• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Budget cuts are being announced

usmarinemike

Solidly part of the 42%.
pilot
Contributor
I am super surprised about LCS staying on and no announcement in the reduction of active CVNs.

I havent had the chance to look at the transcript yet, but does "speed up the F-35" mean the reasonable man meaning (get operational so we can not spend so much money without getting results) or the contractor meaning (pay a fucking-ton of cash to speed things up).

FWIW, books on insurgency have been pointing and laughing at the DOD for awhile now because of this overblown concentration on being 20 generations in front of our conventional adversaries technologically without evening mentioning the enemies who actually beat us in the DOD vision statements. They must have been written by Air Force personnel.
 

HeyJoe

Fly Navy! ...or USMC
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I am super surprised...no announcement in the reduction of active CVNs.

Read it again. It's there.

We will shift the Navy Aircraft Carrier program to a five-year build cycle placing it on a more fiscally sustainable path. This will result in 10 carriers after 2040
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Why do I get the feeling that the projections of where we're going to be as a military in 2040 have about as much validity as the ones I'm sure they made about today back in 1979?
 

Schnugg

It's gettin' a bit dramatic 'round here...
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
. We would plan to buy 513 F-35s over the five-year defense plan, and, ultimately, plan to buy 2,443

I just don't see that happening. We've hardly ever gone and made as many as we said we would in a long, long time.
 

Mumbles

Registered User
pilot
Contributor
Admiral Robert Dunn's take on the budget vis'-a-vis' Naval Aviation

30 March 2009

Back in October Blue Stripe 7 reported a current and growing aircraft shortfall in Naval Aviation. Since then, if anything, things have gotten worse, exacerbated by ongoing attacks in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill.

The president unveiled his 2010 budget to the public back in February but that was only a broad outline of proposed spending. The Department of Defense is now refining those top lines into specific programs. There is a tight veil of secrecy surrounding this exercise and no one outside the lifelines really knows what’s going on within the Pentagon, but there has been enough information to know that there is cause for concern.

With heavy emphasis on ground forces the Navy and the air force will be called upon to be the bill payers. For example, even though the National Strategy calls for an aircraft carrier force of eleven, and the Congress has mandated twelve, there’s high probability that the Navy will be unable to afford more than ten. If the Navy is forced to give up a carrier there will go with it at least one air wing’s worth of aircraft, a battle group’s worth of helicopters and a commensurate number of patrol and logistics aircraft. While this will be bad for the Navy, the real problem is what it will take away from the Nation. As a current example, even today aircraft carriers and their air wings are supporting Central Command by flying 46 percent of the reconnaissance and close air support sorties in Iraq and Afghanistan , 75 percent of electronic attack missions in Iraq and 100 percent in Afghanistan . Meanwhile, because of this and other combatant commander requirements all aircraft are being over-utilized. At the current rate, given no further procurement, the Navy will be as many as 150, perhaps as many as 200, strike fighters short of what’s needed within five years, and that’s with the most optimistic projection of JSF production. At the same time the procurement of the E2D Hawkeye has been placed in jeopardy and with it the fleet’s best anti-ship missile defense system. Add to that the fact that because the air force has failed to include any tactical electronic warfare aircraft in its plans demands for Growlers outside Navy needs can be most certainly anticipated, further exacerbating shortfalls on the carrier decks. If the decks don’t get filled, then why not lay up a carrier or two, and all the ships and helicopters that go with it in the battle group as well? After all, what’s a carrier without an air wing?

Even now, carrier air wings are transferring strike fighters from deck to deck to ensure deployments with a full inventory. This in itself sends operating costs up and wears out what strike fighters we do have that much faster. If the new Hawkeye is similarly delayed the same problem will be manifested. What’s so sad is that solutions are at hand.

Each of the Block II F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Growler E2D programs are under cost, with production lines open and capable of early delivery. It’s only that for whatever reasons certain minds are made up. It will take more than Navy analysis and pleas to change those minds. It will take the sum total of the voices of concerned citizens from around the country in support of the Navy to make the situation known to bureaucrats, the Administration and legislators of both parties.

Only one thing remains certain in these uncertain times, U.S. Navy carrier based aviation provides a relevant, capable and unconstrained force for the combatant commanders around the globe. They must be protected, preserved, and promoted. Now is the time to turn on our transmitters and get this message to the highest levels in the Pentagon and on the Hill!

I encourage each of you to offer your support – both publicly and privately – for acquisition of these necessary aircraft. Our Naval Aviation warfighters need our full support to achieve a solution to this crisis and will greatly appreciate your individual and collective efforts. In the end, it’s the Nation that will benefit.

Robert F. Dunn
Acting Chairman and President
Association of Naval Aviation
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
At least the plan commits to buying more helos. I hope that includes tiltrotors!
 

hscs

Registered User
pilot
I disagree with Mr. Dunn -- the same ops can be done without a carrier -- why do we need to be flying off a carrier (with resultant stress on airframes due to launches and recoveries and corrosion) when the same job can be handled by land based airframes. Why not just deploy a squadron over there without the airwing? The air portion brings along a ship component also -- think about the mere costs of the 3.5k sailors on ships company that have to go along --

$400 - $500 lost income due to tax free
$250 - family sep
$250 - combat pay

Roughly 1k per sailors with dependents, $750 without -- comes out to about $3.1M per month -- probably close to $40M per year in outflows alone for ships company to provide NTISR/CAS. There would be more savings if the whole air wing wasn't there, too.....

Seems like that could money could go to better places --
 

e6bflyer

Used to Care
pilot
I disagree with Mr. Dunn -- the same ops can be done without a carrier --

It is obviously a slanted piece, but come on, dude....
The carrier air wing is the central piece of the Navy's existence, our entire maritime strategy, and a big part of the entire national military strategy. Sure, we pay through the nose to have the ability to project that kind of power, but if you take away the boat and just leave the air wing, you essentially just have the Air Force, and anyone can do that. Our enemies abroad fear us because we CAN do it. What if our mojo suddenly dried up in the Middle East and we were left without any airstrips to fly out of? We would be F'd in the A.
If we do end up reducing that capability, I think that all you are going to see is our other resources stretched very thin.
 

HeyJoe

Fly Navy! ...or USMC
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
It is obviously a slanted piece, but come on, dude....
The carrier air wing is the central piece of the Navy's existence, our entire maritime strategy, and a big part of the entire national military strategy. Sure, we pay through the nose to have the ability to project that kind of power, but if you take away the boat and just leave the air wing, you essentially just have the Air Force, and anyone can do that. Our enemies abroad fear us because we CAN do it. What if our mojo suddenly dried up in the Middle East and we were left without any airstrips to fly out of? We would be F'd in the A.
If we do end up reducing that capability, I think that all you are going to see is our other resources stretched very thin.

I think you need both Carrier based (and LHA/LHD) and Expeditionary Air flexible enough to meet needs of the Combatant Commander. Navy and Marine Corps have shown such flexibility at least back to Guadalcanal and right up the Solomons Chain and thereafter. Both carrier and land-based Naval Aviation answered the call in Korea, Vietnam and Desert Shield/Strom and on into OEF/OIF. Many aircraft were impressed into roles not envisioned by the original requirement or even their designers. I believe that still is the case today.
 

desertoasis

Something witty.
None
Contributor
I think you need both Carrier based (and LHA/LHD) and Expeditionary Air flexible enough to meet needs of the Combatant Commander. Navy and Marine Corps have shown such flexibility at least back to Guadalcanal and right up the Solomons Chain and thereafter. Both carrier and land-based Naval Aviation answered the call in Korea, Vietnam and Desert Shield/Strom and on into OEF/OIF. Many aircraft were impressed into roles not envisioned by the original requirement or even their designers. I believe that still is the case today.

When is it too thin of a stretch though? We are obviously never going to become the 800-ship Navy that Reagan envisioned, but there has to be a limit to our ability to project our resources.

My concern is that everyone expects the Navy and the Marine Corps to be everywhere and do everything. We're there for the humanitarian crises (Christmas Tsunami) and the battlefields as well. The fact that we own the seas makes that possible. We're not going to be able to be everywhere and do everything like the world depends on us to be if we don't have the ability to move our resources with carriers and their air resources.

If we were dependent on using other nation's airports and resources, we'd be stuck without a place to land...or a place from which to start an offensive. That's what happened to us in Turkey in '03, and that's why we need to have our own, mobile airfields. We don't have those, we won't be able to be everywhere we need to be.
 

exhelodrvr

Well-Known Member
pilot
It is obviously a slanted piece, but come on, dude....
The carrier air wing is the central piece of the Navy's existence, our entire maritime strategy, and a big part of the entire national military strategy. Sure, we pay through the nose to have the ability to project that kind of power, but if you take away the boat and just leave the air wing, you essentially just have the Air Force, and anyone can do that. Our enemies abroad fear us because we CAN do it. What if our mojo suddenly dried up in the Middle East and we were left without any airstrips to fly out of? We would be F'd in the A.
If we do end up reducing that capability, I think that all you are going to see is our other resources stretched very thin.

"you essentially just have the Air Force"

A better looking Air Force without scarves.
 

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I agree that there needs to be an injection of common sense and intelligent management in the procurement process, stat. But this is a reattack of the Democrat Defense Budget, last seen under Clinton and Carter - "we want a military that can go anywhere and do anything, any time we want it to...so long as we don't have to pay for it or see it in our backyards the rest of the time."
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
Actually, the budget just says we can't do everything, all the time.

You can prepare for this war, the next war, maybe a little of both, but you simply can't prepare for every conceivable eventuality without either going broke or failing at all of them.
 
Top