Future USN surface fleet

[Sea Toby]

I will agree about the speed for the LCS. Its not needed. A slower designed ship with similar weapon systems and size should be sufficient using a simple hull. I'm thinking in terms of less than half the size of the Danish Absalon, around 2500-2700 tons or less than a thousand tons larger than the NZ OPV. I also don't like the tumbledown hull form of the DDGX, while I can see less radar signature, I do not see good seakeeping. Unfortunately, the US Navy isn't leaning in that direction at the moment, the navy wants more speed. The idea is to have a sufficient ASW asset for ocean escorting and a low draught for the SEALS.

 

[rjmaz1]

There should be no marine squadrons embarked. Rather, there should be 5 full squadrons composed of a mix of F/A-18s and F-35Cs.

Thats already planned as far as i know.

The LHA-6 ship is designed for the F-35B's.

The Marine squadrons can leave the aircraft carriers since they no longer use CATOBAR aircraft. This is why buying aircraft are the solution to the US Navy budget problems.

If they can have five squadrons of F-35C's and F/A-18's on the aircraft carrier such an increase could automatically see a reduction in carriers and a massive amount of money to spend on other things.

The LHA(R) ships will be three quarter the size of a Nimitz class carrier. So if they build four LHA ships and have 10 Nimitz carriers then really they have the equivalent of 13 Nimitz class aircraft carriers.

That to me isn't a reduction if anything thats an increase in carriers. The Wasp LHD's will also have potent force projection thanks to the F-35B's. They could effectively have 20 aircraft carriers with enough force to strike 200 miles inland.

I agree with rjmaz. Cutting 1 CVN allows a few hundred more aircraft. That option offers tankers, additional F/A-22s and a lot more JSFs.

The problem is that the USN would have to sacrifice its budget for the USAF.

Thanks for the support.

Money doesn't have to be sacrificed to the USAF.

The current US carriers aren't running at full capacity, so cutting one carrier will allow for more aircraft on each carrier. The billions saved could be spent on bringing an unmanned strike aircraft to the aircraft carriers. Or buy all the LCS ships they want, That would give long term gain for a short term loss.

However in a nut shell, aircraft carriers wouldn't be needed at all if the USAF had aircraft with global reach and high endurance. If the USAF had F-22's with a 2000 mile combat radius it could pretty much cover any point on earth from a fixed base.

Thats why starting from the tip of the sword is most important.

Retire a few aircraft carriers and leave only the 10 Nimitz class carriers. A reduction in the short term.

Make the aircraft on the carriers more potent so even with the reduced number of aircraft carriers the force projection increases in the mid term.

Put the money into the B-3 and other unmanned technology so that the aircraft can reach any point of the earth from any friendly base. Thats a big increase in the long term.

 

[Salty Dog]

The LHA(R) ships will be three quarter the size of a Nimitz class carrier. So if they build four LHA ships and have 10 Nimitz carriers then really they have the equivalent of 13 Nimitz class aircraft carriers.

That to me isn't a reduction if anything thats an increase in carriers. The Wasp LHD's will also have potent force projection thanks to the F-35B's. They could effectively have 20 aircraft carriers with enough force to strike 200 miles inland.

Sorry mate, I do not agree with you on the carrier increase. CVNs and LHAs have distinctly different purposes and missions. Conceptually they may be able to perform a few cross-deck missions, however that is not the reality in the US Navy.

The CVN itself belongs to Naval Air type commanders and LHA to Amphibious Forces type commanders.

At least from the US Navy point of view, CVNs and LHA can not be mixed.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

From Wiki:

Typically this would be: 12 F/A-18E/F Hornets, 36 F/A-18 Hornets, four E-2C Hawkeyes, and four EA-6B Prowlers fixed-wing; and the following helicopters: four SH-60F and two HH-60H Seahawks. The carrier can also deploy S-3B Viking aircraft, but these are being phased out. Air wings can be varied according to the nature of the operation: for example, in 1994, 50 army helicopters replaced the usual air wing on the USS Dwight D Eisenhower during operations off Haiti.

Today's carrier air wings are smaller. I remember 24 Tomcats, 24 Intruders, 24 Corsair IIs, Vikings, and a similar number of helicopters. The Hornets are multi-role aircraft, replacing Tomcats and Intruders/Corsair IIs with better technology, although not one for one. The Vikings are being discarded because there isn't a large fleet of Soviet submarines threatening North Atlantic sea lanes any longer. Many of the Tomcats were hangar queens. All of today's Hornets could be used as fighters or bombers, Tomcats never bombed and the Corsairs could not fly attack missions at night.

Would I like to have another 12 Hornets and 6 new model Vikings aboard. Yes. But the US Navy doesn't want them, they are happy with what they have. Eventually the Hornets will be replaced by 360 naval F-35C Lightning IIs. They should replace every one of the regular Hornets, but not the Super Hornets. And as a topper, the Marine Corps want as many Lightning IIs, some as Bs and I think some as Cs. Even if they got only Bs, the Bs would be useful off a carrier.

OK so what will the air wing of the future be like? Could it be 12 Super Hornets and 36 F-35Cs, or 12 F-35Cs and 36 Super Hornets?

 

[Sea Toby]

From my previous answer, this is twenty or more years from now, I would suspect a number of Growlers, along with Lightning IIs, at least 36 naval versions, along with the possibility of adding 12 Marine Lightning IIs, plus the Hawkeyes and helicopters. I believe the Pentagon is focusing on a total of 123 Growlers for the Navy, possibly many more for the Air Force. If the Navy receives that many, its possible to allot 10 to each carrier. A few Super Hornets may still be around to add or subtract Marine Lightning IIs.

I know this isn't the answer you want, but there is and always have been some fliexiblity with the Marines aircraft. The point is I do not see any more cutting of a carrier's air group in the future from the point they are today. Of course, you may consider this wishful thinking.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

From my previous answer, this is twenty or more years from now, I would suspect a number of Growlers, along with Lightning IIs, at least 36 naval versions, along with the possibility of adding 12 Marine Lightning IIs, plus the Hawkeyes and helicopters. I believe the Pentagon is focusing on a total of 123 Growlers for the Navy, possibly many more for the Air Force. If the Navy receives that many, its possible to allot 10 to each carrier. A few Super Hornets may still be around to add or subtract Marine Lightning IIs.

I know this isn't the answer you want, but there is and always have been some fliexiblity with the Marines aircraft. The point is I do not see any more cutting of a carrier's air group in the future from the point they are today. Of course, you may consider this wishful thinking.

Well I know the Super Hornets(aka Rhino's) and F-35s will complement each other for many years along with the EA/-18Gs replacing the F/A-18 A-D Hornets, F-14s and EA-6s. I'm just woundering how many F-35Cs will there be on each acrrier along with the Rhinos, Growlers and F-35Bs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm just woundering how many F-35Cs will there be on each acrrier along with the Rhinos, Growlers and F-35Bs.

Growlers/Prowlers are deployed in their own full short squadron. ie < 6

 

[Sea Toby]

Well I know the Super Hornets(aka Rhino's) and F-35s will complement each other for many years along with the EA/-18Gs replacing the F/A-18 A-D Hornets, F-14s and EA-6s. I'm just woundering how many F-35Cs will there be on each acrrier along with the Rhinos, Growlers and F-35Bs.

Its difficult to place a specific number on anything, that far away. No one knows whether the production numbers of Lightning IIs will struck, stay the same, or grow. While every nation has signed agreements, I won't hold my breath waiting to see if they follow through with their agreements. A carrier could carry 36, 48, possibly even 60 Lightning IIs depending on the situation. That's why I support aircraft carriers, they are flexible. During regular patrols maybe only 48 Lightning IIs are carried, during a crisis more can be flown out. More than likely one squadron at a time will be converted. The production programs lasts 20 or more years. Why worry about precise numbers now for an air wing twenty or more years away?

As I have said on other threads, too many put to much importance on precise numbers. I am only interested in a balanced fleet, air groups and ships.

 

[Salty Dog]

Link to a typical composition of a current US Navy Carrier Air Wing

Substitute the F/A-18C/D for the F-35B

Substitute the Prowlers for Growlers

Substitute the SH-60 for the MH-60

Take out the S-3

Basically, you now have the future F-35B Carrier Air Wing (CVW)

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Sea Toby]

The 30 year plan shows that what were solid numbers last year aren't this year, and no plan has been accurate 30 years hence. Its an annual exercise of fiction, a mystery no one can really count on. Even when the plan shows growth, no one really expects much.

More than likely within the next 30 years there will be significant cuts.

And there is more truth to my last statement than the fiction of the 30 year plan, although I have no facts.