shrinking USN carrier air wings

[Totoro]

What is up with that? I can understand that, for example, 14 piece unit of tomcats is being replaced by 12 piece unit of superhornets, but overall the number of planes on the average USN carrier has dropped by a large amount in the last few years. If i am not mistaken before there used to be some 60 combat planes (hornets, tomcats) and now all the USN carriers operate with 4 groups of 12 hornets, for a total of just 48 combat aircraft. And in additon to that S3 are being retired too. That was 8 planes per carrier. So basically USN is operating some 20 planes less than it used to. I think USN now, with new air wings, has a replacement plane for every combat plane on the carrier.

 

[Rich]

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.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I am actually not convinced that this is a bad thing.

If you look at the RNs 65000ton carrier it will have an air wing of 40 A/C, the French 40,000ton CDG has an air wing of 40.

My understanding is that the RN believes it can generate more sorties, with its air wing than the CDG with the same sized airwing.

While I don't understand the dynamics it has something to do with more space to move around etc.

Happy for someone to say I am on the wrong track or clarify my understanding!

 

[abramsteve]

I am actually not convinced that this is a bad thing.

If you look at the RNs 65000ton carrier it will have an air wing of 40 A/C, the French 40,000ton CDG has an air wing of 40.

My understanding is that the RN believes it can generate more sorties, with its air wing than the CDG with the same sized airwing.

While I don't understand the dynamics it has something to do with more space to move around etc.

Happy for someone to say I am on the wrong track or clarify my understanding!

Hmm I would agree with you for the most part, but the Super Hornet would take up less space than a Tomcat, and the withdrawal of the S-3 and the (future) retirement of the Prowler means that theres is gonna be a hell of a lot of space on a Nimitz Class carrier... I mean look at what they used to carry F-4s, F-14s, A-4s, RA5Cs, A-7s A-6s......

I mention the possible retirment of the Prowler, I heard that somewhere I should add so dont bite my head of if Im wrong , but I also hear that the Prowler variant of the Super Hornet (EF-18F Growler?) takes up more space... is this true?

Maybe Big E can help....?

 

[contedicavour]

In terms of payload (missiles/bombs/etc) 48 Super Hornets are superior to the previous 60-something configuration of Tomcats/Hornets/Prowlers etc ?

Could one consider the TLAM payload in the escorts' VLS to be a partial substitute to the firepower lost by reducing the number of embarked jets ?

I do agree it sounds strange however that a 100,000 tonne carrier would carry only 2.5 times the number of jets that a 28,000 tonne Cavour (the F35 being comparable in size to a Super Hornet)

cheers

 

[Totoro]

There is another thing though. With S3s being retired, only USN tanking planes will be superhornets. And with 24 of them per carrier, it might very well be that no more than 30-36 combat planes in total are available for long range action since 12-18 superhornets will be doing tanker roles. That means that effective number of superhornets would be just half of total number on deck. In fact, two thirds of any combat force would be comprised of older C/D models.

 

[contedicavour]

There is another thing though. With S3s being retired, only USN tanking planes will be superhornets. And with 24 of them per carrier, it might very well be that no more than 30-36 combat planes in total are available for long range action since 12-18 superhornets will be doing tanker roles. That means that effective number of superhornets would be just half of total number on deck. In fact, two thirds of any combat force would be comprised of older C/D models.

Planes with buddy-buddy refueling kits would still retain some combat capability, especially the air-to-air kind that doesn't require too much weight added below the wings...

cheers

 

[harryriedl]

it depends on what site u go on as ive seen the CVF airwing gose up to 48 aircraft

 

[bd popeye]

I mention the possible retirment of the Prowler, I heard that somewhere I should add so dont bite my head of if Im wrong , but I also hear that the Prowler variant of the Super Hornet (EF-18F Growler?) takes up more space... is this true?

Actually the Growler is about one meter(3.1 ft) shorter than the Prowler. I'm not sure about the wing span in the folded position on the Prowler.

Hmm I would agree with you for the most part, but the Super Hornet would take up less space than a Tomcat, and the withdrawal of the S-3 and the (future) retirement of the Prowler means that theres is gonna be a hell of a lot of space on a Nimitz Class carrier... I mean look at what they used to carry F-4s, F-14s, A-4s, RA5Cs, A-7s A-6s......

In 1981 I made a MED/IO deployment of 7 months on Cv-66 with VS-33 as part of CVW-11. Our CVW was huge It consisted of;

26 Tomcats(2 were TARPS birds)
24 A-7E's
15 A-6E's(3 Tankers)
10 S-3A's
4 E-2C's
4 E/A-6B's
6 SH-60's
2 C-2's
And the occasional A-3...
In all fairness Our squadron, VS-33 usally had up to 4 aircraft on the beach at Diego Garcia.

I remember thinking.."Dang this hangar deck is always packed". I remember having a lot of crunches that cruise. but we lost no aircraft or had any class "A" mishaps.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[alexsa]

Another issue you may wish to consider is the number of servicable airframes you can generate with a squadron of 12 FA-18E/F comapred to 14 F-14. I suspect the lower number of F-18s will acutally have a higher availability than the higher number of F-14s given the SH is a more recent design and is much less mainatenace intensive.

Same goes for the Prowler. With this being replaced by the more modern F-18G which shares commonality with the SH it would appear that avaiblity must be enhanced through common spares and cross training of crew.

The loss of the S-3 is the one thing I would question but if the SH can buddy tanker and helo based ASW assest can cover that side then I guess it makes sense as well.

 

[Big-E]

The Navy has been examining ways to reduce the number of aircraft per squadron. This is made possible, as many have noted, by the increased use of PGMs and the extra firepower this provides. The other factor I have not heard mentioned yet is that naval command wants to limit the different types of aircraft so commonality can be maximized in mission support. The goal is to maintain air-wing combat capability while reducing the wing's logitistic train. Hence the overwhelming makeup of Hornets. To keep with this concept the CAG by 2020 will consist of:

12 F-18Es
12 F-18Fs
20 F-35Cs
4 UCAVs
5 EA/18Gs
5 E-2Ds
11 MH-60 Helos

All wings will be linked with data fusion to rapidly disperse info to the fleet. This will offer 10x the strike capability of only a decade ago.

 

[abramsteve]

Well what has been said does make alot of sence, especially regarding the lower downtimes of the SHs over the F-14s. I am surprised that a SH could refuel a ASW helo though.... I would have thought the speeds would have been too low?

 

[bd popeye]

Big-E ..20 F-35's? Only 10 per squadron is my guess. I agree with the USN descison to have commonality among it's carrier based aircarft. Excellent. it will improve the logistical suppourt.

Understand concept of carrier based AWACs is also being reviewed

I've read internet rumors of a V-22 Osprey AWACS varaint. Any truth to this? Or is it just some kids wet dream?

 

[RubiconNZ]

I've read internet rumors of a V-22 Osprey AWACS varaint. Any truth to this? Or is it just some kids wet dream?

Only time I have heard reference to is in relation to the Royal Navies, new carriers, I have never seen reference to it as a even possible planned US acquistion, I admit my reading is rather ltd though

 

[Grand Danois]

There is a little bit (actually a lot) on the Osprey AEW on Beedalls website

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm

 

[Big-E]

I've read internet rumors of a V-22 Osprey AWACS varaint. Any truth to this? Or is it just some kids wet dream?

What would be the point of that... unless you want to give amphibs AWACs capability. I guess a LHD might be able to carry one, have some V-TOL JSFs could give it a combat capability usually left to fleet carriers. My question with the idea is where would you stick the dome or tail? All conventional designs I've seen would have the rotators in V-TOL flight clip it. They have already had stability problems with the landing as is, addiing anything like an AWACs section would cause too many problems to shake a stick at.

 

[alexsa]

What would be the point of that... unless you want to give amphibs AWACs capability. I guess a LHD might be able to carry one, have some V-TOL JSFs could give it a combat capability usually left to fleet carriers. My question with the idea is where would you stick the dome or tail? All conventional designs I've seen would have the rotators in V-TOL flight clip it. They have already had stability problems with the landing as is, addiing anything like an AWACs section would cause too many problems to shake a stick at.

Agree

Better off with a helo based system for ships like LHD's as it is cheaper and consumes less space. it also allows commonality with the toehr helos operated.

 

[harryriedl]

although the commality is less of problem on US LHD as they will operate the V22 on ship anyway i also though it folded up to be as small as a sea stallion folded up

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

What would be the point of that... unless you want to give amphibs AWACs capability. I guess a LHD might be able to carry one, have some V-TOL JSFs could give it a combat capability usually left to fleet carriers. My question with the idea is where would you stick the dome or tail? All conventional designs I've seen would have the rotators in V-TOL flight clip it. They have already had stability problems with the landing as is, addiing anything like an AWACs section would cause too many problems to shake a stick at.

It could be handy for the RAN's LHD's if we want to use them in a hostile blue water environment, we could use a helo system but i'd rekon the osprey AWACS would have a better detection range, and a better cruse altitude. Then again it would eat up vital space.