Why the U.S. Navy Needs Carrier "Battle Groups"

Why the U.S. Navy Needs Carrier "Battle Groups"

Calling a carrier-centric formation a carrier strike group broadcasts a false message.

In short, the carrier strike group was a concept befitting that brief, ahistorical interlude after the Cold War when no one could contest American command of the sea or saw much interest in doing so. That historical interlude has passed, and more normal—if more trying—times have returned. These days calling a carrier-centric formation a carrier strike group broadcasts a false message to key audiences about the state of seaborne competition. Worse, it bespeaks hubris, a cardinal sin for any naval commander. It suggests the U.S. Navy still owns the sea, and can venture where it will without opposition.

Would resurrecting the carrier battle group represent a cure-all for all that ails U.S. maritime strategy? Of course not. But rebranding and reconfiguring U.S. naval forces would constitute a modest measure that announces to many audiences that the sea services are getting in phase with competitive times. And Machiavelli and Boyd would smile.

James Holmes is Professor of Strategy at the Naval War College and coauthor of Red Star over the Pacific. The views voiced here are his alone.

This article first appeared in July 2017.

Image: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Michael A. Colemanberry