but you realize that our Navy cannot accomodate 10 Aircraft Carriers outfitted like you describe as a complete CSG. We simply don't have that many ships. If you just had an average of 7 ships in a CSG and 10 CSG's then you'd have to have 700 ships to pull it off and we don't even have half that number in our navy. That is what troubles me. I know we have the carriers, but you have to be able to protect the carrier and you can't do that with what we have. Do you see what I'm saying? I just wanted to bounce this off you guys because I find it troubling when we need 5-6 CSG's to handle something like an Iraq/middle east conflict. Things aren't going to get better any time soon and likely to get worse with China squirting out ships/aircraft like rice cakes. HutchI'm glad I asked G! I always think about the Carrier/Carriers we just retire but it's just wishful thinking they'll bring them back like the BB's. I get an emotional attachment to aircraft carriers for some reason and when one get's sent to P.G. or somewhere to die a slow death, I sufferThis was great info thank you. Do you have the figures on what our reserve/mothball fleet looks like, i.e. carriers etc.? With our lack of proper ship building we're going to have a tough time projecting power with what we have and even now we're not ratcheting up in sufficient numbers the building of ships/subs that will pull us out of the hole. Thanks Again! Hutch
intergration of F35B on US CVN's
- Thread starter harryriedl
- Start date
Your math is uhhh... a bit weird. Besides, there aren't 7 ships in most CSGs.
It could be ............. but because not all of them have the same number of ships I'm using the example Galrahn mentioned as follows:
USS Enterprise (CVN 65)
USS Gettysburg (CG 64)
USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51)
USS Stout (DDG 55)
USS Forrest Sherman (DDG 98)
USS James E. Williams (DDG 95)
USS Philadelphia (SSN 690)
If you have 10 Aircraft carriers and you DON'T even have 300 surface vessels in the navy then you can't outfit each Carrier with 7 ships. That's over twice the vessels we have. Do you understand where I'm coming from now? Hutch
Then put your mind at rest 10ringr, as Kato suggests your arithmetic is out by a factor of 10. 10(CSG's) x 7(ships in each CSG) = 70(ships in total), then take away your 10 carriers and that leaves 60 other ships to make up your CSG's. I think the USN has over 50 DDG's alone so they seem to have plenty of ships to play with.
Hooroo
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh my God how embarrassing! You know, I love you guys! I really do. Thanks! Hutch
Let's forget about this one, though...........
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly. Of course, in reality, you also have the 12 ARGs to escort in theory, and there's also the surface strike groups plus other duties - and the necessary overhead for ships in maintenance and similar.
On the other hand one of the carriers doesn't have many escorts at all (the one around Florida for training), most of the ARGs don't have pre-assigned escort groups really, and, occasionally, allied ships take up some escort duties within surface and carrier groups as part of exchanges of course.
btw, you'll also have to add the auxiliary into that CSG there, as it isn't listed.
You must be refering to the Kennedy, that rusted out POS was decommed back in May and towed away to from Mayport a week or 2 ago (I watched it being towed away).
Yeah. They already decommed her in May? Thought they wanted to wait till September (with slow deactivation starting in March).
Anyway, according to the navy website there are currently 5 CSGs and 6 ESGs underway. The "deployable battle force" numbers 278 ships, of which 144 are not underway and currently in their homeports (data as of August, 10th). Too lazy to find out how many and which kind of escorts are assigned to above groups.
@Galrahn: I thought there were 10 ESGs? 7 LHD + 3 LHA? (NVR lists those as active)
Thank you. I thought the the Kennedy "POS" (I don't like her being called this) was a mistake given she had in 1997 the most advanced "Command, control and communication platforms in the navy (C4) and while she did get cheated out of her COH's, she would take far less money to get her in shape then what they cost new. I read that besides her arrestor equipment which needed work it could have been at least maintained if needed and when I say maintained I don't mean letting it rot like the Russian Navy for instance in their ports. (No offense to anyone). Besides with Aircraft carriers costing 6+ Billiion why wouldn't you make use of the platforms you have? At the very least they ought to let the Brits. overhaul it since they are always talking about getting a "real carrier" and while they are talking about a deal with the Frenchies, they talk........ a lot! Hutch
Yes G, that's was my impression. Hutch
If you read the Royal Navy thread, or followed the news, you'd know that last month the UK placed orders for two new carriers of 65000 tons (over 70000 US tons).
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...wCarriersConfirmedInDefenceBudgetIncrease.htm
"[L]let[ting] the Brits overhaul it" has never been an option, since the RN has no interest whatsoever in ancient, maintenance-heavy ships which need huge crews just to keep running. If the ship had been offered free of charge to the RN, it would have been refused.
The list of problems that ship had when they decommed it was very long indeed, it did not pass any of its recent INSURV inspections (and that is a very BAD thing), its boilers, fire fighting pumps, cat's, arrestor gear, and plenty of other things either had problems or were broke, voids were rusted to the water. The ship has not been certified to launch or recover aircraft for years.
Granted all those problems were fixable but the money just was not available even before Iraq added a further squeeze on the budget and you can trace most of Kennedy's problems back to when her SLEP was cancelled halfway though when the yard she was at was closed by then Sec. Defense Cheney.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #73
just looking at the strike craft on board a its remarkably close to the CVFs complement 44 strike aircraft to 42-36 aircraft[depending on which source you look at] of course the CVN complement is much more balanced and could take more aircraft
also are 5 E2 regularly carrieied because i always thought the optimum number was 4 for the E2
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #74
we been refusing US carriers since 1978 ish[around the CVA01 time the UK was offered an unPhantomised Essex class i believe] their is just too much different stuff in the ship and its just too difficult to alter an old carrier to the need of a new user and their is the huge crew requirement which makes them even less appealing [5,000 crew for a US CV compared with 1500 for the CVF and Invincibles]
Thanks for the information. I see that you are probably right. Hutch
Surge can include Marine Aviation. I'll be interested to see what the 'typical' deployment of a CVF looks like. I don't expect to see more than 24 F-35s on a standard deployment.
5 is what they hope to carry in the future with the E-2D, I'll wait and see it before I believe it. Same with EA-18G, the Navy is looking for 5 per CAW.
313-ship fleet possible breakdown:
11 CSGs (10 Active)
9 ESGs
9x1 CSG = 1 CVN, 1 CG, 4 DDG
6x1 ESG = 1 LHD, 1 LPD, 1 LSD, 1 CG, 2 DDGs
2x1 ESG = 1 LHA(R), 1 LPD, 1 LSD, 1 CG, 2 DDGs
Forward Deployed
1 ESG = 1 LHD, 2 LPD, 1 LSD, 1 CG, 2 DDG
1 CSG = 1 CVN, 1 CG, 4 DDG
If you add up the above, you end up with
10 CVNs
7 LHDs
2 LHA(R)s
10 LPDs
9 LSDs
19 CGs
58 DDGs
That leaves 1 CVN, 2 LHA(R)s, 1 LHD, 3 LSDs, and 4 DDGs not counted, not to mention all the current FFGs or future LCS.
The LHA(R)s and LHD will be used for the sea base and the 3 LSDs are being deployed for GWOT missions. The 1 CVN would be in refueling, and it has 4 DDGs for it (but no CG). It is unclear how the LCS will fit into this mix in the future.
Thank you. I will refrain from making mathmatical calculations for some time
Hutch I must remember to keep a adequate bedtime, instead of staying up late and sounding like an itiot! Hutch
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Quick question guys, does anyone know what the two seat variants of the F35 will be called. Traditionally every even letter, i.e. B,D,F, was used but B (as you all know) indicates the STOVL version. So whats the plan?
Is there a two seat version on the horizon?
I know its theoretically possible, using bits off B and A series planes to provide room and some additional development. But are they needed? With all the electronics on board, networking etc, its hard to forsee why a two seater is required.
Also these ship calculations seem to ignore underwater assets. SSN's are in demand and would also be required. However I think there are enough of them, but patrols would suffer if all were assigned escorting duties.
It also shows why friendly nations can't rely on the US assets. In a demanding set of circumstances, they won't have free assets avalible.
I know its theoretically possible, using bits off B and A series planes to provide room and some additional development. But are they needed? With all the electronics on board, networking etc, its hard to forsee why a two seater is required.
Also these ship calculations seem to ignore underwater assets. SSN's are in demand and would also be required. However I think there are enough of them, but patrols would suffer if all were assigned escorting duties.
It also shows why friendly nations can't rely on the US assets. In a demanding set of circumstances, they won't have free assets avalible.