The only thing a skid guy cares about is how many LPDs! Away from the Death Star to the promised land.
-
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
How many Carriers are enough?
- Thread starter ea6bflyr
- Start date
A/c is also a big deal. I like air-conditioning.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Public opinion about invading Iraq a 3rd time in 25 years notwithstanding, I don't think the sales pitch that the Navy needs 13-15 carriers to ward off an enemy with no air force and no navy in the middle of the desert is the slam dunk you think it is.
A carrier has not engaged a hostile naval force since 1945 ( a real threat not littoral patrol craft). Their purpose is to park a US airfield anywhere we damn well please. It's an invaluable asset, and along with boomers, I believe are the most important military assets America has. We should maintain as many as we can afford (I know, at what other programs suffer) but this is something only we do. No other Navies operate thru-deck carriers. It's a technology and skill set we should fight to maintain at the highest numbers possible.
Edit: Forgot about France ( can you blame me).
Edit: Forgot about France ( can you blame me).
The problem is, we are coming up on obsolescence or a lot of very critical programs in both DOD and DON specific programs.
SSBN replacement is going to be a budget buster, and is definitely a "must do."
F-35 will probably continue to eat a huge chunk of naval aviation money. I'm sure there are other high priority, high dollar modernization programs across the air wing.
Surface combatant modernization is already in trouble across several warfare areas.
Amphib force has its own train wreck when LSDs go away. Amphib/Exped warfare is another thing nobody else really does like us either. I'm pretty sure the Marines would always like us to have more amphibs.
Lots of weapons modernization programs going on as well. Probably a big plus up in cyber warfare needs as well.
I'm sure the actual list of "gaps" across all of DOD and DON, even those supported through fact backed intel estimates, is freaking enormous.
An extra carrier at a tradeoff to other important programs (whatever the right balance may be) is kind of a liability.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
This someone goes back to the sword rattling that R1 alluded to. The Navy is painting itself in a corner by not being able to decide presence that is 'nice to have just in case' vs. presence that is absolutely necessary. According to the VCNO, if something doesn't give the Navy will be able to afford to procure just 1 ship in something like 10 or 15 years, and it won't be a carrier. So, do you *really* need to send an entire CBG to the Gulf to threaten ISIS? Is that really the most effective way to handle the situation?
Turns out the answer is 'probably not.' The DoD has been investing in UAVs as a low-intensity asymmetric strike warfare asset that avoids committing ground forces. They are cheap to produce, operate, and they can eliminate HVTs virtually anywhere in the globe with minimal collateral damage. And they don't belong to the Navy or operate off of carriers (yet). If the situation escalates beyond that, it'll primarily be the Army's and USMC's show with ground forces.
I'm not trying to argue that carriers are useless, just that I don't think the argument that the Navy needs more aircraft carriers to fight rebel groups who have very little warfighting technology is going to hold water. Ultimately, the right balance has to be struck between being able to project massive force against the big boys with blue-water navies vs. having multiple smaller assets to support low-intensity conflicts. Unfortunately, the Navy can't just have an infinite amount of both.
I understand your point and somewhat agree. I take issue with the shiny toys DoD gets a hard on over. Stuff that works in numbers will always defeat a few of the most technological, expensive toys (German weapon systems in WWII) hard to build, maintain, and deploy in numbers that are effective. F-35 comes to mind, but that ship has sailed. Stealthy surface combatants is another..........it's a fucking ship, kill what's painting it, don't try to hide from it. Anphib is something that I do agree with you. Its a little army (MEU) that can be deployed anywhere that has a beach. As for cyber, that should be a unified IC issue.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Stealth on surface ships is meant to reduce the effectiveness of enemy over-the-horizon weapons. Other countries have UAVs and surface-to-surface ballistic missiles of their own that heavily rely on radar to find their targets. The alternative is to try to shoot the missile/UAVs down mid-air, and that's a lot easier said than done.
Yeah I'm not talking about that enemy dude. Russia, Syria, Iran, N. Korea, China, et al. Maybe not 13, but definitely more than the direction were heading.
ESGs will probably pick up more slack than in the past (Libya, Eygpt) but generally speaking short of putting a Marine's boot through the door - nothing says "go fuck yourself" better than 80,000 tons of American steel floating a hundred miles off shore. Just my opinion.
Failed programs vs whether or not they were needed or not is another issue entirely. Point is, an extra carrier at the expense of new weapons for the air wing, a modernized air wing, or sufficient escorts that can actually protect it from the latest threats, is going to be a liability, not an asset.
In a zero sum budget game, at some point, it may be worth it to trade a carrier hull and crew if it means I can afford to make the remaining CSGs more effective overall. Maybe 3 mobile airstrips with the latest gear is more effective than 4 still working with 1980's shit.
Lieutenants talking strategy is about as useful as Ensigns talking tactics. I have nether the experience, education, nor the scope to see all the factors that drive a decision such as this. Thus, my well thought out response would be about as useful as my glib response.I'm pretty sure this is tongue-in-cheek, but maybe not. A line in the sand…can you defend it?
Pickle
Yeah, but imagine how entertaining it would be if we turned over the strategy wheelhouse to the JOPA for a little while
Until Putin really gets a bug up his ass and starts selling everyone and their mother a modern IADS. Then watch your glorified remote-control airplanes get schwacked, and manned TACAIR get the call again.
Well, it's the standard excuse because it's true. I'm sure we could do more to truly standardize CV Ops, but there will always be idiosyncracies and policy variance. That's precisely the reason we have Wing and squadron SOP - because you can't completely standardize everything. I don't know whether you've done a CAG staff tour, but to be blunt, there's probably a lot more going on for the TACAIR side of CV Ops that you may not be aware of. BL: Easier said than done.
That said, I am interested in hearing the details of how your plan might work. Airwings do change boats, they just don't do it (usually) without doing work-ups. If the boat schedules are relatively predictable (surge ops and sequestration notwithstanding), what's the need for disaggregating the CVNs from the CVWs?
I acknowledge that there are airwings that have done back to back cruises with very short turn-around times while others have stayed at home. I don't think you could argue that it's the norm or even all that common. So, what degree of risk should we be willing to accept for what amounts to an outlier? What about the ship's company and embarked CSG? Where's the improved QOL for them? I don't think the "choose your rate, choose your fate" argument is going to get you very far at OPNAV.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I have no dog in the fight of UAVs vs. manned strike aircraft. But I'll simply point out that:
A) the types of targets/theaters where UAVs are being used don't involve enemies with IADS. They're meant to be a cheap strike solution in low-intensity conflicts, not the wave of the future against a potential war with Russia/China
B) if Putin sells a capable IADS system to someone, it can potentially be used against Russian MIGs one day
C) that UAVs are about 5x cheaper than F/A-18 super hornets and 10x cheaper than F-35Cs without even factoring in upkeep/operations costs and that the loss of a UAV doesn't result in the loss of a person able to 'fly' it. That is a very substantial cost difference between the two platforms.
In short, I don't think that they're going to go away, even if enemies learn how to shoot a few down.