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

[XanderCrews]

I guess cost effectiveness is stupid to fanboys.

Some estimates put the cost of naval avaition as 10 times more expensive than land based counterparts.

This is exacerbated further when considerations like strategic bombers are factored in. A single B-1 for example can carry more bombs than dozens of fighters, even more than naval fighters that must be more weight conscious.

How cost effective is is to buy airplanes that have no future or place in a high threat environment? DoT&E and multiple naval aviators have said the super hornet won't work against high threat environments.

But a fanboy will buy them anyway, because the navy can't manage their fleet or field suitable replacements

[SpudmanWP]

DU will just poke clean holes through them... I want to see some 30mm PGU-13/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) rounds.

I want to see some boom boom....

[steve2267]

DU will just poke clean holes through them... I want to see some 30mm PGU-13/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) rounds.

I want to see some boom boom....

If you are going that route, I'd like to see a comparison between that 30mm PGU-13/B HEI round and the Norwegian NAMMO 25mm APEX round. The Norskeman seem to have come up with quite the round in the APEX.

[marauder2048]

I guess cost effectiveness is stupid to fanboys.

Some estimates put the cost of naval avaition as 10 times more expensive than land based counterparts.

This is exacerbated further when considerations like strategic bombers are factored in. A single B-1 for example can carry more bombs than dozens of fighters, even more than naval fighters that must be more weight conscious.

LRASM carriage on the B-1b and the Super Hornet really permits some direct (and unfavorable)
comparisons in terms of land-based vs. carrier-based ASuW.

LRASM on P-8 looks especially attractive since I've read CPFH estimates of $4,200 for the P-8.
You might then see carrier aviation shift towards providing escort (and possibly SEAD)
for land-based ASuW aircraft.

[sferrin]

I guess cost effectiveness is stupid to fanboys.

Some estimates put the cost of naval avaition as 10 times more expensive than land based counterparts.

This is exacerbated further when considerations like strategic bombers are factored in. A single B-1 for example can carry more bombs than dozens of fighters, even more than naval fighters that must be more weight conscious.

LRASM carriage on the B-1b and the Super Hornet really permits some direct (and unfavorable)
comparisons in terms of land-based vs. carrier-based ASuW.

LRASM on P-8 looks especially attractive since I've read CPFH estimates of $4,200 for the P-8.
You might then see carrier aviation shift towards providing escort (and possibly SEAD)
for land-based ASuW aircraft.

Stock the carriers with escorts (bet the NATF would be useful about now) and bring the heavies from further back? That'd be an interesting concept. It would certainly alleviate the need to drag escorts thousands of miles with the bombers.

[madrat]

Why wouldn't S-3 be a viable carrierborne asset to compare to P-8? Or better still, an automated system that could endure 20 missions coming off a carrier.

[tincansailor]

Sounds like some of the arguments that have been made against carriers over the last 90 years. Aircraft Carriers can do a few things heavy bombers can't. Defend the fleet for one. It's a moving target, as opposed to a fixed one. It's tactical aircraft are better able to preform CAS because they can be in more places at the same time, SAR, and SEAD missions. They are much more survivable over enemy territory.

B-52s, or B-1s will probable never be sent into any environment where SAMs are operational, or anywhere were enemy fighters could be active. P-8s will avoid the same things, which includes naval SAMS. Carrier strike aircraft will fly right into the teeth of enemy defenses, their more expendable. With all do respect to land based pilots anyone who takes off, and lands on a pitching deck has a high sense of adventure. When the F-35C enters service those carriers will become just that more effective.

[XanderCrews]

Defend the fleet for one.

Defend the fleet from what? The US Navy is not an "anti navy" force. There is no near peer navy.

It bombs land targets like everyone else but at a much greater expense, now.

It's tactical aircraft are better able to preform CAS because they can be in more places at the same time, SAR, and SEAD missions.

not that black and white at all.

The 7th BW kept a bomber in the air over Afghanistan every minute of its deployment.


The airmen of the 9th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron and 9th Expeditionary Aircraft Maintenance Unit provided more than 25 percent of the total fixed-wing close-air support coverage for coalition ground forces in Afghanistan every day by launching the most B-1 sorties executed on a single deployment in more than 10 years of sustained conflict.

Over the course of the six-plus month deployment, the squadron flew more than 770 combat sorties, encompassing over 9,500 hours, to provide 24 hours of coverage every day.

They also responded to more than 500 troops-in-contact situations, with the enemy as close as 300 meters from friendly forces, and another 700 priority air requests, delivering more than 400 weapons on target.

You can compare that to the 4 tanking its takes to get a pair of Super Hornets over friendly troops for 30 minutes. which brings up another point

THE NAVY HAS NO ORGANIC TANKING AND RELIES ON AIR FORCE BIG WING TANKERS.


The main advantage of the Carrier is close proximity to targets and ground troops. In terms of loiter, weapons, and range? one could say land based assets have a huge advantage.

In iraq we had hornets launching from hundreds of miles away to be over the target. In the meantime land based Harriers are 5 minutes away. OR heaven forbid air force F-16s that are stationed in Iraq proper. Using CVNs in the middle east has bascially been about the most convoluted and expensive way to put warheads on foreheads. But boy we will did it anyway and have Navy folks like Maus telling us how wasteful we are.

Even 35_aoa here who is a navy pilot has mentioned its wasteful, and I would have loved to see a land based carrier wing in Iraq, but then people question why we need CVNs so that wasn't going to happen.


Youre confusing Fighter Vs bomber

With Bomber vs CVN.

Anything a Navy Fighter can do, a land based fighter can do. In fact some could argue that the land based fighter does more, better.

CVNS ARE NOT UNIQUE IN THEIR ABILITY TO USE FIGHTERS.

They are much more survivable over enemy territory.

debatable. espeically as the Super Hornet and Growler are coming under fire for survivability.

B-52s, or B-1s will probable never be sent into any environment where SAMs are operational,

False. Kosovo 1999

or anywhere were enemy fighters could be active.

False again.

Carrier strike aircraft will fly right into the teeth of enemy defenses, their more expendable.

Youre confusing carrier strike aircraft with strike aircraft. fighter/attack Aircraft need not be launched from a carrier to do fighter/attack things. Which is the point I tried to make above.

In fact last I checked it was USAF fifth gen F-22s leading the charges.

With all do respect to land based pilots anyone who takes off, and lands on a pitching deck has a high sense of adventure.

Hooray for adventure. It also means navy pilots spend far more time on taking off and landing than they do combat training. but people have been brainwashed to suck them off like they're Astronauts. one could say taking a B-1 into areas where SAMs are active takes "a high sense of adventure." too. only in the navy do people get so much credit for LANDING.


You don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to say "Boy this is hard!" and "look how expensive this is!" and "look how brave!! even landing is hard!" then say "but cost is irrelevant, and none of the additional difficulty should be questioned" REALLY? A Ford carrier costs... what, $13 billion alone? Its not wrong to start talking cost vs effectiveness after being hit with that number.

CVNs have advantages that other things don't and I get that. But people act like any cost then is justified, CVN aviation has a very high cost comparative to other things. If we want to maintain that, then great.

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

[sferrin]

Anything a Navy Fighter can do, a land based fighter can do. In fact some could argue that the land based fighter does more, better.

CVNS ARE NOT UNIQUE IN THEIR ABILITY TO USE FIGHTERS.

However they ARE unique in their ability to use fighters where land bases aren't in a convenient location or have been bombed out of existence.

Even 35_aoa here who is a navy pilot has mentioned its wasteful, and I would have loved to see a land based carrier wing in Iraq, but then people question why we need CVNs so that wasn't going to happen.

Much like people asked why we needed B-1Bs since they weren't used in Desert Storm, or why we needed F-22s since they weren't used in Afghanistan. And now we have F-22s hitting drug labs in Afghanistan.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... hanistant/

What a waste of precious F-22 airframe hours.

[XanderCrews]

Anything a Navy Fighter can do, a land based fighter can do. In fact some could argue that the land based fighter does more, better.

CVNS ARE NOT UNIQUE IN THEIR ABILITY TO USE FIGHTERS.

However they ARE unique in their ability to use fighters where land bases aren't in a convenient location or have been bombed out of existence.

I don't disagree with that. I said they had unique capabilities. I would also point out that a CVN, is NOT the only way to launch a fighter from a ship...


in pure government wisdom, when the option is.

A. CVNs
B. Heavy Bombers
C. A constellation of bases all over the globe for fighters
D. All of the above.

We pick all of the above of course.

[sferrin]

Anything a Navy Fighter can do, a land based fighter can do. In fact some could argue that the land based fighter does more, better.

CVNS ARE NOT UNIQUE IN THEIR ABILITY TO USE FIGHTERS.

However they ARE unique in their ability to use fighters where land bases aren't in a convenient location or have been bombed out of existence.

I don't disagree with that. I said they had unique capabilities. I would also point out that a CVN, is NOT the only way to launch a fighter from a ship...

No, but as numerous studies have shown, it is the best way.

in pure government wisdom, when the option is.

A. CVNs
B. Heavy Bombers
C. A constellation of bases all over the globe for fighters
D. All of the above.

We pick all of the above of course.

Why wouldn't we? You can't really pack up a land base and move it to a new location in a matter of weeks, or even days, like you can with a carrier. Land based fighters can't follow bombers for thousands of miles without an assload of tankers.

[optimist]

I was actually looking for the aussies building an airfield in something like 2 days, before the first plane lands. This is a US force construction in australia

edit..found it, it was 36 hours http://app.defencejobs.gov.au/impossibleairfield/

part 1 of 3


this was the us one.

[spazsinbad]

The video text says 'review last 30 days' - text below video youtube says 'time: 14 days' - someone has hallucinated music.

No fighter jets were harmed by this airfield. Info taken from the now second video listed above. Have not seen the first.

Now in the 1st video above it is stated that the airfield will take a C-17 aircraft (designed for semi-prepared/rough fields).

[optimist]

I think the exercise could have been 30 days?
The Aussie made field was done in 36 hours.
The runway for a fighter has 'matting', from one of your posts spaz
viewtopic.php?t=16017

pics of a AM-2 mat runway in Astan
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=AM-2 ... 42&bih=614

[spazsinbad]

And it does take some time to lay the AM-2 matting depending on variables - personnel numbers/matting availability etc.