"4 USN Carrier Wings to be grounded!" Topic

Talk about insanity – due to sequestration 4 Carrier Wings are being grounded whilst 2 others are on basic flight duties only.

link

These are:

Carrier Air Wing 2, with the Ronald Reagan
Carrier Air Wing 9, with Stennis
Carrier Air Wing 17, with Vinson
Carrier Air Wing 7, with Eisenhower

Flight hours to be reduced to maintenance of proficiency levels only:

Carrier Air Wing 1, with the Theodore Roosevelt
Carrier Air Wing 11, with Nimitz

Also "basic flight training for pilot and flight officer trainees will halt in March."

This will have a massive impact on readiness for the main teeth in the US arsenal.

And numerous ship deployments are being cancelled.

Yet pointless programs such as DDX1000 continue.

That's Bureaucracy 101: when faced with a budget reduction, don't eliminate the useless programs. Shut down the fire houses, schools, etc

It's cool: we'll just sit back and let someone else take up the slack.

Slovakia has a navy, right? We cut Geography a while back, so I'm not sure how big an island country they are.

Darth has it right.

Time to let someone else fund peace for awhile…….

It's time for Britannia to rule their waves again!

Oh wait…whose turn is it to use the aircraft carrier this month…the UK or France?…

Bede hit the nail on the head !!!!! So obvious it stinks !!
Regards
Russ Dunaway

It's time for Britannia to rule their waves again!

Oh wait…whose turn is it to use the aircraft carrier this month…the UK or France?…

Sorry the carrier got impounded by creditors in Ghana.

.
.
.
.
.
(This happened to an Argentine Navy training ship).

While Bede's and Russ' explanation may sound satisfying, at least to some, the problem (at least for the U.S. Navy) is that the only discretionary funds the Navy can play around with during the sequestration is operations and maintenance budget. They can't just cut a program, because there is a contract signed with someone that is expecting payment (I doubt any of the defense industry contractors are going to step up and offer to cut their program or to take reduced payments). So, the best the Navy can do is slow down deployments and operations.

I realize this probably won't convince anyone, so you can go ahead and stiffle me or complain. I would just suggest that you look at the options the Navy (and other services) has before jumping to conclusions.

Dave

Dave you raise good points.

These expensive programs with few deliverables (e.g DDG) can't be cancelled quickly yet the funds dedicated to them would be better spent on maintaining and deploying existing assets.

Mind you it shows DOD lost it's control over the industrial-military complex and is now slaved to big corporations.

Realize that decisions are dictated from "on high," not necessarily based on any logic or reason.

"On high" already said these cuts will be DRAMATIC, CRIPPLING, JUST DEVASTATING; that everyone should fear the consequences.

Before you all go off the deep end (heaven forbid that ever happens on TMP…), a few facts:

The USN has 10 active Air Wings assigned to the 10 active carriers (the remaining one carrier that doesn't have a wing assigned is in long term overhaul). Of those, 3-4 are on station with the remainder in port on turn around for the next deployment. So with 4 wings grouded and 2 on limited hours, that leaves the remaining 4 at sea. So current deployment is NOT immediately impacted.

Now, does this mean that future readiness is affected. You bet! But that is going to be something that will have to be addressed downline (although given the limitations of the sequestration law, that's going to be a quite a task).

And, as Dave correctly pointed out, its the discretionary budget thats taking the hit, not the long term procurement. And there really is nothing that can done about it (even though the DOD has had 2 years to plan for it).

While there are some real impacts in this 'crisis', I suspect the DOD is playing a little of the 'the sky is falling!' game to push its points for its own ends.

Don't blame the Navy, talk to your congressmen.

"It's time for Britannia to rule their waves again!"

We had our turn for 300 years or so and played world cop for a century. You guys are nearly there so fair enough. As you say, time for someone else to step up to take their turn for a few decades :)

"…the problem (at least for the U.S. Navy) is that the only discretionary funds the Navy can play around with during the sequestration is operations and maintenance budget".

Actually,

Perhaps we can let China give it a try for awhile, since they seem to have the money, and a decent plan for naval funding right now.

Why is the Navy or military even included in the cuts? What about the 1000s of "bean counters" in any goverment position?

Regards
Russ Dunaway

It won't be so bad. Congress will pass another CR this Thursday (count on it, these 'continuing resolutions' have been the norm since 2010), which will fund the government through the rest of the FY. It will also give the Pentagon more leeway to reprioritize funding. For instance, the CR can include a Defense appropriations bill to shift funding from the Research, Development & Procurement budget to make up for the shortfall in its O&M budget. Problem alleviated. Of course, the defense industry won't be happy, but the one thing both sides agree on if anything is that there has to be spending cuts.

You're being way too logical, Russ.

A shame that is out of favor in D.C..

"Why is the Navy or military even included in the cuts? What about the 1000s of "bean counters" in any goverment position? "

because, as I recall, the cuts were supposed to be considered so draconian that no-one in the right mind in DC would not work to achieving a solution that would avoid them……

The cuts are across the board, but Directorates have some latitude on how they are implemented.

DOD budgets are broken out into different "colours" of money, OMA, MILCON, etc, and that also affects how programs get cut, or not.

We actually have been in CR status for most of this and some of last century, actually. This is nothing new. It's the length of the CRs that is becoming a PITA.

There are multiple issues here, and they are complex and won't be solved by anything simplistic.

My two shillings.

Eric

I think it is time to start creating Carrier wings within the National Guard. This will allow the retention of a solid corps of experienced pilots that will be there when needed. Each permanent wing could be supplemented by a "Guard" flight or members could be spread among the existing organization. The problem will be maintaining standards.

sequestration is not the cause but decisions of the current regime. Stand down troops or go on million Dollar golf trips and provide millions in aid to the Moslem brotherhood of Egypt? Isn't the plan to make the cuts hurt people the most possible, to instill opposition those will oppose runaway spending? The Hellenicification of the USA. Make the cuts that affect people the most, and get them in the streets.

Maybe we can work a three-way deal. France provides the carrier, Britain provides the air wing, we provide the precision munitions and the political correctness.

I don't think that'll work, since if I recall correctly, the FAA (Fleet Air Arm) has been mothballed, or scrapped.

No need for Sea Harriers without a carrier, though they are working on the latter. But then, if I recall correctly, they won't be able to afford the jets to fly off of it.

We can't provide the air wing yet. We sold our Harriers to the US Marines, and the F35s we're buying to replace them still seem to be in development….

And we can't provide the carrier, we scrapped ours and are waiting for the manufacturers to send the new ones. Seems thet have to be made to order.

One upside – congress people can't use military planes for transport.

And the Vice President will now go home via train as opposed to Air Force Two (modified B757).

link

Decisions are rendered from high while high.

"And the Vice President will now go home via train as opposed to Air Force Two"

He actually prefers the train, the secret service is the one who wanted him to fly. When he was still in the senate I saw him quite often on the train.

Yes, since the kept the brotherhood in check/jail.

The problem with a Navy Reserve or National Guard carrier wing is that landing on a carrier is a highly perishable skill. There's a reason that we have an equal number of carrier air wings and carriers even though operationally we'd only need 2/3rds the number of wings (one wing deployed, one wing in work-ups).

You really need to practice that pretty much weekly in order to not kill yourself doing it.

Anyone want to start a pool for how many ramp strikes the USN has in the next 5 years?

You are definitely right about the ability to land on a carrier is a perishable skill.IIRC during WW2 the USN operated a pseudo carrier in Lake Michigan that was used or landings and take offs only. The planes dd not stay on board

‌link

There should be enough mothballed carriers around that could be converted to this role maybe one on each coast They could also be used by the "land based" wings doing their workups. In times of fiscal restraint you have to do things differently.

Oh, please. Enough with the sky is falling silliness. The simple fact is we don't need this many carriers. We'd be better off as a nation with only half of them in service.

6 carriers is not a lot if you want to maintain a true offensive capability.

USA has two oceans (Atlantic and Pacific) so that means 3 carriers a piece.

In navy land, 3 is minimum of anything – 1 under maintenance, 1 training and 1 on deployment.

So with 6 carriers, the US can only have 1 deployed in each ocean. That's hardly a flexible capability.

From memory several carriers were deployed to Persian Gul for the various wars there.

One becomes very reliant on politically unstable land bases and the tanker fleet gets stretched even more (remembering most of the tankers are from the 1960s and some the 1950s).

For practice carrier landings, you can just mark off an area on a runway, to simulate that a bit.

Granted, not the same as landing on a pitching, moving carrier deck, but it's better than nothing.

A lot of nations have used that technique in the past.

Mako- Obviously you have not looked very closely at what is entailed in bringing a plane onto a carrier. Or carrier ops, for that matter. And, BTW, they already do that. And no, it is NOT a valid substitute for the real thing…

As ThomasHobbes noted, true offensive capabilites are limited in this situation. Hopefully, no crisis will occur and the limited capability will not be a problem. No one who needs the support, will suffer … Interesting how Thomas is an Aussie and he notes that the lack of US assets/support for combat ops is affected. And I'm not saying that in a negative way, I have a very good e-pay who is a commander in the Aussie Navy. I think the on New Castle … Regardless, no matter where one stands on it, it is clear the free world still believes it needs US combat assets … when the may hit the fan …

ThomasHobbes already addressed the point, but the 11 carriers we have now means 3 deployed, 3 just back from deployment in refit, 3 in workups to deploy, and the last two are somewhere in the mix.

I say again, 11 carriers means 3 and 2/3rds deployed at any one time.

Mapleleaf ,there was a converted freight car barge/carrier on Lake Erie as well.Aircraft from Grosse Illes also practiced dive bomb and ground strike ops on Middle and Rattlesnake islands.