Where will the money come from...

"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.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message rthlink.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" 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" 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.

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

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? BRBR

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? BRBR

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. BRBR

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" 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?

ronca- But if it's not already there it's lots slower. BRBR

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? BRBR

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.
BRBR


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? BRBR

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

"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)

"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.

"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)