Where will the money come from...

To pay for the envisioned force structure below? Well the seemingly
inviolate 12 carrier hull money is most likely one place. With what
is being proposed why would you need 12 carriers anyway?
Maybe its time to begin to transform Naval Aviation away from being so
completely centered around a weapons system that hasn't fundamentally
changed in 60 years-the Aircraft Carrier-before it becomes completely
irrelevant...

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday July 1, 2003
The Guardian

The Pentagon is planning a new generation of weapons, including huge
hypersonic drones and bombs dropped from space, that will allow the US
to strike its enemies at lightning speed from its own territory.
Over the next 25 years, the new technology would free the US from
dependence on forward bases and the cooperation of regional allies,
part of the drive towards self-suffi ciency spurred by the
difficulties of gaining international cooperation for the invasion of
Iraq.

The new weapons are being developed under a programme codenamed Falcon
(Force Application and Launch from the Continental US).

A US defence website has invited bids from contractors to develop the
technology and the current edition of Jane's Defence Weekly reports
that the first flight tests are scheduled to take place within three
years.

According to the website run by the Defence Advanced Research Projects
Agency (Darpa) the programme is aimed at fulfilling "the government's
vision of an ultimate prompt global reach capability (circa 2025 and
beyond)".

The Falcon technology would "free the US military from reliance on
forward basing to enable it to react promptly and decisively to
destabilising or threatening actions by hostile countries and
terrorist organisations", according to the Darpa invitation for bids.
The ultimate goal would be a "reusable hypersonic cruise vehicle (HCV)
.... capable of taking off from a conventional military runway and
striking targets 9,000 nautical miles distant in less than two hours".

The unmanned HCV would carry a payload of up to 12,000 lbs and could
ultimately fly at speeds of up to 10 times the speed of sound,
according to Daniel Goure, a military analyst at the Lexington
Institute in Washington.

Propelling a warhead of that size at those speeds poses serious
technological challenges and Darpa estimates it will take more than 20
years to develop.

Over the next seven years, meanwhile, the US air force and Darpa will
develop a cheaper "global reach" weapons system relying on expendable
rocket boosters, known as small launch vehicles (SLV) that would take
a warhead into space and drop it over its target.

In US defence jargon, the warhead is known as a Com mon Aero Vehicle
(Cav), an unpowered bomb which would be guided on to its target as it
plummeted to earth at high and accelerating velocity.

The Cav could carry 1,000 lbs of explosives but at those speeds
explosives may not be necessary. A simple titanium rod would be able
to penetrate 70 feet of solid rock and the shock wave would have
enormous destructive force. It could be used against deeply buried
bunkers, the sort of target the air force is looking for new ways to
attack.

Jane's Defence Weekly reported that the first Cav flight demonstration
is provisionally scheduled by mid-2006, and the first SLV flight
exercise would take place the next year. A test of the two systems
combined would be carried out by late 2007.

A prototype demonstrating HCV technology would be tested in 2009.

SLV rockets will also give the air force a cheap and flexible means to
launch military satellites at short notice, within weeks, days or even
hours of a crisis developing.

The SLV-Cav combination, according to the Darpa document, "will
provide a near-term (approximately 2010) operational capability for
prompt global strike from Consus (the continental US) while also
enabling future development of a reusable HCV for the far-term
(approximately 2025)". The range of this weapon is unclear.

This is what I wrote in April and so far I'm half right...
"And I'll bet a paycheck the Air Force will argue just that Real Soon
Now. Also the Space folks will likely chime in about the operational
usefulness of the Common Aero Vehicle as well.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were only a six carrier force by
2015."

"Pechs1" wrote in message
...

As long as the US isn't looking to attack Mexico or Canada and as long as
it
has 'interests' abroad, it will need CV aviation.


Why?



Who is searching for a mission is the USAF...B-2s and lots of tough to
move
TacAir wings are largely irrelevent, designed for countering the 'Red
Horde'
marching across the central plains of Europe.


Carrier aviation has no advantage over land-based aviation.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message rthlink.net...
"Pechs1" wrote in message
...

As long as the US isn't looking to attack Mexico or Canada and as long as
it
has 'interests' abroad, it will need CV aviation.


Why?



Who is searching for a mission is the USAF...B-2s and lots of tough to
move
TacAir wings are largely irrelevent, designed for countering the 'Red
Horde'
marching across the central plains of Europe.


Carrier aviation has no advantage over land-based aviation.
Thucydes is a great read but of course he didn't know abou the
militarization of Space...
I'm not saying carrier aviation has *no* advantage over land-based
aviation. In the near term there are some real advantages in
fact..sadly mitigated by the Bug-Centric problems of effective combat
radius however. Carrier aviation has given up some important
advantages it once had though to the point that any pretense it can
operate without significant land-based assests, and for that matter
land bases themselves, is a real joke nowadays.
Where is the ELINT based? Most of the other recce assets as well? The
majority of the gas that is passed to the woefully shortlegged
airgroup comes from where? If those assests do in fact have a
sucessful rendezvous with the tanker-as was seen recently that could
be a big if-and they don't drop their load where do they go to deposit
this ordnance so they can get back aboard? Don't have enough to
commit these "delicate instruments" to the briny deep.
No true stealth is really palnned for the airgroup so the B-2s have
job security. The navy can't drop anything bigger than 5000 lbs so
those TAC Air wings will still be needed as well.
Sure the Common Aero Vehicle is not a highly visible instrument of
state, but in the post Cole world the whole concept of Showing The
Flag is now a draconian intrusive episode for the host countries
because of our security demands anyway.
Bottom line is the touted reasons for a carrier are becoming less than
truly real. And the military space assests are becoming more viable
and compelling. The choice for NAVAIR is to rest on its laurels and
stay enamored with the "intrepid skygod getting back on the boat in
the single seat skychariot" mentality as it mostly has since WWII. Or
it can join the new century and stay a viable military arm.
It will be an intersting five or so years.

"s.p.i." wrote in message
om...

I'm not saying carrier aviation has *no* advantage over land-based
aviation. In the near term there are some real advantages in
fact..


Such as?

"s.p.i." wrote in message
om...

SNIP!
With what
is being proposed why would you need 12 carriers anyway?

Because it is hard to park a B-2 just off some ones coast 24/7 as a reminder
that you may not approve of their actions. (Besides the AF and satellites
just isn't that visible).

A Carrier Battle Group in someone's bathtub shows them you are very
concerned. Two Carrier Battle Groups, plus a couple of MAU's tells them you
are really PO'd. Three or more means the S**t is about to hit the fan.

Its human nature, if they can't see it, they don't think about it. Now if
you could park a space station that was visible from the ground over them it
would be different. But we can't, and we probably can't do it in the
foreseeable future either. So we will have to make do with the Carrier
Battle Group, and once or twice a day have one of the escorts pop up above
the horizon, have a few aircraft making contrails in the sky, and of course
plenty of radio chatter, just to remind everyone who is watching.

In the last 50 years or so the Carrier Battle Group, has become more of a
diplomatic tool than an instrument of war. But war is really extreme
diplomacy anyway.

Red

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"s.p.i." wrote in message
om...

I'm not saying carrier aviation has *no* advantage over land-based
aviation. In the near term there are some real advantages in
fact..


Such as?

Mobility. Concrete independent ... no basing agreements required with Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, Italy, you-name-it.. The fact that a CVBG offshore makes a
political statement that a wing of B-2's sitting in Whiteman cannot make.

R / John

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...

Mobility.


Carrier aircraft are more mobile than land-based aircraft?



Concrete independent ... no basing agreements required with Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, Italy, you-name-it.. The fact that a CVBG offshore makes
a
political statement that a wing of B-2's sitting in Whiteman cannot make.


How are any of those advantages?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Pechs1" wrote in message
...

As long as the US isn't looking to attack Mexico or Canada and as long
as
it
has 'interests' abroad, it will need CV aviation.


Why?



Who is searching for a mission is the USAF...B-2s and lots of tough to
move
TacAir wings are largely irrelevent, designed for countering the 'Red
Horde'
marching across the central plains of Europe.


Carrier aviation has no advantage over land-based aviation.


It takes a B-2 a loooonng time to fly from the US to a target in the Middle
East.
Not exactly an on demand platform. To fly that same aircraft from somewhere
near the fight requires host country approval. Remember how difficult it
was
for the Air Force to get in the fight against Libya? Just think, that was
with
host country approval. CV aviation will always have that advantage over
shore based. 4.5 acres of sovereign territory that can go to the fight.

Giz

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...

Mobility.


Carrier aircraft are more mobile than land-based aircraft?

Where is Edwards AFB? Where is the USS John C. Stennis?
Where will both be 6 months from now?




Concrete independent ... no basing agreements required with Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, Italy, you-name-it.. The fact that a CVBG offshore
makes
a
political statement that a wing of B-2's sitting in Whiteman cannot
make.


How are any of those advantages?

Aircraft that you cannot use for political reasons are worse than useless.
They
have cost you, but are not returning on the investment. You honestly can't
see
the advantage of a CVBG off a hostile coast over a wing of B-2's in middle
America? Open your eyes. Even the Air Force doesn't try to make the
argument you are. They did before, but have come to their senses. CV
aviation will not replace shore based aviation, but it will not succumb to
it either.

Giz

steven- Why? BRBR

After I wrote- As long as the US isn't looking to attack Mexico or Canada and
as long as
it
has 'interests' abroad, it will need CV aviation. BRBR

"Sea lines of 'communication'"..supply, We aren't going to get all the oil we
need from Canada...overland.

Who ya gonna call when some country in some ocean or sea sinks a US owned oil
tanker or a cruise ship?

Ya deploy a USAF TacAir wing? And put a load of Army guys on ships? Nope-you
are going to call Naval Aviation with their ugly, ****ed off little sister, the
USMC onboard Anphibs.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer