shrinking USN carrier air wings

[Firehorse]

And what happens when that C-130 breaks? It is stuck on the flight deck until fixed and that means the carrier can't do its job until that plane is off the deck one way or another.

- Good point! Then, having C-130-like floatplanes is making more sense!

Several Generals acknowledged that CL-130s are a good idea, but the MV-22 is sucking up all aviation funds and CL-130s could threaten full funding since they can carry 3 times the payload and 3 times the range.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/6747/c130seaplane.htm

What's easier to find and hit: a big CVN CTF, or several submarine carriers and/or seaplane tenders, separated by many 100s or 1,000s of miles, which can serve more aircraft of all types than a CVN?

But its not just the Russians, Canadians, Dutch and Australians who think the U.S. Navy s carrier battle groups are over-rated, expensive and extremely vulnerable. Admiral Hyman Rickover himself didn' t think much of the American carrier-centered Navy, either. When asked in 1982 about how long the American carriers would survive in an actual war, he curtly replied that they would be finished in approximately 48 hours. ..
If the Navy has to defend Taiwan from nearby Red China it will be conspicuously visible from space and targeted in their "surveillance strike complex" (SSC). Hubrists within the Navy beating their chest about how superior they think our pilots/aircraft are don't get it: a F/A-18 with 8 missiles isn't going to win a fight against a lesser 9th CHICOM fighter whose missile is "good enough" to hit it or make it run for the home aircraft carrier. If the CHICOM second wave follows the empty F/A-18 back to the carrier the explosions/fires on the USS Forrestal and Enterprise in the Vietnam war warn us that all it takes is one hit and the carrier's flight operations are over and a fight to simply survive is all that's left. ..The Navy likes to brag that its carriers launched fighter-bombers to bomb mud huts in Afghanistan and later had some marines sit in a dust bowl in the middle of nowhere as proof positive that their entire WW2 force structure is AOK. Let's be brutally honest here; the Afghan northern Alliance already on the ground in tracked armored fighting vehicles and horseback were the ones who defeated the Taliban and all of the Navy's fighter-bomber strikes could have been done by land-based planes. As it was, land-based aircraft did most of the bombing anyway. After the U.S. Army's 10th Mountain Division and Rangers had jumped into southern Afghanistan, the Northern Alliuance had ended most of the resistance. By the time the marines landed in the southern Afghanistan airbase already secured by the Army Rangers, terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden and his underlings were long gone. they are still at large today. When you consider a Nimitz class aircraft carrier houses 6,000 men who all have families full of loved ones--there is no operational security when it leaves port to go bombard an Afghanistan. You could say, well the carrier is already on station in the general area so when routine flight ops turn to actual ordance laden flights the enemy will be caught unawares. Well, it didn't work, did it? There is no hiding a nuclear aircraft carrier and what its doing even from a sub-national group.
Again, if instead our Navy had submarine aircraft carriers, the enemy's eyes will not be constantly on a large surface target, they will not know where to look. When the submarine carrier surfaces for just a few minutes, its aircraft will be inbound and it will be back under the water again moving to a new location which to recover its planes. .. And we are not only talking about dropping bombs on people, either, small detachments of troops can be inserted/extracted via submarine aircraft carriers to surveill and encircle the fleeting enemy who is not going to wave a hanky at a spy satellite or a drone plane flying overhead.
http://www.combatreform.com/submarineaircraftcarriers.htm

Well said! Even if some of the ASW tactics described in these links are incorrect/outdated, all the other benefits seaplanes afford can't and shouldn't be automatically discounted. IMO, a sub-carrier could carry seaplanes and won't need a flight dack or pyrothecnics to launch them from under the surface. The aircraft can just move underwater some distance, surface, and than take off from the surface. In heavy weather, rocket-assisted take off could be utilized.
The cost of having CVNs is far exceeds the benefits they can deliver. That's why their AWs are getting smaller.

 

[gf0012-aust]

- Good point! Then, having C-130-like floatplanes is making more sense!
What's easier to find and hit: a big CVN CTF, or several submarine carriers and/or seaplane tenders, separated by many 100s or 1,000s of miles, which can serve more aircraft of all types than a CVN?


Well said! Even if some of the ASW tactics described in these links are incorrect/outdated, all the other benefits seaplanes afford can't and shouldn't be automatically discounted. IMO, a sub-carrier could carry seaplanes and won't need a flight dack or pyrothecnics to launch them from under the surface. The aircraft can just move underwater some distance, surface, and than take off from the surface. In heavy weather, rocket-assisted take off could be utilized.
The cost of having CVNs is far exceeds the benefits they can deliver. That's why their AWs are getting smaller.

contv
You do realise that Rickover hated carriers as they were his arch funding rival? LOL Read the history of the man before using him as a reference point. Rickover only hated the USAF more - and thats because they tried to stop him from developing SSBNs.

As for the Canucks and the RAN, - show me a credible reference that identifies the reasons why? Its not because they were deficient in capability at all - its because they aren't viable for our own navies.

If you don't stop this ridiculous attempt at passing ill informed commentary on subjects you obviously have no insight on, then you're not going to be lasting long on here.

I personally am sick to death of trying to teach you about basic history and have you continually copy and paste irrelevant rubbish thats posted out of context.

Sit back, look and learn rather than continue to cut and paste stuff that is completely out of your historical comprehension. Its getting beyond a joke and is degrading the quality of the debate.

In fact,take this as a second warning as you've already had one about inane irrelevant commentary.

 

[Sea Toby]

Are aircraft carriers sinkable? Yes, they are. But finding an aircraft carrier when its on the hunt, is as difficult as finding a pin in a hay stack. I suggest watching the movie Midway, and Tora!Tora!Tora! should give you some clues. Of course, today is a different environment than WWII. Aircraft carriers use every means of deceit to hide their location, mask their radar image, confuse their electronic signatures, and provide false information. Not only is the sky a huge place, so is the sea. Mind you, its more difficult in the days of satellites, but there are ways to confound satellites as well. Fortunately, many armed forces today don't have a space program. Afghanistan and the Taliban didn't. During the Falklands War Argentina sunk ships, but failed to sink a carrier. They did their very best to do so, but failed.

 

[Sea Toby]

Why do today's submarines do NOT have guns like those of WWII? Sound baby! A submarine loves SILENCE! A submarines hates NOISE. Its simply that simple.

 

[Jon K]

The cost of having CVNs is far exceeds the benefits they can deliver. That's why their AWs are getting smaller.

This may be true, and in fact I suspect this to be true for every navy but USN.
USN has already built a fleet of the best CVN's in the world complete with all the supporting infrastructure, excellent air wings etc. Imagine the amount of money wasted if all this was to be replaced quickly by some other concept.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The cost of having CVNs is far exceeds the benefits they can deliver. That's why their AWs are getting smaller.

For crying out loud.

1) Air wings have scaled down ever since the soviets disappeared as a threat. So did ASW training, so did minesweeping, so did sea bed surveying. As has been painfully pointed out numerous times, they are at peace time footings. Its got little to do with issues of absolute cost per capability, it's a requirements matrix.

2) Air wings have more throw than they did in the cold war. The US Navy is almost half it's Reagen era mass but has more inherent power available per strike force/task force

Learn the basics of the impact of the cold war and general force descaling across all modern militaries and you might begin to understand why force structure is like it is today.

Air Wing size has bugger all to do with efficiency - esp at peace time force structure rates

 

[AegisFC]

- Good point! Then, having C-130-like floatplanes is making more sense!

No it doesn't, sea planes, float planes or whatever can't handle anything beyond a moderate sea state whereas a traditional supply ship can UNREP or VERTREP in almost any sea state. I doubt you've ever seen an UNREP but they don't do them sitting still, the ships are moving at a pretty good pace, much faster than your float plane when landed on calm water the 2 or 3 ships can maneuver more than your float plane. The USN practices emergency break away procedure pretty much every other UNREP so it knows how to get from a resupply status into a fighting status.

The cost of having CVNs is far exceeds the benefits they can deliver. That's why their AWs are getting smaller.

No, the Air Wings are getting smaller because the aircraft are more capable, require less maintenance and can sortie more than the previous generation.

 

[Firehorse]

IMHO, "leaner" doesn't always mean "meaner". Granted there's more capability now than 10-20 years ago, but, in the opinions of many, AWs even today don't have ideal range and must rely on land based tankers-otherwise their CVN will be at greater risk.

The combat radius of the Super Tomcat 21 would have been almost twice that of the F-14D.

Not only they downsized, but their capability is less than it would have been with the Super Tomcat on their flight decks!
Something like SOSUS can detect their noise, if they are to be anywhere in the W.Pac., for example. The SOSUS even detected some Tu-95s flying high over the ocean- surely a similar system can detect propeller noises of the CTF, not to mention their helos, E-2s, and fighters!

 

[gf0012-aust]

IMHO, "leaner" doesn't always mean "meaner". Granted there's more capability now than 10-20 years ago, but, in the opinions of many, AWs even today don't have ideal range and must rely on land based tankers-otherwise their CVN will be at greater risk. Not only they downsized, but their capability is less than it would have been with the Super Tomcat on their flight decks!

Your IMHO is based on what evidence? The US fights with systems, they integrate with all other available packages in the mix. Look at Libya and the MQ strike.

Your last comment is absolute rubbish. The air wings have far greater organic response available than they ever did. they're more efficient, have more precise weapons, have greater ewarfare organic sympathy and for want of a better descriptor, greater yield and salvo available per weapons package per mission.

Something like SOSUS can detect their noise, if they are to be anywhere in the W.Pac., for example. The SOSUS even detected some Tu-95s flying high over the ocean- surely a similar system can detect propeller noises of the CTF, not to mention their helos, E-2s, and fighters!

submarines can hear aircraft overhead without using arrays. the Tu-95 could be heard by the Oberons (or any sub for that matter).

of course acoustic sensors can hear a vessels properllors, (thats what ASDIC and earlier generational systems were able to maximise), but there is a significant difference in being able to get a response or threat up close to harass or attack the fleet. You do understand that advertised fleet sensor capability has no relation at all to actual capability?

Seaplanes are a marriage made in heaven for signal monitoring as their NVH makes them stand out like the dogs proverbials (just like the Tu-95 did).

Either produce some sicence and not opinion or I will think you are trolling - you are obviously clueless when it comes to the technology issues.

And for goodness sake, Tomcat 21 was designed for a different threat thats dead - against a superior modern platform designed to be able to utilise LO technologies, with superior real estate opportunities for ewarfare packages - its like trying to stick a brabus v12 into a camaro and expecting it to behave like a C600. (nice engineering effort, but a woftam)

 

[Firehorse]

The US fights with systems, they integrate with all other available packages in the mix. Look at Libya and the MQ strike. ..
You do understand that advertised fleet sensor capability has no relation at all to actual capability?

Yes, but others here question if CTF can be found at all. If you read the links I posted, many, far inferiour navies, in terms of capability, "sunk" USN carriers and SSNs in exercises. So, it's not just a submariner admiral fighting for $ for his SSNs/SSBNs. Interoperability is a way for different services to pitch in and prove their worth and to get future funding, and not necessaraly because they are so capable. Some good observations & suggestions, with which I agree:

There has been some discussion as to whether aircraft carriers are obsolete or far too costly. Cruise missiles fired from bombers, destroyers, cruisers or submarines can strike targets at a far lower total cost. Political leaders now ask if the USA afford 12 "supercarriers", in addition to 13 LHD/LHA "helicopter carriers" which also operate Harrier fighter-attack aircraft, are larger than American World War II carriers, or any foreign aircraft carriers today. Does the USA need 25 aircraft carriers?
The biggest problem is that new carrier aircraft cost twice as much as those they replace, even after adjusting for inflation. The Navy maintains 10 Carrier Air Wings (CAWs), two fewer since one carrier is always undergoing an extensive multi-year overhaul, and another was deleted a few years ago due to a lack of aircraft. A shortage of aircraft has resulted in the number of fighter-attack aircraft deployed with each CAW to fall from 50 during the 1990s to around 36, typically with 26 F/A-18Cs and 10 F-14s. Even with planned budget increases, the Navy cannot afford to fill each carrier deck with its goal of 48 fighter-attack aircraft, giving rise to speculation that two carriers will be trimmed from the fleet. ..There is no need for a Navy "catapult" carrier version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), which requires a larger wing, strengthened fuselage, catapult attachment points, improved landing gear, and other modifications. This will cost an additional billion dollars to finish development and testing. Since the Navy plans to buy just 300 JSF aircraft, it should simply buy the (Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing) STOVL version, of which 642 are planned for the Marine Corps and 60 for the Royal Navy, with possible sales to Italy, Spain, and even the US Air Force.
Including one STOVL JSF squadron in each CAW would add new capabilities. Carrier operations during adverse weather are very difficult, and almost impossible with ice. STOVL JSF aircraft can operate safely in any conditions. Although the prospect that Navy ships may suffer combat damage seems remote today, STOVL JSF aircraft could operate from a damaged carrier deck. During the 1991 Persian Gulf war, 20 Marine STOVL Harriers operating from the USS Nassau proved that an aircraft carrier can launch a STOVL squadron four times faster than one requiring catapults, which is very important when reacting to threats near shore. ..Navy STOVL JSF could also operate from smaller LHD/LHA carriers if necessary, which may become vital if the number of super-carriers decline. STOVL JSF aircraft could be attached to almost any Navy ship for a variety of missions. Finally, STOVL aircraft can make emergency landings on any ship or flat surface, an important advantage during chaotic combat operations. STOVL JSF aircraft can provide aircraft carriers with unique capabilities to complement those of the F/A-18s. Ironically, a truly "joint" STOVL variant of the JSF would save almost a billion dollars in development and simplify training and maintenance for the Navy/Marine team.
http://www.g2mil.com/Carriers.htm

 

[Sea Toby]

The British are building bigger CVF carriers to replace their small Invincible class carriers. Why? Their small carriers can only support so many aircraft sorties. A larger carrier with much more aircraft will generate more sorties.

Yes, the F-35B is going to change naval aviation. Unfortunately, in the past the Harriers weren't as good an aircraft as Hornets, Tomcats, and Phantoms.

And I have to disagree with you about CATOBAR carriers. They are faster than STOVL. I have seen four naval aircraft launched within ten seconds. Harriers lumber down their runway one at a time. I trust my eyes much more than any misleading book.

I highly recommend you watch a video of a carrier CATOBAR launch and then compare it to a STOVL carrier launch. Four times as fast, where did you read this bunk? Its the other way around.....

 

[harryriedl]

The British are building bigger CVF carriers to replace their small Invincible class carriers. Why? Their small carriers can only support so many aircraft sorties. A larger carrier with much more aircraft will generate more sorties.

Yes, the F-35B is going to change naval aviation. Unfortunately, in the past the Harriers weren't as good an aircraft as Hornets, Tomcats, and Phantoms.

And I have to disagree with you about CATOBAR carriers. They are faster than STOVL. I have seen four naval aircraft launched within ten seconds. Harriers lumber down their runway one at a time. I trust my eyes much more than any misleading book.

I highly recommend you watch a video of a carrier CATOBAR launch and then compare it to a STOVL carrier launch. Four times as fast, where did you read this bunk?

I would have to disagree with that statement STOVL is genraly faster in most situatation the STOVL CVF is twise as fast at lanching aircraft as CATOBAR CdG
'The main deck consists of a main runway angled at 8.5° to the ship's axis and an aircraft launch area forward of the island. These are each equipped with a USN Type C13 catapult, capable of launching one aircraft a minute.'
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gaulle/

The maximum launch rate is 24 aircraft in 15 minutes and the maximum recovery rate is 24 aircraft in 24 minutes.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/
this rate is comparable to the CVN which can launch one every 30 sec

also i rember reading when USMC harriers where on Illustrious they achived a similerly high lanch rate

 

[Sea Toby]

Maybe you are confusing French carrier's two catapults with an American carrier's four catapults? The naval-technology site says: The carrier George H.W. Bush can launch aircraft at a rate of one every 20 seconds. I don't think a Harrier can do much faster, surely not 4 times as fast.

It does take time for the crewmen to pull the safeties and salute the pilot before the men in white waves the flag. The crew waits until the last minute or so to pull the safeties. Otherwise, we would see more USS Forrestal's flight deck explosions and fires.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The issue of volley rate is critical when assessing CATOBAR and STOVL. STOBAR. This has been discussed before and apaprently requires a sticky so that some don't selectively ignore it.

As an issue of absolutes (and ignore the issue that some navies do have a doctrine that supports STOBAR or STOVL for not just technical reasons), then CATOBAR enables

- faster form up
- an ability to launch the aircraft at max load
- quicker to get the platform and packages to target
- able to utilise max speed faster if necessary
- less fuel burn at launch, less need to refuel as a consequence
- greater flexibility in launching other assets, eg S3, Tracers, COD.

You cannot do COD fixed wing on STOBAR in any current available aviation platform. (except for demonstraters like the C130 which reinforced the impracticality of it)

For the USN, they did the sums on the most efficient carrier size to get "nn" firepower on target.

The USMC has a requirement for STOVL, the USN does not. So the article (much like Brian Tooheys idiotic comments in the Aust Canberra Times) lacks some sophistication.

 

[Firehorse]

Do you know how many people are directly involved in CAT launch of a single fixed-wing aircraft? At least 8 years ago it was 600! Multiply this by 11 CVNs and you get 6,600 - an entire extra CVN, its airwing crew, and then some! As for the cancelled '50s seaplane capability, check my edited post here.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Do you know how many people are directly involved in CAT launch of a single fixed-wing aircraft? At least 8 years ago it was 600! Multiply this by 11 CVNs and you get 6,600 - an entire extra CVN, its airwing crew, and then some! As for the cancelled '50s seaplane capability, check my edited post here.

There are plenty of other elements that go into a decision to equip with STOBAR/STOVL or CATOBAR. CATOBAR is hideously sophistocated, miantinance and manpower intenceive. Thats why not everyone has CATOBAR. But in terms of pure capability, CATOBAR is distinctly superioir. The biggest factors are package generation rates (remember the package is evrything), supporting assets like tankers, fixed wing ASW & AEW&C, and volley rates.

Of cource aggregate capability in not the only factor in a systems selection, cost, maintinance & manpower penalties and availability are just as important.

 

[AegisFC]

Do you know how many people are directly involved in CAT launch of a single fixed-wing aircraft? At least 8 years ago it was 600! Multiply this by 11 CVNs and you get 6,600 - an entire extra CVN, its airwing crew, and then some! As for the cancelled '50s seaplane capability, check my edited post here.

1) Do you have a legitimate source for this or are you pulling information out of your butt or picking and choosing like you always do?
2) This isn't 8 years ago and carriers along with the rest of the USN have lower manning levels.
3) I can buy that if you count EVERYONE on watch at the time the aircraft is launched, the flight deck crew, cat crew, the snipes standing various watches, the people in CIC, the bridge ect. There are NOT 800 people needed to run that catapult.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Wow, you guys are so patient, I put that guy on my ignore list a long time ago certainly cut my useless post reading by at least half, time and time again this guy ignores advice from those way more informed and continues posting mostly BS.

 

[AegisFC]

Wow, you guys are so patient, I put that guy on my ignore list a long time ago certainly cut my useless post reading by at least half, time and time again this guy ignores advice from those way more informed and continues posting mostly BS.

Well not anymore, he is gone for 3 months.

 

[McVine]

Its been like this for awhiles hasnt it? Its penny wise but pound foolish. I assume the reliability of the F-18 is their reason for carrying less, that or budget cuts. But I can think of a lot of things in our budget safer to cut then the war planes on our carriers.

I was just thinking it was probably budget constraints. Don't get me wrong I don't profess to be anything more than a novice but maybe all the money is in Iraq on the ground. Though with the huge billion dollar budget allocated to the war one wouldn't imagine they'd be making any cuts in the millitary. However they are cutting benefits and things like that. According to my friend who enlisted to get college paid for.