U.S. carrier fleet to be reduced?

[F-15 Eagle]

I read that Robert Gates want to cut the carrier fleet from 11 active carriers to just 10. By delaying the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford and have it so they build carriers only every 5 years instead of 4 years. But the U.S. needs 12 active ships not just 10. I hope Congress will help maintain America's carrier fleet.

[Firn]

Why does the US need 12 active carriers? Why not 10? It rather seems to be an arbitrary number, doesn't it, without further arguments to back it up.

[Feanor]

I believe there are certain deployment patterns, but I don't know what they are, and whether 10 ships is enough or not.

[ASFC]

I read that Robert Gates want to cut the carrier fleet from 11 active carriers to just 10. By delaying the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford and have it so they build carriers only every 5 years instead of 4 years. But the U.S. needs 12 active ships not just 10. I hope Congress will help maintain America's carrier fleet.

Americas available CVN number is 9, with one in RCOH and another in sea trials (to make 11 overall).

The reality is that with only one yard building Carriers, you would be hard pushed to get the numbers up to 12, and the US Defense budget is going to get squeezed in the coming years, requiring a lengthening of build times (as CVNs are 'big ticket' targets during cuts!).

However, as these decisions ultimately fall with the money men (Congress!) I wouldn't get too worried just yet, as it is not quite reality at the moment. I don;t see Congress letting any 'cuts' through lightly.

[F-15 Eagle]

Americas available CVN number is 9, with one in RCOH and another in sea trials (to make 11 overall).

The reality is that with only one yard building Carriers, you would be hard pushed to get the numbers up to 12, and the US Defense budget is going to get squeezed in the coming years, requiring a lengthening of build times (as CVNs are 'big ticket' targets during cuts!).

However, as these decisions ultimately fall with the money men (Congress!) I wouldn't get too worried just yet, as it is not quite reality at the moment. I don;t see Congress letting any 'cuts' through lightly.

Yeah I agree.

I believe there are certain deployment patterns, but I don't know what they are, and whether 10 ships is enough or not.

There is certain deployment pattens and Congress even said 11 is not enough, they need 12.

Why does the US need 12 active carriers? Why not 10? It rather seems to be an arbitrary number, doesn't it, without further arguments to back it up.

Why should the U.S. reduce to 10? What arguments do you have to back up that 10 is enough and 11-12 is too much?

[kev 99]

Don't forget now although the CVNs are proposed to come down the America class LHA does mean there will be a number of supplemental mini carriers available with F35bs on them and greatly enhanced avaition facilities over the current LPD/LHAs.

[Sea Toby]

The US Navy also attains its number of fleet assets by building up from zero. When you cut a carrier battle group, several escorting ships are cut, along with a carrier air group. Logically the number of carriers reflect one carrier forwardly deployed for every three carriers to sustain the fleet composition. When you wish to have a carrier deployed to the WestPac, three are required. When you wish to have a carrier deployed to Europe, three are required. We are up to six already. If you desire two carriers deployed to WestPac and Europe, twelve are required.

Simply put, the US cannot afford to do so much longer. After the Cold War many have suggested the US could easily have the same influence with just one carrier forwardly deployed to WestPac and Europe. Unfortunately, with the war on terrorism, in the eyes of Congress and the new administration the US requires one carrier in the IO as well. Nine is the magic number. But the IO is such a long distance, four carriers are required instead of three to sustain one. Thus ten is the magic number.

With one of the ten in a long term nuclear refueling process for the for-see-able future the US Navy should have eleven. Obviously, reducing to ten means the US Navy will have to sustain a carrier deployed to the IO with three instead of four. While this can be done, carriers in the IO will have to deploy for more than six months on a regular basis.

As it is with WestPac, the US Navy have been home basing one carrier in Japan. I suspect we could do the same with the IO with a home based carrier in either Singapore or Australia. But that requires considerable diplomacy. While Australia may welcome such a decision, I doubt New Zealand would.

[MacPac]

Please tell Congress "More SEA Beased Air Support is needed" NOW!
I think it is a mistake to reduce our Naval Air Wing capability by one dollar.
Given the economic state we are in, it will not last. We can always increase funding, you can't always make up the time lost maintaining a modern navy.
Use the technology we have today so we can to build a better (more responsive) defence.

Opportunity knocks... case in point Somalia... tactics are changing we need to change with them. We can't do that if we are spread too thin.

The need for these platforms will be here... will we have them? ;):confused:

[Firn]

Thanks Toby for explaining things, it seems to me that the idea of homebasing a carrier fleet in the IO would be an interesting and relative efficient option to project the same power with less fleets. It is not unlikely that Gates may plan something along this line. Perhaps the diplomatic abilities/chances of the new US administration could allow the US to do so.

[outsider]

I suspect we could do the same with the IO with a home based carrier in either Singapore or Australia. But that requires considerable diplomacy. While Australia may welcome such a decision, I doubt New Zealand would.

Basing a Carrier in Australia sounds like a good idea, although I think there would be considerable opposition from anti-american segments of the population.

Also, I wonder if Geo-Strategically and with piracy going crazy in somalia if it would be a good idea or even possible, to station a carrier in one of the East Coast African Nations like, Kenya, Tanzania or Mozambique. Not sure if its possible or even if they'd be willing, but just throwing it out there as an idea, to see what people think.

[kev 99]

Basing a Carrier in Australia sounds like a good idea, although I think there would be considerable opposition from anti-american segments of the population.

Also, I wonder if Geo-Strategically and with piracy going crazy in somalia if it would be a good idea or even possible, to station a carrier in one of the East Coast African Nations like, Kenya, Tanzania or Mozambique. Not sure if its possible or even if they'd be willing, but just throwing it out there as an idea, to see what people think.

Also the anti nuclear lobby, HMS Invincible was refused dry docking because she might of been carrying nuclear weapons and the RN refused to say.

[AegisFC]

You guys are getting ahead of yourselves. The Enterprise will be decommed on time, leaving a gap until the Ford comes on line. The 5 year build cycle will result in a permanent force of 10 carriers past 2040, if nothing is done.

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/04/budget-press-briefing-as-prepared-for.html

We will shift the Navy Aircraft Carrier program to a five-year build cycle placing it on a more fiscally sustainable path. This will result in 10 carriers after 2040.

A lot of things can happen between now and 2040, and a future DoD may want to go back to the current build rate, so for right now this isn't something to get worked up about.

he US Navy also attains its number of fleet assets by building up from zero. When you cut a carrier battle group, several escorting ships are cut, along with a carrier air group. Logically the number of carriers reflect one carrier forwardly deployed for every three carriers to sustain the fleet composition.

They didn't cut escorts when the JFK and the Kitty Hawk were decommed, they were just moved to other groups, same with the air wing.

[Sea Toby]

After the Cold War escorts were cut more or less before the carriers were cut from 13 to 11. I recall the Brooke, Garcia, and Knox class frigates being cut without replacements. I recall the nuclear cruisers of the California and Virginia classes being cut without replacement. The Spruance and Kidd class destroyers were cut before their replacements were built. I recall the vast majority of the Sturgeon class submarines were cut as well without replacement as well.

The Navy at one time had 550 ships not so long ago during the Reagan administration, now its near 300. Yes, the cuts have been made.

[KiwiRob]

I think I read somewhere that by law the USN has to have 11 carriers, so dropping one CVN would be illegial.

[Sea Toby]

A law can be changed. So can a constitutional amendment. For example, read about Prohibition.

[Salty Dog]

Don't forget now although the CVNs are proposed to come down the America class LHA does mean there will be a number of supplemental mini carriers available with F35bs on them and greatly enhanced avaition facilities over the current LPD/LHAs.

I would keep the F-35B/LHA/LHD systems separate from the CVN/F-35C. While there should be no doubt the F-35B is capable of fleet air defense, it's main mission in an Amphibious Ready Group is air-to-ground to support the MEU as the Harrier II it replaces. There are also significant differences in type commander and operations command structures.

[F-15 Eagle]

So what happens to the cruisers, destroyers, frigates and other ships as part of the carrier battle group once the U.S. Enterprise in decommissioned and the Gerald R. Ford will take a year longer before it enters service?

[Sea Toby]

Most likely replace other ships having refits on a rotational ad hoc basis. Never assume a destroyer this year escorting one carrier won't be escorting another carrier next year.... The fleet is flexible as per warship.

[swampfox]

I think I read somewhere that the Navy used a '4-2-1' battle plan, I.E. defeating decisively in a theater with 4 carriers, fighting well in a theater with 2, and deterring enemy activity in a theater with 1. This plan left 4 carriers open for repairs or refueling at any given time. I'm not a naval engineer, mind you, but I think that 4 carriers out at once is too much.

[rjmaz1]

Most people fail to forget that the US Navy is building a lot of these ships.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/lha-r-2005-image100.jpg

Notice the F-35B's on the back.

The America class LHA ships are so big that any other country would call them a full blown aircraft carrier.

Having less carriers is a very good idea. Less carriers means less escorts. So reducing the carrier force by a single carrier has a massive carry on effect where billions will be saved each year from eliminating a single carrier.

This surely will reduce the amount of firepower available. But if you spend some of that money saved on better aircraft you'll actually have more overall firepower for less money.

For instance if you only had a single aircraft carrier and it was equipped with X-wing starfighters you've have more firepower than a dozen US Navy carriers fitted with F-35's.

So with the current lack of money and potential reduced budgets, instead of having a large number of aircraft carriers and struggling to fill them up with aircraft, you'd be better reducing the number of carriers and filling them up with the latest aircraft and spend any money on upgrades for greater overall firepower.

[swampfox]

Notice the F-35B's on the back.


I can't see the picture very well; what are those vehicles on the front of the flight deck?

[Sea Toby]

Troop lifting and/or ASW helicopters. LHDs are amphibious assault ships which can carry Harriers and helicopters. Naval helicopter rotor blades fold up for better tighter storage.

[kev 99]

Most people fail to forget that the US Navy is building a lot of these ships.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/lha-r-2005-image100.jpg

Notice the F-35B's on the back.

The America class LHA ships are so big that any other country would call them a full blown aircraft carrier.

I pointed that out on the first page;)

[swerve]

Most people fail to forget that the US Navy is building a lot of these ships.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/lha-r-2005-image100.jpg

Notice the F-35B's on the back.

The America class LHA ships are so big that any other country would call them a full blown aircraft carrier.....
True - about the size of Gorshkov, a bit bigger than the current USN LHDs & LHAs. But so far, only one is building. The funding for a second one was cut in 2006, & the future of the class is undecided.

[harryriedl]

True - about the size of Gorshkov, a bit bigger than the current USN LHDs & LHAs. But so far, only one is building. The funding for a second one was cut in 2006, & the future of the class is undecided.
Stuipid question dose the America class have a carrier hull form or a LHD type because that could be a limitation. It seems like a perfect ship to stick a ski jump.

[swerve]

There are schematics on globalsecurity.org

It looks more like an LHD, but without the dock. I think there's a stern ramp for boats. LHD speed, not carrier speed. An LPH/STOVL carrier, really. And I don't know why they haven't put a ski-jump on it.

[Sea Toby]

There are schematics on globalsecurity.org

It looks more like an LHD, but without the dock. I think there's a stern ramp for boats. LHD speed, not carrier speed. An LPH/STOVL carrier, really. And I don't know why they haven't put a ski-jump on it.

Because the American LHA/LHDs have longer flight deck and ramps, the ski jump isn't required. Not to mention there is most likely a super carrier along as well.

[kato]

Because the American LHA/LHDs have longer flight deck and ramps, the ski jump isn't required.
The Tarawas and Wasps? Generally considered some of the worst Harrier platforms. The short flight deck without ski jump on them doesn't allow Harriers to launch with full payload.

[GC13]

Carriers are expensive, we have a lot of them, we don't have any wars scheduled where we need a lot of them, and we're looking to cut the budget. I can understand freaking out if they decided to chop three at once, but one? It's pretty much a lost cause.

[swerve]

Because the American LHA/LHDs have longer flight deck and ramps, the ski jump isn't required. Not to mention there is most likely a super carrier along as well.
USMC pilots who've flown off Invincibles have been full of praise for the ski-jump. It allows them to take off in worse sea states, & at higher weights, despite the ships being smaller. For the loss of, at most, one helicopter spot, that seems a good trade-off.

I strongly suspect a bad case of NIH syndrome, but I think the official justification is that the ships are primarily amphibs, not carriers, & a ski-jump compromises that. I don't see how that applies to LHA-6, though.

[Salty Dog]

USMC pilots who've flown off Invincibles have been full of praise for the ski-jump. It allows them to take off in worse sea states, & at higher weights, despite the ships being smaller. For the loss of, at most, one helicopter spot, that seems a good trade-off.

I strongly suspect a bad case of NIH syndrome, but I think the official justification is that the ships are primarily amphibs, not carriers, & a ski-jump compromises that. I don't see how that applies to LHA-6, though.

On spot mate. IMHO USMC Harriers are primarily for battlefield support vice sea control/fleet air defense for the rest of the world's Harriers. LHA-6/F-35B will change that as these new systems will most definitely have sea control as a mission.

BTW the F-35B has passed STOVL thrust tests:

Lockheed Martin F-35B Exceeds STOVL Thrust Requirement (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2009/090423ae_f-35-hover-pit-ground-tests.html)

Hover–Pit Ground Tests Validate Propulsion System and Aircraft Response

FORT WORTH, Texas, April 23rd, 2009 --

The F-35B Lightning II short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variant has demonstrated during testing that it produces excess vertical thrust – more than required to carry out its missions. The tests, conducted on a specially instrumented “hover pit,” also validated the performance of aircraft software, controls, thermal management, STOVL-system hardware and other systems.

“The performance level measured was absolutely exceptional,” said J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed Martin F-35 Air Vehicle lead. “We demonstrated 41,100 pounds of vertical thrust against our requirement of 40,550 pounds.This means we will deliver excellent margin for the vertical landing and short takeoff performance we’ve committed to our STOVL customers,” he said. Those customers include the U.S. Marine Corps, the United Kingdom’s Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, and the Italian Navy and Air Force.

[Sea Toby]

LHA 6 America
Length:844 feet (257.3 meters)
Beam: 106 feet (32.3 meters)

L61 Juan Carlos I
Length:231.8 metres (760 ft)
Beam: 32 metres (100 ft)

R05 Invincible
Length:209 m (690 ft)
Beam: 36 m (120 ft)

I repeat, because of the American ships longer take off runs, the ski jump isn't necessary. I have also read that the F-35Bs require a longer take off run than what the Invincible provides, that the Cavour and Juan Carlos were sized to permit Lightning IIs operations.

[harryriedl]

On spot mate. IMHO USMC Harriers are primarily for battlefield support vice sea control/fleet air defense for the rest of the world's Harriers. LHA-6/F-35B will change that as these new systems will most definitely have sea control as a mission.

BTW the F-35B has passed STOVL thrust tests:

Lockheed Martin F-35B Exceeds STOVL Thrust Requirement (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2009/090423ae_f-35-hover-pit-ground-tests.html)

And even if its solely battlefield support allowing a take off with higher loads and more efficiently at the cost of a heavy Helo spot. It would be cheap to implement as well. All i can hope is that America will have one later in its life

[Salty Dog]

And even if its solely battlefield support allowing a take off with higher loads and more efficiently at the cost of a heavy Helo spot. It would be cheap to implement as well. All i can hope is that America will have one later in its life

I forgot to mention that battlefield support for the USMC Harriers also means possible forward deployment to the battlefield, where of course, there are no ski jumps.

I seriously doubt we´ll ever see any ski jumps on USN carrier decks.

[Will]

It's a good idea to base a carrier in or near the Indian Ocean to shorten travel to/from patrol areas. There's more to a home port than the port itself - the surrounding community should be suitable for the sailor's families. That probably rules out most developing nations. There's also political cost - you'd move many $M of both government & private spending overseas. There will be strong opposition from the congressman & senators that represent a US city in danger of losing a carrier task force.
It is more important to the USN that an LHA/LHD is a good base for helos than it is for AV-8 & F-35. Therefore no ski jumps. If the day comes that it's the other way around, it will probably be because of events that are very, very bad for the USA & it's allies.

[swerve]

...It is more important to the USN that an LHA/LHD is a good base for helos than it is for AV-8 & F-35. Therefore no ski jumps. If the day comes that it's the other way around, it will probably be because of events that are very, very bad for the USA & it's allies.
True of the Wasp & Tarawa classes, but LHA-6 is a very different beastie. It is far more of a carrier than the older ships, with one envisaged air group having 22 F-35B.

[Salty Dog]

It's a good idea to base a carrier in or near the Indian Ocean to shorten travel to/from patrol areas. There's more to a home port than the port itself - the surrounding community should be suitable for the sailor's families. That probably rules out most developing nations. There's also political cost - you'd move many of both government & private spending overseas. There will be strong opposition from the congressman & senators that represent a US city in danger of losing a carrier task force.

It is quite complex and costly to "homeport" a carrier overseas. It's not just the CVN, it's the entire battlegroup, which includes air wing and escorts. This also means intermediate maintenance facilities to service ships and aircraft, something the USN has the luxury of in Japan. As for families overseas, it's already a strain to have families homeported in Japan, just ask any of them.

Diego Garcia is strategically located in the Indian Ocean with an excellent airstrip and maritime pre-positioning force. Also, there usually is a Carrier Strike Group and/or Expeditionary Strike Group in or about the Indian Ocean.