First from back in the day...
What you see above is a fully realized airwing. Strikers to go far and conduct alpha strikes. Recon planes to conduct post strike analysis in real time and to ferret out targets of opportunity...long range anti-sub airplanes to keep enemy subs away from the carrier battlegroup...even helicopters to do the close in anti-sub work and to rescue downed air crews.
Then the aircraft carrier today...
What do you see here? A largely empty deck. Helos to do the traditional anti-sub, logistics and rescue work and one type of fighter to do fleet defense, strike, recon and other work.
Gone are the still modern A-6F (prototype), the S-3 Viking, and the potentially potent F-14 Super Tomcat.
Naval Aviation is broken. Its underfunded and stretched thin. 11 carriers is way too much and only adds strain to the aircrews and the ship crews.
A move to 8 or even better 6 big deck carriers should be more than sufficient. 3 on each coast with one in refurbishment, one in deployment and one in training/refit prepping for deployment should be more than adequate.
If a big war were to arise then they can be surged to the trouble location. Name one time when we needed more than one carrier on location and didn't have time to surge it to the area?
You can't. Because its never happened.
6 will do fine and will allow the Navy to fully utilize its assets while saving money.
But what about a large war with China, and spread over most of the western Pacific, and 3 or 4 carriers aren't enough?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWe need to keep the CVN numbers at 11 (at the least- 12 would be preferable). For starters, not all carriers are available at an given time as has been pointed out elsewhere. Secondly, it's MUCH easier to ramp up naval aircraft production if required than it is to reinvent the ability to build CVNs. Thirdly, one carrier can only be in one place at a time and that one place may not be where you need it. Are we going to race our 3 or 4 deployed carriers around the globe,leaving their normal operating areas without carrier coverage, everytime a crises presents itself? Consider during Desert Storm we had SIX (6) carriers operating in that theater in support of the war. And that was back when they had real airwings. But because we had more carriers we could still have a presence elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteBills article was nothing more than an attempt to pit the two models of F-35 against each other in hopes of persuading some that one version isn't needed. They're both needed. Notice that even with the 11 supercarriers we have NONE were available for Libya. That kind of thing is going to continue to happen. We need to keep those CVN numbers up, and we need to keep the CVN production line humming to keep that number as is. Figure it takes five years to build a carrier, that's 50 years to replace ten carriers, which is about the lifetime they're being designed for these days. Drop production rates and you will inevitably drop the numbers in service.
I thought the reasons for no CVNs around Libya was due to our President's political reasoning and us already having an LHD in the area.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJust FYI, back in the day, a full carrier wing might typically look like this:
ReplyDeleteF-14 - 24
A-7E - 24
A-6E - 10
S-3B - 10
HH-60 - 2
SH-60 - 4
E-2C - 4
EA-6D - 4
KA-6D - 4
Total - 86
With the miscellaneous C-2 or extra E/KA-6 or two thrown in as well. As one can see, not only have numbers dropped, but we've lost a lot of range (the Tomcat, Intruder, and Corsair II all had better range than the Hornets). We've also lost ASW capability in that S-3s are no longer carried.
However cutting the number of CVNs and redistributing the aircraft is not the solution. Cutting the number of CVNs is a bad idea for reasons already mentioned. And doing so won't bring back ASW or long range strike ability anyway. What should be done (and probably will be) is have the X-47B UCAS (or whatever they're calling it these days) fill the role of the A-6E and KA-6D (it could be a dumbed-down for the tanker version if that would be cheaper) and make an ASW version of the V-22 (that was one of it's originally envisioned roles anyway). So you could end up with a wing that looked like this:
F-35C - 24
F/A-18E/F - 24
F/A-18G - 6
X-47B - 10
KX-47B - 6
E-2D - 4
SH-60 - 4
HH-60 - 2
SV-22 - 10
Total - 90
just as a heads up...even with current numbers there is no way that you will see 24 Navy F-35's on a carrier unless the Navy and Marines dramatically increases the number of F-35C's bought.
ReplyDeleteyour number of F-18's look right...i don't see a KX-47B coming online anytime soon...and the SV-22 is just a dream. the Navy had a requirement to buy thme but has yet to pull the trigger. i don't think they ever will.
long story short...you might plus up to 60 aircraft....but how are you going to justify 11 carriers?
The projected USN buy is 480 "C's" Even if you cut that in half that's still enough for 24 per carrier. (Not all carriers are deployed at the same time.)
ReplyDeleteJustifying 11 isn't hard. With 11 there will only be 6 or 7 available at any given time (others will be in overhaul, training, etc.) and we're using all we have NOW. It's not like we have them sitting around collecting dust. Now bring China into the mix with their desire to field a blue water navy and if anything we're going to see those 11 get stretched thin. Then there's the possibility of a resurgent Russia (who've said recently they want to build a few more carriers). There's a reason they wanted 15 carriers in Lehman's navy. And I can't emphasize this enough: with only one shipyard capable of building CVNs if at some point we decide we needed two more carriers it will take at LEAST 10 *years* to make it happen and that's including putting off scheduled retirements. The phrase "come as you are" applies to carriers probably more strongly than any other piece of military hardware.
It wouldn't be ideal by any stretch of the imagination but would a tanker variant of the C-2 Greyhound work?
ReplyDeletethe Navy has had several solutions to its tanker issues...the KA-6....the S-3 did tanking work....the C-2 could do it but for some reason they're in love with the buddy tanking solution.
ReplyDeletewhy? i don't know but there you have it.
My take on the subject...
ReplyDeleteThe problem is the JSF, its not "Joint" enough! Its three different planes, for three different needs even though it has a LOT of the same parts. Ok fine, each branch needs something different... or do they? The Air Force, Navy, Marines all flew the F-4 Phantom II right? That was a NAVY jet. All the branches flew the Corsair II right? That was a NAVY jet! The A-3 started off life as a carrier based jet then was developed in to a Air Force jet the B-66, again a NAVY jet. The FJ-1 became the basis for both the USAF's F-86 and the Navy's FJ-2,3,4 Fury. See a pattern? A Navy jet can fly just fine off a normal air base, but it gets the added bonus of being able to fly off a carrier.
What does this mean? The USAF should have bought the F-35C and learned carrier operations to supplement the Navy! The Brits did that with their Harriers... back when they had them that is.
What about the Marines? well I think they should have purchased it too, and the new America class LHDs should have been converted to an angled deck design, FCOL they are 850 feet long that's only a 100 feet shorter than a Midway class carrier and 250 feet (length of a cat) shorter than a Nimitz. So it might only have two maybe three cats instead of four and things might be a little tight but it lets all three branches fly the EXACT same plane: we are talking 100% interchangeability of combat aircraft.
I'm sure there is a flaw in my marvelous idea but there it is... shame no one in the Pentagon would listen...
jointness is a buzz word which is going to die a well deserved death.
ReplyDeletejoint came to be known as operating the same gear in the same way to the same desired outcome.
thats not what joint operations was suppose to mean. it was suppose to mean that each service would have specializations...things it did better or things that only it could do and the other services would work with them masking weaknesses in war fighting effort. in essence they were suppose to have each others back not do the same shit.
i don't care about past examples. your idea would basically have the Marines go out of business because any move to make the LHD's into small carriers would make the air wing supreme. its not in the Corps. Grunts rule and the Ground Combat Element is the king. not the air wing.
you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Marine Corps mission and how it fits into the US defense establishment.
oh and if you want perfection in the way that you're talking about then we can go back to the F-16, F-18 debate and come up with this idea.
ReplyDeleteevery airplane purchased for the US should be carrier capable. sounds good but you're in essence killing off the Air Force.
"every airplane purchased for the US should be carrier capable. sounds good but you're in essence killing off the Air Force."
ReplyDeleteI prefer to think of it as a retroactive abortion...
Although I think it may become the opposite, the death of the Navy's air service. The USAF would most likely in the end operate and service the planes while the Navy operates and services the ships that get them there.
"i don't care about past examples. your idea would basically have the Marines go out of business because any move to make the LHD's into small carriers would make the air wing supreme. its not in the Corps. Grunts rule and the Ground Combat Element is the king. not the air wing.
you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Marine Corps mission and how it fits into the US defense establishment."
Honestly the way I see it is that the Navy is having to operate a type of ship just so the USMC gets to have fixed wing jets. LPDs can operate marine helicopters and carry their troops just fine, all the LHD/LHA does is allow for VTOL fixed wing jets which are only flown by the USMC. In fact I could make the argument that all the branches should have adopted the F-35B, but the USAF doesn't really VTOL. The Navy could go either way but I know it would rather stick to CATOBAR. That leaves the Marines the odd man out doesn't it?
The LHAs and LHDs ARE principally aviation ships and their airwing is the centerpiece: it is what gets the marines ashore and provides the support for them when they are there. Without it the Grunts are stuck offshore.
Does a CATOBAR America class prevent it from accomplishing the mission? No its still an amphibious ship except it has EMALS and arresting gear. Does that mean it can accomplish other missions: YES! The current LHD/LHAs do just that, they were intended to have a secondary role as ASW Carriers! Despite its name the USMC has very little to do with subMARINES, so having sub hunting Seahawks had little to do with the Marines but factored in to the design in a major way. In the end all it would do is allow the Navy to fly its own planes of its own ships when the Marines are not needed, and allow the Marines/USAF to fly of a Navy carrier when they are needed.
Well its 12:30am and my thoughts are becoming incoherent, good night....
you're wrong. your idea is crap. and i don't even know why i'm entertaining what i consider to be utter nonsense.
ReplyDelete@TLAM Strike: Making LHA/Ds into pseudo-Midways is a stupid idea (not to mention expensive). And making all fighters carrier capable would just make them more expensive. 'nother bad idea. I swear to hear you, you'd think they never studied all of this, did the trades, and arrived at the best decision.
ReplyDeleteSoloman, its real easy to call someone a dumb ass and their ideas crap on the internet and not bother responding in an intelligent manner and point out a flaw in the strategic, technical or operational nature of an idea.
ReplyDeleteI figured you if anyone could discuss an idea rationally. If you can't, then I won't bother anymore.
lets get real.
ReplyDeletei've checked out your postings and you're one of those guys that just likes to stir shit up.
additionally between you, Thomas and Joe, i'm ready to trash comments on my blog all together.
get this straight.
i do this because i like to. not for your approval. not to here your dumbass ideas.
so bye! have a good life and if i ever see you in person then talk this same shit then....understand this boy. everyday of my adult life i have to try real hard to keep from punching the shit out of all the arrogant, know it alls that i run into.
you're no different.