How many Carriers are enough?

[ea6bflyr]

Looks like the CNO is fighting to maintain the 11 carrier strength!
http://www.stripes.com/news/in-era-of-tight-budgets-how-many-aircraft-carriers-are-enough-1.287563

 

[lowflier03]

Interestingly enough, one option that hasn't been mentioned is forward basing another carrier or 2. If we really deem that we need 3 CVN's in each AOR, and you take into account transit/turnover time, why not forward base somewhere to cut down on transit? Then you can also cut down on the length of deployments.

 

[webmaster]

Australia! You have my vote

 

[Uncle Fester]

Interestingly enough, one option that hasn't been mentioned is forward basing another carrier or 2. If we really deem that we need 3 CVN's in each AOR, and you take into account transit/turnover time, why not forward base somewhere to cut down on transit? Then you can also cut down on the length of deployments.

No money. The navy balked at how much it'd cost to make Mayport nuke-ready, and that's a former carrier base in conus. Imagine how much more it'd cost for Changi, Rota, or Perth. And that's not even counting facilities for the Air Wing.

 

[ea6bflyr]

Let's go back to Cubi Point!

 

[robav8r]

Let's go back to Cubi Point!

Liberty desires aside, it makes a whole lotta sense

 

[Pags]

I think a question that should be asked is how to use the ships we have. How necessary is immediate presence? Could the money used to deploy assets be better used to train them at home? Keep the current rotation, but the ready carrier hangs around its respective coast until it's needed somewhere else and use the money you would have to get forward to train hard locally.

 

[LFCFan]

This may be an incredibly naive question, but how feasible would it be to have blue/gold crew for a carrier, and thus also a blue/gold airwing? This wouldn't necessarily be a 2 crews, 2 airwings: 1 carrier ratio, just some way to keep the strike capability with fewer CVNs.

 

[jmcquate]

This may be an incredibly naive question, but how feasible would it be to have blue/gold crew for a carrier, and thus also a blue/gold airwing? This wouldn't necessarily be a 2 crews, 2 airwings: 1 carrier ratio, just some way to keep the strike capability with fewer CVNs.

Guessing that Airwing/Crew work-ups are a bit more involved than the turn around on a sub.

 

[Spekkio]

This may be an incredibly naive question, but how feasible would it be to have blue/gold crew for a carrier, and thus also a blue/gold airwing? This wouldn't necessarily be a 2 crews, 2 airwings: 1 carrier ratio, just some way to keep the strike capability with fewer CVNs.

Are there enough training facilities to support multiple airwings attending them every day, and are they robust enough to keep them mission-ready during off-crew? Also, the increased manpower cost for doubling the amount of sailors the Navy needs to man carriers would be a substantial part of that equation.

 

[nittany03]

Guessing that Airwing/Crew work-ups are a bit more involved than the turn around on a sub.

I can't speak to if they're "more involved" per se, but there's four entities which have to work as a seamless whole: ship's company, DESRON, Flag Staff, and the Air Wing. That takes doing.

 

[Renegade One]

"How Many Carriers Are Enough?"

To do what?

All the wringing of hands from Combatant Commanders about how many CVNs they need in their AORs is just a whole lot of hooey…"My AOR is as important as YOUR AOR!" Some (2) of them may be…some of them just are not.

As Rear Adm. Thomas Moore said, the "stated requirement" is for 15…but that's never slowed us down from backing down to 12…or 11...or maybe 10…whatever is affordable.

That affordability thing…it's probably the trump card right now.

 

[Spekkio]

To do what?

To have a favorable probability of having enough carriers materially ready to wage a sudden dual ocean, blue water war. Unlikely scenario? Infeasible scenario? Dunno, but that's what the 'requirement' is based on from the horse's mouths.

 

[LFCFan]

Are there enough training facilities to support multiple airwings attending them every day, and are they robust enough to keep them mission-ready during off-crew? Also, the increased manpower cost for doubling the amount of sailors the Navy needs to man carriers would be a substantial part of that equation.

The training facilities is a good point, but I was asking the question as a way to mitigate having fewer carriers (and thus fewer crews) vice increasing the number of airwings.

 

[Spekkio]

I don't follow. If you shift to multi-crew options, you need more personnel per ship. Even at an optimistic 1.5x personnel per ship that would result in some fairly shitty optempo for many, you're talking about a net + in required personnel until you decommission at least a third of the current carriers.

If the crew is not ready to operate on deployment, then the carrier is not able to perform its function. Ergo, if the off-crew cannot maintain proficiency while the ship is out to sea, then multiple crews aren't going to increase in-theater presence with fewer ships.

Boomers can do it because their crews are relatively small and they can get adequate training from simulators that can support the sailors in off-crew.

I got the impression from senior leadership that they have and are at least considering multiple cost-cutting options. Not just for carriers, but also for CGs, DDGs, and other ships. I'm pretty sure this was discussed and if it's not being done, there's a good reason for it.