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

[XanderCrews]

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?

I didn't said get rid of CVNs.

I'm saying let's take an honest look at the cost and effort put into them to basically bomb shore targets right along side land based fighters . And maybe there are better or more cost effective ways of doing that.


What if we cut CVNs by 1/3 and pumped that money into heavy bombers? Or land based fighters? Ford costs 13 billion alone. Any idea how many strategic bombers that could net you? Strategic bombers that don't also require loads of other surface ships as well to help do their job?

[XanderCrews]

An addition to the above:


The navy and maus don't get to claim some moral high ground on cost effectiveness.

[sferrin]

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?

I didn't said get rid of CVNs.

I'm saying let's take an honest look at the cost and effort put into them to basically bomb shore targets right along side land based fighters . And maybe there are better or more cost effective ways of doing that.


What if we cut CVNs by 1/3 and pumped that money into heavy bombers? Or land based fighters? Ford costs 13 billion alone. Any idea how many strategic bombers that could net you? Strategic bombers that don't also require loads of other surface ships as well to help do their job?

The problem with that is there's a minimum rate you need to maintain for efficiency and it's already about there. If you cut the build rate your CVN fleet will shrink, unit cost will go up (death spiral), and so forth. They're actually trying to find a way to make the CVN fleet bigger. All the numbers have been crunched ad nauseum and the CVN always comes out on top when all things are taken into account.

[Corsair1963]

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?

I didn't said get rid of CVNs.

I'm saying let's take an honest look at the cost and effort put into them to basically bomb shore targets right along side land based fighters . And maybe there are better or more cost effective ways of doing that.


What if we cut CVNs by 1/3 and pumped that money into heavy bombers? Or land based fighters? Ford costs 13 billion alone. Any idea how many strategic bombers that could net you? Strategic bombers that don't also require loads of other surface ships as well to help do their job?

The Ford Class will become cheaper with every ship. While, the cost to operate them will be far lower than the proceeding Nimitz Class Carriers.

In addition it's not like the Carriers aren't in high demand. So, honestly any talk about cutting them is totally unfounded.

[steve2267]

Doesn't the requirement to fight two conflicts at the same time kind of dictate the number of carriers the USN requires? Or the fact that the US has the Atlantic to the East, and the Pacific to the West? If one needs four carriers to effectively fight a regional conflict, that leaves four carriers to be in training workups, and one carrier to be in overhaul for 1-2 years. Or maybe it's two carriers on station, two in transit to/from station, four in workups, and one in overhaul.

[tincansailor]

I didn't said get rid of CVNs.

I'm saying let's take an honest look at the cost and effort put into them to basically bomb shore targets right along side land based fighters . And maybe there are better or more cost effective ways of doing that.


What if we cut CVNs by 1/3 and pumped that money into heavy bombers? Or land based fighters? Ford costs 13 billion alone. Any idea how many strategic bombers that could net you? Strategic bombers that don't also require loads of other surface ships as well to help do their job?

[/quote]

[/quote]I'm glad you appreciate my references to history. I hope it shows how all these arguments are nothing new. I take it your coming from an air force prospective? Your not understanding navy, and maritime requirements. The navy is responsible for a lot more then striking land targets. It's strategic responsibilities are actually greater then the USAF.

The navy defends the shores of America, from all threats. It protects our supply lines to our oceanic possessions, That includes routes to Alaska, Hawaii, Pacific islands, and those semi American Spanish speaking people in Puerto Rico. The navy protects the shipping routes to our allies, that we would use to reinforce them in wartime. In fact it's responsible for protecting all world wide shipping. The navy also shares responsibilities with the USAF for missile defense, and nuclear deterrence.

A common misunderstanding is that the ships in a Battle Group are there to defend the carrier. That is incorrect, they defend each other. A CVBG is a unit, with each ship using it's capabilities in coordination with the Group, and the aircraft from the carrier. Since people on the forum spend so much time talking about the F-35, and the E-2D, and questions of fleet defense it's strange to hear someone questioning the need for carriers in naval warfare.

Until the B-21 enters production over 80% of our bomber force will be none stealth. If we build 100 of them half will still be none stealth. They need lots of supporting aircraft. Fighters, tankers, AWACS, and EW aircraft, to keep them safe. The only heavy bomber that could attack targets in Kosovo was the B-2, where it accounted for 33% of all targets destroyed in the conflict. Yes I agree we should have built a lot more then 21 B-2s. The original 132 would have been a good number.

You suggest we cut our carrier force by 1/3. Current plans call for 11 carriers, under your plan we would have 7. With 7 carriers 2 would be unavailable at any given time, leaving us with 5 deployable. 1 is based in the Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean, 1 in Japan. 1 in the Atlantic, 1 in the Pacific, and 1 you can put where you want. Not much of a surge capacity is it?

the strain on ships, and crews would make it almost imposable to mass more then 2 carriers in one place. It would take months of preparation, and planning to bring 3 together, and then only for a brief period of time. Can you cover the rest of the worlds oceans with 2 carriers? Things are tight enough with 10 or 11, 7 would be unworkable. Forget it if we had two conflicts at the same time.

As far as your assertion that the navy is building a second class air force, I think your being unfair. Yes the navy is deficient in tankers, but they have some capacity, and new options are presenting themselves. Your main complaint is the slowness in deploying the F-35C, and that the F/A-18E/F cannot survive in defended air space. Navy leadership disagrees. They think their Super Hornets supported by Growlers, and using stand off weapons, and decoys can handle the current threat. The F-35C is coming, and in future years will make up about 1/3 of naval strike aircraft.

Over the next 10 years most air force tactical aircraft will still be 4th generation. In 2027 will the USAF be a second class air force? The navy has been calling for more F/A-18s because they have a sever fighter shortfall. I have no doubt that in 2025 the navy will be calling for more F-35Cs. By the late 2020s the navy will want to retire their oldest Super Hornets, and replace them with F-35Cs with what I imagine will be Block 6 software. By then fighters maybe armed with lasers, a whole different paradigm.

IMHO the future of naval aviation looks much brighter then you think. The F/A-18 may not be a stealth aircraft but it is at least as survivable as the F-15, and F-16. It's RCS is a lot smaller then ether of them, and the Growlers will be there to support them. The ASH is a major upgrade, and again the F-35C will be joining the fleet next year. Have a little faith that the aircraft carrier will soldier on doing good service, and that 10-11 is the minimum size of the fleet.

[XanderCrews]

I'm glad you appreciate my references to history. I hope it shows how all these arguments are nothing new. I take it your coming from an air force prospective? Your not understanding navy, and maritime requirements. The navy is responsible for a lot more then striking land targets. It's strategic responsibilities are actually greater then the USAF.

The navy defends the shores of America, from all threats. It protects our supply lines to our oceanic possessions, That includes routes to Alaska, Hawaii, Pacific islands, and those semi American Spanish speaking people in Puerto Rico. The navy protects the shipping routes to our allies, that we would use to reinforce them in wartime. In fact it's responsible for protecting all world wide shipping. The navy also shares responsibilities with the USAF for missile defense, and nuclear deterrence.

A common misunderstanding is that the ships in a Battle Group are there to defend the carrier. That is incorrect, they defend each other. A CVBG is a unit, with each ship using it's capabilities in coordination with the Group, and the aircraft from the carrier. Since people on the forum spend so much time talking about the F-35, and the E-2D, and questions of fleet defense it's strange to hear someone questioning the need for carriers in naval warfare.

Until the B-21 enters production over 80% of our bomber force will be none stealth. If we build 100 of them half will still be none stealth. They need lots of supporting aircraft. Fighters, tankers, AWACS, and EW aircraft, to keep them safe. The only heavy bomber that could attack targets in Kosovo was the B-2, where it accounted for 33% of all targets destroyed in the conflict. Yes I agree we should have built a lot more then 21 B-2s. The original 132 would have been a good number.

You suggest we cut our carrier force by 1/3. Current plans call for 11 carriers, under your plan we would have 7. With 7 carriers 2 would be unavailable at any given time, leaving us with 5 deployable. 1 is based in the Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean, 1 in Japan. 1 in the Atlantic, 1 in the Pacific, and 1 you can put where you want. Not much of a surge capacity is it?

the strain on ships, and crews would make it almost imposable to mass more then 2 carriers in one place. It would take months of preparation, and planning to bring 3 together, and then only for a brief period of time. Can you cover the rest of the worlds oceans with 2 carriers? Things are tight enough with 10 or 11, 7 would be unworkable. Forget it if we had two conflicts at the same time.

As far as your assertion that the navy is building a second class air force, I think your being unfair. Yes the navy is deficient in tankers, but they have some capacity, and new options are presenting themselves. Your main complaint is the slowness in deploying the F-35C, and that the F/A-18E/F cannot survive in defended air space. Navy leadership disagrees. They think their Super Hornets supported by Growlers, and using stand off weapons, and decoys can handle the current threat. The F-35C is coming, and in future years will make up about 1/3 of naval strike aircraft.

Over the next 10 years most air force tactical aircraft will still be 4th generation. In 2027 will the USAF be a second class air force? The navy has been calling for more F/A-18s because they have a sever fighter shortfall. I have no doubt that in 2025 the navy will be calling for more F-35Cs. By the late 2020s the navy will want to retire their oldest Super Hornets, and replace them with F-35Cs with what I imagine will be Block 6 software. By then fighters maybe armed with lasers, a whole different paradigm.

IMHO the future of naval aviation looks much brighter then you think. The F/A-18 may not be a stealth aircraft but it is at least as survivable as the F-15, and F-16. It's RCS is a lot smaller then ether of them, and the Growlers will be there to support them. The ASH is a major upgrade, and again the F-35C will be joining the fleet next year. Have a little faith that the aircraft carrier will soldier on doing good service, and that 10-11 is the minimum size of the fleet.

I'm a Marine, not air force. and I have about no faith in the navy. Thats only because I have experience with them though.

Youre history is often generalized (and stuff we already know about), and in the case of the B-1s not being sent were SAMs are active, Wrong.

The only heavy bomber that could attack targets in Kosovo was the B-2,

ya gotta wonder how the B-1s were there then.

Col. Gerald Goodfellow, 7th Bomb Wing vice commander, said he was flying in the second B-1 in formation, which was following Payne and the aircrew flying lead in formation. He said after releasing 32 Mk-82 bombs, he wasn't able to close the bomb bay doors, and a malfunction in the weapon system prevented further bomb releases.

"I was able to fix the malfunction, but the bomb bay doors stayed open," said Goodfellow a captain and 77th Bomb Squadron flight commander. "We continued to the second target, and we dropped 40 Mk-82s on it before a surface-to-air missile was fired at us."

The crew used Chaff, Electronic Countermeasures and maneuvering to defeat the SAM, but while maneuvering, the B-1 was forced into the engagement zone of a second SAM, which was also defeated.

http://www.ellsworth.af.mil/News/Featur ... ied-force/


and the B-52s that weren't there:

https://theaviationist.com/2014/10/16/b ... ied-force/

Try again. You are wrong here. First you said B-1s wouldn't be sent where SAMs are. And then you said they didn't deploy at all. Wrong in both cases. So it never happpens, except when it does?

You are also saying "we wouldn't send non stealthy things where SAMs are, and at the same time telling us we will send legacy aircraft and super Hornets and Growlers where SAMs are"

Now I'm going to reemphasize this. I'm not saying you send in heavy bombers alone and without support.

Youre argument seems to be "well without CVNs you won't have fighters!" No Fighters can come from other places. I might have been drunk but I think Ive even seen navy fighters and even other fighters take off from land, I can't be sure but...

Thats the argument I keep seeing. You guys think if "youre outta CVNs, youre outta fighters." Thats BS, especially when its going to be F-22s, and other Land Based aircraft kicking down the doors. The Navy is not a Day 1 force anymore. There hve also been precedents set where navy squadrons are land based.


I watch the navy hemorrhage money constantly, and you have fanboys like youre boy Maus92 there saying the opposite of what you are saying about the Navy. Right down to in his mind the F-35 being a complete waste of money and the Navy is clawing to get away from it

Navy leadership disagrees.

You and maus disagree on what the Navy leadership thinks.


How do we reconcile these two navies? According to Maus the Navy has zero interest in the F-35. WE've already seen the vaunted DOT&E reports call the Super Hornet and Growler into question in high threat environments. So the navy is interested in being a second hand air force according to Maus.

Im all ears on the Tincan vs Maus92 debate. Lets see you two compare notes. because you are both telling some very different sea stories. Read through this thread and look at what Maus92 has written, it doesn't jive with your rosy assessment at all

And I would also say that things have "Changed" a tad since the last big B-36 vs carrier inter-service brawl so there are similarities but key differences as well, but one thing at a time.

[tincansailor]

I'm a Marine, not air force. and I have about no faith in the navy. Thats only because I have experience with them though.

Youre history is often generalized (and stuff we already know about), and in the case of the B-1s not being sent were SAMs are active, Wrong.

The only heavy bomber that could attack targets in Kosovo was the B-2,

ya gotta wonder how the B-1s were there then.

https://theaviationist.com/2014/10/16/b ... ied-force/

Youre argument seems to be "well without CVNs you won't have fighters!" No Fighters can come from other places. I might have been drunk but I think Ive even seen navy fighters and even other fighters take off from land, I can't be sure but...

Thats the argument I keep seeing. You guys think if "youre outta CVNs, youre outta fighters." Thats BS, especially when its going to be F-22s, and other Land Based aircraft kicking down the doors. The Navy is not a Day 1 force anymore. There hve also been precedents set where navy squadrons are land based.


I watch the navy hemorrhage money constantly, and you have fanboys like youre boy Maus92 there saying the opposite of what you are saying about the Navy. Right down to in his mind the F-35 being a complete waste of money and the Navy is clawing to get away from it

How do we reconcile these two navies? According to Maus the Navy has zero interest in the F-35. WE've already seen the vaunted DOT&E reports call the Super Hornet and Growler into question in high threat environments. So the navy is interested in being a second hand air force according to Maus.

Your very good a making up what people say. Just when did I say that the navy is the only service with fighters? Nonsense. For my next post I'll allow you to write the whole thing, so you can make your points. I know you'll be surprised, but I don't coordinate my posts with Maus, he can make his own arguments.

I didn't say the B-52H, or the B-1Bs didn't participate In the Kosovo War. The B-52s started the war launching ALCMs. Later after they thought the SAM threat was beaten down they bombed border areas. They never ventured into active SAM zones. No one with any common sense would ordered that. The B-1B did attack targets deep inside Serbia after the IADS was degraded, and only with as I said massive support. I should have been more clear, and expected a lawyers comeback.

My point, was that only the B-2 could operate over enemy territory with an intact IADS in reasonable safety. The B-1B can do so at risk, and only with massive support, the B-52H not at all. After the IADS is beaten down they can take greater risks, not before. Is that in any kind of dispute?

My point about CVNs is they have many uses that fit into our national security strategy. They cannot be replaced by heavy bombers. Your thinking seems to be limited to nothing more then bombs on target. There's a lot more that goes into it, before, and after the bombs drop, and there are many vital missions that don't involve dropping bombs at all.

The navy is concerned with sea control. A bomber can't do sea control. A bomber can't defend a surface group. A bomber can't hunt submarines. Yes I know you'll say a bomber can be converted into an ASW aircraft. The navy has specialized ASW aircraft like the P-8 to do that job better then a B-52 can. Let the navy do what it does, and let the USAF do what it does. No one is suggesting that since P-8s can carry ALCMs it should replace the B-52. We need 10-11 aircraft carriers, 7 won't cut it, and more heavy bombers can't make up the difference.

[XanderCrews]

Your very good a making up what people say. Just when did I say that the navy is the only service with fighters? Nonsense. For my next post I'll allow you to write the whole thing, so you can make your points. I know you'll be surprised, but I don't coordinate my posts with Maus, he can make his own arguments.

I didn't say the B-52H, or the B-1Bs didn't participate In the Kosovo War. The B-52s started the war launching ALCMs. Later after they thought the SAM threat was beaten down they bombed border areas. They never ventured into active SAM zones. No one with any common sense would ordered that. The B-1B did attack targets deep inside Serbia after the IADS was degraded, and only with as I said massive support. I should have been more clear, and expected a lawyers comeback.

My point, was that only the B-2 could operate over enemy territory with an intact IADS in reasonable safety. The B-1B can do so at risk, and only with massive support, the B-52H not at all. After the IADS is beaten down they can take greater risks, not before. Is that in any kind of dispute?

My point about CVNs is they have many uses that fit into our national security strategy. They cannot be replaced by heavy bombers. Your thinking seems to be limited to nothing more then bombs on target. There's a lot more that goes into it, before, and after the bombs drop, and there are many vital missions that don't involve dropping bombs at all.

The navy is concerned with sea control. A bomber can't do sea control. A bomber can't defend a surface group. A bomber can't hunt submarines. Yes I know you'll say a bomber can be converted into an ASW aircraft. The navy has specialized ASW aircraft like the P-8 to do that job better then a B-52 can. Let the navy do what it does, and let the USAF do what it does. No one is suggesting that since P-8s can carry ALCMs it should replace the B-52. We need 10-11 aircraft carriers, 7 won't cut it, and more heavy bombers can't make up the difference.

Hey sailor, I can only go on what you write-- Not what you mean. If a "lawyers comeback" is me demanding facts or clarity because my ESP sucks, call me Johnny Cochran.

I understand how ships have advantages that heavy bombers don't. The question is the cost and in my estimation a lack of cost questions at all. And the fact that a carrier is only as good as the aircraft that fly off it. And the CVN is suffering there. Big time

[sferrin]

I understand how ships have advantages that heavy bombers don't. The question is the cost and in my estimation a lack of cost questions at all.

Just because the answers weren't to your liking doesn't mean they weren't asked. It's not exactly a new question (see "Admiral's Revolt"). The fact of the matter is a carrier brings airpower wherever you want it, whenever you want it, without regard to local politics. That is but one advantage. The notion that this could be duplicated with land bases is laughable.

And the fact that a carrier is only as good as the aircraft that fly off it. And the CVN is suffering there. Big time

Well then, clearly we should scrap the carrier fleet. Judas. You of all people should know that the types of aircraft deployed on carriers is a matter of choice. The USN CHOSE to go with an all-Snorenet fleet. Was it a poor choice? Obviously. 20/20 hindsight. That doesn't mean the problem can't be fixed going forward.

[XanderCrews]

The USN CHOSE to go with an all-Snorenet fleet. Was it a poor choice? Obviously. 20/20 hindsight. That doesn't mean the problem can't be fixed going forward.

Maus and Co don't think there's a problem Though. He blames the F-35 for every navy misstep and there have been many of them.

[sferrin]

The USN CHOSE to go with an all-Snorenet fleet. Was it a poor choice? Obviously. 20/20 hindsight. That doesn't mean the problem can't be fixed going forward.

Maus and Co don't think there's a problem Though. He blames the F-35 for every navy misstep and there have been many of them.

The "Super" Hornet was ever only intended as an interim aircraft (as I'm sure you're aware). Even though the NATF and A-12 never materialized, it would have been nice if the AF/X had. If we'd had those and the F-35C (and X-47Bs) we'd have been in a much better position.

afx_lockheed_boeing_gd_02.jpg (50.95 KiB) Viewed 60201 times

[mas]

That suspiciously looks like a Tomcat with a stealth overcoat on !

[rheonomic]

Regarding the CVN argument:

[spazsinbad]

I'm simply dumbfounded how the US Congress has wrecked the US Military with SEQUESTRATION & CRs over the years....

Navy Wasted Enough on Continuing Resolutions to Buy F-35 Squadron
07 Dec 2017 Hope Hodge Seck

"As Congress eyes the possibility of yet another continuing resolution in lieu of a defense budget for 2018, Navy Secretary Richard Spencer this week put the cost of such a move in stark terms. Since 2011, Spencer told an audience at the U.S. Naval Institute's Defense Forum Washington, continuing resolutions have cost the Department of the Navy roughly $4 billion. And that's money, he added, that is badly needed to build the service up to the strength required to face contemporary threats. "Since 2011, we have put $4 billion in a trash can, put lighter fluid on top of it and burned it," he said. " ... It's enough money that it can buy us the additional capability and capacity that we need."

Spencer, who was sworn in to his new post in August, said the money lost through continuing resolutions would have paid for a squadron of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, two Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers, 3,000 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, or 2,000 Tomahawk land attack missiles.

Continuing resolutions are stopgap measures designed to freeze funding at current levels in lieu of new budget appropriations....

...Spencer described the issue not just as an inconvenience or unnecessary expense for the Navy, but as a matter of survival...."

Source: https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2017/1 ... adron.html