Where will the money come from...

"Pechs1" wrote in message
...

ya mean third or fourth world nations who's economy is a fraction of
California's??


I mean the nations that don't have carriers yet still manage to engage in
international trade.



See confliuct, worlkd war, etc...If it weren't for the 'sea lines of
communication', the UK would be speaking German.


I'm speaking of the present.



Faster, more versatile, more effective, cheaper...


Carrier aircraft are faster than land-based aircraft? Why would operating
from a carrier deck give an aircraft a speed advantage?

How are carrier aircraft more versatile than land-based aircraft? It would
seem that freed of the constraints imposed by having to be operable from a
carrier could only result in greater versatility.

Why does operating from a carrier render an aircraft more effective than a
land-based aircraft? It would seem that the same would hold true for
effectiveness as for versatility, freed of the design constraints imposed by
having to be operable from a carrier could only result in greater
effectiveness.

Cheaper? Perhaps so, many land-based aircraft are considerably larger than
carrier aircraft so undoubtedly cost more to operate. But if you include
the costs of operating the carrier itself and the operations costs of the
various support ships one would think the advantage would swing towards
land-based aviation.



How would a TacAir wing be any more anything, please explain..Your
clue-lessness is fast approaching 'troll' status...


So why don't you clue me in, then? I'm asking a lot of questions, but not
getting many answers.

"Pechs1" wrote in message
...

Lots...center of Russia, lots of China...you aren't going to just wander
around
in their airspace w/o their permision.


You mean to say a B-2 couldn't refuel in non-hostile airspace and reach any
point in Russia or China? I know they're big, but are they that big?
You'll have to show your math.



BUT how many seaports can be threatened
by a CV that is already w/i 1000 NM of the country??


I don't know, that seems like a long distance to launch a carrier strike.
What kind of ordnance can they deliver at that range?



Compared to being theatened by land based aviation of the US...


I'd have to say all of them.



you are out to lunch...I seem to think of a runway and some aircraft in
Hawaii
that were put out of action by some CVA based aircraft...I think they were
Japanese..


Many aircraft were put out of action, that's true, but I don't recall any
runway being put out of action. Do you have anything to support your
assertion?

"Pechs1" wrote in message
...

You don't really need to ask this, do you??


I'm sure it's another question you won't answer, but yes, I do have to ask
it.



Adios MF....another clueless civilian...


Yes, that's me, and yet despite all those "qualifications" you post as your
signature you are unable to provide me with any clues.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"Giz" wrote in message
...

What conflict have gotten into recently that didn't have a build up
period?


None. What conflict have we gotten into recently that didn't have bases
available for land-based aircraft?

So we agree. The CVBG's transit isn't a factor.



Planes that aren't allowed by the host nation to takeoff armed are
pretty
useless.


Reconnaissance, cargo, electronic, tankers, etc., are useless?

Nice try. The thread has been about exerting force. While very valuable
(I'm crew on one), those assets cannot, by themselves, exert force while
unarmed. The fact is, CV aviation requires no diplomatic efforts to launch
armed. That will always be an advantage over Land-based air. If you
can't see that yet the only question left is: Exactly how short was that
bus?

Aren't armed planes that can't reach the target from their departure
point,
such as a carrier, pretty useless

Name a target that has been out of reach of CV aviation. There are
"potential"
targets that "may" be out of the CV's range of influence, but this thread is
about
the utility of CV aviation. Not it's suitibility against some fictional
target chosen
by you.



I haven't seen a ordnance tanker yet.


Nor have I. Having a large weapons payload would then seem to be another
advantage of land-based aviation over carrier aviation. Would it not?

CV aviation by itself? Hopefully not. The only Tacair that we can count on
in
all cases? Probably. Large weapons payload? Have you seen an F-16 lately?
Former SAC platforms have large payloads have the large payloads that you
speak
of, but aren't the answer to all missions. Ask that USMC 2Lt if he would
like some
B-52 CAS. If nothing else were available he might take it, but he rather
have a
platform that is better suited. Often the USAF will be able to provide
this, but
the USN has always been able to provide it.





Can you see this point yet?


No, but I'm confident I will just as soon as someone actually makes that
point.

I'm confident that not even Airman would make that statement. You do
realize
that the Air force even quit trying to fight this fight decades ago?



Do you
think we would launch armed without permission?


Nope.

Me either.



History is against you on this one.


How so?

You have that much faith in our diplomatic community? I think
that bus must have been shorter than you're letting on.



We do seek such permission, and it is sometimes not given.
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, ect.


As I recall that didn't prevent the use of land-based aircraft from other
bases.

Yup, and for the Northern Iraq targets, those bases were either farther from
the target than the CV's, or over SAM threat for the entire transit to the
target.
Tell me again how is that good?



Partially, much lengthier would be more accurate, and does seem that it
was a political move to involve the USAF/UK. The carriers could have
launched more strikes to cover any targets not taken in the initial.
Just
my 2 cents here.


Right. The carriers on the scene were not able to hit all the targets in
one strike and nultiple strikes were deemed too risky. Politics had
nothing
to do with it.

Assumption, Ronnie didn't confer with me prior to ordering the strike, but
I doubt he spoke with you either. I at least identified my opinion as such.

Giz

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

"Pechs1" wrote in message
...

You don't really need to ask this, do you??


I'm sure it's another question you won't answer, but yes, I do have to ask
it.



Adios MF....another clueless civilian...


Yes, that's me, and yet despite all those "qualifications" you post as
your
signature you are unable to provide me with any clues.

No, he did a fine job. No matter how bright you make the room the blind man
is still blind.

Did you figure out your role in the analogy?

Thought not.

Sleep well, I've got the watch, and I'm better at my doing my job than you
are
thinking about it.

Giz

"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.

ronca- Nor have I. Having a large weapons payload would then seem to be
another
advantage of land-based aviation over carrier aviation. Would it not?
BRBR

You seem to be stuck in a WWll mentality, with the 8th AF, with 1000+ bomber
fleets participating in scortched earth missions..

USAF TacAir doesn't have loooong legs, when compared to USN TacAir assets. USAF
TacAir 'can't get there from here' unless forward deployed, which takes time
and money.

P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

ronca- But if it's not already there it's lots slower. BRBR

But they are 'there'...There is a CV in the Med and Indian Ocean and around
China all the time...why we went on cruise. We didn't go on cruise off the
coast of the US...To compare USAF assets would mean that they are forward
deployed all the time, which they are not outside of Europe and Korea and these
are getting smaller and are TacAir, not SAC, long range assets.

Will they all say no? BRBR

Some who said yes in the past, said no recently, Some said no during the strike
on Libya...cannot predict who will say what but if farther than 12 miles off a
coast, a CV can go anywhere it wishes..look up 'international waters'...


You're wrong. USAF units were very much involved in Eldorado Canyon.
BRBR


Read the post, Eldorado Canyon was over in hours, We stayed on station north of
Libya for months after the USAF types were back in their biscits. Flying 24
hours per day often..patrolling the line of death...

Were you in a coma in the spring of 1986? BRBR

Nope, I was flying off the Forrestal in F-14s...what civilian job were you in
at the time...you sure as **** aren't a present or formerly military persion.

P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

ronca- But if you include
the costs of operating the carrier itself and the operations costs of the
various support ships one would think the advantage would swing towards
land-based aviation. BRBR

Not so, look at the costs of maintaining a sprawling USAF base...I know you
have correct??

Add the costs of transporting the whole mess to a forward base, and the costs
involved of the move and the new base...let's not even mention the time
involved. The USN had CVs on station for years before Desert Storm Two.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer