747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3129 times:
Hello
I was thinking why the Navy do not take over the fighter mission, while the USAF keep the bombers,tanker and cargo planes mission? The USN has giant aircraft carriers that can transport and support fighter and their limited range. So it would make since to give the budget for fighter fully to the USN for now on. This could free up the USAF for bombers, new tankers and cargo planes. This could also give the navy a good fighter.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11711 posts, RR: 52 Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2967 times:
The USN does not have the capability to "take over" US fighter operations. They only have 12 (soon to reduce to 11) CV/CVNs. A full compliment aboard each CV or CVN is about 90 airplanes, so you are talking a total force of 1000 fighters?
Additionally, since the F-14s are now retired, that leaves the USN with the F/A-18C/D Hornet and the F/A-18E/F Super Bug, neither is a great fighter.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1): In terms of air-to-air superiority missions, the best aircraft for the job (F-15 or F-22) cannot takeoff from a carrier deck.
Naval fighters are excellent for fleet defense and penetration strike, but air superiority is best left to the USAF
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2936 times:
Both of you are right, but if they turn fighter operation to the USN may be we could get fighter as good as the F-15 or F-22. The F-14 was as good if not better than the F-15.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2914 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 3): The F-14 was as good if not better than the F-15.
...but much more costly, and far less reliable. Plus, the 14's greatest asset was the Phoenix missile, but lugging around a full load of them hurt speed and range quite badly. That's why the Navy got rid of it. There was a time when the Navy fostered development of the best fighters in the business (F8U, F4H) but those days are long gone. Today's Navy fighters are much too much a compromise of size, weapons load, and range to suit many missions and reduce the number of different aircraft in the fleet. Contrast to the F-22, the only pure air superiority machine in the world, vastly superior to the Rhino in all aspects (there's a reason they're so expensive.) Dumping the Air Force fighter mission to the Navy would be pure folly.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11711 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2832 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 3): but if they turn fighter operation to the USN may be we could get fighter as good as the F-15
Before you do that, you need to change the mission of NAVAIR from fleet defense to air superiority. That is currently a USAF mission, and why the USAF flys the F-15 and not the F-14.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11711 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2680 times:
Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 6): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
They only have 12 (soon to reduce to 11) CV/CVNs
Not official yet.
True, but the JFK is in real sad condition, from what I hear. I believe the USN is looking at decommissioning her next year. That will reduce the CV(N) force to 11 until the PCU George H.W. Bush commissions in 2010. Then Kitty hawk will decommission in 2012 or 2013, bring the force back to 11 CV(N)s.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
