 |
| An MV-22 Osprey maneuvers on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) during test operations. George H.W. Bush is in the Atlantic Ocean conducting carrier qualifications. |
They have more carriers than aircraft.
Check out that flight deck. One MV-22 and maybe a couple of Sea Hawks...pathetic. It will piss the Admiral's off but the Navy really only has one of two options to keep the current number of carriers and be considered serious.
The first option is to establish a partnership with the US Marine Corps and deploy an enhanced SPMAGTF (aviation centric...AMOS should love that) with the idea of embarking maybe two Battalion Landing Teams to act as regional reinforcement for CENTCOM.
They would bring along extra MV-22's, CH-53E's, AH-1Z's and UH-1Y's....along with a beefed up AV-8B force.
This should be a more than credible spear against small boat attacks, provide an enhanced TRAP option in the event of planes going down etc...
The second option would be to team up with SOCOM...get the 160th on board and maybe a company or two of Rangers along with some Special Forces Detachments and give them the super mothership that they've been begging for.
I like option one best but hey....that's just me.
Either way, the Navy has a carrier problem and unless they start sending ships to sea with full compliments (I'm talking upwards of 90 aircraft) then the carrier force is in danger of serious cutbacks.
UPDATE:
It just occurred to me that I just endorsed a proposal that I shot down weeks ago. Let me clarify. Marine Corps detachments aboard aircraft carriers with "full" compliments of their aircraft is a waste of Marine Corps personnel. Designating an aircraft carrier and having it switch to being a super LHD is different. It becomes a Marine Corps centric vessel instead of having Marines along as dead weight.
Not to shoot down your proposal or anything, however the George W. Bush is undergoing sea qualifications. Isn't this the first step towards becoming a full fledged member of the maritime fleet?
ReplyDeleteyeah it is but the problem is that this is an all too common occurrence. additionally the carrier air wing is approximately half of what it once was.
ReplyDeleteif the Navy was being honest it would admit that it has too many carriers...too few aircraft and is protecting probably the biggest driver in its budget.
they're about to shit can 7 cruisers to save money. cruisers that are less manpower intensive, have outstanding throw weight and can operate independently.
all things considered its a big price to pay.
Sol,
ReplyDeleteTo take your idea a bit further, why not convert the Nimitz and Ike into 'commando carriers' like the Brits did with some of theirs? Make it an all Marine air group with a few F-18's added. You could get rid of 2 of the 4 catapults to save on maintenance costs. That would make for an interesting strike group.
to be quite honest that's even better.
ReplyDeleteand we're on that road anyway. take a look at the America class LHA! its one half the size of a Nimitz class...who would ever have thought that an LHA would soon approach 50,000 tons?
and thats the real rub. a carrier deploying a Special Marine Air Ground Task Force (MEU)(-) would have real striking power in one package.
ooooh you gave me an idea for a post. time to see what could be packaged on a carrier!
They typically deploy with ~60 aircraft. There is nothing wrong with this as it still allows them to surge if necessary. Not only that cutting your number of hulls just so you can stuff more aircraft onboard is slitting your own throat. A carrier can only be in one place at a time whether it has 60 aircraft or 90 onboard. Not only that it's a HELL of a lot easier to build more aircraft to fill out that airwings than to build new carriers when you've figured out you made a mistake.
ReplyDelete"Commando carrier"? Which theaters are you going to shortchange so you can have these? Reading some of the posts here I honestly believe some of you think all carriers are at sea 24/7/365. Reality is quite different.
we're well aware of carrier deployment cycles but let me ask you this. if the tech could be made equal which would you rather sail with...a carrier from the 80's with almost 100 aircraft on it or a carrier today loaded with MAYBE 60?
ReplyDeletethe older carrier airwings had more throw weight, could more successful pursue and kill subs, had a better deep strike capability and a more robust fighter wing.
i also get that F/A-18's are multi-role fighters but common sense tells me that if we want to have the same capability that we had in the "old" days then we need to get the numbers back up.
oh and building carriers and airplanes have become a luxury occupation. Lockheed Martin is trying to put the hustle back into it but the procurement system is fighting them.
and why would having a commando carrier shortchange any arena? the proposal is to have a complete MEU aboard one with out the vehicle component...it leaves armor behind and becomes all air. including F-18's today and F-35's later.
Different missions. The USN's CVN's are for sea control and deep strike. The entire CVBGs are designed for that mission.
ReplyDeleteYes, back in the day, they carried a lot more iron - because they had to. But outfit those groups with todays weapons and sensors and they'd fight rings around todays airwing. The Super Hornet can't touch either the A-6 Intruder or A-7 Corsair II in the range department. One other thing that comes to mind though is by keeping the airwing around 60 (either by necessity or by design) it makes it that much easier to fill them out with say, X-47Bs and F-35s. The USN really screwed the pooch when it comes to carrier air wings (no Vikings, no NATF, no ATA) but maybe in the end it will be a blessing in disguise. The X-47B (assuming we take a development into production) has a LOT of potential. Longer range than anything else on the deck, and maybe make a dumbed down version and it's got lots of volume for a tanker. With the USN's CEC capability you could probably even have them out there as AIM-120D carriers with E-2Ds cueing them.
Stupid question.
ReplyDeleteDo aircraft normaly live on deck?
I assumed they were normaly carried internaly?
I thought it was just when carriers were overloaded or activly running operations that fighters were seen on deck.
Or photo ops.
No?
Hello The raging Tory,
ReplyDeletegoing way back in to the depths of history,the Royal Navy used to carry only those aircraft which could be kept in the hangar.
The United States Navy used to keep aircraft parked on deck which allowed them to carry many more aircraft.
Eventually the British moved over to doing things the American way.
GrandLogistics.
sorry for the late reply. Grandlogistics is exactly right. i might add that the British moved to carrying aircraft aboard deck following experience in the Falklands war.
ReplyDelete