• 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

Naval Air Power in Afghanistan

Flash said:
Keep in mind that we are supposed to withdraw 'combat forces' by the end of 2014, we will keep advisors, special forces and other 'support' folks there after 2014. And I am sure that carrier will often be there to support them.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. A CVW is a "combat force", just not in country. Advisors, support, and special forces will similarly be broadly defined to include almost anyone or capability. On TV we will see soldiers walking onto C-17s with flags, trucks rolling across the border, and facilities turned over to Afghanistan. But units in country and just across the border will have missions and roles redefined on paper not matching their capabilities and their orders. And the Navy may not see much of any draw down, standing by to conduct "support" missions that look a hell of a lot like the combat missions of the last 10 years.
 
My original point isn't that we're going to get out of the region. We can support whatever is going on in Afghanistan post-OEF and cover regional contingencies with a 1.0 CVN presence in CENTCOM.
 
Brett327 said:
My original point isn't that we're going to get out of the region. We can support whatever is going on in Afghanistan post-OEF and cover regional contingencies with a 1.0 CVN presence in CENTCOM.
Click to expand...
Yea, I got that. I think we agree in large part. My point is that there are folks, likely no one in this thread, that think we will be going back to peace time steaming or optempo. That the adviser, spec ops, support role post OEF will be routine, admin, low threat rear area stuff. I don't believe it will be. Our footprint may look more like an all terrain athletic shoe versus a combat boot and it will be planted equally off shore and across the border as in country. But I think we will see elevated perstempo and optempo past 2013.
 
I'm not sure how having a CVW is cost effective compared with an AEW (or two actually) on the ground in Afghanistan. Our guys won't be pulling out of Bagram or Kandahar anytime soon (right?) so the air picture should be covered by the USAF there for quite some time. That has to be a lot cheaper than continuously launching sorties from the Gulf. Does anyone have any current stats for AF-Navy-Marine Corps sortie rates? I'm wondering what the current generation rate is looking like per service.

Now I understand the AF's reasons for pulling chocks too: their airframes are also burning a lot more hours than anticipated for the life of the airframe given the last 10 years coupled with OSW and ONW.

Anyway, what's the current over/under for sequestration?
 
kmac said:
I'm not sure how having a CVW is cost effective compared with an AEW (or two actually) on the ground in Afghanistan. Our guys won't be pulling out of Bagram or Kandahar anytime soon (right?) so the air picture should be covered by the USAF there for quite some time. That has to be a lot cheaper than continuously launching sorties from the Gulf. Does anyone have any current stats for AF-Navy-Marine Corps sortie rates? I'm wondering what the current generation rate is looking like per service.

Now I understand the AF's reasons for pulling chocks too: their airframes are also burning a lot more hours than anticipated for the life of the airframe given the last 10 years coupled with OSW and ONW.

Anyway, what's the current over/under for sequestration?
Click to expand...
Your point is well taken, but they certainly haven't been deploying full AEWs to Baghram or Kandahar (maybe that's your point). Who knows what the aviation footprint will look like post 2014, but you're right in saying that it would be more efficient to shore-base an AEF than keep an extra CVN around. AEF or no, I suspect the Growlers will stick around for a while.
 
Well, I'm kind of out of the loop, and I'd rather hear what someone who is currently dealing with it means by it, as it is something I have recently started seeing.

Or, you can just be a dick about it.
 
Master, basically sequestration is what they are calling the budgetary cuts the DoD has to make as a result of that big bipartisan committee's failure to reduce federal spending.
 
Brett327 said:
Had an interesting conversation about this with an old squadron mate that just finished his Big XO tour. CENTCOM is obviously going to want to hold on to their current CVN "presence" even after OEF. Whether CJCS and higher agrees will be interesting to watch.
Click to expand...

Interesting is one word, painful might be another. The implications of our current force structure, combined with economic austerity, existing "requirements" and some questionable leadership choices ultimately come to this:

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/07/pushing-fleet-to-breaking-point-for.html

The article turns into a rant but, what I'm focusing on are the Itempo results.
 
Good article. And the unfortunate thing is that due to a very bad economy, no one will be "walking" away from their jobs anytime soon. We continue to push OPTEMPO higher and mandate additional policy & organizational requirements. I think the net effect to the Navy won't be felt for a few more years, but when the economy does improve, the rush for the exit will be dramatic. Just my .02c
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top