Naval Air Power in Afghanistan

[Brett327]

Pretty interesting read and surprisingly detailed. For those of you who are wondering what kind of capabilities the CVW brings to the fight in Afghanistan - enjoy.

www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/world/asia/in-dwindling-afghan-war-air-power-has-become-a-way-of-life.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&smid=fb-share

 

[robav8r]

"Weary of the costs of a long war, Western military forces have already begun withdrawing and handing greater security responsibility to Afghan forces. One worry, several officers said, is that these air operations have become essential, necessary for ground units that are operating in contested areas of Afghanistan and hoping to maintain influence, or even survive. And the Afghan government has nothing to match the role they play."

It will be interesting to watch how fast actual, CVN-based sorties decrease with the drawdown vs actual CVN presence required by CENTCOM.

 

[jollygreen07]

Great article. Thanks.

 

[Brett327]

"Weary of the costs of a long war, Western military forces have already begun withdrawing and handing greater security responsibility to Afghan forces. One worry, several officers said, is that these air operations have become essential, necessary for ground units that are operating in contested areas of Afghanistan and hoping to maintain influence, or even survive. And the Afghan government has nothing to match the role they play."

It will be interesting to watch how fast actual, CVN-based sorties decrease with the drawdown vs actual CVN presence required by CENTCOM.

Had an interesting conversation about this with an old squadron mate that just finished his Big XO tour. CENTCOM is obviously going to want to hold on to their current CVN "presence" even after OEF. Whether CJCS and higher agrees will be interesting to watch.

 

[robav8r]

Had an interesting conversation about this with an old squadron mate that just finished his Big XO tour. CENTCOM is obviously going to want to hold on to their current CVN "presence" even after OEF. Whether CJCS and higher agrees will be interesting to watch.

Exactly . . .

 

[e6bflyer]

I think the carrier presence has served its purpose. At the same time, with 9 month deployments and min turnarounds becoming the norm, we need to throttle back when it is practicable. We are keeping carriers and personnel there at the cost of our sailors and the equipment that we use to fight.

 

[robav8r]

^ "Extra Like."

 

[Brett327]

I presume the brass has this in their scan, but once the economy gets going again, people will be much less likely to stick around for the kind of perstempo we've been having these past 10 years.

 

[MasterBates]

Yep. My old squadron is on their third 6+ month deployment in 3 years.

 

[BusyBee604]

Exactly . . .

At the same time, with 9 month deployments and min turnarounds becoming the norm, we need to throttle back when it is practicable. We are keeping carriers and personnel there at the cost of our sailors and the equipment that we use to fight.

Agree, but one of the main justifications for maintaining our present carrier level, is the proven ability to rapidly respond to sudden threats/flareups in trouble spots, or anywhere else worldwide.
BzB

 

[Brett327]

Agree, but one of the main justifications for maintaining our present carrier level, is the proven ability to rapidly respond to sudden threats/flareups in trouble spots, or anywhere else worldwide.
BzB

The question is, how many carriers are required for contingency operations in a given AOR and what does keeping multiple carriers in an AOR do to our big picture ability to conduct contingency operations in other places. Most contingency-type conflict in recent years has occurred where we didn't expect it. In my view, there's a benefit to relaxing our posture in the middle east in favor of focusing on getting our material and personnel training and readiness back to where it needs to be. As we "pivot" to the Pacific in the years to come, I believe we'll see a return to more standard 6 month WESTPAC deployments with an emphasis on building relationships with our regional allies and partners through exercises, ect.

 

[robav8r]

In my view, there's a benefit to relaxing our posture in the middle east in favor of focusing on getting our material and personnel training and readiness back to where it needs to be. As we "pivot" to the Pacific in the years to come, I believe we'll see a return to more standard 6 month WESTPAC deployments with an emphasis on building relationships with our regional allies and partners through exercises, ect.

Agree, but not sure our NCA & COCOM's do, at least not yet. I wonder how long we can sustain 9 month deployments coupled with the threat of sequestration, declining budgets & shipbuilding. 2013 will be an interesting year for a host of reasons and I hope, at least from the Navy's perspective, we can define a more "stable" future for our Sailors and ships.

 

[wink]

Had an interesting conversation about this with an old squadron mate that just finished his Big XO tour. CENTCOM is obviously going to want to hold on to their current CVN "presence" even after OEF. Whether CJCS and higher agrees will be interesting to watch.

A naval presence also allows the administration to play loose in the numbers game. How many troops are in theater doing what is important to politics, finance and simple visuals for both domestic and foreign eyes. We are supposed to be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2013. Don't be surprised if it actually results in a greater naval presence (not just CVW) to support the Afghans from afloat. Same logic may have more troops deployed to friendly 'stans for contingency ops. Don't laugh. I saw this sort of shell game with my own eyes when I was on a 4 star staff supporting the Balkans and Kosovo conflicts.

 

[Brett327]

Agree, but not sure our NCA & COCOM's do, at least not yet. I wonder how long we can sustain 9 month deployments coupled with the threat of sequestration, declining budgets & shipbuilding. 2013 will be an interesting year for a host of reasons and I hope, at least from the Navy's perspective, we can define a more "stable" future for our Sailors and ships.

Having seen discussions with every service chief and several COCOMs this past year, I get the sense that they understand those challenges and are beginning to accept that doing "less with less" is a more realistic view than "more with less." I think the Navy and aviation will be largely insulated by any drawdown or cuts due to sequestration (which I don't believe will happen, but that's another story), but the Marines and Army are already scrambling to figure out how they're going to do business amidst the first significant drawdown since the Cold War. There are a lot of really smart people thinking in terms of how to avoid hollowing the force, including the 50# heads at OSD. I draw an analogy to the Growler transition within my own community. Some of the guys who designed how it would work had been through the abortion that was the Intruder sundown and said, "We're not ever doing THAT again." I think similar lessons are being applied at the 4 star level in this case as well.

 

[Flash]

.....We are supposed to be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2013......

Keep in mind that we are supposed to withdraw 'combat forces' by the end of 2014, we will keep advisors, special forces and other 'support' folks there after 2014. And I am sure that carrier will often be there to support them.