...Everyone bitches about integration with the ship, but honestly, we have CV NATOPS, Flight deck procedures, etc for a reason. Everything is standardized, with common verbiage, procedures and qualifications. Tying a specific airwing to a specific ship is poor practice, ineffecient, and shitty for quality of life and predictability.
I don't disagree with your basic idea, but boats and CAGs aren't tied to each other any more and haven't been for a while. Also, having seen the ramp up in proficiency during work-ups, I can't agree with the idea of everyone is trained to standards so ship integration isn't that big a deal. Sure, everyone's able to do the basics, but it takes practice to be able to do it safely and efficiently and well, and I'd rather everyone figure that shit out in US waters. A boat coming out of mid-life overhaul, for example, may have a lot of ship's company dudes who've been aboard for 4-5 years and never worked with an embarked air wing.
The Navy painted itself in this corner over the last 15 years by not fighting to keep boats and air wings. I remember when 12 CVBGs was considered the "absolute bare minimum" and I haven't been around all that long, relatively. Now we find ourselves in this spot where we're fighting to keep 10, won't say no to tasking for fear of looking "irrelevant," and wearing down sailors and breaking boats and planes trying to make it all work.
Of course, as mentioned, one solution is to forward deploy more boats and CAGs. Cut out transit times and stay on a higher optempo rather than the workup-deploy-stand down which requires a lot of time trying to regain proficiency. The downside to that is that it costs a LOT more. Huge up-front capital investment to build up infrastructure for the Boat itself (it's a lot more than just a big enough pier and deep enough channel if you want to home-port a nuke), housing and support for the people and facilities for the Air Wing. Higher operating costs to go along with that higher optempo. Higher personnel costs for folks living overseas.
It could be made to work. I imagine that more well-heeled countries like Singapore and UAE might be willing to underwrite those costs in exchange for the political, economic and strategic advantages. But then you'd also have to persuade congresspersons to lose those boats from their districts, and witness the stink the Virginia folks made when they wanted to move one boat down to Florida.
So there's no solution now which won't require either dialing back on deployments (politically unacceptable), spending a lot more money (which we won't get), or building more Boats (and we can barely keep the ones we've got).
