shrinking USN carrier air wings

This concept, if it does materialize, will probably shrink them even more!

Narrowing the Global-Strike Gap with an Airborne Aircraft Carrier

Related discussion

Even without some IRBMs hitting them, the USAF may one day "sink" USN carriers, without firing a shot!

Firehorse said:

Even without some IRBMs hitting them, the USAF may one day "sink" USN carriers, without firing a shot!

Click to expand...

Hardly. The USAAF proposed the euthenasing of the USN after Hiroshima, it was proposed again by USAF in the late 40's and it was actively pursued by LeMay and his acolytes throughout his career. The B-29, B-36, B47, B-52, B-58, B1 and B2 were all supposed to be the death knell of the carrier. Now it's the B3 and ballistics. The problem with the latter is that there are already 3 visible responces available that can be fast tracked way ahead of the targetting development required to make an IRBM an AShM viable. There's a development and temporal flux divergence.

Its a perennial turf publicity war and has no legs. Both sides of politics see and know the advantages of the Carrier.

IRBM's as AShM? Yeah right! Welcome to THEL and Ship Based THEL within the life cycle of deployed capability. Considering that the THEL has now become a ship based reality with the already tested and POC developed super conductors, I'm guessing that the USN will have not only VLS ABM/ASAT but SBGD THEL well before any IRBM's get set up and accurate enough for deployment.

If anyone ever gets to ballistic anti-shipping capabnility beyond teenage speculation, then theSN can also roll out CAP ASAT as well. Thats two existing ABM/ASAT technologies and a 3rd that had been POC'd.

Guess who has the upper hand? (as well as guess who will tense up as soon as a ballistic weapon goes into launch and cycle and decides that they won't gamble on it being anti-shipping, treat it as a continental or land attack and respond with overmatch). Have you checked the nuke vehicle ratios of China to the US?

Launching an IRBM is one of the dumbest things they could ever do. It has as much credibility as the USAF/USN turf war resulting in the senior service getting its teeth pulled.

IMO, all those defences could be overhelmed, and the USAF is going to get some hypersonic bombers, not to mention space-based systems, to target any spot on Earth within hours/minutes. The only way for the USN to stay in the game, in the long run, is to develop submarine aircraft carriers!

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread275833/pg4

The Seaplane must return or the surface Navy is finished! IMO, they may come handy for sub-carriers!

Firehorse said:

IMO, all those defences could be overhelmed, and the USAF is going to get some hypersonic bombers, not to mention space-based systems, to target any spot on Earth within hours/minutes. The only way for the USN to stay in the game, in the long run, is to develop submarine aircraft carriers!

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread275833/pg4

The Seaplane must return or the surface Navy is finished! IMO, they may come handy for sub-carriers!

Click to expand...

Must...not...laugh...!
Their is a good thread on this forum about hitting a ship with a ballistic missile, I suggest you search and read it.

Firehorse said:

The Seaplane must return or the surface Navy is finished! IMO, they may come handy for sub-carriers!

Click to expand...

Gah, a Sparky link spotted.

Btw, i could see seaplanes having some remote chances in operations that do not warrant a helicopter or aircraft carrier deployed.
As in two or three utility/observer/attack aircraft forward-deployed with a barge for support - in places where a land helo base would be compromised too quickly, but that's about it. Of course you could just as well rebuild a barge to support helo operations (as in 1987), would be cheaper...

kato said:

Gah, a Sparky link spotted.

Click to expand...

I havent dealt with sparky in my travels! Tell you the truth i'm kind of jelous, (wanna know what all the fuss is about the infamous sparky:loony )

Btw, i could see seaplanes having some remote chances in operations that do not warrant a helicopter or aircraft carrier deployed.
As in two or three utility/observer/attack aircraft forward-deployed with a barge for support - in places where a land helo base would be compromised too quickly, but that's about it. Of course you could just as well rebuild a barge to support helo operations (as in 1987), would be cheaper...

Click to expand...

Sea UAV's would provide more capability & enduracne with less of a support footprint. Even from capital ships launching a UAV rather than an 1940's esk sea plane is much more realistic. The mighty missouri had a artillery spotter UAV IIRC before she was decommed.

AegisFC said:

Must...not...laugh...!
Their is a good thread on this forum about hitting a ship with a ballistic missile, I suggest you search and read it.

Click to expand...

I agree, and I wouldn't want to be a sailor serving in a navy that invested in submarine aircraft carriers.

Considering where submarine tech is actually moving, thats a sure fire way as a marine engineer to be without work....

kato said:

Gah, a Sparky link spotted.

Btw, i could see seaplanes having some remote chances in operations that do not warrant a helicopter or aircraft carrier deployed.
As in two or three utility/observer/attack aircraft forward-deployed with a barge for support - in places where a land helo base would be compromised too quickly, but that's about it. Of course you could just as well rebuild a barge to support helo operations (as in 1987), would be cheaper...

Click to expand...

Well, check out "Seaplanes for Seabases" and some consulting office wank:

http://cisd.dt.navy.mil/div/cisd/files/1092848197_seaplanes wo animations (sname-09dec2003).pdf

http://www.moireinc.com/resources/documents/SeaMaxMulti-MissionSeaplane.pdf

As for your duties, does not Fire Scout fill that position exactly?

For transport duties, imagine if British had a few good transport flying boats in Falklands operations? It would have transformed the operation entirely.

Jon K said:

snip
For transport duties, imagine if British had a few good transport flying boats in Falklands operations? It would have transformed the operation entirely.

Click to expand...

Could you please flesh this one out a bit, I'm intrigued?
Just how exactly would they have helped? At what timepoint?
And what size transport flying boat are we talking about here, Sunderland, or C-17 on floaties?

rb

rossfrb_1 said:

Could you please flesh this one out a bit, I'm intrigued? Just how exactly would they have helped? At what timepoint?
And what size transport flying boat are we talking about here, Sunderland, or C-17 on floaties?

Click to expand...

Well, I think even a Sunderland equivalents would have been of great help. Let's take a few points. After all, a lot of the offloading at San Carlos Bay was made by helicopters. With flying boats a significant amount of this offloading could have been made outside Argentinian Air Force striking radius, sea state permitting. With flying boats delivery of equipment (mail, spare parts, additional forces) for Task Force would have been also much easier.

When the land campaign began with flying boats the amount of yomping would have been lessened, at least supplying the forces would have been easier. Topography of Falklands includes, after all, inlets suitable for operations.

The carrier fleet is shrinking as well- so far they only plan to build 3 of the new G. Ford class-

First unit (CVN-78) is scheduled to begin construction in 2007 and to be placed in commission in 2014 to replace USS Enterprise (CVN-65), by then 53 years old. The Navy's FY2006 budget submission, however, defers procurement by one year; she would then enter service in 2015, thus creating a temporary (at least one year) reduction in the carrier force. CVN-78 was officially named Gerald R. Ford, after the nation's 38th President, on January 16, 2007.
Second unit (CVN-79) is scheduled to start construction in 2012 and slated to be placed in commission in 2018. The FY2006-2011 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), however, defers procurement beyond FY2011. CVN-79 would feature several improvements over CVN-78.
Third and final (?) unit (CVN-80), would be procured "a few years after" CVN-79.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/78.htm

Click to expand...

Bottom line: less new CVNs means less AWs, unless they keep the older ones longer!

Firehorse said:

Bottom line: less new CVNs means less AWs, unless they keep the older ones longer!

Click to expand...

That's a considerable oversimplification.

Capability is not dependant on hull or asset count.

A current generation air wing has much more capability and task overmatch than one from the cold war. It's a point that has been made time and time again when people bemoan that the Reagan 600 hull navy has been replaced by a much smaller one.

It also ignores the reality that the real estate issue is far from tested. It also ignores the fact that current disposition is at a peace time footing - the USN has no need to trawl around blue waters at cold war fitout and capacity levels. At a war footing they more than have the capacity to backfill and overcommit all of their carriers with not only USN but USMC assets.

Capability is about meeting the task efficiently and effectively - its got nothing to do with numerical levels. It's about capability and logistics.

Firehorse said:

The carrier fleet is shrinking as well- so far they only plan to build 3 of the new

Click to expand...

They may only be planning on buying 3 Ford class but the next gen CVN is on the drawing board and will be procured after the Fords. The Nimitz's are not facing block obsolescence so large orders are not needed at this time.

-One personal gripe though, I really wish the USN would stop naming their carriers after not-so-great politicians, their are plenty of better names than Gerald Ford, Reagan or Bush.

Frankly, we are out of good names, the last carrier not named after a president was Carl Vinson, a Democratic congressman, and then Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, our last 5 star admiral. Of course, I would like to see the return of Enterprise, Ranger, Lexington, Saratoga, Coral Sea, and Midway. But I'm worried that those names may be used for new amphibious assault ships.

Ever since Admiral Rickover used state and city names for submarines, the US Navy policy of naming ships have gone out the window.

You can blame Rickover for alot of things I suppose but not naming.

The slippery slope began with the naming of a carrier for FDR, then Forrestal, JFK and Nimitz.

And naming SSNBs after states made a lot of sense as did naming SSNs after cities.

Now naming SSNs(along with SSBNs) after States is likely to cause trouble if we build more than we have names for.

So I propose that PR, Cuba, Mexico(maybe itss tates instead, Panama and Canadian provinces maybe even Bermuda and the Bahamas all become states.

Leaving Canada and Mexico to be new carrier names along with the United States.

Not this should stir controversey if thats what we are looking for here.

LOL
ROTFLMAO

AegisFC said:

They may only be planning on buying 3 Ford class but the next gen CVN is on the drawing board and will be procured after the Fords. The Nimitz's are not facing block obsolescence so large orders are not needed at this time.

-One personal gripe though, I really wish the USN would stop naming their carriers after not-so-great politicians, their are plenty of better names than Gerald Ford, Reagan or Bush.

Click to expand...

I agree with the naming part. I can understand Ronald Reagan. He was the one that did a major part in ending the Cold War and was an advocate for more defense spending. But Gerald Ford???

Sea Toby said:

Frankly, we are out of good names

Click to expand...

FDR, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, GWB Sen. Those are former US presidents connected to the Navy due to active service (or, in FDR's case, as Secretary of the Navy).

LBJ is the only one of them without a ship currently, i think?

Any USN aircraft carrier not named:

Lexington
Hornet
Enterprise
Langley
Independence
Constellation
Saratoga
Wasp
Midway
America
Ranger
Intrepid

Needs to be renamed IMO.

I have long believed the US Navy should rotate those 12 names for big deck carriers.

AegisFC said:

They may only be planning on buying 3 Ford class but the next gen CVN is on the drawing board and will be procured after the Fords.

Click to expand...

Only if all goes well and the $$$ are there for them! If they didn't go "all nuclear", it would be possible to have 2x as many CVs and their AWs as CVNs with their AWs, for about the same cost! In all latest campaigns, 2 or more carriers were used on the same enemy, besides land-based aircraft and A/SLCMs. That was done for sustainability, or persistence. I agree that AW's capability per se isn't directly related to the number of CVNs, but if there are less CVNs were they are needed the most, those few will have to dedicate more resources to protect themselves, reducing power projection ashore.

The Navy currently maintains 11 aircraft carriers. The USS Enterprise is slated to retire in 2012, but the under-construction USS Gerald R. Ford could be delivered by 2015. The fleet is also comprised of an array of cruisers, destroyers, frigates, attack and ballistic missile submarines, amphibious assault and sealift-capable ships, support vessels of all kinds, and a variety of special warfare craft.
Sounds formidable, and in 2008 it is. But the Navy is not even close to where it needs to be if it hopes to match, deter, or outfight the emerging sea powers that will continue to grow over the next 10, 20, or 30 years.
“Even though we obviously have a strong eye toward what’s going on in Iraq and Afghanistan for our ground forces, we still must have a balanced force that can deal with a range of threats,” says Peter Brookes, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs. “China is going to be a major conventional threat in the coming years. So we need the capability of projecting naval power across the Pacific to maintain peace and stability in that region.”
According to Brookes, the Navy needs to focus on -- among other things -- regaining much of its anti-submarine warfare capability (undersea, surface, and airborne) that has been neglected since the end of the Cold War.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25534

Click to expand...

By 2023, the USN will be down to just 9 CVNs if CVNs 78 & 79 aren't comissioned yet, and the older ones are retired as scheduled. (Keeping the older CVNs in comission can only be done at great cost and is a temporary measure.) Out of those 9 CVNs, only 6 or 7 could be "surged" in a crisis. The Pacific Ocean North of the ecuator isn't an American lake anymore; currently there are 6 carriers and in the Atlantic there are 5. Out of those 6 they would be lucky to master 3-4 for immediate deployment. Forward deploying 2 more CVNs in Guam and/or HI would increase their time on station, when they aren't undergoing refits. Those in the Atlantic would take longer to get to the W.Pac.
Speaking of ASW and tankers, C-130Js could be adopted for both (there are already CG MPA & tanker versions in the USMC), and it can be made into a seaplane, as well as land on & takeoff the flight deck!

f-22fan12 said:

I agree with the naming part. I can understand Ronald Reagan. He was the one that did a major part in ending the Cold War and was an advocate for more defense spending. But Gerald Ford???

Click to expand...

I still don't see how Reagan was this great president, but my politics don't enter this, carriers (heck, any warship) shouldn't be named after politicians PERIOD.