Where will the money come from...

"Bill Kambic" wrote in message ...
"s.p.i." wrote in message

All the arguments posited here about why DARPA's FALCON project will
never supplant aircraft carriers remind me so much of the "Gun Club"
arguments AGAINST carriers 70+ years ago.

No, not really. Even with a carrier of the era (much less a BB) you had to
get "up close and personal" with your potential target.

Sure they do. Not in any specific technical aspect, but in the tenor
and tone of, "Its the way its always been and there is no improving on
the status quo...These new systems are inferior or too
outlandish...etc."
But don't believe me. Check out what this USNA academic has to say on
the matter:
http://web.mit.edu/13a/100th/mit13a.pdf

Some facts have been studiously avoided:

1. Carriers CANNOT operate without landbased support IN THEATER today.
Sad but True. That ability, which never really existed fully but was
better 40 years ago than today, has been squandered to pay for a
series of obsolescent short legged fighters. Those big wing tankers
that made carrier strikes possible in recent times didn't come from
the ether. Niether did the essential ELINT/SIGINT support. They didn't
come from CONUS either. Nobody seems to want to talk about how carrier
air was forced to hot pit on ingress and stash their ordnance ashore
to get back to the boat in this last conflict.

Not being real current (and not being a Strike type) I won't comment on
this.
And you too, Mr. Kambic, have have studiously avoided these odious
facts.

That AOE gets its fuel(and FFV and various other sundries as well)
from where? A CVBGs enourmously expensive-and vulnerable-logistics
train is a dirty little secret.

Oh, poppycock.
You are right about an AOE in for a brief port visit not being as
intrusive as air ops at Thumrait or some such. But the ship still must
make those visits and those visits are at the whim of a host country.
I know there are more components, but a disabled AOE represents at
least short term single point of failure for a CVBG. After three days
or so gas begins to get skosh in sustained ops even on the nukes...and
don't forget about the small boys.


Bottom line is a carrier is now just about as beholden to host nation
basing rights in order to remain viable as any AEF is.

No, not even close. The CVBG, by definition, has NO host country. It may
draw some stuff from a lot of countries, but what's new about that?

You are simply wrong about that. Much of the ISR must live in nearby
host countries because there are not enough parts on the boat. No
ingress without that capability. Ditto for the big wing tankers that
CVWs now rely on to get the job done. So, for a carrier to do its job,
its as dependent as an AEF on basing and overflight rights when it
comes time to head for the target in a great many scenarios because so
much of the essenttial support is landbased now.

The CV has always been a heavyweight boxer with a glass jaw. (Or maybe just
a "bleeder.") That's the nature of the beast. Yet if you look at some of
the catostrophic events of recent times (FORRESTAL fire comes to mind) air
ops were underway within 24 hrs., IIRC. So, while that glass jaw is still
there, it might be just a bit more tempered than you have indicated.

I think they may have gotten a cat or two to work so they could launch
aircraft to Cubi(hmmm...essential land base...?), but it took a year
to get the FID back to a state in which she could fight a war in any
realistic sense.
The Enterprise was a better example because they learned from the FIDs
misfortune and the potential for disaster was astutely and heroically
avoided in many important ways. Even so, despite the official spin,
she still had to spend a significant amount of time at Pearl before
she was ready to go again.
Carriers are perhaps the most vulnerable Capital ships devised. They
overcame the problem in WWII by producing way more decks than the
enemy could disable. That ain't gonna happen anymore.

3. I'm not saying that carriers need to be scrapped today. I am saying
that carriers are not any more immune to evolution in warfare than any
other weapons system has been. Its evolve or die boys.

Darwin lives. What else is new?
So thats why NAVAIR needs to be looking ahead instead of being so
enamored in the minutiae of the "The Boat"

I'm not expecting you Learned Denizens of R.A.M.N. to give me any
credence but you should give these folks some of your consideration:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/acof.pdf

I did not read this. After waiting two minutes for it to load I gave up.
Its worth the wait. Its entitled "Future of the Aircraft Carrier" by
the Defense Science Board whose members include the likes of Stan
Arthur and Don Pilling. They may know a thing or two about carriers.
You really shoud try to open it up.


Space based quick reaction weapons systems are on their way like it or
not. Call me a troll if you wish but DARPA is offering to spend some
big money on this FALCON project for a reason and the resulting
progeny of the effort will inevitably encroach on the carrier's
mission....and budget.

To quote Chairman Mao, "War is politics by other means." He didn't make it
up, but he did say it well.

Far too many of the current incarnation of McNamara's Whiz Kids have
forgotten this. A threat 300 miles overhead is just not real. Neither is
one 12,000 miles away. And we have not yet had to deal with the U.N. and
possible treaty violations with "space based weapons." And none of this
will be on line for at least a couple of decades, if then.

How many Iraqis or Al Qaeda saw any carriers. Are carriers any more
real on CNN than the MOAB is?

Time marches on.
As it does, NAVAIR can embrace these new technologies or be
marginalized into non existence.

"s.p.i." wrote in message

All the arguments posited here about why DARPA's FALCON project will
never supplant aircraft carriers remind me so much of the "Gun Club"
arguments AGAINST carriers 70+ years ago.

No, not really. Even with a carrier of the era (much less a BB) you had
to
get "up close and personal" with your potential target.

Sure they do. Not in any specific technical aspect, but in the tenor
and tone of, "Its the way its always been and there is no improving on
the status quo...These new systems are inferior or too
outlandish...etc."

I was not there 70 years ago, so I can only go by what I read. I don't read
it as you do.

But don't believe me. Check out what this USNA academic has to say on
the matter:
http://web.mit.edu/13a/100th/mit13a.pdf

I read it. Boiled down it says, "military organizations are conservative
and always tend to fight the last war." Again, no surprises here.

What the author does not seem to consider is that military technological
advance is not steady, linear progress but a series of leaps and lags. For
a 1921 admiral to have said, "we must abandon BBs and build just CVs" would
have been monumentally stupid as the aircraft technology of the day was not
up to the task. In 1931 the same situation existed. Indeed the BB retained
a military role as late as the early 90s (70 years after Jutland) and
probably could certainly fulfil a political role today (and even a limited
military one, particularly against unsophisticated adversaries). Yet for an
admiral in 2003 to build a strategy around them would be as dumb as the act
of his 1921 predecessor. Continuing the thought, for a "defense expert" to
suggest building a strategy around non-existant weapons systems is equally
dumb.

Further, note that when military thinking gets too advanced you can also
have problems. In the late '40s the pundits, as a result of tests at
Bikini, had written off Naval Aviation (and the Navy in general). "One
bomb, one fleet" was their war cry. Then Naval Aviation was saved by a
North Korean dictator. As was the USMC and large warfighting formations of
the USA.

Or, put another way, what peering too far over the horizon is a good way to
run aground.

Not being real current (and not being a Strike type) I won't comment on
this.
And you too, Mr. Kambic, have have studiously avoided these odious
facts.

Only in your mind's eye. I don't have the expertise to comment so I did
not. That does not mean that I don't have an opinion (I do) but I choose
not to share it as it is not backed by sufficient fact.

You are right about an AOE in for a brief port visit not being as
intrusive as air ops at Thumrait or some such. But the ship still must
make those visits and those visits are at the whim of a host country.

Agreed.

I know there are more components, but a disabled AOE represents at
least short term single point of failure for a CVBG. After three days
or so gas begins to get skosh in sustained ops even on the nukes...and
don't forget about the small boys.

Agreed. But if country A says no, there's always country B. Or C. The
idea that every AOE will have to stage out of CONUS is just wishful thinking
for those intent on setting up some sort of "CV airwing out of gas on a CV
filled with starving sailors" strawman.

You are simply wrong about that. Much of the ISR must live in nearby
host countries because there are not enough parts on the boat. No
ingress without that capability.

I say there is NO host country. I can't prove a negative; you have to prove
a positive. Please list the host country(ies) for the CVBGs currently
deployed.

Ditto for the big wing tankers that
CVWs now rely on to get the job done.

Last time I looked those were not CVBG assets. They belonged to somebody
else. They supported the airwing, but were part of it.

So, for a carrier to do its job,
its as dependent as an AEF on basing and overflight rights when it
comes time to head for the target in a great many scenarios because so
much of the essenttial support is landbased now.

Does not this depend on exactly what geographical area is involved? With
Afghanistan and Iraq you are looking at lots of complicated issues. With
Libya or Liberia it would seem the issues are much simpler.

The CV has always been a heavyweight boxer with a glass jaw. (Or maybe
just
a "bleeder.") That's the nature of the beast. Yet if you look at some
of
the catostrophic events of recent times (FORRESTAL fire comes to mind)
air
ops were underway within 24 hrs., IIRC. So, while that glass jaw is
still
there, it might be just a bit more tempered than you have indicated.

I think they may have gotten a cat or two to work so they could launch
aircraft to Cubi(hmmm...essential land base...?), but it took a year
to get the FID back to a state in which she could fight a war in any
realistic sense.

It was peacetime and there was no serious war pressure in 1969. USS
YORKTOWN had 90 days work done in 72 hours in 1942 because there was serious
war pressure.

The Enterprise was a better example because they learned from the FIDs
misfortune and the potential for disaster was astutely and heroically
avoided in many important ways. Even so, despite the official spin,
she still had to spend a significant amount of time at Pearl before
she was ready to go again.

See above.

Carriers are perhaps the most vulnerable Capital ships devised. They
overcame the problem in WWII by producing way more decks than the
enemy could disable. That ain't gonna happen anymore.

I admit the CV has vulnerabilites. I don't admit that they are
insurmountable.

And we have not yet talked about the vulterabilities of possible
replacements (which don't even exist; THAT'S a pretty big one to start
with!g).

I'm not expecting you Learned Denizens of R.A.M.N. to give me any
credence but you should give these folks some of your consideration:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/acof.pdf

I did not read this. After waiting two minutes for it to load I gave
up.
Its worth the wait. Its entitled "Future of the Aircraft Carrier" by
the Defense Science Board whose members include the likes of Stan
Arthur and Don Pilling. They may know a thing or two about carriers.
You really shoud try to open it up.

I will.

To quote Chairman Mao, "War is politics by other means." He didn't make
it
up, but he did say it well.

Far too many of the current incarnation of McNamara's Whiz Kids have
forgotten this. A threat 300 miles overhead is just not real. Neither
is
one 12,000 miles away. And we have not yet had to deal with the U.N.
and
possible treaty violations with "space based weapons." And none of this
will be on line for at least a couple of decades, if then.

How many Iraqis or Al Qaeda saw any carriers. Are carriers any more
real on CNN than the MOAB is?

MOAB is not in issue, here, as it is not, and for a long time won't, be a
CONUS launched weapon.

But to answer your question, yes, I think they are. They are regularly seen
on TV. The aircraft are seen by the populace. The space based stuff still
looks like it came from Dream Works. It will be a very long time before it
is real to a bunch of third worlders.

Time marches on.
As it does, NAVAIR can embrace these new technologies or be
marginalized into non existence.

As long as the first question asked by the C-in-C" is "where is the nearest
carrier" then "marginalization" is not on the horizon. That is the question
that will be asked for at least the next few decades.

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

"Bill Kambic" wrote in message ...

I was not there 70 years ago, so I can only go by what I read. I don't read
it as you do.

Sometimes I feel old enough to have been but I wasn't either. I
haven't found anything online about some of the Gun Club diatribes
against the carriers, but here you can get some sense of the Gun Club
mind set from this piece about Commander[then] Momsen at:
http://www.mediacen.navy.mil/pubs/al...apr00/pg16.htm

"But everything that could possibly save a trapped submariner, new
deep-sea diving techniques, artificial lungs and a great pear-shaped
rescue chamber was a direct result of Momsen's pioneering derring-do,
his own life constantly on the line to prove them out. None, however,
had yet been used in an actual undersea catastrophe. Now they would
be, and under the worst possible circumstances - in fickle weather,
the water frigid, the men beyond the reach of any previously imagined
help.
The Navy was then run by battleship admirals.
"Who does this Momsen think he is, Jules Verne?" one of them
asked...."

But don't believe me. Check out what this USNA academic has to say on
the matter:
http://web.mit.edu/13a/100th/mit13a.pdf

I read it. Boiled down it says, "military organizations are conservative
and always tend to fight the last war." Again, no surprises here.
Or, put another way, what peering too far over the horizon is a good way to
run aground.

And staying too firmly in the box invites defeat.

And you too, Mr. Kambic, have have studiously avoided these odious
facts.

Only in your mind's eye. I don't have the expertise to comment so I did
not. That does not mean that I don't have an opinion (I do) but I choose
not to share it as it is not backed by sufficient fact.

The facts are there to be found. A lack of big wing tankers caused the
Navy to abort flights over Iraq and they considered hot pitting ashore
inbound. F-18s had to land ashore on the way back to the boat because
of inadequate carry back. Carrier air COULD NOT have operated
effectively with out land bases in theater.
Aviation Week reported it. I think thats a fairly repectable and
accurate publication.

Agreed. But if country A says no, there's always country B. Or C. The
idea that every AOE will have to stage out of CONUS is just wishful thinking
for those intent on setting up some sort of "CV airwing out of gas on a CV
filled with starving sailors" strawman.

One lucky hit...or one little lucky baggy of anthrax... and one combat
inneffective AOE. One innefective AOE and CVBG sustainabilty is out
the window in the short term at least.

I say there is NO host country. I can't prove a negative; you have to prove
a positive. Please list the host country(ies) for the CVBGs currently
deployed.

Sure, the CVBG is out there in international waters, but to get its
power ashore means that land based assets MUST be in theater. Where do
you think the E-3s E-8s, various tankers, EC/RC-135s, U-2s, UAVs, all
of which are essential elements of ANY air campaign now, are coming
from? Thumrait, AlUdeid, Prince Sultan, to name a few places that were
bustling and not just for the Air Force.

Last time I looked those were not CVBG assets. They belonged to somebody
else. They supported the airwing, but were part of it.

see above

Does not this depend on exactly what geographical area is involved? With
Afghanistan and Iraq you are looking at lots of complicated issues. With
Libya or Liberia it would seem the issues are much simpler.

True. Except that land based big wing support still needs to be within
range

Forrestal Fire
It was peacetime and there was no serious war pressure in 1969. USS
YORKTOWN had 90 days work done in 72 hours in 1942 because there was serious
war pressure.

Umm-The summer of 1967 was the height of the air war over Vietnam. The
hasty repairs to the Yorktown was a factor in her loss BTW.

The Enterprise was a better example because they learned from the FIDs
misfortune and the potential for disaster was astutely and heroically
avoided in many important ways. Even so, despite the official spin,
she still had to spend a significant amount of time at Pearl before
she was ready to go again.

See above.
Yup, see above. Still a war going on in 1969.

I admit the CV has vulnerabilites. I don't admit that they are
insurmountable.

We agree, but they will become more and more limited in their
operational usefulness. And FALCON's results will inevitably lessen
some of the need for 12 of them. I'm guessing 6 by 2020

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/acof.pdf

I did not read this. After waiting two minutes for it to load I gave
up.
Its worth the wait. Its entitled "Future of the Aircraft Carrier" by
the Defense Science Board whose members include the likes of Stan
Arthur and Don Pilling. They may know a thing or two about carriers.
You really shoud try to open it up.

I will.
I'm getting some of my "hare brained" ideas from it.

MOAB is not in issue, here, as it is not, and for a long time won't, be a
CONUS launched weapon.

It is in issue here because of its employment in this last little
scrap. Its launch at Eglin was on TV for the specific purpose of
scaring the sh*t out of some swarthy mustachioed folks.

But to answer your question, yes, I think they[carriers] are. They are regularly seen on TV.

Whats the difference? If the perception can be spun from TV for one it
can be spun for all.

The aircraft are seen by the populace. The space based stuff still
looks like it came from Dream Works. It will be a very long time before it
is real to a bunch of third worlders.

Sure, in southern Iraq there was a free airshow for a decade plus, but
that was a special case not likely to be repeated. On your second
point, you sound a whole lot like that Admiral that was dissing Momsen

As long as the first question asked by the C-in-C" is "where is the nearest
carrier" then "marginalization" is not on the horizon. That is the question
that will be asked for at least the next few decades.

A question that will asked less and less as the evolution of war
continues. Fifty years from now Naval Aviation will not be synonymous
with carriers.

"s.p.i." wrote in message

snipped for brevity

Sometimes I feel old enough to have been but I wasn't either. I
haven't found anything online about some of the Gun Club diatribes
against the carriers...

Your choice of language tells me something about your approach. Could your
prejudices be influencing your judgement? (By the way, I have them too, but
try to keep them in perspective.)

But don't believe me. Check out what this USNA academic has to say on
the matter:
http://web.mit.edu/13a/100th/mit13a.pdf

I read it. Boiled down it says, "military organizations are
conservative
and always tend to fight the last war." Again, no surprises here.
Or, put another way, what peering too far over the horizon is a good way
to
run aground.

And staying too firmly in the box invites defeat.

So does going too far outside the box. I note that you ignore the near
disaster brought on by too futurist a program in the late '40s.

Agreed. But if country A says no, there's always country B. Or C. The
idea that every AOE will have to stage out of CONUS is just wishful
thinking
for those intent on setting up some sort of "CV airwing out of gas on a
CV
filled with starving sailors" strawman.

One lucky hit...or one little lucky baggy of anthrax... and one combat
inneffective AOE. One innefective AOE and CVBG sustainabilty is out
the window in the short term at least.

Well, sure. So we deploy another AOE and the crew lives without fresh eggs
and salad for while. Agian, though, you ignore that which does not support
your thesis. The FACT is that lots of countries who have a distaste for
U.S. policy show a distinct liking for U.S. dollars. This means that in
EVERY theater there will ALWAYS be a market where we can buy what we need.

I say there is NO host country. I can't prove a negative; you have to
prove
a positive. Please list the host country(ies) for the CVBGs currently
deployed.

Sure, the CVBG is out there in international waters, but to get its
power ashore means that land based assets MUST be in theater.

Agreed.

Where do
you think the E-3s E-8s, various tankers, EC/RC-135s, U-2s, UAVs, all
of which are essential elements of ANY air campaign now, are coming
from? Thumrait, AlUdeid, Prince Sultan, to name a few places that were
bustling and not just for the Air Force.

You assume that such assets will be required.

Your thesis is, in many ways, reminiscent of those who always fight the last
war. The last two did require deep penetration strikes. Actions in Libya
did not. Actions in Liberia would not. So geography, as well as politics,
will determine requirements.

Presently some bad decisions have been made (IMO) by loading up the deck
with strike aircraft at the expense of support aircraft (based, I'm sure, on
the notion that we can always get somebody to grant us base rights). While
this has been sound so far it has clear problems.

Does not this depend on exactly what geographical area is involved?
With
Afghanistan and Iraq you are looking at lots of complicated issues.
With
Libya or Liberia it would seem the issues are much simpler.

True. Except that land based big wing support still needs to be within
range

What if no land based assets will be used?

Forrestal Fire
It was peacetime and there was no serious war pressure in 1969. USS
YORKTOWN had 90 days work done in 72 hours in 1942 because there was
serious
war pressure.

Umm-The summer of 1967 was the height of the air war over Vietnam. The
hasty repairs to the Yorktown was a factor in her loss BTW.

And a factor in the loss of 4 Japanese carriers.

Or, as put in an old safety film I once watched, "Snake says, 'Ya gotta
expect losses.'"

I admit the CV has vulnerabilites. I don't admit that they are
insurmountable.

A question that will asked less and less as the evolution of war
continues. Fifty years from now Naval Aviation will not be synonymous
with carriers.

You know, that's just about what they said in 1948.

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.