-
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
future carrier airwings
- Thread starter Wunrunner
- Start date
- Status
turbospider2k
Registered User
Let's not forget the v-22. Not sure what its place will be in carrier aviation, but I definitely can see it on the marine carriers.
we think that depends on who (what) prevails. Will it be political or technology. Current DOD thinking is to skip a generation of technology and go for massive improvements, rather than nickle and dime enhancements. There is also a drive to reshape the military, reducing Army and AirForce and building the Navy. Lots of opposition to that.
If political and the old Generals get there way, then same old thing. We saw that in Iraq. Political decisions on force structure, employment and RESULTS.
Technloogy? Let me do 20 years not ten. We will not see the JSF. Tradeoffs between AirForce and Navy requirements will doom it. It will die of it's own weight. AirForce, will probably be reduced to Airlift and long range heavy bombers. They will lose their figher mission. There is no mission that the AirForce attack/fighers/CAS can do that the Navy cannot. There are many, many missions that the Navy can do and the AirForce cannot. AirForce needs those large, pieces of land for bases, they are in short supply. Navy can be self sufficient with their carriers.
The battle force of 2025 will be 80 percent unmanned air vehicles operating from smaller carriers. Agree some things cannot be done by unmanned aircraft. BUT unmanned aircraft can do much more than manned platforms can do. We will not have to support both a pilot and munitions on the airframe, just munitions and sensors. Big gain in ROI. In 20 years the Predator will appear as primitive as the Wright Brothers plane is to the f-18.
Bring 'em on.
If political and the old Generals get there way, then same old thing. We saw that in Iraq. Political decisions on force structure, employment and RESULTS.
Technloogy? Let me do 20 years not ten. We will not see the JSF. Tradeoffs between AirForce and Navy requirements will doom it. It will die of it's own weight. AirForce, will probably be reduced to Airlift and long range heavy bombers. They will lose their figher mission. There is no mission that the AirForce attack/fighers/CAS can do that the Navy cannot. There are many, many missions that the Navy can do and the AirForce cannot. AirForce needs those large, pieces of land for bases, they are in short supply. Navy can be self sufficient with their carriers.
The battle force of 2025 will be 80 percent unmanned air vehicles operating from smaller carriers. Agree some things cannot be done by unmanned aircraft. BUT unmanned aircraft can do much more than manned platforms can do. We will not have to support both a pilot and munitions on the airframe, just munitions and sensors. Big gain in ROI. In 20 years the Predator will appear as primitive as the Wright Brothers plane is to the f-18.
Bring 'em on.
You must be joking. We won't see the JSF? Then what do you suggest we will see? There really is not fallback, all the pentagon's eggs are in that basket. Maybe you're right, but I think and hope you're wrong.
Air Force reduced to airlift and long range heavy bombers? What the.. what? Name a Navy fighter with stealth ability. That's right, there are none. The AF has spent billions on the F-117 alone which has proven it's worth on many fronts. Not to mention the F-22. It's a stealthy mofo and can supercruise to boot. The AF fighter mission will always be strong because the number one mission of the AF is air superiority. Global reach, global power; not global delivery service. As for CAS... there is no plane in the world that can provide better CAS than the A-10. Period. Ask the Marines and soldiers on the ground and they'll tell you the same. The AF does not need large pieces of land for bases. In fact, little more than an assault strip can work in a lot of forward locations. The AF just likes to keep things centralized, so if a large base is possible, that's what they opt for. I will concede however that the Navy's mobility with it's carriers gives it an advantage in this area.
UAVs are the future. Things will eventually get there, but they have a long way to go. UAVs will be able to do more that manned platforms, but right now that is not true. They are just beginning to prove themselves in combat and against a more advanced enemy would be vulnerable to jamming at the present time.
Sorry if I got a little wound up about all this, but I think that every service has it purpose and it's place. I'm currently active duty AF and I'm going to Navy OCS. I'm very proud of both services and don't look at either as superior to the other. I don't think the roles of the AF or Navy are going to change too quickly, and besides, it's not a friggin' competition. We all play our parts and when we play well together only God can save the poor bastard that we're bringing the pain to. (I know that's bad grammar and I don't care.)
Air Force reduced to airlift and long range heavy bombers? What the.. what? Name a Navy fighter with stealth ability. That's right, there are none. The AF has spent billions on the F-117 alone which has proven it's worth on many fronts. Not to mention the F-22. It's a stealthy mofo and can supercruise to boot. The AF fighter mission will always be strong because the number one mission of the AF is air superiority. Global reach, global power; not global delivery service. As for CAS... there is no plane in the world that can provide better CAS than the A-10. Period. Ask the Marines and soldiers on the ground and they'll tell you the same. The AF does not need large pieces of land for bases. In fact, little more than an assault strip can work in a lot of forward locations. The AF just likes to keep things centralized, so if a large base is possible, that's what they opt for. I will concede however that the Navy's mobility with it's carriers gives it an advantage in this area.
UAVs are the future. Things will eventually get there, but they have a long way to go. UAVs will be able to do more that manned platforms, but right now that is not true. They are just beginning to prove themselves in combat and against a more advanced enemy would be vulnerable to jamming at the present time.
Sorry if I got a little wound up about all this, but I think that every service has it purpose and it's place. I'm currently active duty AF and I'm going to Navy OCS. I'm very proud of both services and don't look at either as superior to the other. I don't think the roles of the AF or Navy are going to change too quickly, and besides, it's not a friggin' competition. We all play our parts and when we play well together only God can save the poor bastard that we're bringing the pain to. (I know that's bad grammar and I don't care.)
46Driver
"It's a mother beautiful bridge, and it's gon
One of the changes to the Carrier Battle Group will be a LARGE increase in helos, i.e., H-60's. We are planning for a 20% to 40% increase in the number of Navy helicopter students. A multitude of roles for the MH-60 in the war against terrorism - expect to see 30mm chain guns, hellfires, and lots of SEAL inserts!
kevin
Registered User
i dont believe the unmanned thing will happen that quickly, but who knows. as for the jsf, there is still a lot of interest from foreigners, but it still has escalating costs. and as one service reduces the number it can procure, the price is driven up for the remaining services and other countries...then the other services cant buy as many, etc, etc...hence an inherent problem with producing a single aircraft to magically replace 5 different modern aircraft in 3 different services. just read something from the dod and arms committee from around april that suggested the air force buy one wing of f22 for missions that really need it's stealth and then fill in the rest with new f15s...dont know what "new" means. if that happens, it's a safe bet they will be flying the f22 well past 2025. personal opinion.....with all the emphasis being put on stealth ever since the f117, i feel like the future is more leaning on elec warfare. somebody on this site made that point, and i agree with it. you cant stay invisible forever.
1. I have heard from more than one source that when it comes to CAS Cobras are king for Marines.
2. Initial f-22 orders have been reduced from over 700 to a little over 200.
3. The JSF offers little more performance and less capacity than the F-16 when not considering the vertical takeoff aspect.
4. HUGE misconception,the airframe of the F-117 and B-2 do not make them totaly invisible, tactics do. That severely limits the circumstances in which they can be employed.
-Granted I am not in the Military, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. The points I listed are vague and based on second-hand information...so take'em for what they're worth.
2. Initial f-22 orders have been reduced from over 700 to a little over 200.
3. The JSF offers little more performance and less capacity than the F-16 when not considering the vertical takeoff aspect.
4. HUGE misconception,the airframe of the F-117 and B-2 do not make them totaly invisible, tactics do. That severely limits the circumstances in which they can be employed.
-Granted I am not in the Military, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. The points I listed are vague and based on second-hand information...so take'em for what they're worth.
kevin
Registered User
that's no joke...possible scenario- f18, f18e/f, f18g (prowler replacement) and f18 for s3 replacement. thats a whole lot of hornets. good point about the f117 and b2, they are not completely invisible to radar, just really friecking small. apparently microwaves (not referring to the one in your kitchen) have been found to pick up stealth aircraft fairly well. regardless, i think it will get to the point where it wont be whether you are "invisible" or not to radar, but rather who can jam the hell out of who. after all, what does it matter if the enemy can see you if they cant hit you. im biased on the jsf cause i hate the thing, but besides it's "stealth" (not sure how it compares in this category to f117, f22) and having a somewhat greater fuel capacity than the f18 (30% i heard?), i dont know what it really accomplishes- and for the cost? replacing the f18, f16, a10, and harrier, and some f15s? ya, i dont know about that. but apparently some lockheed higher-ups are pretty good pals with lots of congress, so it might fly anyway. politics- you gotta love it.
Attilla, I don't have time right now to address all that you said, but I would like to touch on your fourth comment quickly. Good tactics will make any plane invisible. That's why we have low-level ground tracks. I don't know enough about the B-2 to even comment on, but the F-117 is very, very stealthy. I've seen it myself on a radar scope. The secondary track was there from his transponder, but no primary return whatsoever. No "flock of birds" or any of that, nothing. That capability AND good tactics are what have made that plane so useful. Just look at the numbers, they've banged out more SAM and AD sites than anything. Until great advances are made in AD tracking and target aquisition radars, it will continue to enjoy a huge advantage.
Like I said though, I'm going Navy, so I'm clearly down with the toys the Navy has too.
Like I said though, I'm going Navy, so I'm clearly down with the toys the Navy has too.
I'm not an insider so I don't actually know anything firsthand... but from talking to some of my AF buddies, the 117 doesn't go up by itself as depicted on the Discovery channel. There is always a squadron of wild weasels paving the way with their electronic warfare countermeasures.
Also, both the b-2 and 117 cannot be used for any sort of daytime ops.
Granted we "own the night", but that cuts out about half of your working day.
This may be total horse$H^t but, according to my Russian immigrant buddies(engineers), the Russians can track the 117 and Milosovich's forces shot one down using this borrowed technology.
I am not claiming this to be true so don't crucify me over actual quotes and facts, its just fun to talk about.
Also, both the b-2 and 117 cannot be used for any sort of daytime ops.
Granted we "own the night", but that cuts out about half of your working day.
This may be total horse$H^t but, according to my Russian immigrant buddies(engineers), the Russians can track the 117 and Milosovich's forces shot one down using this borrowed technology.
I am not claiming this to be true so don't crucify me over actual quotes and facts, its just fun to talk about.
Carrier Air Wing Composition 2010
44 F/A-18C/E/F
4-6 HE2000 CEC/E-2C RMP
5-6 EA-6B/EA-18G
Transition from 6 SH-60F/H to 20-23 Helicopters (10 - 12 on CVN)
10-13 MH-60R (4 resident on CVN)
10 MH-60S (8 resident on CVN)
C-2/MH-60S/CH-53
Notional Carrier Air Wing Composition 2020-2035
40-45 strike/fighter
6-12 UCAV/ISR/SEAD/strike
4-6 E-2 RMP
5-6 EA-18G
20-23 Helicopters (10 - 12 on CVN)
Carrier Onboard Delivery
Cheers.
44 F/A-18C/E/F
4-6 HE2000 CEC/E-2C RMP
5-6 EA-6B/EA-18G
Transition from 6 SH-60F/H to 20-23 Helicopters (10 - 12 on CVN)
10-13 MH-60R (4 resident on CVN)
10 MH-60S (8 resident on CVN)
C-2/MH-60S/CH-53
Notional Carrier Air Wing Composition 2020-2035
40-45 strike/fighter
6-12 UCAV/ISR/SEAD/strike
4-6 E-2 RMP
5-6 EA-18G
20-23 Helicopters (10 - 12 on CVN)
Carrier Onboard Delivery
Cheers.
Attilla, I agree it is fun to talk about, but don't discount the proven strengths of the F-117. Whoever told you they don't go up without weasels is totally wrong. Why would you want to jam radars that won't be able to see their taget anyway? And if that was the case, why wouldn't the weasel just punch off a HARM as soon a they could? That's the whole point of stealth, to not be seen at all. Jamming makes it obvious that something is there, just impossible to track. It's better to kill the bad guys as they're sitting around playing backgammon than when they're trying to find the "something" that's out there.
You are right about daytime ops though. Any schmuck with a decent visobs net and a grail can take one down in the daytime.
I wish I could get into the Russian claim, but I'll just say that the story is considerably deeper than what you may have heard.
To be honest with you, I used to hate the 117 until I saw first hand what it could do. I still think it's a little overrated in most people's minds, but it really can deliver.
This is a good discussion though and I still think the SuperHornet is the heat.
You are right about daytime ops though. Any schmuck with a decent visobs net and a grail can take one down in the daytime.
I wish I could get into the Russian claim, but I'll just say that the story is considerably deeper than what you may have heard.
To be honest with you, I used to hate the 117 until I saw first hand what it could do. I still think it's a little overrated in most people's minds, but it really can deliver.
This is a good discussion though and I still think the SuperHornet is the heat.
- Status