Thanks for the article Jonathan.
via Military Times.
We've been round and round about how the F-35 is causing the Army and Marine Corps to slash procurement of the GCV, AMPV, MPC, ACV and maybe even delay upgrades to the AAV.
We've talked about the USAF retiring entire classes of aircraft like the A-10 and the KC-10 (our biggest aerial tanker) but nothing has been said about the carriers.
If we get down to 9 or 8 carriers from the current level then not only has the Navy been seriously downsized but the need for the current number of fighter wings goes away too. And one other thing. Has anyone noticed that of all the services, only the Navy hasn't stated what it will cut to protect the F-35? The USMC cut the Marine Personnel Carrier, delayed the Amphibious Combat Vehicle and is looking at cutting the number of personnel. The Army is doing the same and so is the Air Force. The Navy hasn't put any cards on the table. The only thing we've heard is that carriers might be cut...and that is talk by analyst, not the CNO.
This is worth keeping an eye on.
via Military Times.
What this means is that the Pentagon will probably not have to cut readiness substantially,” said Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a think tank in Washington.Read the entire article here.
Yet that money is not eliminating the long-term threat of the spending caps known as sequestration, which may include big cuts to the size of the active-duty Army, a reduction in the size of the Navy’s carrier fleet and slashing the number of Air Force squadrons. Other proposals include closing military bases, reducing the military retirement package and canceling future weapons procurement.
We've been round and round about how the F-35 is causing the Army and Marine Corps to slash procurement of the GCV, AMPV, MPC, ACV and maybe even delay upgrades to the AAV.
We've talked about the USAF retiring entire classes of aircraft like the A-10 and the KC-10 (our biggest aerial tanker) but nothing has been said about the carriers.
If we get down to 9 or 8 carriers from the current level then not only has the Navy been seriously downsized but the need for the current number of fighter wings goes away too. And one other thing. Has anyone noticed that of all the services, only the Navy hasn't stated what it will cut to protect the F-35? The USMC cut the Marine Personnel Carrier, delayed the Amphibious Combat Vehicle and is looking at cutting the number of personnel. The Army is doing the same and so is the Air Force. The Navy hasn't put any cards on the table. The only thing we've heard is that carriers might be cut...and that is talk by analyst, not the CNO.
This is worth keeping an eye on.
Normally one-half to two-thirds of the ten carriers are in port, on-third of them for long periods of time (overhaul). Given those facts, anybody know how many carrier air contingents (fighter wings) there are on average?
ReplyDeleteQuoted from Navy Matters: What few people seem to realize is that current air wings are around half the size of air wings from the '80s. In 1981 the typical air wing had 5 squadrons (VF & VA) totalling 60 aircraft. These are the combat planes. The remaining helos, ASW, AEW, electronic warfare, etc. brought the total to around 92 planes. Compare this to the current air wing which consists of 4 squadrons (VFA Hornets) totalling 44 combat planes and around 60-64 for the overall wing size. Going further, the Navy has already announced that when the F-35 enters service, the squadrons will be reduced by 2-4 planes, each. Note - WWII Essex class carried around 100 combat planes!
DeleteFor those interested in the numbers, here are the Air Wing sizes as of April 2012 as listed in the May 2012 issue of Proceedings.
CVW-1 44 combat / 58 total
CVW-2 46 combat / 70 total
CVW-3 45 combat / 66 total
CVW-5 46 combat / 67 total
CVW-7 44 combat / 59 total
CVW-8 44 combat / 70 total
CVW-9 44 combat / 75 total
CVW-11 44 combat / 67 total
CVW-14 46 combat / 55 total
CVW-17 44 combat / 59 total
The large variation in the totals is due to some Air Wings carrying an extra squadron of helos, for some reason.
40-some Hornet family aircraft today deliver more firepower than bigger carrier air wings before them. All are JDAM capable. Where 4 aircraft can do the work of a day-only alfa-strike many years before. Or better than the A-6 with less risk. Although it would be nice to have JDAM capable bombcats back on the carrier agin.
Deletewhy do you say its better than the A6 in the attack role? the A6F would have had F-18 engines, much much better range, a heavier bomb load, long loiter time, operate at approx the same speed and carried similar avionics. all cheaper than an F-18.
DeleteGot to say that the fewer the air wings, hulls and the less inhabitation of the systems, the more likelyhood of Quisling strike never mind an alpha.
DeleteCome 2020 there will be imPOTUS, common purpose "leadership", fewer aviators and EZboy diversity compliant drones. ChiComms are going to be pissing themselves when they hit the bars from Manila to Changi.
I cannot decide whether US forces are going to face a 7AD moment a Xenephon mess or a USSR 1941 crisis with no Mongols to save the day!
Incoming my ass rotffl!!! Yeah lack of budget .... meh. we are the original sleeping giant. If the standing forward forces fail....bullshit - we have the a-bomb. If they kill enough US troops to really get the US going there wont be any chicomms anymore.
DeleteA-6 had range but not survivability. Yes, it could have been upgraded, but like the A-7, the A-4, etc. it wasn't. Would a modern version of the A-6 and bombcat be useful? Yes, but we don't have them. For interdiction and strategic strike, F-18s with JDAMs beat an old alfa-strike or even night low level interdiction with the A-6 and dumb-iron. The JDAM can be released outside of whole families of trashfire, AAA, small battlefield SAMs like the S-8/9 and a lot of other stuff. My point being is comparing the paradigm of the carrier air wing from where we came. Today it is even safer on approach speed and accident rates. Think of how this disaster --- ---- would have been done today, with 4-6 Hornets with JDAM and JSOW.http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_278.shtml
ReplyDeleteThe carrier fleets of old had a different world to live in. Air Force didn't have enough refueling, missiles frequently missed, destroyers didn't have the AAW capabilities of today, there was a lack of anti ship helicopters the list goes on.
ReplyDeleteI'm a fan of having a fighter rich ratio on carriers, but if we really need more aircraft over the water than they have they should come from the Air Force, rather than skimping on the other types to make room for them.
F-22s for the planes, and B1Bs and F-16s for anti ship attacks.
There is the off chance that the mission of a triton/greyhound/hawkeye/rotary might be a higher priority than having another F-18 on the deck everyday.
As far as the number of carriers go, we should try to keep ten because of continuous backsliding. 8 carriers is really the bare bones minimum. A fleet isn't complete without a carrier, there are 6 fleets and as with any other ship there has to be contingency for losing some of them.