Commander Naval Air Forces wants more F/A-18s

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4702
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post10 Dec 2017, 04:16

How long does it take if you have artillery raining down 24/7?
"There I was. . ."
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 720
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post10 Dec 2017, 06:08

Probably not as long, as setting one up behind enemy lines.
I don't have the heart to tell them. Can you guys flick an email to the marines and tell them their core USMC Competence for Global Operations, the expeditionary force airfields are useless. They should pick up what's left of the 8 million square feet that was in Astan and go home. I don't know the total in the ME.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1680
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post10 Dec 2017, 06:19

sferrin wrote:How long does it take if you have artillery raining down 24/7?


Khe Sanh?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4702
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post10 Dec 2017, 07:25

optimist wrote:Probably not as long, as setting one up behind enemy lines.
I don't have the heart to tell them. Can you guys flick an email to the marines and tell them their core USMC Competence for Global Operations, the expeditionary force airfields are useless. They should pick up what's left of the 8 million square feet that was in Astan and go home. I don't know the total in the ME.


Are you saying you don't know the difference between some Afghani "army" shelling your position and the PLA doing it? BTW would you kindly explain to me how the USMC gets to the place to setup this "expeditionary force airfield"?
"There I was. . ."
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 720
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post10 Dec 2017, 08:03

"A Marine expeditionary force (MEF), formerly known as a Marine amphibious force, is the largest type of a Marine air-ground task force. A MEF is the largest building block of United States Marine Corps combat power."

The SLD USMC link was on the last page, but here's another
http://www.sldinfo.com/the-expeditionar ... rations-2/
The Expeditionary Airfield Capability: A Core USMC Competence for Global Operations

http://www.imef.marines.mil/
Marine Expeditionary Force
MISSION
I MEF provides the Marine Corps a globally responsive, expeditionary, and fully scalable Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF), capable of generating, deploying, and employing ready forces and formations for crisis response, forward presence, major combat operations, and campaigns.


Amphibious Warfare Ship Inventory Minimum Requirement: 33
11 LHD or LHA / 11 LPD / 11 LSD or LX(R)

Maritime Prepositioning Force Inventory Minimum Requirement: 14
6 T-AK / 4 T-AKR / 2 T-AKE / 2 MLP
Aussie fanboy
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post10 Dec 2017, 10:43

But lets not get high and mighty about "saving" money and "fanboys" while writing CVNs and the Navy blank Checks. People act like the CVNs and CVWs are beyond questioning and the only way to do things and thats BS. As a Marine we have to defend and justify everything we do and everything we buy right down to our new service rifles. But the Navy gets whatever because in 1986 they made a great propaganda film?

I don't think so. The Marines are going to get off the ships as fast as possible to stay with the Grunts and move with them. The navy will still be launching strikes from 700 miles away while relying on constellations of USAF Tankers to get them there. I think thats bordering on absurdity, frankly.

So I wouldn't start spouting off on the ability of the CVN to render quick help because that really depends. In Korea a CVN is king. In Afghanistan? Launching and flying that distance is ridiculous, but damned if they don't try it anyway. so they can do a show of force, hang out for 20 minutes and then start the 6 hour trek back.

Maus' position is that retrofitting an IRST to a fuel tank as kind of half-a$$ed band aid fix is a wonderful cost saving notion while ignoring the elephant in the room because RAH RAH Navy

[/quote]

Ok I will grant you CVNs are redundant in the ME. I will further grant you CVNs are now dependent on USAF tanker assets for any long range operations. That however is a temporary oversight on the part of the navy that is being corrected. Lets do a thought experiment and assume you were the Supreme Warlord of the United States, and we scraped all our CVNs because their just not cost effective. What would happen?

I assume the money from naval aviation would be divided between the army, and the USAF. Sounds like what they wanted to do in the late 40s. When the army, and the air force got divorced they ganged up on the navy, and wanted to eliminate both naval, and marine aviation. Land based aviation was so much more cost effective, and the nuclear armed B-36 Bomber would render all conventional forces insignificant to the strategic balance of power.

So lets say the army gets two more divisions, two more aviation brigades, and some new wiz bang missile systems. The air force gets ten new wings. Just to show your magnums the navy may get a few more amphibious warfare ships, that can carry F-35Bs. Settling aside the political effect of not having carriers to deploy to trouble spots, what else would happen?

So now the expanded USAF will provide AWACS, and fighter coverage for any surface action groups that enter the range of hostile aircraft, and anti-ship cruise missiles. The USAF will also provide the same protection for all amphibious forces, and convoys sailing within range of hostile bombers. The USAF would take over the F/A-18G, since they operate the 390th Electronic Combat Squadron, and operate with VAQ-129. I assume as Supreme War lord you would upgrade to Growlers? The change from today would be the air force would have to pay for the aircraft.

In a Korean conflict airfields in SK would come under heavy attack. In 1950 most of our airfields were overrun. We had to base most of our air force assets in Japan. Navy, and marine aviation saved the day. Fortunately the navy successfully resisted the army, and air forces efforts to eliminate navy, and marine aviation. Oh the army also wanted to eliminate the marine corps altogether. "What do we need the Marine Corps for anyway? We didn't have them in Europe, and most of the ground troop that fought in the Pacific were army troops." If our bases in the ROK are badly damaged the same thing might happen.

In a conflict with China our carriers give us mobility. China would have to disperse forces to cover their whole coast, and into the South China Sea. Land based heavy bombers can only come from a few bases, which are subject to attack, and we just don't have that many of them. Carriers would come in handy in any conflict in the Indian Ocean. Even Northern Russia is vulnerable to carrier attack. In the Cold War we had plans for a six carrier attack on the Red Banner Fleet in Murmansk.

I'm sure the USAF would have no objection to taking on all these new missions, that the navy handles now. I'm sure they could preform them much more cost effectively then the navy does them. Of course they would need to learn some things like over water navigation, SAR operations in the middle of an ocean, open new bases so their fighters can cover all these areas,but those are only small matters. With all the money we would save by getting rid of the those inefficient carriers, we could pay for the USAF to take on all these missions, and have plenty of money left over. Sorry I don't think so.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4702
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post10 Dec 2017, 15:49

optimist wrote:"A Marine expeditionary force (MEF), formerly known as a Marine amphibious force, is the largest type of a Marine air-ground task force. A MEF is the largest building block of United States Marine Corps combat power."

The SLD USMC link was on the last page, but here's another
http://www.sldinfo.com/the-expeditionar ... rations-2/
The Expeditionary Airfield Capability: A Core USMC Competence for Global Operations

http://www.imef.marines.mil/
Marine Expeditionary Force
MISSION
I MEF provides the Marine Corps a globally responsive, expeditionary, and fully scalable Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF), capable of generating, deploying, and employing ready forces and formations for crisis response, forward presence, major combat operations, and campaigns.


Amphibious Warfare Ship Inventory Minimum Requirement: 33
11 LHD or LHA / 11 LPD / 11 LSD or LX(R)

Maritime Prepositioning Force Inventory Minimum Requirement: 14
6 T-AK / 4 T-AKR / 2 T-AKE / 2 MLP



It was a rhetorical question. If you want to get those ships anywhere near the beach guess who has to go in first to take down the defenses and provide air cover. That's right, the CVBGs. Even gators, when they get the F-35B, won't have the degree of control over the air as a CVBG with its E-2Ds, F-35Cs, Growlers, and SM-6.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5609
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post10 Dec 2017, 16:41

optimist wrote:Probably not as long, as setting one up behind enemy lines.
I don't have the heart to tell them. Can you guys flick an email to the marines and tell them their core USMC Competence for Global Operations, the expeditionary force airfields are useless. They should pick up what's left of the 8 million square feet that was in Astan and go home. I don't know the total in the ME.



We also defer to the navy in matter of ground warfare as well
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5609
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post10 Dec 2017, 16:55

tincansailor wrote:Ok I will grant you CVNs are redundant in the ME. I will further grant you CVNs are now dependent on USAF tanker assets for any long range operations. That however is a temporary oversight on the part of the navy that is being corrected.



Temporary? It's been like that for decades and will continue. In fact it would actually be made worse again at near peer adversary s as the CVN isn't getting any closer and the CVN is always going to be limited by fighter sized tankers. Unless you want to bring back the "whale."

As always I appreciate the history lesson, my point is simply watching a deep blue service selfish squid like maus go on about cost effectiveness and fanboyism is darkly funny.

I'm not saying we do away with CVNs what I am saying is we take a seriously look at their employment. Is the cost worth it? I will say yes but let's not pretend it's not a high cost.

In the meantime the USN has become a second class air force. Why is the navy supposed to be the first on the scene yet the USAF is kicking down the door? Is the navy the fat donut cop who secures the scene until SWAT shows up? If so why are we paying him more than SWAT?

The only thing more expensive than a first class air force is a second class air force. 2nd place in combat is dead last. Right?

The super hornet can't handle high threat, yet we have carriers specifically for the highest threats? Like china?

So we've got multibillion dollar ships equipped with POS fighters and that's not a wa$te??

My whole point is that I challenge the notion that the navy is somehow fiscally responsible because its not buying rhe F-35 but is responsible for buying an aircraft that can't handle their prime adversary in China
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post10 Dec 2017, 18:57

sferrin wrote:.... Even gators, when they get the F-35B, won't have the degree of control over the air as a CVBG with its E-2Ds, F-35Cs, Growlers, and SM-6.


....please consider that a possible effort could be undertaken to consider revising the LPD reference designed L(X)-R, for the addition of VLS (SM-6?) as both LPD 27 & 28 are revision designs for cost improvement and assessment for the L(X)-R final design. The VLS could be revised to the existing LPDs, adding even more anti-air/ship protection and ground support.

.."if it floats, it fights"

...A possible version/ Ro-Ro for the ever versatile MV-22B as an E-2D (jr.), could allow the MEF to address, in a fashion your
list of CVBG deficiencies. Then the "10" become "20ish?".

The "Bee" is making changes that were not considered possible, in the planning of the design!
:wink:
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4702
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post10 Dec 2017, 19:31

neptune wrote:
sferrin wrote:.... Even gators, when they get the F-35B, won't have the degree of control over the air as a CVBG with its E-2Ds, F-35Cs, Growlers, and SM-6.


....please consider that a possible effort could be undertaken to consider revising the LPD reference designed L(X)-R, for the addition of VLS (SM-6?) as both LPD 27 & 28 are revision designs for cost improvement and assessment for the L(X)-R final design. The VLS could be revised to the existing LPDs, adding even more anti-air/ship protection and ground support.

.."if it floats, it fights"

...A possible version/ Ro-Ro for the ever versatile MV-22B as an E-2D (jr.), could allow the MEF to address, in a fashion your
list of CVBG deficiencies. Then the "10" become "20ish?".

The "Bee" is making changes that were not considered possible, in the planning of the design!
:wink:



I see lots of hand-waving but nothing that exists and/or hasn't already been looked at and found wanting.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4702
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post10 Dec 2017, 19:32

XanderCrews wrote:
optimist wrote:Probably not as long, as setting one up behind enemy lines.
I don't have the heart to tell them. Can you guys flick an email to the marines and tell them their core USMC Competence for Global Operations, the expeditionary force airfields are useless. They should pick up what's left of the 8 million square feet that was in Astan and go home. I don't know the total in the ME.



We also defer to the navy in matter of ground warfare as well


Are you seriously going to suggest it's as easy to setup an airbase in enemy territory as it is to float a CVBG there?
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5609
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post10 Dec 2017, 20:03

sferrin wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
optimist wrote:Probably not as long, as setting one up behind enemy lines.
I don't have the heart to tell them. Can you guys flick an email to the marines and tell them their core USMC Competence for Global Operations, the expeditionary force airfields are useless. They should pick up what's left of the 8 million square feet that was in Astan and go home. I don't know the total in the ME.



We also defer to the navy in matter of ground warfare as well


Are you seriously going to suggest it's as easy to setup an airbase in enemy territory as it is to float a CVBG there?


I'm told landing on a CVN is the toughest thing a pilot can do so....


And Define easy?

Is it easy to train, maintain, and build fleets of ships with highly specialized aircraft and pilots?
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4702
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post10 Dec 2017, 20:28

XanderCrews wrote:Is it easy to train, maintain, and build fleets of ships with highly specialized aircraft and pilots?



So let me just see if I'm clear here. You're actually saying we should get rid of CVNs and rely solely on building airbases on enemy territory after we've somehow miracled away their forces?
"There I was. . ."
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 720
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post10 Dec 2017, 22:14

sferrin wrote:It was a rhetorical question. If you want to get those ships anywhere near the beach guess who has to go in first to take down the defenses and provide air cover. That's right, the CVBGs. Even gators, when they get the F-35B, won't have the degree of control over the air as a CVBG with its E-2Ds, F-35Cs, Growlers, and SM-6.

I'm not making a case against CVB, The air land expeditionary force are part of the fleet. It's not either or, is that where the push back is coming from.
Aussie fanboy
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests