Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2745
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Tue Oct 18, 2022 3:30 am

A Carrier Air Wing in 1993 was
2 fighter squadrons (VF) of 10–12 F-14 Tomcats
2 strike fighter squadrons (VFA) of 12 F/A-18 Hornets
1 medium attack squadron (VA) 10 A-6E SWIP/TRAM intruders
1 tactical electronic warfare squadron (VAQ) of 4–6 EA-6Bs
1 anti-submarine squadron (VS) of 8 S-3A/B Vikings
1 helicopter anti-submarine squadron (HS) of 6 SH-3H Sea Kings
1 Detachment of ES-3A Shadow ELINT aircraft from a fleet air reconnaissance squadron (VQ)
1 detachment of C-2A Greyhound aircraft for Carrier Onboard Delivery (COD)
------
About 83 aircraft including 63 fast jets

A modern Carrier Air Wing is
4 Strike Fighter (VFA) Squadrons, with twelve F/A-18E/F Super Hornets each
1 Electronic Attack (VAQ) Squadron, made up of five EA-18G Growlers.
1 Carrier Airborne Early Warning (VAW) Squadron, with four E-2C Hawkeyes or five E-2D "Advanced" Hawkeyes
1 Helicopter Sea Combat (HSC) Squadron of eight MH-60S Seahawks
1 Helicopter Maritime Strike (HSM) Squadron of eleven MH-60R Seahawks
1 Fleet Logistics Support (VRC) Squadron Detachment of two C-2A Greyhounds;
-------------------------
About 74 aircraft including 52 fast jets

Question: Is there room on the carrier to operate another 10 fast jets? It's the same boats as 1993!
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 853
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Tue Oct 18, 2022 4:44 am

kitplane01 wrote:
A Carrier Air Wing in 1993 was
2 fighter squadrons (VF) of 10–12 F-14 Tomcats
2 strike fighter squadrons (VFA) of 12 F/A-18 Hornets
1 medium attack squadron (VA) 10 A-6E SWIP/TRAM intruders
1 tactical electronic warfare squadron (VAQ) of 4–6 EA-6Bs
1 anti-submarine squadron (VS) of 8 S-3A/B Vikings
1 helicopter anti-submarine squadron (HS) of 6 SH-3H Sea Kings
1 Detachment of ES-3A Shadow ELINT aircraft from a fleet air reconnaissance squadron (VQ)
1 detachment of C-2A Greyhound aircraft for Carrier Onboard Delivery (COD)
------
About 83 aircraft including 63 fast jets

A modern Carrier Air Wing is
4 Strike Fighter (VFA) Squadrons, with twelve F/A-18E/F Super Hornets each
1 Electronic Attack (VAQ) Squadron, made up of five EA-18G Growlers.
1 Carrier Airborne Early Warning (VAW) Squadron, with four E-2C Hawkeyes or five E-2D "Advanced" Hawkeyes
1 Helicopter Sea Combat (HSC) Squadron of eight MH-60S Seahawks
1 Helicopter Maritime Strike (HSM) Squadron of eleven MH-60R Seahawks
1 Fleet Logistics Support (VRC) Squadron Detachment of two C-2A Greyhounds;
-------------------------
About 74 aircraft including 52 fast jets

Question: Is there room on the carrier to operate another 10 fast jets? It's the same boats as 1993!


You're missing the E-2s on the 1993 CVW.

There's definitely room for more aircraft, but more doesn't necessarily mean more better. More aircraft embarked means more tankers needed to support more aircraft per cycle, more hangar space, etc. A less packed deck doesn't mean less capability, as apart from range and speed (and sex appeal), six squadrons of Super Hornets, Growlers, and Hawkeyes produce far greater effects and situational awareness for the CSG than the admittedly more colorful and interesting airwing of the past.
 
889091
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:56 pm

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Tue Oct 18, 2022 5:43 pm

So what are they using the additional space for? More fuel, ordnance and food?
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 15208
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Tue Oct 18, 2022 6:08 pm

The Carrier Air Wings are in transition.

Being added now are the F-35Cs and CMV-22B.

By 2026 they will also include MQ-25A Stingray aerial refueling UAVs.

The Navy has plans for expanded missions for the MQ-25;
“MQ-25 is capable of significantly more than we are asking it to do at [initial operational capability]. So at IOC, it needs to be able to operate around an aircraft carrier and be able to conduct aerial refueling and that’s as far as we went,” Loiselle told USNI News in December.
“The rest of it will be spiral developed because it’s got significant additional capabilities with a mission bay… we plan to take use of in the future


https://news.usni.org/2022/07/13/several-uavs-under-development-for-next-generation-carrier-air-wing

Perhaps the MQ-25 will become a true S-3 replacement the Navy has missed. First it takes over aerial refueling, perhaps next will be ASW duties? I think one thing is sure, there will be more UAV's in the future Carrier Air Wing. MQ-25 for aerial refueling and perhaps ASW missions and something for deep attacks or reconnaissance. A carrier-based version of the RQ-180 etc.

In a combat zone like the South China Sea the Navy needs longer range reach, to keep them out of range of missile threats.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 853
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:12 pm

889091 wrote:
So what are they using the additional space for? More fuel, ordnance and food?


I couldn’t tell you: the only time I’ve been on one was at pier side and the hangar deck looked crowded even without aircraft embarked.

Bombs go in the magazines and fuel goes in the fuel tanks, so maybe food and gym equipment?
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2745
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:34 pm

STT757 wrote:
The Carrier Air Wings are in transition.

Being added now are the F-35Cs and CMV-22B.

By 2026 they will also include MQ-25A Stingray aerial refueling UAVs.


Are these in addition to or in replacement of other aircraft?
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2745
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:35 pm

STT757 wrote:

In a combat zone like the South China Sea the Navy needs longer range reach, to keep them out of range of missile threats.


I dunno. Seems like missile range is ever-increasing, and that eventually there will be no useful station out of missile range.
 
bobinthecar
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:16 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:44 pm

The mid 80s air wing often had 87-90 aircraft. Long range PGMs, newer air frames have much better readiness rates, and the fact that F/A-18s and F35s are truly dual role means the CAW of today is in some ways far more potent and capable than that of 30 years ago. The two biggest drawbacks in my opinion of today's air wing is that even with MQ-25 there is not enough tanking capacity and there is nowhere near enough high endurance ASW capability. The development of an S-3 like air frame would very much rectify both problems.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2745
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:20 pm

bobinthecar wrote:
The mid 80s air wing often had 87-90 aircraft. Long range PGMs, newer air frames have much better readiness rates, and the fact that F/A-18s and F35s are truly dual role means the CAW of today is in some ways far more potent and capable than that of 30 years ago. The two biggest drawbacks in my opinion of today's air wing is that even with MQ-25 there is not enough tanking capacity and there is nowhere near enough high endurance ASW capability. The development of an S-3 like air frame would very much rectify both problems.


Sure. But a modern air wing could also have 87-90 aircraft, and each aircraft better.

I wonder what drives more of the carrier design, size of first strike or three day sortie generation?
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 6141
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Wed Oct 19, 2022 1:12 am

LyleLanley wrote:
889091 wrote:
So what are they using the additional space for? More fuel, ordnance and food?


I couldn’t tell you: the only time I’ve been on one was at pier side and the hangar deck looked crowded even without aircraft embarked.

Bombs go in the magazines and fuel goes in the fuel tanks, so maybe food and gym equipment?

Based on the OP, they also have to wrangle 13 more helicopters too. Even a folded up Seahawk will take up a bit of space
 
bobinthecar
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:16 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Wed Oct 19, 2022 1:18 am

kitplane01 wrote:
bobinthecar wrote:
The mid 80s air wing often had 87-90 aircraft. Long range PGMs, newer air frames have much better readiness rates, and the fact that F/A-18s and F35s are truly dual role means the CAW of today is in some ways far more potent and capable than that of 30 years ago. The two biggest drawbacks in my opinion of today's air wing is that even with MQ-25 there is not enough tanking capacity and there is nowhere near enough high endurance ASW capability. The development of an S-3 like air frame would very much rectify both problems.


Sure. But a modern air wing could also have 87-90 aircraft, and each aircraft better.

I wonder what drives more of the carrier design, size of first strike or three day sortie generation?


Every carrier since the Forrestals could operate 90 aircraft. The difference between a super carrier of the 50s and newer nuclear powered carriers is increased endurance, increased ability to generate sorties and perhaps survivability. Economics is the main reason for not adding more planes on a regular basis and in theory a carrier could beef up its air wing with aircraft from wings of carriers that are in the yard for maintenance.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2745
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Wed Oct 19, 2022 8:18 pm

What's the future of the Carrier Air Wing? Are the MQ-25s and F-35s in addition to the existing aircraft, or in replacement? Will the future air wing be bigger?
 
bobinthecar
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:16 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Thu Oct 20, 2022 1:24 am

If I had to guess I would say it would grow slightly and there would be some adjustments. Later blocks of the F/A-18 are extremely advanced and vastly underrated planes. Their one and only drawback is lack of range. F-35C has the range and will probably have even more range in the future if any of the engine upgrades planned are executed. They are the A-6E of the modern wing but since the F-18 lacks range there needs to be more of them. Kind of like the air wings of the 80s and 90s. There would be squadrons of both F-14s and F/A-18s. "Heavy" and "light" fighters so to speak. Or even wings of the 60s and 70s that had squadrons of A6 and A7's as heavy and light bombers.

Anyway to get to the point, yes. They are looking to increase the number of F-35s, Growlers, and MQ-25s. In my opinion They should get rid of or reduce the number of MH-60S as they are basically SAR and logistics assets and replace them with a platform that could take the place of the S-3s in tanking and long range ASW.

See this for the current thinking within the Navy on the subject. https://news.usni.org/2022/03/24/a-gene ... ghter-gaps
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 11033
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Thu Oct 20, 2022 2:20 am

In the 60s, it would have been A-4 and A-6, the A-7 didn’t come along until about 1970-ish.
 
bobinthecar
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:16 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Thu Oct 20, 2022 2:58 am

First Navy deployment of A-7s was late 1967 I think. But yes. A-4s for most of the 60s.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2745
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Thu Oct 20, 2022 6:16 am

bobinthecar wrote:
If I had to guess I would say it would grow slightly and there would be some adjustments. Later blocks of the F/A-18 are extremely advanced and vastly underrated planes. Their one and only drawback is lack of range. F-35C has the range and will probably have even more range in the future if any of the engine upgrades planned are executed. They are the A-6E of the modern wing but since the F-18 lacks range there needs to be more of them. Kind of like the air wings of the 80s and 90s. There would be squadrons of both F-14s and F/A-18s. "Heavy" and "light" fighters so to speak. Or even wings of the 60s and 70s that had squadrons of A6 and A7's as heavy and light bombers.

Anyway to get to the point, yes. They are looking to increase the number of F-35s, Growlers, and MQ-25s. In my opinion They should get rid of or reduce the number of MH-60S as they are basically SAR and logistics assets and replace them with a platform that could take the place of the S-3s in tanking and long range ASW.

See this for the current thinking within the Navy on the subject. https://news.usni.org/2022/03/24/a-gene ... ghter-gaps


The article you offered says repeatidly they want 44 strike aircraft per wing or 396 total. But they don't have enough F-18s to meet that goal, given training (263) and backup (126) requirements. I'm amazed it takes 800 aircraft to get 400 operational on the carriers. So F-35s will fill the gap, but the deployed carrier air wing will stay at 44 strike aircraft.

They tested going from 5 growlers to 7 and liked it (but money is a thing). They want to add another 5 helicopters, and 5 MQ-25s.

So the carrier air wing might add 12 aircraft, none of them strike fighters. They will increase the number of strike fighters in the navy, but not the number on board ships.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 853
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Thu Oct 20, 2022 3:30 pm

Your math, while correct, doesn’t tell the whole story: by gaining 5 MQ-25s, the Navy is effectively gaining a greater number of Super Hornets no longer burning through flight hours as tankers.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 6141
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Thu Oct 20, 2022 4:26 pm

bobinthecar wrote:
First Navy deployment of A-7s was late 1967 I think. But yes. A-4s for most of the 60s.


I think we can all agree it all went downhill after they got rid of the A-5s and Crusaders
 
johns624
Posts: 6763
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Thu Oct 20, 2022 4:34 pm

Spacepope wrote:
bobinthecar wrote:
First Navy deployment of A-7s was late 1967 I think. But yes. A-4s for most of the 60s.


I think we can all agree it all went downhill after they got rid of the A-5s and Crusaders
While some older aircraft end up looking "dated", the A5 Vigilante is still a beautiful bird.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 15208
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Thu Oct 20, 2022 7:40 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
bobinthecar wrote:
If I had to guess I would say it would grow slightly and there would be some adjustments. Later blocks of the F/A-18 are extremely advanced and vastly underrated planes. Their one and only drawback is lack of range. F-35C has the range and will probably have even more range in the future if any of the engine upgrades planned are executed. They are the A-6E of the modern wing but since the F-18 lacks range there needs to be more of them. Kind of like the air wings of the 80s and 90s. There would be squadrons of both F-14s and F/A-18s. "Heavy" and "light" fighters so to speak. Or even wings of the 60s and 70s that had squadrons of A6 and A7's as heavy and light bombers.

Anyway to get to the point, yes. They are looking to increase the number of F-35s, Growlers, and MQ-25s. In my opinion They should get rid of or reduce the number of MH-60S as they are basically SAR and logistics assets and replace them with a platform that could take the place of the S-3s in tanking and long range ASW.

See this for the current thinking within the Navy on the subject. https://news.usni.org/2022/03/24/a-gene ... ghter-gaps


The article you offered says repeatidly they want 44 strike aircraft per wing or 396 total. But they don't have enough F-18s to meet that goal, given training (263) and backup (126) requirements. I'm amazed it takes 800 aircraft to get 400 operational on the carriers. So F-35s will fill the gap, but the deployed carrier air wing will stay at 44 strike aircraft.

They tested going from 5 growlers to 7 and liked it (but money is a thing). They want to add another 5 helicopters, and 5 MQ-25s.

So the carrier air wing might add 12 aircraft, none of them strike fighters. They will increase the number of strike fighters in the navy, but not the number on board ships.


That was a great article for this discussion, one thing they mentioned was transitioning the adversary squadrons which were planned to transition from legacy F-18s to Super Hornets. Instead, they're going to acquire F-16s and F-5s for the adversary squadrons. That allows them to fill the strike fighter gap with those Super Hornets. However, it points out that traditionally the adversary squadrons, which are Reserve units, were all comprised of a Reserve Air Wing which could deploy in combat if needed. Moving away from the F-18s to the F-16 and F-5s takes away their ability to operate in combat as part of the Carrier Air Wing. It also eliminates all those Reservists who support those aircraft who would no longer be proficient to support the fleet F-18s.

I've brought this up in other discussions regarding the Patrol squadrons, that the Reserve flying has been drastically scaled back at all levels. 20 years ago, there was 7 Patrol squadrons operating 55 P-3Cs. Squadrons were based out of Pt. Mugu, Jacksonville, Willow Grove X 2, Whidbey Island, Brunswick, New Orleans.

Now there's two Reserve Patrol squadrons, one each Jacksonville and Whidbey Island, transitioning to P-8s. Perhaps 7 each, 14 total? There should be at least three more Reserve Patrol squadrons, New Orleans, Pt. Mugu, JB-MDL for a Reserve Patrol force of 35.

Same with the Reserve Carrier Air Wing, Carrier Air Wing Reserve 20, 20 years ago they operated;

VFA-201 "Hunters (12 - F/A-18A)
VFA-203 Blue Dolphins (12 - F/A-18A)
VFA-204 River Rattlers (12 - F/A-18A)
VAW-77 Nightwolves (4 - E-2C)
VAW-78 Fighting Escargots (4 - E-2C)
VAQ-209 Star Warriors (EA-6B)

Mobilization chops
HS-75 Emerald Knights (H/SH-60F/H)
VMFA-142 Flying Gators (F/A-18A)

adversaries [not deployable]
VFC-12 Fighting Omars (12 - F/A-18A)
VFC-13 Fighting Saints (25 F-5E/F)

Squadron Augment Units
VFA-125 (SAU) [NAS Lemoore]
VFA-106 (SAU) [NAS Oceana]
VAQ-129 (SAU) [NAS Whidbey Island]
VS-41 (SAU) NAS North Island

They closed NAS Atlanta and much of these squadrons are gone, they should repopulate a true Reserve Carrier Air Wing that can deploy. Use them for expeditionary missions but have them keep up their Carrier qualifications should conflict require their service with the fleet.
For example, the Reserve E-2C squadron was based at JRB New Orleans and was used often to support drug interdiction missions in the Caribbean and Central/South America.
 
889091
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:56 pm

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Thu Oct 20, 2022 7:56 pm

STT757 wrote:
That was a great article for this discussion, one thing they mentioned was transitioning the adversary squadrons which were planned to transition from legacy F-18s to Super Hornets. Instead, they're going to acquire F-16s and F-5s for the adversary squadrons. That allows them to fill the strike fighter gap with those Super Hornets. However, it points out that traditionally the adversary squadrons, which are Reserve units, were all comprised of a Reserve Air Wing which could deploy in combat if needed. Moving away from the F-18s to the F-16 and F-5s takes away their ability to operate in combat as part of the Carrier Air Wing. It also eliminates all those Reservists who support those aircraft who would no longer be proficient to support the fleet F-18s.


Can't the adversary squadrons continue flying the legacy F-18s, or are they so beat up that it's not worthwhile?
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 15208
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Thu Oct 20, 2022 11:52 pm

889091 wrote:
STT757 wrote:
That was a great article for this discussion, one thing they mentioned was transitioning the adversary squadrons which were planned to transition from legacy F-18s to Super Hornets. Instead, they're going to acquire F-16s and F-5s for the adversary squadrons. That allows them to fill the strike fighter gap with those Super Hornets. However, it points out that traditionally the adversary squadrons, which are Reserve units, were all comprised of a Reserve Air Wing which could deploy in combat if needed. Moving away from the F-18s to the F-16 and F-5s takes away their ability to operate in combat as part of the Carrier Air Wing. It also eliminates all those Reservists who support those aircraft who would no longer be proficient to support the fleet F-18s.


Can't the adversary squadrons continue flying the legacy F-18s, or are they so beat up that it's not worthwhile?


They’re done.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 11976
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Fri Oct 21, 2022 12:21 am

Is there any way to build a modern S3, new engines, new materials, same design? What was the problem if any with the original S3, and no, I am not talking about restarting the line. I have to assume that they can or do have the original drawings, biggest issue I see are the engines, as most of the combat electronics are already deployed on the P-8, just need smaller versions, I am sure the OEM can charge a ton for that making the project viable, rather than billions developing the frame.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 15208
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Fri Oct 21, 2022 12:29 pm

par13del wrote:
Is there any way to build a modern S3, new engines, new materials, same design? What was the problem if any with the original S3, and no, I am not talking about restarting the line. I have to assume that they can or do have the original drawings, biggest issue I see are the engines, as most of the combat electronics are already deployed on the P-8, just need smaller versions, I am sure the OEM can charge a ton for that making the project viable, rather than billions developing the frame.


I think the MQ-25 is a better way to go for air refueling and as mentioned new missions like ASW. The MQ-25 can stay aloft for 48 hours straight. That is a significant advantage for ASW loitering, it can be air refueled by other MQ-25s. For air refueling missions the MQ-25 can meet up with KC-46s to take on additional fuel and return to station close to the action to refuel the strike force. Keeps them off the ship where there can concentrate on strike missions.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 15208
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Fri Oct 21, 2022 12:52 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
STT757 wrote:

In a combat zone like the South China Sea the Navy needs longer range reach, to keep them out of range of missile threats.


I dunno. Seems like missile range is ever-increasing, and that eventually there will be no useful station out of missile range.


In order to be effective in the vast distances in the increasingly dangerous Western Pacific, aircraft would notionally have to operate more than 1,000 nautical miles from the carrier to keep out of range of Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles like the DF-21 and DF-26, analyst Bryan Clark told USNI News in 2020.

The next step for the Navy is to bring an unmanned aerial refueling aircraft to operate further from the carrier to extend the range of the existing airwing. The first operational MQ-25A Stingray aerial refueling UAVs are set to deploy aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-73) by 2026, Vice Adm. Kevin Whitesell said in A


https://news.usni.org/2022/07/13/several-uavs-under-development-for-next-generation-carrier-air-wing
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 15208
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Fri Oct 21, 2022 1:01 pm

par13del wrote:
Is there any way to build a modern S3, new engines, new materials, same design? What was the problem if any with the original S3, and no, I am not talking about restarting the line. I have to assume that they can or do have the original drawings, biggest issue I see are the engines, as most of the combat electronics are already deployed on the P-8, just need smaller versions, I am sure the OEM can charge a ton for that making the project viable, rather than billions developing the frame.


This article discusses options including reactivating the S-3s, what they drill down on as an option, which I like, is going with the MQ-25 platform initially and then eventually adding the V-22 into the mix. The V-22 option gives them the ability to operate not just from Carriers but also amphibious ships. Building towards a light carrier option with the F-35B, V-22 etc..

https://cimsec.org/depth-from-above-reinventing-carrier-asw/
 
texl1649
Posts: 2335
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Fri Oct 21, 2022 1:30 pm

This is all an extremely high amount of cost to get a (nearly?) trillion dollar manned asset (carrier battle group), to a thousand miles from china.

The logical/non-emotional option would be to move to a more distributed/less vulnerable asset. What CVN ‘power’ needs to really be projected in the western pacific by folks like GWB/Obama/Biden/Trump (21st century US presidents)? Is any of this really going to lower the chances of armed conflict?
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 15208
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Fri Oct 21, 2022 1:53 pm

texl1649 wrote:
This is all an extremely high amount of cost to get a (nearly?) trillion dollar manned asset (carrier battle group), to a thousand miles from china.

The logical/non-emotional option would be to move to a more distributed/less vulnerable asset. What CVN ‘power’ needs to really be projected in the western pacific by folks like GWB/Obama/Biden/Trump (21st century US presidents)? Is any of this really going to lower the chances of armed conflict?


The airbases in Guam, Okinawa etc. are going to be targets. Carriers can maneuver and operate just outside the range of Chinese anti-ship missiles while still being able to project power into the conflict zone.
 
texl1649
Posts: 2335
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Fri Oct 21, 2022 2:56 pm

Could they put passports or modern/current CF34's on the S-3's?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 11033
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Fri Oct 21, 2022 9:06 pm

CF-34 could be used, the plane was the first to use the TF-34. Passport wouldn’t work well, high altitude, low cycle engine.
 
bobinthecar
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:16 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Sat Oct 22, 2022 1:47 am

texl1649 wrote:
This is all an extremely high amount of cost to get a (nearly?) trillion dollar manned asset (carrier battle group), to a thousand miles from china.

The logical/non-emotional option would be to move to a more distributed/less vulnerable asset. What CVN ‘power’ needs to really be projected in the western pacific by folks like GWB/Obama/Biden/Trump (21st century US presidents)? Is any of this really going to lower the chances of armed conflict?


Trillion dollar? Can I see that math?
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2745
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Sat Oct 22, 2022 6:06 am

bobinthecar wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
This is all an extremely high amount of cost to get a (nearly?) trillion dollar manned asset (carrier battle group), to a thousand miles from china.

The logical/non-emotional option would be to move to a more distributed/less vulnerable asset. What CVN ‘power’ needs to really be projected in the western pacific by folks like GWB/Obama/Biden/Trump (21st century US presidents)? Is any of this really going to lower the chances of armed conflict?


Trillion dollar? Can I see that math?


Aircraft carrier: $15B
Aircraft: $10B
Unnamed other assets: $975B

:-)
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2745
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Sat Oct 22, 2022 6:10 am

STT757 wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
STT757 wrote:

In a combat zone like the South China Sea the Navy needs longer range reach, to keep them out of range of missile threats.


I dunno. Seems like missile range is ever-increasing, and that eventually there will be no useful station out of missile range.


In order to be effective in the vast distances in the increasingly dangerous Western Pacific, aircraft would notionally have to operate more than 1,000 nautical miles from the carrier to keep out of range of Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles like the DF-21 and DF-26, analyst Bryan Clark told USNI News in 2020.

The next step for the Navy is to bring an unmanned aerial refueling aircraft to operate further from the carrier to extend the range of the existing airwing. The first operational MQ-25A Stingray aerial refueling UAVs are set to deploy aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-73) by 2026, Vice Adm. Kevin Whitesell said in A


https://news.usni.org/2022/07/13/several-uavs-under-development-for-next-generation-carrier-air-wing



I'm not clear on what you're telling me???

Does the USN want to stay out of missile range: yes
Is missile range ever-increasing: yes
Is the Pacific Ocean increasing in size: No (it's actually shrinking by about 1 inch per year)
 
johns624
Posts: 6763
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Sat Oct 22, 2022 4:05 pm

I don't think that a CBG has to be outside the range of all missiles, just most of them. That would allow you to concentrate on the few that have the range to hit you. Japan and the USN also have destroyers with ABM capabilities.
 
bobinthecar
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:16 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Sun Oct 23, 2022 2:54 am

I'm not clear on what you're telling me???

Does the USN want to stay out of missile range: yes
Is missile range ever-increasing: yes
Is the Pacific Ocean increasing in size: No (it's actually shrinking by about 1 inch per year)


Two mistakes a lot of people make when it comes to stuff like this is taking things in absolutes, for example, radar x detected a stealth aircraft four times out of five therefore stealth is useless, and in thinking that a task force like a carrier battle group operates alone.

Of course its good to try and stay out of range of the other guys missiles but it is also useful to operate at the extreme range of those missiles and it's even better to stay at a range such that the enemy has more ocean to search in order to find you. So yes, the Navy's goal is to stay as far away from the enemy as possible but it doesn't mean it cannot operate in range. There is no absolute here. To the second point, gone are the days when you would plan to have four CBGs fight through to the Kola Peninsula and rain havoc on the Soviet Northern fleet. That will not happen in the South China Sea with the Navy sailing off of Yulin. They don't have to. The door busting down duties will be done by stealth bombers and cruise missiles launched from subs. The carriers will be used for protection of sea lanes, and persistent presence and operations after day one.

Adding tankers to the carrier merely allows her air wing to reach further and be more persistent. IT also frees up F-18s for more important tasks. It's not about operating out of range of the enemy per se.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2745
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Sun Oct 23, 2022 4:56 am

bobinthecar wrote:
I'm not clear on what you're telling me???

Does the USN want to stay out of missile range: yes
Is missile range ever-increasing: yes
Is the Pacific Ocean increasing in size: No (it's actually shrinking by about 1 inch per year)


Two mistakes a lot of people make when it comes to stuff like this is taking things in absolutes, for example, radar x detected a stealth aircraft four times out of five therefore stealth is useless, and in thinking that a task force like a carrier battle group operates alone.

Of course its good to try and stay out of range of the other guys missiles but it is also useful to operate at the extreme range of those missiles and it's even better to stay at a range such that the enemy has more ocean to search in order to find you. So yes, the Navy's goal is to stay as far away from the enemy as possible but it doesn't mean it cannot operate in range. There is no absolute here. To the second point, gone are the days when you would plan to have four CBGs fight through to the Kola Peninsula and rain havoc on the Soviet Northern fleet. That will not happen in the South China Sea with the Navy sailing off of Yulin. They don't have to. The door busting down duties will be done by stealth bombers and cruise missiles launched from subs. The carriers will be used for protection of sea lanes, and persistent presence and operations after day one.

Adding tankers to the carrier merely allows her air wing to reach further and be more persistent. IT also frees up F-18s for more important tasks. It's not about operating out of range of the enemy per se.


I don't think I was being 'absolute'.

I'm doubting the ability to stay
1) close enough so that the carrier air can reasonably get to the target
2) far enough away the land based assets have a hard time reaching out

As Chinese tech gets ever closer to our tech .. the difference between 1 and 2 vanishes.
 
johns624
Posts: 6763
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Sun Oct 23, 2022 11:50 am

There's a reason that the Ticos and Burkes have such a large SM and ESSM loadout and why there's always at least 2-3 of them with every CBG.
 
bobinthecar
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:16 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Sun Oct 23, 2022 3:58 pm

I don't think I was being 'absolute'.

I'm doubting the ability to stay
1) close enough so that the carrier air can reasonably get to the target
2) far enough away the land based assets have a hard time reaching out

As Chinese tech gets ever closer to our tech .. the difference between 1 and 2 vanishes.


To your points, you did not read what I wrote then. Other assets will kick down the door to enable that. Chinese air defenses and surveillance capability will be peeled back a layer at a time. SSGNs equip med with Tomahawks, long range bombers equipped with JASSM, Tomahawks, and PGMs, and finally F-35s on carriers will degrade China's ability to contest the South China sea. Then as was pointed out above the CBGs own missile defenses will be able to handle anything else that happens to get through.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2745
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Sun Oct 23, 2022 5:26 pm

bobinthecar wrote:
I don't think I was being 'absolute'.

I'm doubting the ability to stay
1) close enough so that the carrier air can reasonably get to the target
2) far enough away the land based assets have a hard time reaching out

As Chinese tech gets ever closer to our tech .. the difference between 1 and 2 vanishes.


To your points, you did not read what I wrote then. Other assets will kick down the door to enable that. Chinese air defenses and surveillance capability will be peeled back a layer at a time. SSGNs equip med with Tomahawks, long range bombers equipped with JASSM, Tomahawks, and PGMs, and finally F-35s on carriers will degrade China's ability to contest the South China sea. Then as was pointed out above the CBGs own missile defenses will be able to handle anything else that happens to get through.


Can you imagine one or several Chinese aircraft carriers operating withing range of the US west coast? Even if they are supported with SSGNs? Even if they have a future chinese F-35 equivelent?
 
studedave
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:21 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Sun Oct 23, 2022 5:54 pm

bobinthecar wrote:
In my opinion They should get rid of or reduce the number of MH-60S as they are basically SAR and logistics assets and replace them with a platform that could take the place of the S-3s in tanking and long range ASW.


An MH-60S does much more than SAR and logistics.
https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/MH-60S-Seahawk

It's also a safe bet that during a deployment- few of them (and many of the MH-60Rs) are even onboard.
They'd be on the other ships in the Battle Group, or sent ashore.
Just like is done with the VRC Det.

But yes- as for ASW- there's only so much those MH-60Rs can do, and only so much support P-8s can provide.
The S-3s wore many hats. Retiring them without replacement was bad


StudeDave 8-)
USN (retired)
 
bobinthecar
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:16 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Mon Oct 24, 2022 12:51 am

An MH-60S does much more than SAR and logistics.
https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/MH-60S-Seahawk


The link speaks nothing of their mission or capability. Please see https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mh_60s/ instead.It's three main capabilities are CSA. mine counter measures, and transport. At best a carrier carries 4 or 5 utility helicopters like this in the past. They are glorified deck fillers for a carrier. CSAR you need maybe 4, Same for transport since you also have HH-22s now. The CBG never performed the mine counter measures mission and it should never do so anyway.
 
bobinthecar
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:16 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Mon Oct 24, 2022 1:01 am

Can you imagine one or several Chinese aircraft carriers operating withing range of the US west coast? Even if they are supported with SSGNs? Even if they have a future chinese F-35 equivelent?


No I cannot but you are making an apples to oranges comparison. Just off the top of my head. The Chinese do not have a large well equipped fleet of stealth and non stealth long range bombers lavishly equipped with the latest sensors and long range stealthy PGMs. They do not have an ocean full of well equipped allies to support them. They do not have the number (if at all) of large deck CATOBAR super carriers. They do not have the extensive global SOSUS network. They do not have the number of modern SSNs that the USN has. They are not equipped nor do they train to project power halfway across the world. It's a very very different situation. They do not have the supporting and complimentary assets not do have the logistical ability to do so, their carriers do not have the range, persistence or firepower, they do not have the expertise that comes with experience and training to do so.

Way different. It's not just about aircraft carriers.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 11976
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Mon Oct 24, 2022 12:21 pm

johns624 wrote:
There's a reason that the Ticos and Burkes have such a large SM and ESSM loadout and why there's always at least 2-3 of them with every CBG.

Two problems that are now becoming apparent to the everyday Joe.
1. The Tico's (cruisers) are not being replaced, the Navy and politicians along with vendors bungled that job long ago, the Burkes may have better tech but have less capacity.
2. The VLS system while wonderful and allows engagements of missile swarms, once shot it is back to port to reload, until they find a way to reload underway, the entire CBG time at sea during a conflict is determined not by the a/c on deck, missions or the munitions available, but the ability of the 2 or 3 Burkes to keep missiles in inventory.

I am certain that those programmers who started this electronic missile intercept project decades ago thought that by now one missile one kill would be standard, unfortunately.......
 
johns624
Posts: 6763
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Mon Oct 24, 2022 12:34 pm

The navy is conducting tests to do VLS reloads closer to the battle area. Even though the Burkes have less capacity than a Tico, they still as many, if not more than any other class of ship. The JMSDF and ROK navy have some Burke derivatives that have around the same capacity. Compare them to what any European navy has.
Also, in war you take calculated risks. Ships are meant to be used, not protected as national status symbols.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2745
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Mon Oct 24, 2022 3:07 pm

par13del wrote:
johns624 wrote:
There's a reason that the Ticos and Burkes have such a large SM and ESSM loadout and why there's always at least 2-3 of them with every CBG.

Two problems that are now becoming apparent to the everyday Joe.
1. The Tico's (cruisers) are not being replaced, the Navy and politicians along with vendors bungled that job long ago, the Burkes may have better tech but have less capacity.
2. The VLS system while wonderful and allows engagements of missile swarms, once shot it is back to port to reload, until they find a way to reload underway, the entire CBG time at sea during a conflict is determined not by the a/c on deck, missions or the munitions available, but the ability of the 2 or 3 Burkes to keep missiles in inventory.

I am certain that those programmers who started this electronic missile intercept project decades ago thought that by now one missile one kill would be standard, unfortunately.......


I remember reading the British Navy was sailing with empty missile tubes because they didn't have enough missiles.

1) Does the USN sail with empty missile tubes?
2) Do we really have enough missiles to reload very often?
 
bobinthecar
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:16 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Mon Oct 24, 2022 4:59 pm

Two problems that are now becoming apparent to the everyday Joe.
1. The Tico's (cruisers) are not being replaced, the Navy and politicians along with vendors bungled that job long ago, the Burkes may have better tech but have less capacity.
2. The VLS system while wonderful and allows engagements of missile swarms, once shot it is back to port to reload, until they find a way to reload underway, the entire CBG time at sea during a conflict is determined not by the a/c on deck, missions or the munitions available, but the ability of the 2 or 3 Burkes to keep missiles in inventory.


1. The Ticos really don't need replacing. The Ticos bring a fourth illuminator, about 25 more missile tubes, and room for the AAW commander's staff. Off he three the only thing they really need to provide for is the AAW commander. Currently he can do it on the carrier. Going forward DDG(X) will have the room. You do not need the fourth illuminator because newer missiles have active guidance and once guided to the vicinity of the target have no need for illumination by the ship. You do not need as many missiles because ESSM, and SM-6 (quad pack former and multi seeker later) effectively "deepen" a ship's magazine with greater density or greater versatility.

2. Partly my answer above and further, what makes you think a CBG is going to sail with only 2 or 3 Burkes in wartime? What makes you think that every missile fired at the task force will require another missile to shoot it down?
 
bobinthecar
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:16 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Mon Oct 24, 2022 5:03 pm

I remember reading the British Navy was sailing with empty missile tubes because they didn't have enough missiles.

1) Does the USN sail with empty missile tubes?
2) Do we really have enough missiles to reload very often?


1. Possibly on occasion. In the South China Sea or Middle east probably not. Between ASROC, Tomahawk, Standard Missiles, and ESSM the, Navy literally has 10s of thousands of missiles to put in these tubes.

2. Define very often? I'm sure there is enough for a few full reloads around the fleet.

They have been building all of these missiles for years now. Sure some are obsolete but not nearly all of them.
 
studedave
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:21 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:29 am

bobinthecar wrote:
The link speaks nothing of their mission or capability. Please see https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mh_60s/ instead.It's three main capabilities are CSA. mine counter measures, and transport. At best a carrier carries 4 or 5 utility helicopters like this in the past. They are glorified deck fillers for a carrier. CSAR you need maybe 4, Same for transport since you also have HH-22s now. The CBG never performed the mine counter measures mission and it should never do so anyway.


Literally the very first line tells of their mission~
"The MH-60S Seahawk missions are Anti-Surface Warfare, combat support, humanitarian disaster relief, Combat Search and Rescue, aero medical evacuation, SPECWAR and organic Airborne Mine Countermeasures."

I'd guess about 85% of my 20 years (1988 to 2008) in the NAVY was helos.
I've wrenched on four of the five versions of H-60 the NAVY has/had.
Here's a snippet of what I know~

As Carriers go---
in the SeaKing days- HS squadrons normally took six birds.
These birds did ASW, SAR, and pax/mail runs- usually within the Battle Group.

When the -60 Foxtrots and Hotels came along seven or eight was the norm.
The Fs mostly did ASW and SAR, the Hs mostly did CSAR and SPECOP type stuff.

With the Romeos and Sierras that all changed.
HSs (and HCs) became HSCs, and the HSLs became HSMs. More of both also stood up.
You now see them deploy together aboard a Carrier, then send birds to ships within the Battle Group.
I'd bet that they each take as many as eight birds apiece on deployment.
It's important to note- they don't all deploy to carriers.
Some just do shore based detachments overseas.
Some only go with small ships that are not part of a CBG.

As for mine countermeasures- I concur. This is based on first hand accounts of that system, and how inadequate the H-60 is for towing the sled. This mission needs to remain the domain of those big bad H-53s. The Gator boats can keep those birds to themselves, since they already have a bunch aboard with the Marines.



StudeDave
 
bobinthecar
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:16 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:50 pm

"The MH-60S Seahawk missions are Anti-Surface Warfare, combat support, humanitarian disaster relief, Combat Search and Rescue, aero medical evacuation, SPECWAR and organic Airborne Mine Countermeasures."


What I meant was in the context of the CBG and it's missions. Given the range of the weapons carried and the inherent vulnerabilities of a helicopter, the Anti Surface warfare role that these helicopters play is not in the same league nor is it safe or useful for a CBG.Why would you have a 20 billion dollar asset putting itself at risk to get close enough to a bunch of gunboats so that your Sierras can do battle? As for its other roles sure, CSAR, evac and VERTREP is useful but Im not sure you would need all that many of them.

I suppose since the carrier has the room for them its okay but these birds could just as easily be based on escorts with hangers as most of those ship with only a single helo.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2745
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Carrier Air Wing 1993 vs today

Wed Oct 26, 2022 12:42 am

studedave wrote:
With the Romeos and Sierras that all changed.
HSs (and HCs) became HSCs, and the HSLs became HSMs. More of both also stood up.
You now see them deploy together aboard a Carrier, then send birds to ships within the Battle Group.
I'd bet that they each take as many as eight birds apiece on deployment.
It's important to note- they don't all deploy to carriers.
Some just do shore based detachments overseas.
Some only go with small ships that are not part of a CBG.


I'm super curious. How many helos on the carrier, how many distributed throught the escorts, and how many stay ashore?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos