By: steely dan
- 4th August 2011 at 15:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pity though that until the F-35 arrives her airwing won't really be worth it's salt.
yeah, because a hypothetical CVN-78 air wing in 2015 consisting of 2 squads of hornets, 2 squads of super hornets, 4 growlers, 4 hawkeyes, a couple greyhounds, and a half dozen or so seahawks is so woefully inadequate compared against the air wings that the carriers of other world navies will be able to put to sea at that time.
By: kev 99
- 4th August 2011 at 15:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yeah, because a hypothetical CVN-78 air wing in 2015 consisting of 2 squads of hornets, 2 squads of super hornets, 4 growlers, 4 hawkeyes, a couple greyhounds, and a half dozen or so seahawks is so inadequate compared against the air wings that the carriers of other world navies will be able to put to sea.
Or even compared to the rest of the USA's CVNs. :confused:
New
Posts: 3,609
By: Wanshan
- 4th August 2011 at 17:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yeah, because a hypothetical CVN-78 air wing in 2015 consisting of 2 squads of hornets, 2 squads of super hornets, 4 growlers, 4 hawkeyes, a couple greyhounds, and a half dozen or so seahawks is so woefully inadequate compared against the air wings that the carriers of other world navies will be able to put to sea at that time.
But:
The carrier will be capable of carrying up to 90 aircraft including the F-35 joint strike fighter, F / A-18E / F Super Hornet, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, EA-18G, MH-60R / S helicopters and unmanned air vehicles and unmanned combat air vehicles.
In order for a carrier to deploy, it must embark one of ten Carrier Air Wings (CVW).[Note 3] The carriers can accommodate a maximum of 130 F/A-18 Hornets[26] or 85–90 aircraft of different types, but current numbers are typically 64 aircraft. Although the air wings are integrated with the operation of the carriers they are deployed to, they are nevertheless regarded as a separate entity. As well as the aircrew, the air wings are also made up of support personnel involved in roles including maintenance, aircraft and ordnance handling and emergency procedures. Each person on the flight deck wears color-coded clothing to make their role easily identifiable.
A typical Carrier Air Wing can include 12–14 F/A-18F Super Hornets as strike fighters; two squadrons of 10–12 F/A-18C Hornets, with one of these often provided by the U.S. Marine Corps (VMFA), also as strike fighters; 4–6 EA-6B Prowlers for electronic warfare; 4–6 E-2C Hawkeyes used for airborne early warning; C-2 Greyhounds used for logistics and a Helicopter Antisubmarine Squadron of 6–8 SH-60F & HH-60H Seahawks.
By: benroethig
- 4th August 2011 at 21:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pity she's not gonna be called "Lexington".
-77 was actually going to be Lex instead of Bush sr.. Unfortunately the politicians have their hooks in to deep and are all too willing to honor themselves.
By: djcross
- 6th August 2011 at 04:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The complement of airplanes currently assigned to the CVW is 20-25 airplanes fewer than during the '60s, 70s and '80s:
2 squadrons of 10 F/A-18E/Fs for air defense
2 squadrons of 12 F/A-18 C/Ds for strike (to be replaced one-for-one by F-35Cs)
A 4-5 airplane detachment of F/A-18Gs for EW
A 4 airplane detachment of E-2C/Ds for early warning
A detachment of 6-8 SH-60s for plane guard and inner zone ASW
Two C-2 CODs typically fly from the nearest Fleet Resupply Point to the CVN, but they are not assigned to the CVW
Despite carrying fewer airplanes, the CVN sits 4 inches lower in the water because of new ship's kit added to the CVN. It will be a challenge to add 6-8 UCLASS UAVs in 2018 because many of the spaces used to support the CVW 25 years ago are being used for ship's kit today.
By: flanker30
- 6th August 2011 at 09:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the F/A-18E/Fs are solely for air defence - which means that they wouldn't be needed if the carrier group wasn't there in the first place - then the only strike capacity of the air wing - and most of the strike capacity of the Carrier Strike Group - is provided by just 24 F/A-18C/Ds.
Seems like the USN has to expend a massive amount of effort - and cost - to generate a relatively modest capability?
By: djcross
- 6th August 2011 at 10:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Against a near peer...
Alert F/A-18E/Fs with APG-79s play the role of missileer against outer zone sea-skimming threats that are beyond the line of sight of AEGIS and SM2s. E/Fs are also useful as OCA and SEAD when helping F/A-18C/Ds fight their way inland. But losses of C/Ds and E/Fs would be high against a near peer IADS due to their relatively large RCS. Growlers would be useless as they would spend their time dodging FT-2000 ARMs.
Once the self-escorting F-35Cs replace the C/Ds as the strike component of the CVW, the E/Fs are no longer needed as OCA. The F-35Cs' VLO RCS allows them to penetrate gaps in the near peer IADS, while E/F's "large" RCS would only serve to make them "SAM magnets".
After the F-35Cs have rolled-back the IADS and threats to the CSG, the E/Fs could be used to augment the CVW's strike capability.
New
Posts: 3,609
By: Wanshan
- 6th August 2011 at 11:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The complement of airplanes currently assigned to the CVW is 20-25 airplanes fewer than during the '60s, 70s and '80s:
2 squadrons of 10 F/A-18E/Fs for air defense
2 squadrons of 12 F/A-18 C/Ds for strike (to be replaced one-for-one by F-35Cs)
A 4-5 airplane detachment of F/A-18Gs for EW
A 4 airplane detachment of E-2C/Ds for early warning
A detachment of 6-8 SH-60s for plane guard and inner zone ASW
Two C-2 CODs typically fly from the nearest Fleet Resupply Point to the CVN, but they are not assigned to the CVW
Despite carrying fewer airplanes, the CVN sits 4 inches lower in the water because of new ship's kit added to the CVN. It will be a challenge to add 6-8 UCLASS UAVs in 2018 because many of the spaces used to support the CVW 25 years ago are being used for ship's kit today.
Is there reason to assume one or more carriers sent to a zone where major conflict is expected or occurring (i.e. near peer) would not be augmented and loaded out to the fullest of their capability?
By: swerve
- 6th August 2011 at 11:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-77 was actually going to be Lex instead of Bush sr.. Unfortunately the politicians have their hooks in to deep and are all too willing to honor themselves.
At least we're spared that. Nobody would even think of naming a ship 'John Major', 'Anthony Blair', or 'Gordon Brown', let alone suggesting it publicly. Even 'Margaret Thatcher' hasn't been seriously suggested.
By: djcross
- 6th August 2011 at 12:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is there reason to assume one or more carriers sent to a zone where major conflict is expected or occurring (i.e. near peer) would not be augmented and loaded out to the fullest of their capability?
The CSG fights the way it trains. At present, they train with a CVW of approximately 60 airplanes. Even with only 60 airplanes, some CVWs deploy with short manning. Adding another 20-25 airplanes would only exacerbate the manning problem.
As I posted earlier, the ship's spaces that formerly housed support for the additional 25 airplanes is now occupied by ship's kit. In other words, there is not enough available space to easily increase the number of airplanes in the CVW.
By: F-111buff26
- 6th August 2011 at 17:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The CSG fights the way it trains. At present, they train with a CVW of approximately 60 airplanes. Even with only 60 airplanes, some CVWs deploy with short manning. Adding another 20-25 airplanes would only exacerbate the manning problem.
As I posted earlier, the ship's spaces that formerly housed support for the additional 25 airplanes is now occupied by ship's kit. In other words, there is not enough available space to easily increase the number of airplanes in the CVW.
Yes there is. In a any kind of DEFCON 3 or 2 war, against a near level pear, of course the CVNs will be bulked out.your right, ships kit has expanded, hence why max numbers are down from 90+ to 80... but in a crisis, stateside squadrons and manning will be fixed by mobilisation of reserves, something that is economical or wise unless a major war effort is needed. expect 1 or 2 more VFA/VMFA squadrons and a few extra gowlers and hawkeyes
By: Al.
- 2nd September 2011 at 12:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the F/A-18E/Fs are solely for air defence - which means that they wouldn't be needed if the carrier group wasn't there in the first place - then the only strike capacity of the air wing - and most of the strike capacity of the Carrier Strike Group - is provided by just 24 F/A-18C/Ds.
Seems like the USN has to expend a massive amount of effort - and cost - to generate a relatively modest capability?
Interesting suggestion: I disagree somewhat.
The 24 F/A18s for strike is more than anyone else can do (anyone else who can embark 24 fastjets will need some for CAP or in circumstances where they do not need to neither does USN). Admittedly longer legs would be nice.
But more importantly IMMOO the Carrier Strike Group acts as a Carrier Strike GROUP. Yes the CVN is a nice big target and the priority for protection but its existence and presence enhances the effectiveness of the other units.
AEW allows a better picture for all units. So not all units need to have their nice powerful 'here I am come and get me' radars on all of the time. Which makes them less vulnerable. It also allows them to get into position to use their Harpoons, Tomahawks and NGS. Without AEW and CAP this is too dangerous (and either leads to extra losses or to them not being tasked in order to avoid those losses)
It also allows replenishment to be planned in a way which would not be possible without the bigger protected picture. Without the CAW one would not place any RFA's (well spam equivalent) anywhere near to harm's way as with.
The ASW assets may be mainly defensive (of the CVN) but allow other units' PWO's to prosecute contacts in a manner which they could not do if acting alone.
The alternatives seem seductively cheaper and more attractive.
Let's use long range bombers instead (persistance? regional deterrence? engine failure? planning error with AAR?).
Let's only use submersibles with missiles (vulernability when launching? magazine capacity?).
Let's only use skimmers with missiles (vulnerability? limited battlespace picture?).
Let's use other landbased units (what if Australia cannot actually be moved? How much AAR?)
By: StevoJH
- 8th June 2012 at 02:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Despite carrying fewer airplanes, the CVN sits 4 inches lower in the water because of new ship's kit added to the CVN. It will be a challenge to add 6-8 UCLASS UAVs in 2018 because many of the spaces used to support the CVW 25 years ago are being used for ship's kit today.
Which is why you need to introduce a new class of ship occasionally to take into account changes in technology and optimise the 'packaging'.
Posts: 65
By: TOMCAT TERRITORY - 4th August 2011 at 00:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nice looking ship!
Pity though that until the F-35 arrives her airwing won't really be worth it's salt.
Posts: 770
By: 19kilo10 - 4th August 2011 at 01:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pity she's not gonna be called "Lexington".
Posts: 104
By: steely dan - 4th August 2011 at 15:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yeah, because a hypothetical CVN-78 air wing in 2015 consisting of 2 squads of hornets, 2 squads of super hornets, 4 growlers, 4 hawkeyes, a couple greyhounds, and a half dozen or so seahawks is so woefully inadequate compared against the air wings that the carriers of other world navies will be able to put to sea at that time.
Posts: 1,533
By: kev 99 - 4th August 2011 at 15:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Or even compared to the rest of the USA's CVNs. :confused:
Posts: 3,609
By: Wanshan - 4th August 2011 at 17:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/
Still:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier#Carrier_Air_Wing
Posts: 487
By: benroethig - 4th August 2011 at 21:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-77 was actually going to be Lex instead of Bush sr.. Unfortunately the politicians have their hooks in to deep and are all too willing to honor themselves.
Posts: 770
By: 19kilo10 - 6th August 2011 at 02:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Seeing as how US carriers embark less A/C than the "glory" days of the 60s-80s........has the crew complement gone down?
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 6th August 2011 at 04:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The complement of airplanes currently assigned to the CVW is 20-25 airplanes fewer than during the '60s, 70s and '80s:
Despite carrying fewer airplanes, the CVN sits 4 inches lower in the water because of new ship's kit added to the CVN. It will be a challenge to add 6-8 UCLASS UAVs in 2018 because many of the spaces used to support the CVW 25 years ago are being used for ship's kit today.
Posts: 517
By: flanker30 - 6th August 2011 at 09:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the F/A-18E/Fs are solely for air defence - which means that they wouldn't be needed if the carrier group wasn't there in the first place - then the only strike capacity of the air wing - and most of the strike capacity of the Carrier Strike Group - is provided by just 24 F/A-18C/Ds.
Seems like the USN has to expend a massive amount of effort - and cost - to generate a relatively modest capability?
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 6th August 2011 at 10:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Against a near peer...
Alert F/A-18E/Fs with APG-79s play the role of missileer against outer zone sea-skimming threats that are beyond the line of sight of AEGIS and SM2s. E/Fs are also useful as OCA and SEAD when helping F/A-18C/Ds fight their way inland. But losses of C/Ds and E/Fs would be high against a near peer IADS due to their relatively large RCS. Growlers would be useless as they would spend their time dodging FT-2000 ARMs.
Once the self-escorting F-35Cs replace the C/Ds as the strike component of the CVW, the E/Fs are no longer needed as OCA. The F-35Cs' VLO RCS allows them to penetrate gaps in the near peer IADS, while E/F's "large" RCS would only serve to make them "SAM magnets".
After the F-35Cs have rolled-back the IADS and threats to the CSG, the E/Fs could be used to augment the CVW's strike capability.
Posts: 3,609
By: Wanshan - 6th August 2011 at 11:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is there reason to assume one or more carriers sent to a zone where major conflict is expected or occurring (i.e. near peer) would not be augmented and loaded out to the fullest of their capability?
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 6th August 2011 at 11:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
At least we're spared that. Nobody would even think of naming a ship 'John Major', 'Anthony Blair', or 'Gordon Brown', let alone suggesting it publicly. Even 'Margaret Thatcher' hasn't been seriously suggested.
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 6th August 2011 at 12:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The CSG fights the way it trains. At present, they train with a CVW of approximately 60 airplanes. Even with only 60 airplanes, some CVWs deploy with short manning. Adding another 20-25 airplanes would only exacerbate the manning problem.
As I posted earlier, the ship's spaces that formerly housed support for the additional 25 airplanes is now occupied by ship's kit. In other words, there is not enough available space to easily increase the number of airplanes in the CVW.
Posts: 523
By: F-111buff26 - 6th August 2011 at 17:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes there is. In a any kind of DEFCON 3 or 2 war, against a near level pear, of course the CVNs will be bulked out.your right, ships kit has expanded, hence why max numbers are down from 90+ to 80... but in a crisis, stateside squadrons and manning will be fixed by mobilisation of reserves, something that is economical or wise unless a major war effort is needed. expect 1 or 2 more VFA/VMFA squadrons and a few extra gowlers and hawkeyes
Posts: 1,003
By: Al. - 2nd September 2011 at 12:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting suggestion: I disagree somewhat.
The 24 F/A18s for strike is more than anyone else can do (anyone else who can embark 24 fastjets will need some for CAP or in circumstances where they do not need to neither does USN). Admittedly longer legs would be nice.
But more importantly IMMOO the Carrier Strike Group acts as a Carrier Strike GROUP. Yes the CVN is a nice big target and the priority for protection but its existence and presence enhances the effectiveness of the other units.
AEW allows a better picture for all units. So not all units need to have their nice powerful 'here I am come and get me' radars on all of the time. Which makes them less vulnerable. It also allows them to get into position to use their Harpoons, Tomahawks and NGS. Without AEW and CAP this is too dangerous (and either leads to extra losses or to them not being tasked in order to avoid those losses)
It also allows replenishment to be planned in a way which would not be possible without the bigger protected picture. Without the CAW one would not place any RFA's (well spam equivalent) anywhere near to harm's way as with.
The ASW assets may be mainly defensive (of the CVN) but allow other units' PWO's to prosecute contacts in a manner which they could not do if acting alone.
The alternatives seem seductively cheaper and more attractive.
Let's use long range bombers instead (persistance? regional deterrence? engine failure? planning error with AAR?).
Let's only use submersibles with missiles (vulernability when launching? magazine capacity?).
Let's only use skimmers with missiles (vulnerability? limited battlespace picture?).
Let's use other landbased units (what if Australia cannot actually be moved? How much AAR?)
If one ignores the slightly fruity language this has a nice summary http://www.arrse.co.uk/military-history-militaria/168602-anglo-libyan-war-1984-a.html
Posts: 104
By: steely dan - 2nd February 2012 at 15:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
with the news that the new mistral ship for russia has been officially laid-down, i've gone ahead and updated the list on page 1.
Posts: 1,010
By: totoro - 4th February 2012 at 12:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
what does ship's kit consist of in this context?
Posts: 104
By: steely dan - 10th May 2012 at 16:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i've made some periodic updates to the list on page 1:
[*]USN's LHA-7 officially named "USS Tripoli".
[*]RN's two QE class carriers reverted back to STOVL designation with the news of going back to F-35B.
[*]Russian Navy's two french-built LHDs now have names: "Vladivostok" & "Sevastopol".
[*]Spanish Navy's Principe de Asturias may soon be placed in reserve or sold.
Posts: 104
By: steely dan - 7th June 2012 at 21:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
with the news that USS America (LHA-6) was launched this past monday down in Pascagoula, i've edited the list on page 1 to reflect the change.
Posts: 1,025
By: StevoJH - 8th June 2012 at 02:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which is why you need to introduce a new class of ship occasionally to take into account changes in technology and optimise the 'packaging'.