USS John F. Kennedy to be retired in 2005

[[email protected]]

I am afraid reducing the number of aircraft carriers might quickly
result in decreasing the number of active Carrier Air Wings also.

JFK, anyhow, has already escaped the axe before, when it became a
"training and reserve carrier"...

That may give us a glimpse how the Navy may look like in ten years'
time. For example: EA-18G Growler squadrons. In the Navy Training Plan
for this aircraft only nine squadrons are planned to be established
(VFAQ-1 thru VFAQ-9, plus an FRS obviously). So, the conclusion is
either the number would not be enough for ten CVWs (but surely enough
for nine), or the squadrons would have to constantly switch between
air wings, like VAQs in the early Prowler era.

Best regards,

Jacek Zemlo
(formerly )

[MICHAEL OLERAY]

Actually, the current plan calls for ten squadrons of 5~6 aircraft each plus
the FRS which will more than likely only give the ALQ portion of the
syllabus. For the common initial CAT I NATOPs check, the student will
probably go through Lemoore while enroute to NUW. Also, I don't think that
they will be adding a "F" to the designation. At least not while, born and
bred Prowler guys are still flying them. The ninety EA-18Gs would be able
to support a smaller FRS and ten CVW squadrons. As for the expeditionary,
the Air Force is on its own.

Sincerely,
Moe

> wrote in message
om...
>I am afraid reducing the number of aircraft carriers might quickly
> result in decreasing the number of active Carrier Air Wings also.
>
> JFK, anyhow, has already escaped the axe before, when it became a
> "training and reserve carrier"...
>
> That may give us a glimpse how the Navy may look like in ten years'
> time. For example: EA-18G Growler squadrons. In the Navy Training Plan
> for this aircraft only nine squadrons are planned to be established
> (VFAQ-1 thru VFAQ-9, plus an FRS obviously). So, the conclusion is
> either the number would not be enough for ten CVWs (but surely enough
> for nine), or the squadrons would have to constantly switch between
> air wings, like VAQs in the early Prowler era.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jacek Zemlo
> (formerly )

[[email protected]]

MICHAEL OLERAY wrote:
> Actually, the current plan calls for ten squadrons of 5~6 aircraft
each plus
> the FRS which will more than likely only give the ALQ portion of the
> syllabus. For the common initial CAT I NATOPs check, the student
will
> probably go through Lemoore while enroute to NUW. Also, I don't
think that
> they will be adding a "F" to the designation. At least not while,
born and
> bred Prowler guys are still flying them. The ninety EA-18Gs would be
able
> to support a smaller FRS and ten CVW squadrons. As for the
expeditionary,
> the Air Force is on its own.
>
> Sincerely,
> Moe


That sounds more reasonable. I know such plans may change a few times
before being introduced - for example, when the avtechtra.navy.mil was
still open to the public I saw two or three different plans of
Tomcat&Hornet-to-SuperHornet transition there, including VFA-86,
VFA-97, and VFA-174, no longer considered as future F/A-18E/F
squadrons.

Of course, this 90 a/c inculde not only aircraft for the fleet
squadrons and the FRS, but also some attrition reserves.

As for the lack of "F" in the designation, I cannot agree more - EA-18G
should be busy enough in the EW/SEAD/strike role. And if there is not
much other job available, it can easily turn into a tanker;-) [like
ES-3As, also high-value assets, sometimes did]

Sincerely,
Jacek