Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Proposed Carrier Deployment
Shaka of Carthage    6/13/2003 3:59:48 AM
I'm tired of hearing how the Navy can't afford to perform the naval gunfire support mission for the Marines. The details are in the Battleship topic. So as a challenge, I decided to look into the Navy force structure and see what could be done about funding that NGF mission. I have read more articles about this subject than is healty for me. I'll share what I have found and you can draw your own conclusions. Cold War ... 600 ships, 100 attack subs, 15 CV's, 4 BB's, $120 (?) billion/year. 1980's ..... 450 ships 1990's ..... 316 ships ... $107 billion today ...... 300 ships, 55 attack subs, 12 CV's, $95(?) billion/year. CVN ........ $5 billion, 7 years, 90 tons. 10 of these (after Regan and Bush are built). 85 aircraft, 3200 crew, 2480 air crew. CVN ........ Enterprise, 1 of these. 85 aircraft, 3350 crew, 2480 air crew. CV ......... 3 of these (1 being mothballed). 85 aircraft, 3150 crew, 2480 air crew. Carriers are the optimal way of getting aircraft close to a conflict. A 75/85 aircraft carrier can deliver 100% more sorties than a 55 aircraft carrier. Hence, more cost effective to build the "super" CVNs. Carriers are needed for "power projection", but other ships can do "sea control". CVN's are the "core of naval presence". 6 to 9 months train crew, 6 month cruise, 3 month yard time. Land based aircraft ...... more efficient Carrier based aircraft ... more convienent F-14 ....... $36 million F-18 ....... $34 million CVN ........... $6 billion Aegis DD ...... $1 billion Attack Sub .... $1 billion Cargo Ship .... $300 to $400 million. F/A-18E/F and JSF are the future. The tooling for the F-14 has been destroyed. During the Cold War, the global threat was missiles from Soviet ships, aircraft and submarines. The Soviet threat is gone, but its now replaced by the "smaller, regional power in coastal areas, missiles from land, fast attack ships and coastal submarines". Show me. I want to know who this threat is. The Navy has done nothing more than scale down its Cold War Navy to the "Forward from the Sea" Navy. But its still the same doctrine, except now, there is no ability to engage in coastal combat. That mission, along with the NGF mission was dropped to pay for the existing force structure. Even the Carriers, the pride of the Navy, don't have enough Carrier Air Wings to equip all of them. The theme among every independent study I have read says the same thing. Can we afford this "one size fits all" Navy? The one size would be CVN + Amphib Ready Group. Here are those conclusions. Retain 12 CV's, 13 CAWs, but reduce the attack subs to 25 and the SSBN from 14 to 10 to be able to afford it. As the Cruisers are retired, they are not replaced, reducing the number of surface warships by 30%. This is based on a "Two Theater" war concept, but acknowledges no other missions can be performed. And understand "Theater" war means Iraq, Korea types, not a Soviet type. Reduce the CV's and build other surface warships. Call this the "presence" approach. Seven (7) CV's, 6 Carrier Air Wings, 60 new "surface" warships. Attack subs are reduced to 35, 10 SSBN. One Theater war only. But other missions can be performed during that time (ie surface warship "presence", including sea control). Submarines replace CVBGs. Call this the "stealthy strike" option. 50 new "strike subs" are built (based on the Trident SSBN). Attack subs are kept at 72, giving 122 submarines. 25 Strike and 12 Attack subs are "forward deployed", using tomahawk missiles inplace of the aircraft a CV would have. 7 CV, 6 CAW, but only 60 surface ships (Arleigh). The rest are gone, as well as a 50% reduction in the amphib ready groups to pay for the new submarines. Coastal Combat option. As the Marine Corp can perform the missions of peacekeeping, humanitarian intervention, hostage resuces, civilian evacuations, etc, the Navy will be optimized to support the Marines. It will give up the Deep Strike mission, as the Air Force can perform that. In addition to the 24 LHA/LHD/LSD ships being purchased, 19 LPD and 31 Mine warfare ships will be purchased also. This will allow three (3) Marine Brigades to be sea transported at the same time. 10 CV's, 9 CAWs (this reduction will pay for the other purchases), 93 surface ships. Attack subs reduced to 30, SSBN reduced to 10. There are many variations of the above, but you get the point. Want to know what the Navy did? It did a little of all of them. Of course, now it wants more money. Look in the Surface Warfare category, Reactivate Battleships (part II), 2nd post, for the Navy idea of transformation. I will present my own version tommorrow. Why not? Can't be any worse than what the Navy did.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Shaka of Carthage    RE:Proposed Carrier Deployment ... possible alternative.   6/16/2003 2:25:57 PM
Without getting into specific details, the US military needs to start thinking outside of the ?Cold War box?. So here is my broad stroke solution for the US Navy ?transformation?, based on the Global CONOPs (see Surface Forces, REACTIVATE THE BATTLESHIPS (part II) , first reply). Eight (8) Carrier Battle Groups ? CVN and three escort ships. One ?forward deployed? in Japan. One ?forward deployed? in SE Asia or Western Pacific (Australia, Vietnam, etc) Three West Coast Three East Coast Eight (8) CVBG?s, four (4) deployed, with US stationed staying closer to home ports. During Cold War, 5 of 13 were deployed. Only one less and not as overworked as they were during Cold War. That allows the three (3) CVs and one (1) CVN to be decommissioned. As the new CVNs are activated, decommission existing CVNs. This is a $1.6 million a year savings in CV maintenance alone. If the Navy took a CVN on each coast and placed them in the reserves, the savings would be even more. Can even place four on the West Coast and two on the East Coast. It depends on what ?surge? policy the Navy follows. Retain all ten (10) carrier air wings (CAW). Four can rotate among the ?forward deployed? and the existing policy of using Marine squadrons would be expanded into all ten (10) CAWs. If some of the CVNs become reserve, then the CAWs would become reserve as well. Each CAW costs roughly $300 million and a CV $400 million in maintenance. No CVNs are needed offshore in Europe, Persian Gulf and Korea. The Expeditionary Strike Group(s) can provide sea control and logistic support. The twelve (12) ?extra? surface ships will be the escorts for the battleship groups (BBGs). The CV maintenance alone pays for reactivating the BBs and turning them into BBGs, since we are going to do four (4) of them now. The SSBNs (14 of them) would go into the US Space service. As would the Air Forces strategic bombers and missile sites. More on that in a different category in the future. The 55 attack subs stay, but there is no reason to fund any new purchases until the number gets around 25 to 40. The 56 ?littorial? ships can be R&D, but it?s also a different subject. Purchase of ships to protect against mines, submarines and small boats (the ?littorial? mission) can be done today. Use the savings from the transfer of the SSBNs and attack submarine reductions and purchase existing designs. Transformed Navy 8 CVBGs 12 Expeditonary Strike Groups 4 BBGs 9 Surface Action Groups 4 SSN Strike Groups
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    RE:Proposed Carrier Deployment ... possible alternative.   6/16/2003 7:51:59 PM
Some of your assumptions are not supported by current events. "During Cold War, 5 of 13 were deployed. Only one less and not as overworked as they were during Cold War. That allows the three (3) CVs and one (1) CVN to be decommissioned." "No CVNs are needed offshore in Europe, Persian Gulf and Korea. The Expeditionary Strike Group(s) can provide sea control and logistic support. The twelve (12) ?extra? surface ships will be the escorts for the battleship groups (BBGs). The CV maintenance alone pays for reactivating the BBs and turning them into BBGs, since we are going to do four (4) of them now." The JFK has been assigned to the reserves sence 1995. Her skipper was relieved last year because of the poor condition of the ship. Rated by the Navy as non- deployable During the cold war we also had a training carrier(CV -16 USS Lex). Now a regular carrier has to be pulled to do student quals. The Japanese will not let a CVN be stationed in Japan. One of the reasons USS Midway was around so long. Now its the Kitty Hawk with Connie and JFK left. How many times did we sail 1 or 2 CBG around ROC in the 90s? How many strike missions were carried out over Iraq and the No fly zones in the last 10 years. During the opening days of the Afgan war the navy CBGs provided all the air support while the US bargained with our Middle Eastern friends to allow use of their bases. As a whole the Navy provided 85% of all strikes. As far as Europe is concerned, and this could go for any theater, what do we do when we want to conduct an airstrike and the "Allies" that the AF planes are based do not allow them to take off or allow overflight rights. As did Spain and France when we bombed Lybia. In a Korean war what do we do if China or NK blackmails Japan to keep our planes based there from taking part in the war? I thought that WW2 taught us that the best ship to control the sea is the carrier. Although the Navy once proposed using Wasp and Tarawa class LHA/LHDs as Sea Control Ships it was as a secondary mission
 
Quote    Reply

Shaka of Carthage    RE:Proposed Carrier Deployment ... possible alternative.   6/17/2003 4:39:32 PM
In Japan's case, CV instead of a CVN. CV or CVN in the reserves for a training carrier. I assume one would suffice. You have alot of potential "what ifs". But if 15 CVBGs sufficed for the Soviet threat, than why is 12 barely enough for the post Soviet threat? Is the world that more dangerous because the Soviets aren't around? If so, maybe we should go back to two superpowers. There are not that many potential enemy air forces that can threaten the reduced CVBGs. Maybe I am wrong, so please list them (as in the number of combat aircraft they have). The threat is from the "low intensity" conflicts where that air power doesn't do much good. And maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing for the US in that it needed allies before it got involved in regional conflicts. There are alot of potential solutions without having the US act alone. China has more in common with the US than as an opponent. But assuming it was hostile, the US would not enter into any conflict against China by itself. It would only do so with allies.
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    RE:Proposed Carrier Deployment ... possible alternative.   6/17/2003 10:08:17 PM
One will suffice, but don't count it in your mix. Lex wasn't counted when it came to No duff numbers. Except for the NK blackmail all the "what ifs" I mentioned have already happened. I prefer to consider them as "when". Saudi Arabia is giving us the boot after the Iraq war. Turkey didn't allow planes to fly from their country. With NK possibly having at least 2 nukes and the ability to deliver them anywhere on the Japanese mainland, The idea that Japan would be subject to blackmail doesn't seem far fetched. 15 carriers sufficed during the cold war because we were not the only cops on the block. A few facts from Rand. During the 15 year period between the end of the vietnam conflict and the end of the cold war: The U.S military conducted 20 "real world" overseas missions. The Navy/MC conducted 1 contengency deployment every 11 weeks. The 10 year period between 1991 and 1999 the U.S. military conducted 48 "real world" overseas missions. The Navy/MC avg for contengency deployments was 1 every 5 weeks. I think they were more overworked than during the cold war vice your statment of less work. Not sure the avg 0311 would agree that airpower doesn't do much good in "Low intensity" conflicts. The advantage to more than one carrier on station is sustained ops. Semi agree about China, however we have vowed to defend Taiwan. How long will we wait for allies. How long can Taiwan last without our help. I do not believe that the China/Taiwan conflict will ever happen.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Proposed Carrier Deployment ... possible alternative.   6/18/2003 12:25:14 AM
"In Japan's case...I assume one would suffice." Based upon exactly what? In fact, over the last ten years or so, whenever something comes up which demands a show of force in the Western Pacific, be it against China, with respect to Taiwan, or NK, with respect to SK, America tends to deploy two, and sometimes three, carries. This was as true during the Clinton years as it was, earlier, or later. There appear to be calculations driving deployment which don't change along with the POTUS, even when the President has markedly different ideas, generally, about military needs. What have you got to show that this is wrong, and that there just won't be any need for the same, in the future? "...if 15 CVBGs sufficed for the Soviet threat, than why is 12 barely enough for the post Soviet threat?" What kind of regional deployments do we have, these days? During the Cold War days, we had large armies and air forces in Europe and Japan. Have you checked on our overseas deployments recently? In the direction of those deployments? The Navy, as has been true through MOST of our history, is, again, coming to carry the bulk of the job of both showing the flag and being the first responders, outside the Continental United States. That implies MORE need; not less, given similar threats. Tell me something; is China becoming more or less of a military challenge? Has the NK military shrunken, notably, in recent years? How many carriers did we find it expedient to deploy to support the Iraq War? The Afghan War, and THAT one when we had a very limited deployment on the ground? "Low intensity" conflicts, as far as America is concerned, are a canard. We don't get involved in very many episodes like the current French deployment in West Africa. We certainly don't have plans to change that, in the foreseeable future. If, by "low intensity", you really mean "peacekeeping", we *certainly* have no national policy to radically raise our posture. The scenarios of engagement this Administration contemplates, like those we've tended to contemplate for longer than any of us have been alive, range from medium to high intensity. These are precisely the ones for which CBGs are appropriate. In fact, and despite all your efforts to show otherwise, the CBG, as we've developed it, is arguably the most flexible military tool we have for operations outside the continental United States. Certainly more flexible and unarguably more powerful than a TF built around a Hermes-type carrier or any conceivable BB or BC centered SAG.
 
Quote    Reply

Shaka of Carthage    RE:Proposed Carrier Deployment ... bsl.   6/18/2003 3:53:39 PM
"In Japans case" was the conventional CV instead of a nuclear one. "I assume one would suffice" would be one training carrier. CVBG numbers are based on the various reports written over the last six or seven years by numerous former military and civilian experts. From the CBO to the independent groups, they all agree that the Navy needs a reduction in CVs. The question is how many (6 to 10) and how. So Congress cuts the Navy's budget. And the Navy cuts everything else, except the CVNs, including cutting the aircraft wings that go on those CV's. Can't perform the mission? Not my problem, complain to Congress cause they won't give us the money to get the job done. POTUS would be silly to not use them if he has them. Of course they would be used for the show of force. But there are other ways. Reduction of ground forces in Europe and Japan are because the threats are gone. China is LESS of a military threat. But its a convient boogeyman cause there is no one else. South Korea can handle North Korea. Iraq war use was because they wanted thier share. Just like the subs firing tomahawks. There was no need for them. Afghan yes, since there was no land airbase ability. We have a different definition of "low intensity". My mistake. Grenada, Somalia, Panama would be "low". Initial Somalia, Haiti would be "peacekeeping". Iraq I and II would be "high". Peacekeeping we are in trouble yes. We don't have the proper forces for it. Potential conflicts? Korea yes. But 75% of the targets are within range of 16" BBs. They are more appropriate than a equiv number of CVs. Syria or Iran? Ground bases. Same with Afghan now. Cuba, Libya? CVs not needed. Who is left? I don't question the flexibility. I agree with you. So would having 20 Army divisions, instead of 10. But there is a limit. I can't afford a Ferrarri when what I need are a Armored Truck and five (5) Minivans.
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    RE:Proposed Carrier Deployment ...shaka.   6/19/2003 9:27:33 PM
"CVBG numbers are based on the various reports written over the last six or seven years by numerous former military and civilian experts. From the CBO to the independent groups, they all agree that the Navy needs a reduction in CVs. The question is how many (6 to 10) and how. So Congress cuts the Navy's budget." You know that it doesn't work that way. If congress wanted to get rid of a carrier they can cut funding for that specific item. The budget doesn't work like a paycheck/allowance (heres 250 billion go spend it) every item has a cost and justification and price. Funny you say congress wants the Navy to get rid of carriers but they authorize new ones to be built. Want to reduce carriers, dont fund new ones and let the old ones retire on schedule. Planes are being cut back for 3 reasons. 1. The navy got smart and realised that they pay for MC planes and weren't getting anything for their money. 2. With the introduction of the F/A 18 there was no need to replace retiring A-6/A-7/EA-6/F-14s on a 1 for 1 basis. The F-18 does both missions better and cheaper. The Nimitz sails with nothing but 18s now that the super hornet is avaliable. 3. JSF I'll bet the "We have too many carrier" studies were done by people without agendas too. Like your quoted bring back the BB group.NGF Officers are not the ones to ask for an unbiased opinion on bringing back something that allows them to keep their job/get promoted. "Potential conflicts? Korea yes. But 75% of the targets are within range of 16" BBs. They are more appropriate than a equiv number of CVs." 75% of tgts are within range if the BB are allowed access to the Korean Bay and yellow sea. And once they are there not much room to maneuver. Navy wouldn't allow them in untill the 20ish diesel subs are found and sunk. Very hard to detect in the shallow waters of the yellow sea. Then we have mines and antiship missles. The war will be over before the Navy allows a capital ship anywhere near the coast. Syria or Iran? Ground bases. Same with Afghan now. Cuba, Libya? CVs not needed. Who is left? " Which ground bases" will we use in the middle east? Do you think that Qutar, UAE, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait will allow us to use their bases to attack syria or Iran? They all could justify getting rid of Saddam, Syria and Iran is no threat to them. Especially since we havn't found any of the WMDs we said Saddam could launch in 45 min. Carriers not needed for Cuba. So you will have all air support come from McDill and Eglin in florida? Not very responsive. Lybia, needed carriers in the 80s. Lost F-111s because spain, portugal, france, germany wouldn't allow overflights. If not for Thatcher, AF wouldn't have been a player at all. Needed carriers for Northern Watch since Turkey had issues about overflights/basing. If we get involved in south america/africa/Far east where are the modern AF bases that we will use. "Iraq war use was because they wanted thier share. There was no need for them." No need for Navy air in desert storm? So you mean that the 30,000 strike missions (35% of total strikes) were not necessary? That it was unnecessary to destroy 80% of the all Iraqi radars taken out by US aircraft? That the only ECM platform was unnecessary? AF had retired EF-111. Many missions go/no go depended on avaliability of Navy EA-6B.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Proposed Carrier Deployment ...shaka.   6/19/2003 11:52:40 PM
Sam, I think the F-18E/F is open to some criticism. The Navy has been said to have snuck through a pretty major rebuild it described as a minor upgrade. Problem is that they spent a major dollar on this program, but only bought a modest set of improvements. The new F-18s are not medium bombers or heavy strike aircraft. They don't really duplicate the A-6s. They're not really the equivalents of F-15s as fighters or interceptors, either. We're losing the F-14s, which, for all their age, were highly capable interceptors which turned out to be pretty good fighters, and, recently, showed that they could be modified into nice bombers. We've lost our purpose designed strike aircraft. We certainly can't afford a navalized F-22, so that alternative is out the window for the foresseable future. Navy stuck themselves with a very expensive, but fairly limited, upgrade and they'll have to live with the consequences for a generation. The other demands on money to recapitalize the fleet are just too great to allow them to go back and do it, again. They're even going to wind up squeezed on the F-35 buy, I'm afraid.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Proposed Carrier Deployment ... bsl.   6/20/2003 12:20:28 AM
Shaka, You've either ignored the points I raised in my last note, or sidestepped them. 1)The notion that the WestPac could be covered by "one" carrier, let alone a *training carrier*, is so far out there that it suffers from red shift. I made a very specific point which you've chosen to ignore. It's a fact of history - a "fact", not disputable - that American deployments in response to events in North Korea and around Taiwan have involved **multiple** carriers. It is ALSO a fact that the total American military deployment in South Korea and Japan (and, the Phillipines) has declined, substantially, over the last generation. IOW, there is FAR less force out there on a permanent basis to do anything, at all. So, given a smaller base of support in place, in theater, just exactly WHAT is it which leads you to conclude that the country can get by, in future crises, especially with respect to NK and China/Taiwan, with LESS total force than every President who has actually faced these things concluded was appropriate? If you mean that you think the country ought abandon our committments in the area then say so. You have provided no reason, at all, to believe that the present committments can be serviced with the forces you say are sufficient. 2)Re: Reports by "former military personnel". We can find reports by "active military personnel" which "proved" that the Navy was obsolete all the way back in the 1950s. The Air Force was famous for them. The facts turned out to support a somewhat different conclusion. We can, similarly, find reports which proved that aerial bombing was no threat to warships, mechanical vehicles would never replace the horse cavalry, battleships had nothing to worry about from aircraft carriers, and that there was no such thing as powered, heavier than air flight possible. It takes a bit more to prove this case then vague references to unquoted reports by uncited people. 3)Re: "South Korea can handle North Korea" National policy is otherwise. If you think it's wrong, make the case on the merits. Don't try to shrink the navy to choke off the committment, through the backdoor. 4)Re: "China is LESS of a military threat" Because you say so? The PLA is shrinking in overall size. That's part of a policy to increase capability by transitioning from the Maoist policy of a People's Army which relied on numbers to make up for lack of capability, to a modern, professional structure relying on current generation weapons. The Chinese seem to feel they're INCREASING their real capabilities. So do Western analysts. The old structure was capable of defending China against invasion, and had some capability to project force in neighboring countries when the PLA could walk to the front. It had virtually no ability to directly threaten Taiwan. To the contrary, the form the PLA is assuming is EXACTLY the form they need if they're to develop the ability to threaten Taiwan. YOU say Taiwan is under less of a threat. The Taiwanese seem to feel the opposite. Washington, uniformed and civilian, seem to agree. Even that noted right wing militarist, Bill Clinton, thought a multiCV force appropriate to send to the region when China conducted missile tests. 5)Re: Iraq War (the navy just wanted their share) This is past wrong. It's clueless to what happened, or why it happened. The opening of that crisis saw regional powers refusing to have anything to do with an American attack on Iraq. At the beginning, that included even Kuwait, which made some clear statements in the open that it would not allow American forces to use Kuwaiti bases to stage offensive operations against Iraq. It was *precisely* the movement of multiple CBGs into the region, in accord with declared American policy, which caused the changes of heart in the region. Just as it was the movement of multiple CBGs to the western end of the Indian Ocean, for operatons against Afghanistan, which helped convince Pakistan that they'd do better to become our allies, if only nominally. I find it difficult to believe that this all has just passed by your notice. The Navy's carrier forces don't just provide the power projection capabilities the raw numbers suggest. In the real world, they convince fence sitters and even some mildly hostile groups of the seriousness of our purpose, and our ability to act, even without their cooperation. That puts countries into the position NOT of stopping our actions by their lack of cooperation, but risking that we act, anyway, and wind up extremely annoyed at them at a moment in which we are actually at war. That's a scary proposition, and, time and again, it convinces real countries that they'd be better off helping us than trying to thwart us. That buys us, among other things, the use of local bases. IOW, those carriers are force multipliers. And, since there are very, very few countries in the world which
 
Quote    Reply

Crusader    RE:Proposed Carrier Deployment ...shaka.   6/20/2003 8:11:13 AM
>>2. With the introduction of the F/A 18 there was no need to replace retiring A-6/A-7/EA-6/F-14s on a 1 for 1 basis. The F-18 does both missions better and cheaper. The Nimitz sails with nothing but 18s now that the super hornet is avaliable<< Huh? It does NOT perform strike as well as the A-6E and it does NOT intercept/fight as well as the f-14. Not sure where you got this from, but from personal conversation with Marine pilots who fly the things, the F-18 is a compromise. It can perform multi-missions, but not as well as dedicated type aircraft. Todd
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy