The Pentagon’s controversial proposal to retire the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman halfway through its useful life could be dropped if the Navy doesn’t find another way to provide the same firepower in the near future, defense officials told Congress Tuesday.
Both acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford told the House Armed Services Committee that saving money by not refueling the carrier’s nuclear reactors is a difficult trade-off intended to increase the lethality of the naval force, but if that doesn’t happen, the decision to scuttle the Truman will be revisited.
“There isn’t a drawdown of capacity until mid-2020, so it’s not like this is an irreversible decision,” Shanahan testified. “We can change these decisions.” Shanahan noted that the Navy is updating its plans for a 355-ship force, including new unmanned platforms that could provide the same kind of maritime strike capability as a traditional aircraft carrier.
“An important assumption is that the money that was saved by not refueling the Truman would be used to develop new ways of conducting maritime strikes,” said Dunford. “If that assumption doesn’t obtain, then we’ll have to go back to the secretary and have a conversation about reversibility of the decision.”
The Navy is investing billions in the new Gerald R. Ford-class of all-electric aircraft carriers that can generate more sorties of aircraft and field a new generation of directed energy weapons.
“Aircraft carriers are vital now and vital into the future,” Shanahan said. “The Truman decision was made in concert with a two-carrier buy as we looked at how do we increase lethality.”
The Pentagon estimates that retiring the Truman early, by not refueling its reactors as scheduled in 2024, will save $3.9 billion.
Members of Congress are highly skeptical that the projected savings are worth it.
“You’re losing 25 years of tested and capable presence with that aircraft carrier by retiring it early, and we’ve invested a lot of money in that carrier. You’ve also already spent $500 million in purchasing reactor cores to refuel that carrier,” said Rob Wittman, R-Va., the ranking member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.
Joe Courtney, D-Conn., called the decision to dismantle the Truman “premature,” especially considering the savings in 2020 totals just $17 million, compared with the $500 million sunk cost of the reactor cores that are just sitting on the shelf, with no other obvious use.
“That doesn’t add up to a very good business case,” said Courtney.
