Status of CVW-17

[Ralph_S]

I bought a copy of Air Forces Monthly last weekend, that includes an
overview of the current USN carrier wing compositions. To my amazement
I saw that CVW-17 currently doesn't seem to have _any_ Hornet squadrons
assigned to it. Until recently it had four:
VFA-103 Jolly Rogers is part of CVW-7, as is VFA-83 Rampagers. The two
other squadrons have been assigned to West Coast Air wings, although
they are still home-based at Oceana:
VFA-34 Blue Blasters is part of CVW-2 and VFA-81 Sunliners is assigned
to CVW-11.

So, what's going on? Will other Hornet squadrons be assigned to CVW-17
by the time that it deploys again?

Cheers,
Ralph

[Mike Weeks]

Ralph_S wrote:
> I bought a copy of Air Forces Monthly last weekend, that includes an
> overview of the current USN carrier wing compositions. To my amazement
> I saw that CVW-17 currently doesn't seem to have _any_ Hornet squadrons
> assigned to it. Until recently it had four:
> VFA-103 Jolly Rogers is part of CVW-7, as is VFA-83 Rampagers. The two
> other squadrons have been assigned to West Coast Air wings, although
> they are still home-based at Oceana:
> VFA-34 Blue Blasters is part of CVW-2 and VFA-81 Sunliners is assigned
> to CVW-11.
>
> So, what's going on? Will other Hornet squadrons be assigned to CVW-17
> by the time that it deploys again?

That's the $64 question. CVW-17, having been assigned to JFK is
currently *assigned* to a deck (GW) which is in the yards for about a
year, and then she's to move to Japan. So the shortfall in Hornet
squadrons in other CVWs are being made up, no so much as from USMC
VMFAs, but by VFAs from CVW-17.

The real question is; what's to happen to CVW-17? Because there's not
another deck available given the decision to axe JFK without a 1-for-1
replacement.

Fun times ahead, as indicated in another posting about the new
challenges facing NavAir.

MW

[Ralph_S]

Mike Weeks wrote:
> Ralph_S wrote:
> > I bought a copy of Air Forces Monthly last weekend, that includes an
> > overview of the current USN carrier wing compositions. To my amazement
> > I saw that CVW-17 currently doesn't seem to have _any_ Hornet squadrons
> > assigned to it. Until recently it had four:
> > VFA-103 Jolly Rogers is part of CVW-7, as is VFA-83 Rampagers. The two
> > other squadrons have been assigned to West Coast Air wings, although
> > they are still home-based at Oceana:
> > VFA-34 Blue Blasters is part of CVW-2 and VFA-81 Sunliners is assigned
> > to CVW-11.
> >
> > So, what's going on? Will other Hornet squadrons be assigned to CVW-17
> > by the time that it deploys again?
>
> That's the $64 question. CVW-17, having been assigned to JFK is
> currently *assigned* to a deck (GW) which is in the yards for about a
> year, and then she's to move to Japan. So the shortfall in Hornet
> squadrons in other CVWs are being made up, no so much as from USMC
> VMFAs, but by VFAs from CVW-17.
>
> The real question is; what's to happen to CVW-17? Because there's not
> another deck available given the decision to axe JFK without a 1-for-1
> replacement.
>
> Fun times ahead, as indicated in another posting about the new
> challenges facing NavAir.
>
> MW

Thanks Mike,
I read that post, and considered adding my question regarding CVW-17 to
that thread since I thought the underlying problem was probably the
same: a shortage of aircraft. However, if I understand you correctly
this seemingly is also coupled to a decrease in the number of
carriers. With carriers undergoing refuelling and major refits (Carl
Vinson) or shorter yard periods (GW), there seem to be more wings than
available carriers, unless CVW-17 is axed.

Cheers,
Ralph

[Mike Weeks]

Ralph_S wrote:
> Mike Weeks wrote:
> > Ralph_S wrote:
> > > I bought a copy of Air Forces Monthly last weekend, that includes an
> > > overview of the current USN carrier wing compositions. To my amazement
> > > I saw that CVW-17 currently doesn't seem to have _any_ Hornet squadrons
> > > assigned to it. Until recently it had four:
> > > VFA-103 Jolly Rogers is part of CVW-7, as is VFA-83 Rampagers. The two
> > > other squadrons have been assigned to West Coast Air wings, although
> > > they are still home-based at Oceana:
> > > VFA-34 Blue Blasters is part of CVW-2 and VFA-81 Sunliners is assigned
> > > to CVW-11.
> > >
> > > So, what's going on? Will other Hornet squadrons be assigned to CVW-17
> > > by the time that it deploys again?
> >
> > That's the $64 question. CVW-17, having been assigned to JFK is
> > currently *assigned* to a deck (GW) which is in the yards for about a
> > year, and then she's to move to Japan. So the shortfall in Hornet
> > squadrons in other CVWs are being made up, no so much as from USMC
> > VMFAs, but by VFAs from CVW-17.
> >
> > The real question is; what's to happen to CVW-17? Because there's not
> > another deck available given the decision to axe JFK without a 1-for-1
> > replacement.
> >
> > Fun times ahead, as indicated in another posting about the new
> > challenges facing NavAir.
> >
> > MW
>
> Thanks Mike,
> I read that post, and considered adding my question regarding CVW-17 to
> that thread since I thought the underlying problem was probably the
> same: a shortage of aircraft. However, if I understand you correctly
> this seemingly is also coupled to a decrease in the number of
> carriers. With carriers undergoing refuelling and major refits (Carl
> Vinson) or shorter yard periods (GW), there seem to be more wings than
> available carriers, unless CVW-17 is axed.

That appears to be the bottom line.

The situation with aircraft "life" is one situation, and the withdraw
of JFK (i.e., one deck) is another; related to a degree with the other.

With the on-going situation of a CVN in the yard for a 3-year refueling
& major refit, the situation of mis-matched CVWs-to-deck will switch
between those based on the east and west coast -- if there isn't a CVW
axed.

As has been the case for the pass 15 or so years, it's like jello when
attempting to see how it all will play out ... <g>

[[email protected]]

Nice to join a discussion like this again;-)

As far as I can catch the idea, CVW-17 is not going to be deactivated,
but stays there to serve as a warehouse of "spare" squadrons, to be
assigned to other wings if needed. I even heard the rumours that
someday (in 2009?) it deplys again, with a set of FOUR Super Hornet
squadrons assigned.

I'd be also curious of the current status of other units, like CVW-2 or
CVW-8. CVW-2 should be in a maintenance phase (Lincoln is in the
yards), so I wonder if VFA-34 are still with them. CVW-8 makes some FRP
training, but it must be missing a squadron (VFA-31 is not yet
operationally capable, starting their transition to F/A-18Es).

Remember - now it is the "Pool" philosophy, what means squadrons are no
longer permanently assigned to particular air wings, so every move may
generate the others.

Best regards,
Jacek Zemlo
(superhornet at go2 dot pl)

[[email protected]]

On 21 Dec 2006 07:01:39 -0800, wrote:

>Nice to join a discussion like this again;-)
>
>As far as I can catch the idea, CVW-17 is not going to be deactivated,
>but stays there to serve as a warehouse of "spare" squadrons, to be
>assigned to other wings if needed. I even heard the rumours that
>someday (in 2009?) it deplys again, with a set of FOUR Super Hornet
>squadrons assigned.
>
>I'd be also curious of the current status of other units, like CVW-2 or
>CVW-8. CVW-2 should be in a maintenance phase (Lincoln is in the
>yards), so I wonder if VFA-34 are still with them. CVW-8 makes some FRP
>training, but it must be missing a squadron (VFA-31 is not yet
>operationally capable, starting their transition to F/A-18Es).
>
>Remember - now it is the "Pool" philosophy, what means squadrons are no
>longer permanently assigned to particular air wings, so every move may
>generate the others.
>
>Best regards,
>Jacek Zemlo
>(superhornet at go2 dot pl)

Sound a lot like the old Ait Task Group concept of the late 40s and
50s. Except they were based on a shortage of Air Groups rather than an
extra one.

Walt

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mike Weeks]

wrote:
> On 21 Dec 2006 07:01:39 -0800, wrote:
>
> >Nice to join a discussion like this again;-)
> >
> >As far as I can catch the idea, CVW-17 is not going to be deactivated,
> >but stays there to serve as a warehouse of "spare" squadrons, to be
> >assigned to other wings if needed. I even heard the rumours that
> >someday (in 2009?) it deplys again, with a set of FOUR Super Hornet
> >squadrons assigned.
> >
> >I'd be also curious of the current status of other units, like CVW-2 or
> >CVW-8. CVW-2 should be in a maintenance phase (Lincoln is in the
> >yards), so I wonder if VFA-34 are still with them. CVW-8 makes some FRP
> >training, but it must be missing a squadron (VFA-31 is not yet
> >operationally capable, starting their transition to F/A-18Es).
> >
> >Remember - now it is the "Pool" philosophy, what means squadrons are no
> >longer permanently assigned to particular air wings, so every move may
> >generate the others.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Jacek Zemlo
> >(superhornet at go2 dot pl)
>
> Sound a lot like the old Ait Task Group concept of the late 40s and
> 50s. Except they were based on a shortage of Air Groups rather than an
> extra one.

It does indeed have that ring to it. BTW, ATGs were generated directly
as a result of operational experience from the Korean War; five
squadrons were one too many for those Essex-class decks; so chop one
sqdrn from each CVG, and create ATGs to fill the void.

Must be boring as heck to now be CAG-17 (CAPT T. M. Shoemaker).

[[email protected]]

Mike Weeks wrote:
> wrote:
> > On 21 Dec 2006 07:01:39 -0800, wrote:
> >
> > >Nice to join a discussion like this again;-)
> > >
> > >As far as I can catch the idea, CVW-17 is not going to be deactivated,
> > >but stays there to serve as a warehouse of "spare" squadrons, to be
> > >assigned to other wings if needed. I even heard the rumours that
> > >someday (in 2009?) it deplys again, with a set of FOUR Super Hornet
> > >squadrons assigned.
> > >
> > >I'd be also curious of the current status of other units, like CVW-2 or
> > >CVW-8. CVW-2 should be in a maintenance phase (Lincoln is in the
> > >yards), so I wonder if VFA-34 are still with them. CVW-8 makes some FRP
> > >training, but it must be missing a squadron (VFA-31 is not yet
> > >operationally capable, starting their transition to F/A-18Es).
> > >
> > >Remember - now it is the "Pool" philosophy, what means squadrons are no
> > >longer permanently assigned to particular air wings, so every move may
> > >generate the others.
> > >
> > >Best regards,
> > >Jacek Zemlo
> > >(superhornet at go2 dot pl)
> >
> > Sound a lot like the old Ait Task Group concept of the late 40s and
> > 50s. Except they were based on a shortage of Air Groups rather than an
> > extra one.
>
> It does indeed have that ring to it. BTW, ATGs were generated directly
> as a result of operational experience from the Korean War; five
> squadrons were one too many for those Essex-class decks; so chop one
> sqdrn from each CVG, and create ATGs to fill the void.
>
> Must be boring as heck to now be CAG-17 (CAPT T. M. Shoemaker).

More funny detailing jokes...I was going to be sent to the Connie as
AirBoss, while it was being decommissioned....ha-ha....retired instead.

[Mike Weeks]

wrote:
> Mike Weeks wrote:

> >
> > Must be boring as heck to now be CAG-17 (CAPT T. M. Shoemaker).
>
> More funny detailing jokes...I was going to be sent to the Connie as
> AirBoss, while it was being decommissioned....ha-ha....retired instead.

Someone forgot to tell the detailer? <g>

[M. B.]

>
> More funny detailing jokes...I was going to be sent to the Connie as
> AirBoss, while it was being decommissioned....ha-ha....retired instead.
>

I was on Connie's final two deployments. She was a good ship. Funny thing,
the big XO got so mad at CVW-2 for using the escalator that ran from the 03
level to the 2nd deck. He actually banned the crew from using it. Of
course, being the polite and respectful JO's we were, we completely ignored
him. He upped the ante then by posting a detail of Masters at Arms to guard
the escalator. We went round and round with him and at the last Fo'c'sle
Follies before Connie's decom, the big XO presented to the airwing a single
stair from that damnable escalator. Apparently, removing that stair and
making it presentation-worthy was one of the CHENG's favorite taskers from
the XO.

-MB

[[email protected]]

Mike Weeks wrote:
> wrote:
> > Mike Weeks wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Must be boring as heck to now be CAG-17 (CAPT T. M. Shoemaker).
> >
> > More funny detailing jokes...I was going to be sent to the Connie as
> > AirBoss, while it was being decommissioned....ha-ha....retired instead.
>
> Someone forgot to tell the detailer? <g>

Nipe, they gotta have a full ship's compliment to decomm..including the
'Boss'...

[Lazyike]

Mike Weeks wrote:

> Ralph_S wrote:
>
>>I bought a copy of Air Forces Monthly last weekend, that includes an
>>overview of the current USN carrier wing compositions. To my amazement
>>I saw that CVW-17 currently doesn't seem to have _any_ Hornet squadrons
>>assigned to it. Until recently it had four:
>>VFA-103 Jolly Rogers is part of CVW-7, as is VFA-83 Rampagers. The two
>>other squadrons have been assigned to West Coast Air wings, although
>>they are still home-based at Oceana:
>>VFA-34 Blue Blasters is part of CVW-2 and VFA-81 Sunliners is assigned
>>to CVW-11.
>>
>>So, what's going on? Will other Hornet squadrons be assigned to CVW-17
>>by the time that it deploys again?
>
>
> That's the $64 question. CVW-17, having been assigned to JFK is
> currently *assigned* to a deck (GW) which is in the yards for about a
> year, and then she's to move to Japan. So the shortfall in Hornet
> squadrons in other CVWs are being made up, no so much as from USMC
> VMFAs, but by VFAs from CVW-17.
>
> The real question is; what's to happen to CVW-17? Because there's not
> another deck available given the decision to axe JFK without a 1-for-1
> replacement.
>
> Fun times ahead, as indicated in another posting about the new
> challenges facing NavAir.
>
> MW
>

With the Chinese sub that got way too close I think ASW needs to be
better rethought.

IMHO al CVs would become ASW platforms. I have Harpoon classic & often
create scenarios where an old CV performs this role. the US forces win
EVERY time. I even launched Los Angeles Class subs at my CTF & they
are busted. I tend to run Short Med & Long range so the Osprey takes
LR missions, EH101 for MR/LR Missions & Seahawks for SR/MR missions.
Fixed wing consist of 2-4 Harriers, & 4-6 Vikings for XLR/LR missions.
I may vary this on several carriers.

Ike