REQ:Future US Navy Air Wings?

[Navor]

Moin,
with the possible increase of the US Navy to 313 Ships(Under the prerequisite that nothing will change because of the current economic) are there also plans to increase the Number of USN Fighter Squadrons so that they not have to rely on the USMC to fill up Carrier Air Wings anymore?
Navor

[bd popeye]

Moin,
with the possible increase of the US Navy to 313 Ships(Under the prerequisite that nothing will change because of the current economic) are there also plans to increase the Number of USN Fighter Squadrons so that they not have to rely on the USMC to fill up Carrier Air Wings anymore?
Navor

USMC squadron will be assigned to USN CVWs for the foreseeable future. I'd like to see an increase in the size of USN CVWs by 10-12 F-35c's in the fighter role.

It is my understanding that as USN F-35c squadrons are commissioned they will replace USN Hornet squadrons.

However there is plenty of room on board USN CVNs to carry more aircraft. Currently USN CVWs consist of;
48 Hornets
4 Prowlers
4 Hawkeyes
6 SH/60s helos

That equals 62 aircraft. An Nimitz class can safely accommodate up to 90 aircraft.

In 1991 I served on the Nimitz. CVW-11 was embarked with;
24 Tomcats
24 Hornets
15(?) Intruders
4 Prowlers
4 Hawkeyes
6 Vikings
6 Sh/60s helos

83 aircraft in all.

[Navor]

Well according to this pdf http://depts.washington.edu/uwnrotc/intro/Naval_Aviation_Vision_2020.pdf which was also posted on a navy.mil site, Carrier Air Wings will have 44 Hornets and JSF (does this mean they want to cut Squadron size?) + 4-12 UCAVs+5 Hawkeye+5 EA-18 Hornet+2 Greyhound Replacements+14 MH 60 on Board(another 6 will be operated from CSG Ships)
So all in all 74-82 Airframes onboard a US Carrier.
So in 2020 they should come near to your 83 Aircraft idea.

[angry cow]

There is also the possibility that future air wing deployments will have greater modularity. Other packages might be a Humanitarian Wing with a focus on Heavy Lift or an Air Assault Wing more like what you might find on an Amphib.

[Ordie]

The submarine threat has not changed and piracy is a concern. With a 300 ship Navy, one cannot expect coverage without the need for new patrol aircraft.

[domokun]

So there is nothing to replace S-3 Vikings?

US Navy has currently different threat profile than in past, but capability for more conventional threats should not be neglected.

Possible replacements:
P-8, the replacement of P-2 Orion. Can provide ASW coverage from ground bases.
Destroyers, short range.
More SH-60 ASW variants (AFAIK some of SeaHawks are cheaper transport/SAR versions for different tasks). Lack range and speed of Viking, but can provide short range capability.

Or some combination of those.

AFAIK F-35 will replace some of Hornets but super bugs will remain in service. USMC's F-35 squadrons specializing into own mostly CAS role from USMC's "half carriers" can simplify organization of USN and USMC, so I would not pain devils in walls for this.

[Hellfish]

Well according to this pdf http://depts.washington.edu/uwnrotc/intro/Naval_Aviation_Vision_2020.pdf which was also posted on a navy.mil site, Carrier Air Wings will have 44 Hornets and JSF (does this mean they want to cut Squadron size?) + 4-12 UCAVs+5 Hawkeye+5 EA-18 Hornet+2 Greyhound Replacements+14 MH 60 on Board(another 6 will be operated from CSG Ships)
So all in all 74-82 Airframes onboard a US Carrier.
So in 2020 they should come near to your 83 Aircraft idea.

14 MH-60? What for?

I'd be surprised if that C-2 replacement isn't also used as an E-2 and S-3 replacement.

[Ordie]

So there is nothing to replace S-3 Vikings?

More than likely a squadron UAV's than can 'dump' sonobouys in a pattern and datalink the infomation to a mothership or a motherplane. If there's an enemy sub, the UAV could launch a torpedo.

[toad]

I think the EA-18 Growler is pretty interesting. Having worked around ea-6b's and A-6E KA-6d airframes the new jammer developement must be amazing (my friends who transitioned from the old A6E tram could not believe the capabilities of the FA-18). The plug and play electronics. The flexibility.

But what is hard to search for is how the split will occur in tanking abilities on the carriers. The Superhornets IIRC do the tanking today with buddy stores. But have no 'dedicated' tankers like ancient A-6 squadrons did with 3 KA6D's per squadron. S-3's also picked up the slack on tanking as well. (We cruised with two a-6 squadrons).

Soon we will be looking at refueling drones...as well.


So I guess it's not glamorous....but tanking is a big deal on future carriers.
S-3's can tank and Superbugs can via buddy stores. I don't think there is a dedicated tanker so to speak? Superbugs can tank and fight, but it takes away from the total number of A/C to send on strikes if a certain number are in the tanker role. But they seem to be doing it just fine today....

I also think I read that some FA-18A models were being tested to refuel drones...I don't know why they would be different....same buddy stores with drogues.


OMG they might have to bring back a KA-3 whale...

/clear the deck

[Hellfish]

OMG they might have to bring back a KA-3 whale...


That would make me happy.

[Red River]

OMG they might have to bring back a KA-3 whale...

/clear the deck

http://www.youtube.com/v/CMFRRv62snc

Big SOB

[-Max2-]

I dont really like the look of USN Air Wings nowadays. IMO, the USN has gone too far with the versatile concept. Almost all specialized aircraft are gone or on the way out and it has now put all its eggs in the same basket with the F/A-18 "Jack of all trades, master of none" Super Hornet. I am sure if the USN could develop a AEW, COD and ASW/SAR version of the Super Bug to replace the Hawkeye, Greyhound and Seahawk, they would do it... :roll:

Maybe i am just stuck in the past but i miss the late 80s/early 90s when Air Wings had specialized aircraft for every mission. It was the golden age of carrier-borne aviation IMO. After that, it went down the hill with the cancellation of the F-14D program, development of the Super Bug, premature retirement of the A-6E and ES-3A (ELINT Viking), removal of the S-3's ASW gear, etc. I realize that after the end of the Cold War, missions changed and economies were necessary but i think bad decisions were made in the early 90s when Cheney was SecDef...

[kilroy1911]

44 Superhornets + f35? Isnt it too small number of fighter planes...? And do you know how many will be F18 and how many F35? 22:22? I seriosly doubt the A2A capabilities of F18 or F35 when facing a modern dedicated fighter plane and i really miss the tomcats:-(

can someone explain to me the air-o-air capabilities of the Superhornet? I always thought the Hornet is a great fighter-bomber but i am not sure about hornet in pure fighter role. I know that it can carry a lot of AMRAAMs... but is it enough?

[-Max2-]

can someone explain to me the air-o-air capabilities of the Superhornet? I always thought the Hornet is a great fighter-bomber but i am not sure about hornet in pure fighter role. I know that it can carry a lot of AMRAAMs... but is it enough?

I am no Super Hornet fan but i will play the devil's advocate. On the plus side, the Super Hornet has top notch avionics, a good radar (APG-79 AESA) and JHMCS/AIM-9X capability. But compared to a F-14D, it has shorter range, is slower (max speed : mach 1.6), has no IRST and no long range AAMs.

Its agility and acceleration performance are no better than a F-14D or earlier Hornet models. And compared to other 4.5 generation fighters, the Super Hornet cant supercruise (even in a clean configuration :cantbeli: ).

From a performance point of view, the Super Hornet is unimpressive IMO. Thats one of the reasons that i dont like the Super Bug. The US Navy used to have aircrafts that were ahead of their time like the F-8, A-6, (R)A-5, F-4 and F-14 but with the F/A-18E/F, that advantage is lost. It is not mediocre, but it isnt revolutionary either. It is just an "OK" aircraft. :|

[Britboy]

So there is nothing to replace S-3 Vikings?


Wasn't there the concept of an ASW V22 Osprey version mooted?

I can see the worth in being able to quickly dash to an area, then loiter for a long time, dipping or dropping sonobuoys.

However that has got to be a BIG a/c, taking up a lot of room onboard.

On the other hand, if theres a CV which has room for it, then the US CVNs are the largest, so perhaps it is not so farfetched.

Any CVN sailors or Osprey fliers care to discuss?

PS: Seems weird having 2 different fast jets for fighter and bomber use in naval service (like F14 and F18, or F18 and F35). On land I can understand since space is not a drama but at sea, surely 'one size fits all' is far more economical/tailorable/just makes sense where size and space is a drama? Especially when you consider that F35 is going to be good at air-to-air (low observable, AMRAAM) and isn't a pure bomber per se - could it not be a real jack of both trades and master of them both as well?

Or is the decision to keep a mixed wing due to economics, i.e. having bought new F18s they must be operated to get moneys worth, and to save money from not buying extra F35s, not due to F35/F18s relative merits, and as they are USN they must be operated from ships?

There again I expect that I only feel the 2-type situ you have is odd, is because I was growing up when the Royal Navy operated multi-role Sea Harrier only from CVS. You have CVNs and even we operated a 2-type set-up (Phantom and Buccaneer) back when we had larger carriers.