Where will the money come from...

[s.p.i.]

To pay for the envisioned force structure below? Well the seemingly
inviolate 12 carrier hull money is most likely one place. With what
is being proposed why would you need 12 carriers anyway?
Maybe its time to begin to transform Naval Aviation away from being so
completely centered around a weapons system that hasn't fundamentally
changed in 60 years-the Aircraft Carrier-before it becomes completely
irrelevant...

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday July 1, 2003
The Guardian

The Pentagon is planning a new generation of weapons, including huge
hypersonic drones and bombs dropped from space, that will allow the US
to strike its enemies at lightning speed from its own territory.
Over the next 25 years, the new technology would free the US from
dependence on forward bases and the cooperation of regional allies,
part of the drive towards self-suffi ciency spurred by the
difficulties of gaining international cooperation for the invasion of
Iraq.

The new weapons are being developed under a programme codenamed Falcon
(Force Application and Launch from the Continental US).

A US defence website has invited bids from contractors to develop the
technology and the current edition of Jane's Defence Weekly reports
that the first flight tests are scheduled to take place within three
years.

According to the website run by the Defence Advanced Research Projects
Agency (Darpa) the programme is aimed at fulfilling "the government's
vision of an ultimate prompt global reach capability (circa 2025 and
beyond)".

The Falcon technology would "free the US military from reliance on
forward basing to enable it to react promptly and decisively to
destabilising or threatening actions by hostile countries and
terrorist organisations", according to the Darpa invitation for bids.
The ultimate goal would be a "reusable hypersonic cruise vehicle (HCV)
.... capable of taking off from a conventional military runway and
striking targets 9,000 nautical miles distant in less than two hours".

The unmanned HCV would carry a payload of up to 12,000 lbs and could
ultimately fly at speeds of up to 10 times the speed of sound,
according to Daniel Goure, a military analyst at the Lexington
Institute in Washington.

Propelling a warhead of that size at those speeds poses serious
technological challenges and Darpa estimates it will take more than 20
years to develop.

Over the next seven years, meanwhile, the US air force and Darpa will
develop a cheaper "global reach" weapons system relying on expendable
rocket boosters, known as small launch vehicles (SLV) that would take
a warhead into space and drop it over its target.

In US defence jargon, the warhead is known as a Com mon Aero Vehicle
(Cav), an unpowered bomb which would be guided on to its target as it
plummeted to earth at high and accelerating velocity.

The Cav could carry 1,000 lbs of explosives but at those speeds
explosives may not be necessary. A simple titanium rod would be able
to penetrate 70 feet of solid rock and the shock wave would have
enormous destructive force. It could be used against deeply buried
bunkers, the sort of target the air force is looking for new ways to
attack.

Jane's Defence Weekly reported that the first Cav flight demonstration
is provisionally scheduled by mid-2006, and the first SLV flight
exercise would take place the next year. A test of the two systems
combined would be carried out by late 2007.

A prototype demonstrating HCV technology would be tested in 2009.

SLV rockets will also give the air force a cheap and flexible means to
launch military satellites at short notice, within weeks, days or even
hours of a crisis developing.

The SLV-Cav combination, according to the Darpa document, "will
provide a near-term (approximately 2010) operational capability for
prompt global strike from Consus (the continental US) while also
enabling future development of a reusable HCV for the far-term
(approximately 2025)". The range of this weapon is unclear.

This is what I wrote in April and so far I'm half right...
"And I'll bet a paycheck the Air Force will argue just that Real Soon
Now. Also the Space folks will likely chime in about the operational
usefulness of the Common Aero Vehicle as well.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were only a six carrier force by
2015."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
>
> As long as the US isn't looking to attack Mexico or Canada and as long as
it
> has 'interests' abroad, it will need CV aviation.
>

Why?


>
> Who is searching for a mission is the USAF...B-2s and lots of tough to
move
> TacAir wings are largely irrelevent, designed for countering the 'Red
Horde'
> marching across the central plains of Europe.
>

Carrier aviation has no advantage over land-based aviation.

[s.p.i.]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message k.net>...
> "Pechs1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > As long as the US isn't looking to attack Mexico or Canada and as long as
> it
> > has 'interests' abroad, it will need CV aviation.
> >
>
> Why?
>
>
> >
> > Who is searching for a mission is the USAF...B-2s and lots of tough to
> move
> > TacAir wings are largely irrelevent, designed for countering the 'Red
> Horde'
> > marching across the central plains of Europe.
> >
>
> Carrier aviation has no advantage over land-based aviation.
Thucydes is a great read but of course he didn't know abou the
militarization of Space...
I'm not saying carrier aviation has *no* advantage over land-based
aviation. In the near term there are some real advantages in
fact..sadly mitigated by the Bug-Centric problems of effective combat
radius however. Carrier aviation has given up some important
advantages it once had though to the point that any pretense it can
operate without significant land-based assests, and for that matter
land bases themselves, is a real joke nowadays.
Where is the ELINT based? Most of the other recce assets as well? The
majority of the gas that is passed to the woefully shortlegged
airgroup comes from where? If those assests do in fact have a
sucessful rendezvous with the tanker-as was seen recently that could
be a big if-and they don't drop their load where do they go to deposit
this ordnance so they can get back aboard? Don't have enough to
commit these "delicate instruments" to the briny deep.
No true stealth is really palnned for the airgroup so the B-2s have
job security. The navy can't drop anything bigger than 5000 lbs so
those TAC Air wings will still be needed as well.
Sure the Common Aero Vehicle is not a highly visible instrument of
state, but in the post Cole world the whole concept of Showing The
Flag is now a draconian intrusive episode for the host countries
because of our security demands anyway.
Bottom line is the touted reasons for a carrier are becoming less than
truly real. And the military space assests are becoming more viable
and compelling. The choice for NAVAIR is to rest on its laurels and
stay enamored with the "intrepid skygod getting back on the boat in
the single seat skychariot" mentality as it mostly has since WWII. Or
it can join the new century and stay a viable military arm.
It will be an intersting five or so years.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"s.p.i." > wrote in message
om...
>
> I'm not saying carrier aviation has *no* advantage over land-based
> aviation. In the near term there are some real advantages in
> fact..
>

Such as?

[Red Rider]

"s.p.i." > wrote in message
om...

SNIP!
> With what
> is being proposed why would you need 12 carriers anyway?

Because it is hard to park a B-2 just off some ones coast 24/7 as a reminder
that you may not approve of their actions. (Besides the AF and satellites
just isn't that visible).

A Carrier Battle Group in someone's bathtub shows them you are very
concerned. Two Carrier Battle Groups, plus a couple of MAU's tells them you
are really PO'd. Three or more means the S**t is about to hit the fan.

Its human nature, if they can't see it, they don't think about it. Now if
you could park a space station that was visible from the ground over them it
would be different. But we can't, and we probably can't do it in the
foreseeable future either. So we will have to make do with the Carrier
Battle Group, and once or twice a day have one of the escorts pop up above
the horizon, have a few aircraft making contrails in the sky, and of course
plenty of radio chatter, just to remind everyone who is watching.

In the last 50 years or so the Carrier Battle Group, has become more of a
diplomatic tool than an instrument of war. But war is really extreme
diplomacy anyway.

Red

[John Carrier]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "s.p.i." > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > I'm not saying carrier aviation has *no* advantage over land-based
> > aviation. In the near term there are some real advantages in
> > fact..
> >
>
> Such as?

Mobility. Concrete independent ... no basing agreements required with Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, Italy, you-name-it.. The fact that a CVBG offshore makes a
political statement that a wing of B-2's sitting in Whiteman cannot make.

R / John

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
>
> Mobility.
>

Carrier aircraft are more mobile than land-based aircraft?


>
> Concrete independent ... no basing agreements required with Saudi
> Arabia, Kuwait, Italy, you-name-it.. The fact that a CVBG offshore makes
a
> political statement that a wing of B-2's sitting in Whiteman cannot make.
>

How are any of those advantages?

[Giz]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Pechs1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > As long as the US isn't looking to attack Mexico or Canada and as long
as
> it
> > has 'interests' abroad, it will need CV aviation.
> >
>
> Why?
>
>
> >
> > Who is searching for a mission is the USAF...B-2s and lots of tough to
> move
> > TacAir wings are largely irrelevent, designed for countering the 'Red
> Horde'
> > marching across the central plains of Europe.
> >
>
> Carrier aviation has no advantage over land-based aviation.


It takes a B-2 a loooonng time to fly from the US to a target in the Middle
East.
Not exactly an on demand platform. To fly that same aircraft from somewhere
near the fight requires host country approval. Remember how difficult it
was
for the Air Force to get in the fight against Libya? Just think, that was
with
host country approval. CV aviation will always have that advantage over
shore based. 4.5 acres of sovereign territory that can go to the fight.

Giz
>
>

[Giz]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "John Carrier" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Mobility.
> >
>
> Carrier aircraft are more mobile than land-based aircraft?

Where is Edwards AFB? Where is the USS John C. Stennis?
Where will both be 6 months from now?

>
>
> >
> > Concrete independent ... no basing agreements required with Saudi
> > Arabia, Kuwait, Italy, you-name-it.. The fact that a CVBG offshore
makes
> a
> > political statement that a wing of B-2's sitting in Whiteman cannot
make.
> >
>
> How are any of those advantages?

Aircraft that you cannot use for political reasons are worse than useless.
They
have cost you, but are not returning on the investment. You honestly can't
see
the advantage of a CVBG off a hostile coast over a wing of B-2's in middle
America? Open your eyes. Even the Air Force doesn't try to make the
argument you are. They did before, but have come to their senses. CV
aviation will not replace shore based aviation, but it will not succumb to
it either.

Giz
>
>

[Pechs1]

steven-<< Why? >><BR><BR>

After I wrote-<< As long as the US isn't looking to attack Mexico or Canada and
as long as
it
> has 'interests' abroad, it will need CV aviation. >><BR><BR>

"Sea lines of 'communication'"..supply, We aren't going to get all the oil we
need from Canada...overland.

Who ya gonna call when some country in some ocean or sea sinks a US owned oil
tanker or a cruise ship?

Ya deploy a USAF TacAir wing? And put a load of Army guys on ships? Nope-you
are going to call Naval Aviation with their ugly, ****ed off little sister, the
USMC onboard Anphibs.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

Steven-<< Carrier aircraft are more mobile than land-based aircraft? >><BR><BR>

Nope but the place they land sure is...

I think ya need to spend some time in a USN airwing and a USAF ariwing...like I
have and the 'answers' such seem easy.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Giz" > wrote in message
...
>
> It takes a B-2 a loooonng time to fly from the US to a target in the
> Middle East. Not exactly an on demand platform.
>

How does the speed of a B-2 compare to that of an aircraft carrier?


>
> To fly that same aircraft from somewhere
> near the fight requires host country approval.
>

Why is that a problem?


>
> Remember how difficult it was for the Air Force to get in the fight
against Libya?
>

Eldorado Canyon? I recall the F-111s had to take a lengthier route than
desired and that carrier aviation alone wasn't up to the task. Is that not
correct?


>
> Just think, that was > with
> host country approval. CV aviation will always have that advantage over
> shore based. 4.5 acres of sovereign territory that can go to the fight.
>

4.5 acres that can go to the fight at a rather slow speed, joining the
land-based aviation already involved.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Giz" > wrote in message
...
>
> Where is Edwards AFB?
>

California.


>
> Where is the USS John C. Stennis?
>

Beats the hell outta me.


>
> Where will both be 6 months from now?
>

Same answers.

I don't see what your questions have to do with the relative mobility of
carrier aircraft versus land-based aircraft.


>
> Aircraft that you cannot use for political reasons are worse than useless.
> They have cost you, but are not returning on the investment.
>

So we purchase carrier aircraft for political purposes and land-based
aircraft for combat purposes?


>
> You honestly can't see the advantage of a CVBG off a hostile coast over a
> wing of B-2's in middle America?
>

No, why don't you explain it to me?


>
> Open your eyes. Even the Air Force doesn't try to make the
> argument you are. They did before, but have come to their senses. CV
> aviation will not replace shore based aviation, but it will not succumb to
> it either.
>

The argument I'm making? I thought I was just asking a few questions.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nope but the place they land sure is...
>

So what?


>
> I think ya need to spend some time in a USN airwing and a USAF
ariwing...like I
> have and the 'answers' such seem easy.
>

Well, then, perhaps you could answer some of the question I've asked in this
discussion. Nobody else seems able to.

[W. D. Allen Sr.]

...."reusable hypersonic cruise vehicle (HCV) ... capable of
taking off from a conventional military runway and striking
targets 9,000 nautical miles distant in less than two
hours"....


And how long can this "HCV" loiter in the target area while
the White House makes it's go-to-war decision? Those
"ancient" aircraft carriers have been continuously
on-station all day, every day at multiple hot spots all over
the world for over HALF A CENTURY [almost half a million
hours at EACH hot spot]!

No, this latest engineering solution-in-search-of-a-problem
does not preclude the continuing need for aircraft carriers
and what only they can do!!! Incidentally such HCV concepts
have been repeatedly considered over many decades. About
every twenty years we revisit these old "new ideas".

By the way, just calculate the pay load fraction needed for
fuel to move that 12,000 pound HCV hypersonically over 9,000
miles.

"Get it right or just forget it!"

WDA

end


"s.p.i." > wrote in message
om...
> To pay for the envisioned force structure below? Well the
seemingly
> inviolate 12 carrier hull money is most likely one place.
With what
> is being proposed why would you need 12 carriers anyway?
> Maybe its time to begin to transform Naval Aviation away
from being so
> completely centered around a weapons system that hasn't
fundamentally
> changed in 60 years-the Aircraft Carrier-before it becomes
completely
> irrelevant...
>
> Julian Borger in Washington
> Tuesday July 1, 2003
> The Guardian
>
> The Pentagon is planning a new generation of weapons,
including huge
> hypersonic drones and bombs dropped from space, that will
allow the US
> to strike its enemies at lightning speed from its own
territory.
> Over the next 25 years, the new technology would free the
US from
> dependence on forward bases and the cooperation of
regional allies,
> part of the drive towards self-suffi ciency spurred by the
> difficulties of gaining international cooperation for the
invasion of
> Iraq.
>
> The new weapons are being developed under a programme
codenamed Falcon
> (Force Application and Launch from the Continental US).
>
> A US defence website has invited bids from contractors to
develop the
> technology and the current edition of Jane's Defence
Weekly reports
> that the first flight tests are scheduled to take place
within three
> years.
>
> According to the website run by the Defence Advanced
Research Projects
> Agency (Darpa) the programme is aimed at fulfilling "the
government's
> vision of an ultimate prompt global reach capability
(circa 2025 and
> beyond)".
>
> The Falcon technology would "free the US military from
reliance on
> forward basing to enable it to react promptly and
decisively to
> destabilising or threatening actions by hostile countries
and
> terrorist organisations", according to the Darpa
invitation for bids.
> The ultimate goal would be a "reusable hypersonic cruise
vehicle (HCV)
> ... capable of taking off from a conventional military
runway and
> striking targets 9,000 nautical miles distant in less than
two hours".
>
> The unmanned HCV would carry a payload of up to 12,000 lbs
and could
> ultimately fly at speeds of up to 10 times the speed of
sound,
> according to Daniel Goure, a military analyst at the
Lexington
> Institute in Washington.
>
> Propelling a warhead of that size at those speeds poses
serious
> technological challenges and Darpa estimates it will take
more than 20
> years to develop.
>
> Over the next seven years, meanwhile, the US air force and
Darpa will
> develop a cheaper "global reach" weapons system relying on
expendable
> rocket boosters, known as small launch vehicles (SLV) that
would take
> a warhead into space and drop it over its target.
>
> In US defence jargon, the warhead is known as a Com mon
Aero Vehicle
> (Cav), an unpowered bomb which would be guided on to its
target as it
> plummeted to earth at high and accelerating velocity.
>
> The Cav could carry 1,000 lbs of explosives but at those
speeds
> explosives may not be necessary. A simple titanium rod
would be able
> to penetrate 70 feet of solid rock and the shock wave
would have
> enormous destructive force. It could be used against
deeply buried
> bunkers, the sort of target the air force is looking for
new ways to
> attack.
>
> Jane's Defence Weekly reported that the first Cav flight
demonstration
> is provisionally scheduled by mid-2006, and the first SLV
flight
> exercise would take place the next year. A test of the two
systems
> combined would be carried out by late 2007.
>
> A prototype demonstrating HCV technology would be tested
in 2009.
>
> SLV rockets will also give the air force a cheap and
flexible means to
> launch military satellites at short notice, within weeks,
days or even
> hours of a crisis developing.
>
> The SLV-Cav combination, according to the Darpa document,
"will
> provide a near-term (approximately 2010) operational
capability for
> prompt global strike from Consus (the continental US)
while also
> enabling future development of a reusable HCV for the
far-term
> (approximately 2025)". The range of this weapon is
unclear.
>
> This is what I wrote in April and so far I'm half right...
> "And I'll bet a paycheck the Air Force will argue just
that Real Soon
> Now. Also the Space folks will likely chime in about the
operational
> usefulness of the Common Aero Vehicle as well.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if there were only a six carrier
force by
> 2015."

[John Carrier]

> How much of the Earth's surface is out of range of land-based aviation?
How
> much of the Earth's surface is out of range of carrier aviation?

Irrelevant. Land-based aviation requires runways. We operate from many of
them at the pleasure of a host nation. What that nation gives, so can it
take away.

R / John

[Pechs1]

roncachamp-<< How does the speed of a B-2 compare to that of an aircraft
carrier? >><BR><BR>

If the CV is already there,,,lots faster.

<< To fly that same aircraft from somewhere
> near the fight requires host country approval.
>

Why is that a problem? >><BR><BR>

Cuz some countires will say no(?)....

<< Eldorado Canyon? I recall the F-111s had to take a lengthier route than
desired and that carrier aviation alone wasn't up to the task. Is that not
correct? >><BR><BR>

Nope not correct...and we(CVs) werre on station for many moths after the USAF
went home,,,flying 10 miles north of the 'line of death'...no USAF units were
invloved....

<< 4.5 acres that can go to the fight at a rather slow speed, joining the
land-based aviation already involved. >><BR><BR>

See above and there were NO USAF landbased assets involved in this or many oher
exercises...

P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

roncachamp-<< Where is Edwards AFB?
>
California.


>
> Where is the USS John C. Stennis?
>

Beats the hell outta me.


>
> Where will both be 6 months from now?
> >><BR><BR>


bing bing, we have a winner...and he doesn't even know it....


<< I don't see what your questions have to do with the relative mobility of
carrier aircraft versus land-based aircraft. >><BR><BR>


ummmmm vulnerability??
Predictabiulity?
Ability to make a US 'statement'?

I know having a bunch of SAC weenies dressing up nice with their scarfs and new
leather jackets and all and standing next to their B-2s makes my eyes water but
the people in Liberia don't really GAS...

P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

roncachamp-<< Sea lines of communication and supply cannot be maintained
without carrier
aviation? Other countries without carriers seem to manage. >><BR><BR>

ya mean third or fourth world nations who's economy is a fraction of
California's??

See confliuct, worlkd war, etc...If it weren't for the 'sea lines of
communication', the UK would be speaking German.

<< Well, if the response requires carrier aviation, then we'd have to call the
US Navy. But why would any response necessarily require carrier aviation?
>><BR><BR>

<< Ya deploy a USAF TacAir wing? And put a load of Army guys on ships?
Nope-you
> are going to call Naval Aviation with their ugly, ****ed off little
sister, the
> USMC onboard Anphibs.
>

Please explain why. >><BR><BR>

Faster, more versatile, more effective, cheaper...

How would a TacAir wing be any more anything, please explain..Your
clue-lessness is fast approaching 'troll' status...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

roncachamp-<< How much of the Earth's surface is out of range of land-based
aviation? How
much of the Earth's surface is out of range of carrier aviation? >><BR><BR>


Lots...center of Russia, lots of China...you aren't going to just wander around
in their airspace w/o their permision. BUT how many seaports can be threatened
by a CV that is already w/i 1000 NM of the country?? Compared to being
theatened by land based aviation of the US...

<< Has a runway ever been sunk? I seem to recall a few carriers have, that
would seem to indicate a 1000 ft runway that moves at 25 knots is indeed
more vulnerable than a 10,000 ft one that does not. >><BR><BR>


you are out to lunch...I seem to think of a runway and some aircraft in Hawaii
that were put out of action by some CVA based aircraft...I think they were
Japanese..


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

<< Nope but the place they land sure is...
>

So what?
>><BR><BR>

You don't really need to ask this, do you??

<< Well, then, perhaps you could answer some of the question I've asked in this
discussion. Nobody else seems able to. >><BR><BR>

Adios MF....another clueless civilian...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Thomas Schoene]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
thlink.net
> >
> > Remember how difficult it was for the Air Force to get in the fight
> against Libya?
> >
>
> Eldorado Canyon? I recall the F-111s had to take a lengthier route
> than desired and that carrier aviation alone wasn't up to the task.
> Is that not correct?

USN A-6s and A-7s were busy beating up on targets around Benghazi while the
F-111s were hitting Tripoli.

Basically, it came down to numbers of suitable aircraft. The plan called
for precision night attack, which meant either A-6s or F-111s. With two
carriers, there were only 20 A-6s in the region, but 32 were needed to
strike all the planned targets in one go. So the Air Force was recruited to
fly the rest of the strikes.

It took the Air Force 57 aircraft (half of them tankers) to hit roughly the
same number of targets as 26 Navy aircraft.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/el_dorado_canyon.htm

Today, many of the factors that restricted the Lybia strikes are no longer
factors. A single carrier could put up at least 40 aircraft qualified for
night proecision strike today; two carriers could easily cover both the
Benghazi and Tripoli target sets without Air Force augmentation, even
excluding the possible use of Tomahawks against some or all of these
targets.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[s.p.i.]

"W. D. Allen Sr." > wrote in message >...

All the arguments posited here about why DARPA's FALCON project will
never supplant aircraft carriers remind me so much of the "Gun Club"
arguments AGAINST carriers 70+ years ago.

Some facts have been studiously avoided:

1. Carriers CANNOT operate without landbased support IN THEATER today.
Sad but True. That ability, which never really existed fully but was
better 40 years ago than today, has been squandered to pay for a
series of obsolescent short legged fighters. Those big wing tankers
that made carrier strikes possible in recent times didn't come from
the ether. Niether did the essential ELINT/SIGINT support. They didn't
come from CONUS either. Nobody seems to want to talk about how carrier
air was forced to hot pit on ingress and stash their ordnance ashore
to get back to the boat in this last conflict.
That AOE gets its fuel(and FFV and various other sundries as well)
from where? A CVBGs enourmously expensive-and vulnerable-logistics
train is a dirty little secret.
Bottom line is a carrier is now just about as beholden to host nation
basing rights in order to remain viable as any AEF is.


2. Carriers are exceptionally vulnerable in littoral regions and will
become increasingly so. Thats a lesson from WWII-whenever carriers
ventured close to land they took significant losses;good thing they
had alot of decks to lose in those days- that was reinforced again in
last year's Millenium Challenge. Yet we are expecting them to be able
to ModLoc (or whatever its called nowadays) with impunity off hostile
shores for the next century...Yeah right. That notion is as full of
hubris as the notion that BBs were impervious to air attack.
In order to survive carriers will be forced back into blue water where
their shortlegged[non stealthy] airwings will not be capable of
projecting power ashore except in brief raids using expensive scarce
standoff weapons(assuming of course they have the tanker assets *IN
THEATER* available). So much for presence and persistence.

3. I'm not saying that carriers need to be scrapped today. I am saying
that carriers are not any more immune to evolution in warfare than any
other weapons system has been. Its evolve or die boys.
I'm not expecting you Learned Denizens of R.A.M.N. to give me any
credence but you should give these folks some of your consideration:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/acof.pdf

Space based quick reaction weapons systems are on their way like it or
not. Call me a troll if you wish but DARPA is offering to spend some
big money on this FALCON project for a reason and the resulting
progeny of the effort will inevitably encroach on the carrier's
mission....and budget.
Time marches on.

[s.p.i.]

And another, more philosopical, take on this evolution in progress:

http://web.mit.edu/13a/100th/mit13a.pdf

[s.p.i.]

"Bill Kambic" > wrote in message >...
> "s.p.i." wrote in message
>
> > All the arguments posited here about why DARPA's FALCON project will
> > never supplant aircraft carriers remind me so much of the "Gun Club"
> > arguments AGAINST carriers 70+ years ago.
>
> No, not really. Even with a carrier of the era (much less a BB) you had to
> get "up close and personal" with your potential target.

Sure they do. Not in any specific technical aspect, but in the tenor
and tone of, "Its the way its always been and there is no improving on
the status quo...These new systems are inferior or too
outlandish...etc."
But don't believe me. Check out what this USNA academic has to say on
the matter:
http://web.mit.edu/13a/100th/mit13a.pdf

> > Some facts have been studiously avoided:
> >
> > 1. Carriers CANNOT operate without landbased support IN THEATER today.
> > Sad but True. That ability, which never really existed fully but was
> > better 40 years ago than today, has been squandered to pay for a
> > series of obsolescent short legged fighters. Those big wing tankers
> > that made carrier strikes possible in recent times didn't come from
> > the ether. Niether did the essential ELINT/SIGINT support. They didn't
> > come from CONUS either. Nobody seems to want to talk about how carrier
> > air was forced to hot pit on ingress and stash their ordnance ashore
> > to get back to the boat in this last conflict.
>
> Not being real current (and not being a Strike type) I won't comment on
> this.
And you too, Mr. Kambic, have have studiously avoided these odious
facts.

> > That AOE gets its fuel(and FFV and various other sundries as well)
> > from where? A CVBGs enourmously expensive-and vulnerable-logistics
> > train is a dirty little secret.
>
> Oh, poppycock.
You are right about an AOE in for a brief port visit not being as
intrusive as air ops at Thumrait or some such. But the ship still must
make those visits and those visits are at the whim of a host country.
I know there are more components, but a disabled AOE represents at
least short term single point of failure for a CVBG. After three days
or so gas begins to get skosh in sustained ops even on the nukes...and
don't forget about the small boys.

>
> > Bottom line is a carrier is now just about as beholden to host nation
> > basing rights in order to remain viable as any AEF is.
>
> No, not even close. The CVBG, by definition, has NO host country. It may
> draw some stuff from a lot of countries, but what's new about that?

You are simply wrong about that. Much of the ISR must live in nearby
host countries because there are not enough parts on the boat. No
ingress without that capability. Ditto for the big wing tankers that
CVWs now rely on to get the job done. So, for a carrier to do its job,
its as dependent as an AEF on basing and overflight rights when it
comes time to head for the target in a great many scenarios because so
much of the essenttial support is landbased now.
>
> The CV has always been a heavyweight boxer with a glass jaw. (Or maybe just
> a "bleeder.") That's the nature of the beast. Yet if you look at some of
> the catostrophic events of recent times (FORRESTAL fire comes to mind) air
> ops were underway within 24 hrs., IIRC. So, while that glass jaw is still
> there, it might be just a bit more tempered than you have indicated.

I think they may have gotten a cat or two to work so they could launch
aircraft to Cubi(hmmm...essential land base...?), but it took a year
to get the FID back to a state in which she could fight a war in any
realistic sense.
The Enterprise was a better example because they learned from the FIDs
misfortune and the potential for disaster was astutely and heroically
avoided in many important ways. Even so, despite the official spin,
she still had to spend a significant amount of time at Pearl before
she was ready to go again.
Carriers are perhaps the most vulnerable Capital ships devised. They
overcame the problem in WWII by producing way more decks than the
enemy could disable. That ain't gonna happen anymore.
>
> > 3. I'm not saying that carriers need to be scrapped today. I am saying
> > that carriers are not any more immune to evolution in warfare than any
> > other weapons system has been. Its evolve or die boys.
>
> Darwin lives. What else is new?
So thats why NAVAIR needs to be looking ahead instead of being so
enamored in the minutiae of the "The Boat"
>
> > I'm not expecting you Learned Denizens of R.A.M.N. to give me any
> > credence but you should give these folks some of your consideration:
> > http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/acof.pdf
>
> I did not read this. After waiting two minutes for it to load I gave up.
Its worth the wait. Its entitled "Future of the Aircraft Carrier" by
the Defense Science Board whose members include the likes of Stan
Arthur and Don Pilling. They may know a thing or two about carriers.
You really shoud try to open it up.

>
> > Space based quick reaction weapons systems are on their way like it or
> > not. Call me a troll if you wish but DARPA is offering to spend some
> > big money on this FALCON project for a reason and the resulting
> > progeny of the effort will inevitably encroach on the carrier's
> > mission....and budget.
>
> To quote Chairman Mao, "War is politics by other means." He didn't make it
> up, but he did say it well.
>
> Far too many of the current incarnation of McNamara's Whiz Kids have
> forgotten this. A threat 300 miles overhead is just not real. Neither is
> one 12,000 miles away. And we have not yet had to deal with the U.N. and
> possible treaty violations with "space based weapons." And none of this
> will be on line for at least a couple of decades, if then.

How many Iraqis or Al Qaeda saw any carriers. Are carriers any more
real on CNN than the MOAB is?

> > Time marches on.
As it does, NAVAIR can embrace these new technologies or be
marginalized into non existence.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dan Ahearn" > wrote in message
news:1pkNa.37001$Xm3.7696@sccrnsc02...
>
> "much of the Earth's surface is out of range of carrier aviation?"
>
> None of it....
>
> We'll hit the AF tankers if needed, leave those silly flying wings parked
> in the desert ...
>

Doesn't relying on USAF tankers also mean relying on host nation support? I
thought the advantage carrier aviation had over land-based aviation was not
having to rely on host nation support. You can't have it both ways.

[Bill Kambic]

"s.p.i." wrote in message

> > > All the arguments posited here about why DARPA's FALCON project will
> > > never supplant aircraft carriers remind me so much of the "Gun Club"
> > > arguments AGAINST carriers 70+ years ago.
> >
> > No, not really. Even with a carrier of the era (much less a BB) you had
to
> > get "up close and personal" with your potential target.
>
> Sure they do. Not in any specific technical aspect, but in the tenor
> and tone of, "Its the way its always been and there is no improving on
> the status quo...These new systems are inferior or too
> outlandish...etc."

I was not there 70 years ago, so I can only go by what I read. I don't read
it as you do.

> But don't believe me. Check out what this USNA academic has to say on
> the matter:
> http://web.mit.edu/13a/100th/mit13a.pdf

I read it. Boiled down it says, "military organizations are conservative
and always tend to fight the last war." Again, no surprises here.

What the author does not seem to consider is that military technological
advance is not steady, linear progress but a series of leaps and lags. For
a 1921 admiral to have said, "we must abandon BBs and build just CVs" would
have been monumentally stupid as the aircraft technology of the day was not
up to the task. In 1931 the same situation existed. Indeed the BB retained
a military role as late as the early 90s (70 years after Jutland) and
probably could certainly fulfil a political role today (and even a limited
military one, particularly against unsophisticated adversaries). Yet for an
admiral in 2003 to build a strategy around them would be as dumb as the act
of his 1921 predecessor. Continuing the thought, for a "defense expert" to
suggest building a strategy around non-existant weapons systems is equally
dumb.

Further, note that when military thinking gets too advanced you can also
have problems. In the late '40s the pundits, as a result of tests at
Bikini, had written off Naval Aviation (and the Navy in general). "One
bomb, one fleet" was their war cry. Then Naval Aviation was saved by a
North Korean dictator. As was the USMC and large warfighting formations of
the USA.

Or, put another way, what peering too far over the horizon is a good way to
run aground.

> > Not being real current (and not being a Strike type) I won't comment on
> > this.
> And you too, Mr. Kambic, have have studiously avoided these odious
> facts.

Only in your mind's eye. I don't have the expertise to comment so I did
not. That does not mean that I don't have an opinion (I do) but I choose
not to share it as it is not backed by sufficient fact.

> You are right about an AOE in for a brief port visit not being as
> intrusive as air ops at Thumrait or some such. But the ship still must
> make those visits and those visits are at the whim of a host country.

Agreed.

> I know there are more components, but a disabled AOE represents at
> least short term single point of failure for a CVBG. After three days
> or so gas begins to get skosh in sustained ops even on the nukes...and
> don't forget about the small boys.

Agreed. But if country A says no, there's always country B. Or C. The
idea that every AOE will have to stage out of CONUS is just wishful thinking
for those intent on setting up some sort of "CV airwing out of gas on a CV
filled with starving sailors" strawman.

You are simply wrong about that. Much of the ISR must live in nearby
> host countries because there are not enough parts on the boat. No
> ingress without that capability.

I say there is NO host country. I can't prove a negative; you have to prove
a positive. Please list the host country(ies) for the CVBGs currently
deployed.

Ditto for the big wing tankers that
> CVWs now rely on to get the job done.

Last time I looked those were not CVBG assets. They belonged to somebody
else. They supported the airwing, but were part of it.

So, for a carrier to do its job,
> its as dependent as an AEF on basing and overflight rights when it
> comes time to head for the target in a great many scenarios because so
> much of the essenttial support is landbased now.

Does not this depend on exactly what geographical area is involved? With
Afghanistan and Iraq you are looking at lots of complicated issues. With
Libya or Liberia it would seem the issues are much simpler.

> > The CV has always been a heavyweight boxer with a glass jaw. (Or maybe
just
> > a "bleeder.") That's the nature of the beast. Yet if you look at some
of
> > the catostrophic events of recent times (FORRESTAL fire comes to mind)
air
> > ops were underway within 24 hrs., IIRC. So, while that glass jaw is
still
> > there, it might be just a bit more tempered than you have indicated.
>
> I think they may have gotten a cat or two to work so they could launch
> aircraft to Cubi(hmmm...essential land base...?), but it took a year
> to get the FID back to a state in which she could fight a war in any
> realistic sense.

It was peacetime and there was no serious war pressure in 1969. USS
YORKTOWN had 90 days work done in 72 hours in 1942 because there was serious
war pressure.

> The Enterprise was a better example because they learned from the FIDs
> misfortune and the potential for disaster was astutely and heroically
> avoided in many important ways. Even so, despite the official spin,
> she still had to spend a significant amount of time at Pearl before
> she was ready to go again.

See above.

> Carriers are perhaps the most vulnerable Capital ships devised. They
> overcame the problem in WWII by producing way more decks than the
> enemy could disable. That ain't gonna happen anymore.

I admit the CV has vulnerabilites. I don't admit that they are
insurmountable.

And we have not yet talked about the vulterabilities of possible
replacements (which don't even exist; THAT'S a pretty big one to start
with!<g>).

> > > I'm not expecting you Learned Denizens of R.A.M.N. to give me any
> > > credence but you should give these folks some of your consideration:
> > > http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/acof.pdf
> >
> > I did not read this. After waiting two minutes for it to load I gave
up.
> Its worth the wait. Its entitled "Future of the Aircraft Carrier" by
> the Defense Science Board whose members include the likes of Stan
> Arthur and Don Pilling. They may know a thing or two about carriers.
> You really shoud try to open it up.

I will.

> > To quote Chairman Mao, "War is politics by other means." He didn't make
it
> > up, but he did say it well.
> >
> > Far too many of the current incarnation of McNamara's Whiz Kids have
> > forgotten this. A threat 300 miles overhead is just not real. Neither
is
> > one 12,000 miles away. And we have not yet had to deal with the U.N.
and
> > possible treaty violations with "space based weapons." And none of this
> > will be on line for at least a couple of decades, if then.
>
> How many Iraqis or Al Qaeda saw any carriers. Are carriers any more
> real on CNN than the MOAB is?

MOAB is not in issue, here, as it is not, and for a long time won't, be a
CONUS launched weapon.

But to answer your question, yes, I think they are. They are regularly seen
on TV. The aircraft are seen by the populace. The space based stuff still
looks like it came from Dream Works. It will be a very long time before it
is real to a bunch of third worlders.

> > > Time marches on.
> As it does, NAVAIR can embrace these new technologies or be
> marginalized into non existence.

As long as the first question asked by the C-in-C" is "where is the nearest
carrier" then "marginalization" is not on the horizon. That is the question
that will be asked for at least the next few decades.

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
>
> Irrelevant. Land-based aviation requires runways. We operate from many
of
> them at the pleasure of a host nation. What that nation gives, so can it
> take away.
>

Why is it irrelevant? Yes, land-based aviation requires runways, but
runways permit the operation of long-range aircraft. Carrier aviation is
limited to short-range aircraft.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
>
> If the CV is already there,,,lots faster.
>

But if it's not already there it's lots slower.


>
> Cuz some countires will say no(?)....
>

Will they all say no?


>
> Nope not correct...and we(CVs) werre on station for many moths after the
USAF
> went home,,,flying 10 miles north of the 'line of death'...no USAF units
were
> invloved....
>

You're wrong. USAF units were very much involved in Eldorado Canyon.


>
> See above and there were NO USAF landbased assets involved in this or many
oher
> exercises...
>

Were you in a coma in the spring of 1986?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
>
> ummmmm vulnerability??
> Predictabiulity?
> Ability to make a US 'statement'?
>

Could you expand on that a bit?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
>
> ya mean third or fourth world nations who's economy is a fraction of
> California's??
>

I mean the nations that don't have carriers yet still manage to engage in
international trade.


>
> See confliuct, worlkd war, etc...If it weren't for the 'sea lines of
> communication', the UK would be speaking German.
>

I'm speaking of the present.


>
> Faster, more versatile, more effective, cheaper...
>

Carrier aircraft are faster than land-based aircraft? Why would operating
from a carrier deck give an aircraft a speed advantage?

How are carrier aircraft more versatile than land-based aircraft? It would
seem that freed of the constraints imposed by having to be operable from a
carrier could only result in greater versatility.

Why does operating from a carrier render an aircraft more effective than a
land-based aircraft? It would seem that the same would hold true for
effectiveness as for versatility, freed of the design constraints imposed by
having to be operable from a carrier could only result in greater
effectiveness.

Cheaper? Perhaps so, many land-based aircraft are considerably larger than
carrier aircraft so undoubtedly cost more to operate. But if you include
the costs of operating the carrier itself and the operations costs of the
various support ships one would think the advantage would swing towards
land-based aviation.


>
> How would a TacAir wing be any more anything, please explain..Your
> clue-lessness is fast approaching 'troll' status...
>

So why don't you clue me in, then? I'm asking a lot of questions, but not
getting many answers.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
>
> Lots...center of Russia, lots of China...you aren't going to just wander
around
> in their airspace w/o their permision.
>

You mean to say a B-2 couldn't refuel in non-hostile airspace and reach any
point in Russia or China? I know they're big, but are they that big?
You'll have to show your math.


>
> BUT how many seaports can be threatened
> by a CV that is already w/i 1000 NM of the country??
>

I don't know, that seems like a long distance to launch a carrier strike.
What kind of ordnance can they deliver at that range?


>
> Compared to being theatened by land based aviation of the US...
>

I'd have to say all of them.


>
> you are out to lunch...I seem to think of a runway and some aircraft in
Hawaii
> that were put out of action by some CVA based aircraft...I think they were
> Japanese..
>

Many aircraft were put out of action, that's true, but I don't recall any
runway being put out of action. Do you have anything to support your
assertion?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
>
> You don't really need to ask this, do you??
>

I'm sure it's another question you won't answer, but yes, I do have to ask
it.


>
> Adios MF....another clueless civilian...
>

Yes, that's me, and yet despite all those "qualifications" you post as your
signature you are unable to provide me with any clues.

[Giz]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "Giz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > What conflict have gotten into recently that didn't have a build up
> period?
> >
>
> None. What conflict have we gotten into recently that didn't have bases
> available for land-based aircraft?

So we agree. The CVBG's transit isn't a factor.
>
>
> >
> > Planes that aren't allowed by the host nation to takeoff armed are
pretty
> > useless.
> >
>
> Reconnaissance, cargo, electronic, tankers, etc., are useless?

Nice try. The thread has been about exerting force. While very valuable
(I'm crew on one), those assets cannot, by themselves, exert force while
unarmed. The fact is, CV aviation requires no diplomatic efforts to launch
armed. That will always be an advantage over Land-based air. If you
can't see that yet the only question left is: Exactly how short was that
bus?
>
> Aren't armed planes that can't reach the target from their departure
point,
> such as a carrier, pretty useless

Name a target that has been out of reach of CV aviation. There are
"potential"
targets that "may" be out of the CV's range of influence, but this thread is
about
the utility of CV aviation. Not it's suitibility against some fictional
target chosen
by you.
>
>
> >
> > I haven't seen a ordnance tanker yet.
> >
>
> Nor have I. Having a large weapons payload would then seem to be another
> advantage of land-based aviation over carrier aviation. Would it not?

CV aviation by itself? Hopefully not. The only Tacair that we can count on
in
all cases? Probably. Large weapons payload? Have you seen an F-16 lately?
Former SAC platforms have large payloads have the large payloads that you
speak
of, but aren't the answer to all missions. Ask that USMC 2Lt if he would
like some
B-52 CAS. If nothing else were available he might take it, but he rather
have a
platform that is better suited. Often the USAF will be able to provide
this, but
the USN has always been able to provide it.


>
>
> >
> > Can you see this point yet?
> >
>
> No, but I'm confident I will just as soon as someone actually makes that
> point.

I'm confident that not even Airman would make that statement. You do
realize
that the Air force even quit trying to fight this fight decades ago?
>
>
> >
> > Do you
> > think we would launch armed without permission?
> >
>
> Nope.

Me either.
>
>
> >
> > History is against you on this one.
> >
>
> How so?

You have that much faith in our diplomatic community? I think
that bus must have been shorter than you're letting on.
>
>
> >
> > We do seek such permission, and it is sometimes not given.
> > Turkey, Saudi Arabia, ect.
> >
>
> As I recall that didn't prevent the use of land-based aircraft from other
> bases.

Yup, and for the Northern Iraq targets, those bases were either farther from
the target than the CV's, or over SAM threat for the entire transit to the
target.
Tell me again how is that good?
>
>
> >
> > Partially, much lengthier would be more accurate, and does seem that it
> > was a political move to involve the USAF/UK. The carriers could have
> > launched more strikes to cover any targets not taken in the initial.
Just
> > my 2 cents here.
> >
>
> Right. The carriers on the scene were not able to hit all the targets in
> one strike and nultiple strikes were deemed too risky. Politics had
nothing
> to do with it.

Assumption, Ronnie didn't confer with me prior to ordering the strike, but
I doubt he spoke with you either. I at least identified my opinion as such.

Giz
>
>

[Giz]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "Pechs1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You don't really need to ask this, do you??
> >
>
> I'm sure it's another question you won't answer, but yes, I do have to ask
> it.
>
>
> >
> > Adios MF....another clueless civilian...
> >
>
> Yes, that's me, and yet despite all those "qualifications" you post as
your
> signature you are unable to provide me with any clues.

No, he did a fine job. No matter how bright you make the room the blind man
is still blind.

Did you figure out your role in the analogy?

Thought not.

Sleep well, I've got the watch, and I'm better at my doing my job than you
are
thinking about it.

Giz
>
>

[s.p.i.]

"Bill Kambic" > wrote in message >...

> I was not there 70 years ago, so I can only go by what I read. I don't read
> it as you do.

Sometimes I feel old enough to have been but I wasn't either. I
haven't found anything online about some of the Gun Club diatribes
against the carriers, but here you can get some sense of the Gun Club
mind set from this piece about Commander[then] Momsen at:
http://www.mediacen.navy.mil/pubs/allhands/apr00/pg16.htm

"But everything that could possibly save a trapped submariner, new
deep-sea diving techniques, artificial lungs and a great pear-shaped
rescue chamber was a direct result of Momsen's pioneering derring-do,
his own life constantly on the line to prove them out. None, however,
had yet been used in an actual undersea catastrophe. Now they would
be, and under the worst possible circumstances - in fickle weather,
the water frigid, the men beyond the reach of any previously imagined
help.
The Navy was then run by battleship admirals.
"Who does this Momsen think he is, Jules Verne?" one of them
asked...."

> > But don't believe me. Check out what this USNA academic has to say on
> > the matter:
> > http://web.mit.edu/13a/100th/mit13a.pdf
>
> I read it. Boiled down it says, "military organizations are conservative
> and always tend to fight the last war." Again, no surprises here.
> Or, put another way, what peering too far over the horizon is a good way to
> run aground.

And staying too firmly in the box invites defeat.

> > And you too, Mr. Kambic, have have studiously avoided these odious
> > facts.
>
> Only in your mind's eye. I don't have the expertise to comment so I did
> not. That does not mean that I don't have an opinion (I do) but I choose
> not to share it as it is not backed by sufficient fact.

The facts are there to be found. A lack of big wing tankers caused the
Navy to abort flights over Iraq and they considered hot pitting ashore
inbound. F-18s had to land ashore on the way back to the boat because
of inadequate carry back. Carrier air COULD NOT have operated
effectively with out land bases in theater.
Aviation Week reported it. I think thats a fairly repectable and
accurate publication.

> Agreed. But if country A says no, there's always country B. Or C. The
> idea that every AOE will have to stage out of CONUS is just wishful thinking
> for those intent on setting up some sort of "CV airwing out of gas on a CV
> filled with starving sailors" strawman.

One lucky hit...or one little lucky baggy of anthrax... and one combat
inneffective AOE. One innefective AOE and CVBG sustainabilty is out
the window in the short term at least.

> I say there is NO host country. I can't prove a negative; you have to prove
> a positive. Please list the host country(ies) for the CVBGs currently
> deployed.

Sure, the CVBG is out there in international waters, but to get its
power ashore means that land based assets MUST be in theater. Where do
you think the E-3s E-8s, various tankers, EC/RC-135s, U-2s, UAVs, all
of which are essential elements of ANY air campaign now, are coming
from? Thumrait, AlUdeid, Prince Sultan, to name a few places that were
bustling and not just for the Air Force.

> Last time I looked those were not CVBG assets. They belonged to somebody
> else. They supported the airwing, but were part of it.

see above

> Does not this depend on exactly what geographical area is involved? With
> Afghanistan and Iraq you are looking at lots of complicated issues. With
> Libya or Liberia it would seem the issues are much simpler.

True. Except that land based big wing support still needs to be within
range

<Forrestal Fire>
> It was peacetime and there was no serious war pressure in 1969. USS
> YORKTOWN had 90 days work done in 72 hours in 1942 because there was serious
> war pressure.

Umm-The summer of 1967 was the height of the air war over Vietnam. The
hasty repairs to the Yorktown was a factor in her loss BTW.

> > The Enterprise was a better example because they learned from the FIDs
> > misfortune and the potential for disaster was astutely and heroically
> > avoided in many important ways. Even so, despite the official spin,
> > she still had to spend a significant amount of time at Pearl before
> > she was ready to go again.
>
> See above.
Yup, see above. Still a war going on in 1969.

> I admit the CV has vulnerabilites. I don't admit that they are
> insurmountable.

We agree, but they will become more and more limited in their
operational usefulness. And FALCON's results will inevitably lessen
some of the need for 12 of them. I'm guessing 6 by 2020

> > > > http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/acof.pdf
> > >
> > > I did not read this. After waiting two minutes for it to load I gave
> up.
> > Its worth the wait. Its entitled "Future of the Aircraft Carrier" by
> > the Defense Science Board whose members include the likes of Stan
> > Arthur and Don Pilling. They may know a thing or two about carriers.
> > You really shoud try to open it up.
>
> I will.
I'm getting some of my "hare brained" ideas from it.

> MOAB is not in issue, here, as it is not, and for a long time won't, be a
> CONUS launched weapon.

It is in issue here because of its employment in this last little
scrap. Its launch at Eglin was on TV for the specific purpose of
scaring the sh*t out of some swarthy mustachioed folks.

> But to answer your question, yes, I think they[carriers] are. They are >regularly seen on TV.

Whats the difference? If the perception can be spun from TV for one it
can be spun for all.

> The aircraft are seen by the populace. The space based stuff still
> looks like it came from Dream Works. It will be a very long time before it
> is real to a bunch of third worlders.

Sure, in southern Iraq there was a free airshow for a decade plus, but
that was a special case not likely to be repeated. On your second
point, you sound a whole lot like that Admiral that was dissing Momsen

> As long as the first question asked by the C-in-C" is "where is the nearest
> carrier" then "marginalization" is not on the horizon. That is the question
> that will be asked for at least the next few decades.

A question that will asked less and less as the evolution of war
continues. Fifty years from now Naval Aviation will not be synonymous
with carriers.

[Bill Kambic]

"s.p.i." wrote in message

<snipped for brevity>

> Sometimes I feel old enough to have been but I wasn't either. I
> haven't found anything online about some of the Gun Club diatribes
> against the carriers...

Your choice of language tells me something about your approach. Could your
prejudices be influencing your judgement? (By the way, I have them too, but
try to keep them in perspective.)

> > > But don't believe me. Check out what this USNA academic has to say on
> > > the matter:
> > > http://web.mit.edu/13a/100th/mit13a.pdf
> >
> > I read it. Boiled down it says, "military organizations are
conservative
> > and always tend to fight the last war." Again, no surprises here.
> > Or, put another way, what peering too far over the horizon is a good way
to
> > run aground.
>
> And staying too firmly in the box invites defeat.

So does going too far outside the box. I note that you ignore the near
disaster brought on by too futurist a program in the late '40s.

> > Agreed. But if country A says no, there's always country B. Or C. The
> > idea that every AOE will have to stage out of CONUS is just wishful
thinking
> > for those intent on setting up some sort of "CV airwing out of gas on a
CV
> > filled with starving sailors" strawman.
>
> One lucky hit...or one little lucky baggy of anthrax... and one combat
> inneffective AOE. One innefective AOE and CVBG sustainabilty is out
> the window in the short term at least.

Well, sure. So we deploy another AOE and the crew lives without fresh eggs
and salad for while. Agian, though, you ignore that which does not support
your thesis. The FACT is that lots of countries who have a distaste for
U.S. policy show a distinct liking for U.S. dollars. This means that in
EVERY theater there will ALWAYS be a market where we can buy what we need.

> > I say there is NO host country. I can't prove a negative; you have to
prove
> > a positive. Please list the host country(ies) for the CVBGs currently
> > deployed.
>
> Sure, the CVBG is out there in international waters, but to get its
> power ashore means that land based assets MUST be in theater.

Agreed.

Where do
> you think the E-3s E-8s, various tankers, EC/RC-135s, U-2s, UAVs, all
> of which are essential elements of ANY air campaign now, are coming
> from? Thumrait, AlUdeid, Prince Sultan, to name a few places that were
> bustling and not just for the Air Force.

You assume that such assets will be required.

Your thesis is, in many ways, reminiscent of those who always fight the last
war. The last two did require deep penetration strikes. Actions in Libya
did not. Actions in Liberia would not. So geography, as well as politics,
will determine requirements.

Presently some bad decisions have been made (IMO) by loading up the deck
with strike aircraft at the expense of support aircraft (based, I'm sure, on
the notion that we can always get somebody to grant us base rights). While
this has been sound so far it has clear problems.

> > Does not this depend on exactly what geographical area is involved?
With
> > Afghanistan and Iraq you are looking at lots of complicated issues.
With
> > Libya or Liberia it would seem the issues are much simpler.
>
> True. Except that land based big wing support still needs to be within
> range

What if no land based assets will be used?
>
> <Forrestal Fire>
> > It was peacetime and there was no serious war pressure in 1969. USS
> > YORKTOWN had 90 days work done in 72 hours in 1942 because there was
serious
> > war pressure.
>
> Umm-The summer of 1967 was the height of the air war over Vietnam. The
> hasty repairs to the Yorktown was a factor in her loss BTW.

And a factor in the loss of 4 Japanese carriers.

Or, as put in an old safety film I once watched, "Snake says, 'Ya gotta
expect losses.'"

> > I admit the CV has vulnerabilites. I don't admit that they are
> > insurmountable.

> A question that will asked less and less as the evolution of war
> continues. Fifty years from now Naval Aviation will not be synonymous
> with carriers.

You know, that's just about what they said in 1948.

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Pechs1]

ronca-<< Nor have I. Having a large weapons payload would then seem to be
another
advantage of land-based aviation over carrier aviation. Would it not?
>><BR><BR>

You seem to be stuck in a WWll mentality, with the 8th AF, with 1000+ bomber
fleets participating in scortched earth missions..

USAF TacAir doesn't have loooong legs, when compared to USN TacAir assets. USAF
TacAir 'can't get there from here' unless forward deployed, which takes time
and money.

P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

ronca-<< But if it's not already there it's lots slower. >><BR><BR>

But they are 'there'...There is a CV in the Med and Indian Ocean and around
China all the time...why we went on cruise. We didn't go on cruise off the
coast of the US...To compare USAF assets would mean that they are forward
deployed all the time, which they are not outside of Europe and Korea and these
are getting smaller and are TacAir, not SAC, long range assets.

<< Will they all say no? >><BR><BR>

Some who said yes in the past, said no recently, Some said no during the strike
on Libya...cannot predict who will say what but if farther than 12 miles off a
coast, a CV can go anywhere it wishes..look up 'international waters'...


<< You're wrong. USAF units were very much involved in Eldorado Canyon.
>><BR><BR>


Read the post, Eldorado Canyon was over in hours, We stayed on station north of
Libya for months after the USAF types were back in their biscits. Flying 24
hours per day often..patrolling the line of death...<<

Were you in a coma in the spring of 1986? >><BR><BR>

Nope, I was flying off the Forrestal in F-14s...what civilian job were you in
at the time...you sure as **** aren't a present or formerly military persion.

P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

ronca-<< But if you include
the costs of operating the carrier itself and the operations costs of the
various support ships one would think the advantage would swing towards
land-based aviation. >><BR><BR>

Not so, look at the costs of maintaining a sprawling USAF base...I know you
have correct??

Add the costs of transporting the whole mess to a forward base, and the costs
involved of the move and the new base...let's not even mention the time
involved. The USN had CVs on station for years before Desert Storm Two.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

ronca-<< You mean to say a B-2 couldn't refuel in non-hostile airspace and
reach any
point in Russia or China? I know they're big, but are they that big?
You'll have to show your math. >><BR><BR>

The 'math' is that a squadron of them, 6 aircarft, cost the same as a CV and
the airwing. They are assets not normally included in any strike scenario. Too
valuable and night time only. They were invited to show recently because they
needed to be showcased...they really meant little unless they are delivering
the 'big heat'..

<< I don't know, that seems like a long distance to launch a carrier strike.
What kind of ordnance can they deliver at that range? >><BR><BR>

The CV can close to w/i 500 miles in 20 hours...it takes 20 days just to decide
to forward deploy a USAF wing...

<< Many aircraft were put out of action, that's true, but I don't recall any
runway being put out of action. Do you have anything to support your
assertion? >><BR><BR>


Ya think all those bombs hit just aircarft and not the runway at Hickam???

ya need to watch the mooovie again...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

ronca-<< Yes, that's me, and yet despite all those "qualifications" you post as
your
signature you are unable to provide me with any clues. >><BR><BR>

My daddy told me not to wrestle with the pigs....
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> USN A-6s and A-7s were busy beating up on targets around Benghazi while
the
> F-111s were hitting Tripoli.
>
> Basically, it came down to numbers of suitable aircraft. The plan called
> for precision night attack, which meant either A-6s or F-111s. With two
> carriers, there were only 20 A-6s in the region, but 32 were needed to
> strike all the planned targets in one go. So the Air Force was recruited
to
> fly the rest of the strikes.
>
> It took the Air Force 57 aircraft (half of them tankers) to hit roughly
the
> same number of targets as 26 Navy aircraft.
>
> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/el_dorado_canyon.htm
>

According to the site you referenced, it appears it took the Air Force 18
aircraft to hit roughly the same number of targets as 26 Navy aircraft.
You're counting all USAF aircraft, including airborne spares, but just the
USN strike aircraft. The site goes on to say that more than 110 Navy
aircraft may have been involved.


>
> Today, many of the factors that restricted the Lybia strikes are no longer
> factors. A single carrier could put up at least 40 aircraft qualified for
> night proecision strike today; two carriers could easily cover both the
> Benghazi and Tripoli target sets without Air Force augmentation, even
> excluding the possible use of Tomahawks against some or all of these
> targets.
>

Today you could do it with two B-2s and tanker support.

[Thomas Schoene]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
thlink.net
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >
> > USN A-6s and A-7s were busy beating up on targets around Benghazi
> > while
> the
> > F-111s were hitting Tripoli.
> >
> > Basically, it came down to numbers of suitable aircraft. The plan
> > called for precision night attack, which meant either A-6s or
> > F-111s. With two carriers, there were only 20 A-6s in the region,
> > but 32 were needed to strike all the planned targets in one go. So
> > the Air Force was recruited
> to
> > fly the rest of the strikes.
> >
> > It took the Air Force 57 aircraft (half of them tankers) to hit
> > roughly
> the
> > same number of targets as 26 Navy aircraft.
> >
> > http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/el_dorado_canyon.htm
> >
>
> According to the site you referenced, it appears it took the Air
> Force 18 aircraft to hit roughly the same number of targets as 26
> Navy aircraft. You're counting all USAF aircraft, including airborne
> spares, but just the USN strike aircraft. The site goes on to say
> that more than 110 Navy aircraft may have been involved.

Yes, I did an odd count there.

But many of these USN aircraft (the CAP fighters, for example) were
effectively supporting both missions, so the count is still reasonably
close.

>
> >
> > Today, many of the factors that restricted the Lybia strikes are no
> > longer factors. A single carrier could put up at least 40 aircraft
> > qualified for night proecision strike today; two carriers could
> > easily cover both the Benghazi and Tripoli target sets without Air
> > Force augmentation, even excluding the possible use of Tomahawks
> > against some or all of these targets.
> >
>
> Today you could do it with two B-2s and tanker support.

Yes, I guess you could. Of course, you'd need to provide fighter protection
(just in case) and SEAD (ditto). And those aren't flying in from CONUS.

Not to mention the value of the carriers in performing one other major
mission near Libya; the Gulf of Sidra Freedom of Navigation exercises.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Pechs1]

ronca-<< Today you could do it with two B-2s and tanker support. >><BR><BR>

do ya suppose they could strap A-9s onto these things for the 'Line of Death',
freedom of navigation exercise that followed?

2 B-2s cost $1 Billion, that's with a 'B'...not exactly cost
effective...Hopefully they would have a moonless night or a lucky Libyan,
flying around on his night Fam-3 could have a shot at these 'black
elephants'...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer