I 
115TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. R. 941 
To increase the number of operational aircraft carriers of the Navy, and 
for other purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
FEBRUARY 7, 2017 
Mr. CONAWAY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Armed Services 
A BILL 
To increase the number of operational aircraft carriers of 
the Navy, and for other purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘12 Carrier Act’’. 
SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 
(1) The aircraft carrier can fulfill the Navy’s 
core missions of forward presence, sea control, en-
suring safe sea lanes, and power projection as well 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H941.IH
H941
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
as providing flexibility and versatility to execute a 
wide range of additional missions. 
(2) Forward airpower is integral to the security 
and joint forces operations of the United States. 
Carriers play a central role in delivering forward air-
power from sovereign territory of the United States 
in both permissive and nonpermissive environments. 
(3) Aircraft carriers provide our Nation the 
ability to rapidly and decisively respond to national 
threats, as well as conducting worldwide, on-station 
diplomacy and providing deterrence against threats 
to the United States allies, partners, and friends. 
(4) Since the end of the cold war, aircraft car-
rier deployments have increased while the aircraft 
carrier force structure has declined. 
(5) Considering the increased array of complex 
threats across the globe, the Navy aircraft carrier is 
operating at maximum capacity, increasing deploy-
ment lengths and decreasing maintenance periods in 
order to meet operational requirements. 
(6) To meet global peacetime and wartime re-
quirements, the Navy has indicated a requirement to 
maintain two aircraft carriers deployed overseas and 
have three additional aircraft carrier capable of de-
ploying within 90 days. However, the Navy has indi-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H941.IH
H941
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
cated that the existing aircraft carrier force struc-
ture cannot support these military requirements. 
(7) Despite the requirement to maintain an air-
craft carrier strike group in both the United States 
Central Command and United States Pacific Com-
mand, the Navy has been unable to generate suffi-
cient capacity to support our combatant com-
manders and has developed significant carrier gaps 
in these critical areas. 
(8) Because of continuing use of a diminished 
aircraft carrier force structure, extensive mainte-
nance availabilities result which typically exceed pro-
gram costs and increase time in shipyards. These ex-
pansive maintenance availabilities exacerbate exist-
ing carrier gaps. 
(9) Because of maintenance overhaul exten-
sions, the Navy is truncating basic aircraft carrier 
training to expedite the deployment of available air-
craft carriers. Limiting aircraft carrier training de-
creases operational capabilities and increases sailor 
risk. 
(10) Despite the objections of the Navy, the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Tech-
nology, and Logistics directed the Navy on August 
7, 2015, to perform shock trials on the U.S.S. Ger-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H941.IH
H941
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
ald R. Ford (CVN–78). The Assistant Deputy Chief 
of Naval Operations for Operations, Plans and 
Strategy indicated that this action could delay the 
introduction of the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford (CVN– 
78) to the fleet by up to two years, exacerbating ex-
isting carrier gaps. 
(11) The Navy has adopted a two-phase acqui-
sition strategy for the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy 
(CVN–79), an action that will delay the introduction 
of this aircraft carrier by up to two years, exacer-
bating existing carrier gaps. 
(12) Developing an alternative design to the 
Ford-class aircraft carrier is not cost beneficial. A 
smaller design is projected to incur significant de-
sign and engineering cost while significantly reduc-
ing magazine size, carrier air wing size, sortie rate, 
and on-station effectiveness among other vital fac-
tors when compared to the Ford-class. Furthermore, 
a new design will delay the introduction of future 
aircraft carriers, exacerbating existing carrier gaps 
and threatening the national security of the United 
States. 
(13) The 2016 Navy Force Structure Assess-
ment states ‘‘A minimum of 12 aircraft carriers are 
required to meet the increased warfighting response 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H941.IH
H941
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS