Calls to pare down heaviest weapons may get colder reception

11/22/2001

By ED TIMMS / The Dallas Morning News

Before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, some critics viewed the aircraft carrier as too big, too expensive, and perhaps headed to extinction.

And in the post-Cold War era, as politicians debated how the nation's military should be reshaped, the United States' fleet of strategic bombers also came under fire. With no more Soviet Union, was there really a need for so many expensive bombers designed to penetrate hostile Soviet airspace?

But as the war in Afghanistan unfolded, aircraft carriers and strategic bombers have played dominant roles.

So far, a majority of the air sorties in the conflict have been flown from aircraft carriers.

Aircraft from the USS Enterprise and the USS Carl Vinson began pounding a variety of targets early in the conflict, including airfields, radar sites, terrorist training camps, and armor. The USS Theodore Roosevelt later joined in the action. Another carrier, the USS Kitty Hawk, become a floating launchpad for U.S. special operations units and their helicopters.

And strategic bombers have delivered a substantial portion of the bombs dropped on targets in Afghanistan.

The venerable B-52 Stratofortress has proven to be particularly effective at pounding the Taliban regime's front lines, which has contributed to substantial tactical gains by the Northern Alliance.

As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld promoted reform of the nation's military earlier this year, cuts in the number of aircraft carriers and strategic bombers were among the options being discussed.

Military and political leaders debated reducing the number of carrier task forces (currently 12) and redirect the savings to other weapons systems.

However, when the Quadrennial Defense Review was made public on Sept. 30, the number of carriers stood.

An Air Force spokesman said Wednesday that there were still plans to reduce the number of B-1 bombers by a third and upgrade the remainder, although that option has met with opposition in Congress.

Dr. Ron Hatchett, director of the Center for International Studies at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, also sees a renewed appreciation for bombers and aircraft carriers.

"The fact that we can fly strategic bombers from the continental United States and strike anywhere in the world, that's got to be a big plus," said Dr. Hatchett, a senior Defense Department arms-control negotiator during the Reagan administration. "If we were not able to get basing rights for other airplanes, here's an example of how we can have a global reach."

Dr. Hatchett also predicted that aircraft carriers would get a new lease on life as the United States pursues its war on terrorism. Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist organization, he said, operates in countries across the globe, from the Philippines to South America to Africa.

"It is these floating aircraft bases that we have, the carrier battle groups, that are going to give us the capability to operate offshore in areas around the world," he said.

As soon as the United States' war against terrorism focused on Afghanistan, logistics were a headache for military planners. The rugged, land-locked nation was surrounded by nations that were at best neutral. Leaders of Muslim countries in the region worried that allowing the United States to launch large-scale military operations from within their borders might lead to dangerous political instability.

Access to bases near Afghanistan would make it easier to launch more airstrikes, keep more U.S. aircraft flying in strike zones, and to re-supply. But that option wasn't available until recently.

A senior defense official confirmed earlier this week that government officials in the former Soviet republic of Tajikistan had made available airfields for use by U.S. land-based aircraft.

In the meantime, airstrikes launched from carriers have kept up the pressure on Afghanistan's Taliban regime and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network.

Those missions are not easy. Carrier pilots have to refuel multiple times to reach Afghanistan and return. And, because of the range, their so-called "time-over-target" is limited. That becomes more of an issue if pilots are patrolling a specific area looking for targets of opportunity.

A loitering bomber, carrying guided munitions, has the potential to limit the movements of the Taliban and al-Qaeda soldiers and keep them on edge.

"This is a case in which what you'd love to be doing is have bombers flying ... four-, six-, eight-hour patrols over Afghanistan," said Dr. Daniel Goure, a former director of the Defense Department's Office of Strategic Competitiveness.

Dr. Goure, now an analyst with the Virginia-based Lexington Institute, said maintaining similar coverage with shorter-range tactical aircraft was much more difficult.

Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at the Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, said a bomber modernization program was needed desperately.

"Bombers can go global at a moment's notice," he said. "The bottom line is they're not limited by having to find some sort of basing area. It doesn't matter how far inland the target it, the bombers can get there."