-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Dwindling Aircraft Carriers
- Thread starter ea6bflyr
- Start date
CNO, ADM Roughead visited Penn State last week (4/29), and one of the MIDN asked him about increasing the Carrier force. His response was that he believes we have enough carriers to meet today's forces/needs. He also mentioned there is an increased turn around time with lower maintenance with our 'flexible' carriers.
12 to 11 was a big mistake, IMHO. 11 to 10 is unconscionable to me, so it'll probably happen. Get ready for deployments to get even longer, and people to get even more burned out.
Wasn't 6 months the standard? Those days are long gone.
Wasn't 6 months the standard? Those days are long gone.
Do you really think he was going to say anything else?
It'll get worse.
I do believe that less a/c are required these days to (P sub K), so the bean counters are winning with the argument that less carriers are needed.
I'm interested in manpower, the real seed change that needs to happen on a CVN. If that significantly decreases on CVN-78 (say in the 1250-1500 ships company range), then I can see why they are willing to cut 67, 63, and 65 loose. That and the 3 million gallons of DFM we drank every week in CVOA 4.
Interesting to see what happens. Maybe the new Air Dept will be under 800 folks. Imagine how much time that'll save just in NJP.:icon_tong
I'm interested in manpower, the real seed change that needs to happen on a CVN. If that significantly decreases on CVN-78 (say in the 1250-1500 ships company range), then I can see why they are willing to cut 67, 63, and 65 loose. That and the 3 million gallons of DFM we drank every week in CVOA 4.
Interesting to see what happens. Maybe the new Air Dept will be under 800 folks. Imagine how much time that'll save just in NJP.:icon_tong
Don't worry, as soon as a major shooting war breaks out we'll gear up and start cranking out more toys. <Sigh>
That's what DOES worry me. You can't just build a new carrier overnight...
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
Especially if the USAF keeps asking for the other three services budget combined...
Major shooting wars don't develop overnight either.
Don't get me wrong, I share your concern...but its not like WWII came out of the clear blue.
Fixed.
How can you justify that statement? It's not like they're fielding BS programs. CSAR-X, KC-X, F-22, UAV's, JSF, etc. All high price items that they're bringing online. All of which have technologies and capabilities that trickle down to the other services. We get a LOT of stuff (TACAIR) that started in the USAF, they did the R&D on, spent the money and time, and we just take it.
It isn't the projects in and of themselves...but the Air Force going to bat for numbers that seem impossible to justify. 381 F-22's? 61 CONUS bases? God love 'em for being sucessful at negotiating the money dance...but they do less with more than any other service.
I'll be the first to admit that my reaction to the Air Force needs tempered from time to time...you mention some great points about trickle-down development and joint-use programs...but overall my impression is that the Air Force is by far the least fiscally efficient branch of DoD. In retrospect, my inital comment was a bit overstated.
I'll be the first to admit that my reaction to the Air Force needs tempered from time to time...you mention some great points about trickle-down development and joint-use programs...but overall my impression is that the Air Force is by far the least fiscally efficient branch of DoD. In retrospect, my inital comment was a bit overstated.
Like our current FITREP and EVAL system. :crazy_125:crazy_125
-ea6bflyr
I didn't know we had them to thank for it.