In deciding to build nuclear-powered surface combatants, the Navy believed that the greatest benefit would be achieved when all the combatant ships in the task force were nuclear powered. The centerpiece of these task forces, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, would be escorted by nuclear-powered surface combatants and nuclear-powered submarines. Throughout the 1960s and most of the 1970s, the Navy pursued a goal of creating a fleet of nuclear carrier task forces. Instead they opted to keep the industrial base alive with new production while retiring two, three, or even four of the existing carriers, which would avoid expensive mid-life overhauls like the one the USS George Washington is due to start in 2014.

None of them even stopped building the new Ford-class carriers. None of the four teams in a recent “budget wargame” simulating the next 10 years chose to scrap all the flattops or even most of them. In early 2014 four top think tanks - AEI, CNAS, CSBA, and CSIS - presented cutting the number of carriers as the “least unacceptable” option to deal with the deep budget cuts known as sequestration. At the president's budget level, we would pay for the overhaul and maintain 11 carriers.' But keeping the George Washington in the fleet would cost $6 billion, so we would have no other choice than to retire her should sequestration-level cuts be re-imposed.

That would leave the Navy with 10 carrier strike groups. If sequestration spending levels remained in place in fiscal year 2016, she would need to be retired before her scheduled nuclear refueling and overhaul. However, we will have to make a final decision on the future of the George Washington aircraft carrier in the 2016 budget submission. Defense Secretary Chucke Hagel said in a 24 February 2014 briefing: 'The spending levels proposed under the president's budget plan would also enable the Navy to maintain 11 carrier strike groups. The defense budget proposal for 2015 will keep an 11th aircraft carrier in commission.

CBO’s estimate is $12.3 billion per ship. The Navy estimates an average cost of $11.3 billion for the 6 carriers in the 2016 shipbuilding plan, the CVN-80 through CVN-85. To maintain a force of 11 carriers that serve in the fleet for 50 years would require purchasing 1 ship every 4½ years rather than 1 every 5 years as is called for under the Navy’s current plan. However, with a 50-year expected service life, the force would fall to 10 carriers in 2040 and beyond. That plan would be sufficient to maintain a force of 11 aircraft carriers through 2039. Under its 2016 shipbuilding plan, the Navy would purchase 6 aircraft carriers between 20, at a rate of one every five years (referred to as five-year centers). The Department of Defense (DoD) submitted to the Congress the Navy’s 2016 shipbuilding plan for fiscal years 2016 to 2045 in April 2015. In fact, I just spoke with Navy and industry leaders and have discussed my plans to undertake a major expansion of our entire Navy fleet, including having the 12-carrier Navy we need.” “In these troubled times, our Navy is the smallest it’s been since World War I. On 02 March 2017 Donald Trump called for a 12-carrier Navy during a visit to the future USS Gerald R. The '2016 Navy Force Structure Assessment (FSA)' of 14 Decmber 2016 stated 'A minimum ofđ2 AircraftĜarriers are required to meet the increased warfighting response requirements of the Defense Planning Guidance Defeat/Deny force sizing direction.'

Us carrier battle group cost