How many Carriers are enough?

[LFCFan]

Are you saying UAVs are good because they were successful against enemy air defense or bad because they have a potential vulnerability? All weapons platforms have potential vulnerabilities, the key is to stay ahead of the game in capabilities or find a new niche if possible.

I was pointing out other vulnerabilities. I'm actually quite worried about jamming and hacking UAVs, and how the consequences of doing so are far worse than manned aircraft.

Again, I don't think anyone intelligent envisions UAVs as a replacement to manned aircraft (and I sure wasn't saying that they were), but a complement to them in America's arsenal.

No one has outright said it, but there are some that are afraid it will happen, especially since the costs of manned combat aircraft are skyrocketing with each generation.

 

[Recovering LSO]

"In 200 feet, make a left from Rationality onto Absurdity. Your destination will be ahead on the left…".

This post is rich with irony.

 

[squeeze]

For both of you, I guess: What are your personal thoughts about placing yourselves potentially in harm's way to ensure the success of an unmanned system? It's a serious question, I think.

It's a "serious question" if you don't understand anything about the role of the military. Escort or SEAD or HVAAP isn't about protecting the people inside the plane, it's about ensuring success of the mission. It matters not who or what is the one carrying out the primary mission.

 

[Renegade One]

It's a "serious question" if you don't understand anything about the role of the military. Escort or SEAD or HVAAP isn't about protecting the people inside the plane, it's about ensuring success of the mission. It matters not who or what is the one carrying out the primary mission.

Okay…that's a fair comment. I admit to still having some misgivings, but I do understand where you're coming from. You and many others have a level of understanding in this arena that post-dates my own experience. I'll pay attention and try to learn.

 

[jackjack]

Australia! You have my vote

The last I read in the paper is, we need to dredge the harbour where you guys will visit/forward deploy for nn months? but it is in the pipeline. As you would know the Marines are doing a 6mth deployment based here.

 

[Uncle Fester]

The last I read in the paper is, we need to dredge the harbour where you guys will visit/forward deploy for nn months? but it is in the pipeline. As you would know the Marines are doing a 6mth deployment based here.

"Port visit" suitability has much different requirements than "home port" for a nuke. There's lots of places a CVN can go pierside these days, but it can't live there without big capital investment. Forward deploying a boat to Oz would be great (Sydney and put the CAG at Nowra, maybe) but the current politics and money mean it's not going to happen.

 

[jackjack]

Uncle Fester, you more than likely are right and is why I had a question mark on it. However I read we are enlarging the facilities at Garden isl Perth, to provide better access for your big stuff. Where that finishes I don't know, it wouldn't be a full time base, but may be longer than a port visit.

 

[Kaman]

There is a very good reason that having a carrier based in Subic Bay with the Air Wing on the other side of the bay at Cubi Point. Strategic location. A strategic location that makes far more sense than either Guam or Australia. We have a carrier based in Yokosuka, Japan for the same reason. Location. Close to the threat, and able to rapidly reinforce the Korean Peninsula should that contingency be required. We exercised this OPORDER every year, in addition to ANNUALEX and our treaty obligations to assisting the Japanese in defending their home islands.
We should have never have left the Philippines, but at the time it was seen as economically unviable and the money required exceeded the strategic value of the bases. This was a short-sighted decision, and in the meantime I believe emboldened a growing Chinese response to being the dominant maritime power in the area. The Chinese see the South China Sea as their "lake" and are going to continue to increase their presence, and test their potential adversaries ability to challenge them.
Perhaps the funding and political environment in our government doesn't permit placing a carrier in the Philippines. As stated earlier, the infrastructure for having a CVBG/CVW is extensive. However, these facilities are to a large extent still in place and I think the Philippine government is more amenable to a new SOFA that would be mutually beneficial. I think that a Philppines base would also be a "force multiplier" ( Never been fond of this word, because it is code for, 'make more with less' in my opinion ). With this basing scheme, it gives the effect of having 11 carriers with only 10 in commission.
Our current administration has stated our policy is to increase our presence and influence in the area near the South China Sea. But, stating it and doing it appears to be mutually exclusive.

 

[Pags]

We left the Phillipines because their government said, "go away," not because of economics.

 

[Kaman]

There was an element of that as well, but they would have "let" us stay if we paid the price. A price at the time wasn't worth the cost benefit, or so it was stated at the time. We should have annexed the damn thing, or re-negotiated when that corrupt bastard Marcos was running the place in any event, we have not successfully re-trenched in that part of the world in more than twenty years with end-result of an emboldened adversary.

 

[jmcquate]

I remember a volcano having something to do with it too.

 

[Kaman]

They knew Pinatubo was going to blow for years! We used to fly by the geo-thermal plant all time between Clark and Subic Bay.

 

[Lawman]

We left the Phillipines because their government said, "go away," not because of economics.

You want to take a wild guess where I am right now?

The Phils have figured out just what the lost out on when they booted the US heavy presence out of their country. The atrophy of their military is very clear to their senior leadership. This is a country that went from flying F-5s as a front line air defense fighter to flying Italian training jets and pretending they are anything but.

And I wouldnt call it "left" so much as shrank our footprint. Though I cant even begin to think of how I would approach the conversation if I was trying to tell my spouse "hey honey... so we are gonna live in a cobra infested poverty stricken country but good news... we can get a maid for like 9 dollars a month."

 

[PhrogLoop]

Any talk of the US military "rebuilding" in the PI is premature at best. 5 of my B-School classmates (one of them a Navy EOD officer) traveled to PI to advise the office of the President on how to turn the old Clark AB into "Clark Green City:"
http://business.inquirer.net/172091/bcda-preparing-bidding-rules-for-clark-green-city

 

[Lawman]

Any talk of the US military "rebuilding" in the PI is premature at best. 5 of my B-School classmates (one of them a Navy EOD officer) traveled to PI to advise the office of the President on how to turn the old Clark AB into "Clark Green City:"
http://business.inquirer.net/172091/bcda-preparing-bidding-rules-for-clark-green-city

Trying to rebuild Clark is folly. The only thing that keeps that place alive is that Crow Valley is the only place to go dropping stuff.

The Phils dont even really own Clark anymore. The parts that are still sustained have mostly been handed back to the civilians, and the parts that arent handed back look like a scene out of the walking dead.

Subic and other places are in better condition. Nobody said this would be cheap but it would be far less cost and an easier sell than some of the other nations in the region because the Phils legitimately feel the Chinese pressure being exerted on them across the pond.