
Crew: Ship's company, 3,200; air wing, 2,480
Amphibious assault ship
Wasp, Wasp class
Mission: Landing ships, designed to put troops on hostile
shores.
Length: 844 feet
Width: 106 feet
Cost: $1.1 billion
Aircraft: 42 Marine troop-carrying helicopters, 20 Marine attack
planes
Crew: Ship's company, 1,100; Marines, 1,900
KEYWORDS: U.S. NAVY U.S. AIR FORCE DISPUTE by CNB