Carter Orders Navy to Build Fewer Ships, Spend More on Jets

[Purveyor]

Source: Bloomberg

Anthony Capaccio
December 17, 2015 — 12:04 PM EST

Defense Secretary Ash Carter has ordered U.S. Navy leaders to buy fewer ships so the service can spend more on jets such as the F-35 as well as munitions and upgraded systems for electronic warfare.

“For the last several years, the Department of the Navy has overemphasized resources used to incrementally increase total ship numbers at the expense of critically needed investments in areas where our adversaries are not standing still, such as strike, ship survivability, electronic warfare and other capabilities,” Carter wrote in a memo obtained by Bloomberg News that’s rare in its blunt rejection of a military service’s approach.

Carter said the Navy is well on its way to reaching a 308-ship goal that “should be met but not irresponsibly exceeded.” The size of the naval fleet has long been a political flashpoint. In the 2012 presidential race, Republican Mitt Romney criticized President Barack Obama for letting the number of ships shrink to “levels not seen since 1916.”

In this week’s debate of Republican presidential candidates, Jeb Bush said “the Navy has been gutted and decimated” and Marco Rubio called for reversing cuts to the service.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-17/carter-orders-navy-to-build-fewer-ships-spend-more-on-jets

[Matthew28]

1. How about dumping the f35 and building more f22's?

At least we'd be building something that could go up against China, russia and any other 5th generation plane. The f35 isn't worth ditching a single ship to build.

[Sherman A1]

5. Agreed

I would change the F22 to F/A18s but beyond that we totally agree.

[tech3149]

6. Since we seem to be fighting piss poor land locked adversaries

why not dump them all and start building a new fleet of A-10's? Relatively cheap, well armed and armoured, adn perfectly suited to the task at hand.

[Sherman A1]

9. Works for me

I think the A10 is a great aircraft and would often be the perfect one to use. I am sure that many of them are worn and tired and probably are in need of replacement and upgrades, but that would certainly be less expensive than the F35.

[Strelnikov_]

16. Behind the B-52

Probably one of the most effective military aircraft designs in history.

[PersonNumber503602]

10. Can't fly those off aircraft carriers

Whereas the F/A-18 (or the F-35C) can be flown off carriers.

I'm not arguing the merits of any choice over the other though.

[happyslug]

12. You can fly A-10s off Carriers.

Except for the large bombers and transports, all US Air Force planes can operate from a Carrier. Now being fixed wing such planes take up to much space on a Carrier and thus not used from a Carrier, but they be can if needed.

In the 1960s a C-130 transport even landed on a Carrier and then took off. It was a tight fit, the flight deck had nothing on it when this occurred, but it was done. Modern Carriers can handle most of the Planes of the US Air Force. Navy planes are easier to store on a Carrier but that is the main advantage of Navy planes over Air Force planes when it comes to Carrier operations.

Now the A-10 has one of the longest wing on any plane. That wing is the key to the A-10. Unlike most planes the A-10 wings are one solid piece of metal. i.e. Not two wings attached to the body of the jet but one huge wing that the jet body is attached to. The factory to produce that wing no longer exists thus no more new A-10s but if someone would design a folding wing for the A-10 it could operate off Carriers and take up the same room as present Navy jets.

In the late 1950s the US Navy even proposed a straight wing fighter for Carrier Air Defense. It was to be a missile launcher aircraft to take out threats before they neared the Carrier. McNamara then merged that concept with the Air Forces F-111 program. The resulting F-111B was a complete flop, it ended up inferior to the plane it was suppose to replace, the F-4 Phantom. Out of that debacle came the F-14, but I bring it up for the Navy has looked at straight wing jets before and if the plan is to launch missiles from hundreds of miles away a straight wing missile launcher may be the way to go. Modern electronics are now so small a large jet like the F-14 is non longer needed to fire such long range missiles. Thus the F-18 replaced the much larger F-14. On the other hand that much larger plane could carry more fuel and thus go further without refueling. A straight wing is also easier on fuel economy and a great place to store fuel to get to the area of combat. Thus something like the A-10 may be a better option then the F-35.

At least one Air Force General has advocated canceling both the F-22 and F-35 programs for air defences are getting so sophisticated that in the near future the better option would be to fire missiles from a distance. Such missiles do not have to carry fuel to return from a mission, thus can be as much as 2/3rds the size of modern jets. Being designed for one way trips can be made even smaller for you have no pilot to worry about. We are only about 10 to 20 years away from that time period. Look at the Russians in Syria, they are using such missiles extensively. I suspect the US has even more advance missiles thus why have planes except to get such missiles within range of such missiles and that can be hundreds of miles away from the target. The A-10 can fire such missiles with ease. Carriers could fire such missiles using any of the fighters the Navy has today, and save money by going back to a straight wing missile launcher the Navy looked at in the late 1950s.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

15. Here's a video of a C-130 landing on a carrier

Written on the side of the fuselage was, "Look, Mom, No Tailhook!"

The "Warthog" is a great air-to-ground attack aircraft. The only problem with the A-10 is that it flies so slowly it takes bird strikes from the rear.

[Strelnikov_]

17. "only problem with the A-10 is that it flies so slowly it takes bird strikes from the rear"

But if you want to kill every motherfucker in a square mile . . . and the friendly forces observing . . . and the village over the hill . . .

[PersonNumber503602]

18. Valid points.

I was thinking more in terms of how they are now. Wouldn't they generally have to be modified to be fit for carrier service? Like why the navy has their version of the F35 that is meant for carrier operations. I was thinking making an A-10 capable of taking would require strong landing gears, tailhook, perhaps folding wings as you stated, and probably other stuff I don't know enough about.

Even if they did go such a route, I wonder how much they would end up being overcharged to make any needed changed.

[happyslug]

23. For landing and takeoff, not much, but actual operations a lot of changes

When the US Air Force Adopted the F-4, which had been developed by the Navy, the Air Force changed the tires, from the high pressure tires the Navy needed for Carrier use to lower pressure tires for use on dirt runways. The Air Force also dropped the foldable wing, not needed on a land based plane and thus excessive weight. The Air Force also changed the aerial refueling mechanism (the Navy used and still uses a different system, but all fighters and bombers can now use BOTH systems). Besides that no other changes. I bring up the old F-4 for it was a much "faster" plane then the A-10 and the F-4 was DESIGNED for Carrier use.

The problem with the A-10 is its wing, it is HUGE and thus it can land and take off from a Carrier, it will take up the room for up to three F-18s.

Since the 1960s, Air Force planes are designed for Carrier but not for CONSTANT Carrier use, they are land and take off from carriers and many a Air Force Pilot has done so as part of their training. On the other hand, Air Force Planes take up a lot more space then the equivalent Navy planes thus when Air Force Planes land on a Carrier, they take off and return to their own base, they do NOT stay on the Carrier.

When a US Carrier sails by the Straits of Magellan, the Air Forces of Brazil, Argentina and Chile all ask for and get permission to do such Carrier landings themselves. They land and then take right back off. Some of these planes are ex-US Navy planes but others are ex-US Air Force Planes. Remember training is NOT actual use and storage which is what the Carrier does with its own planes, My point was simple that the A-10 CAN Land and TAKE OFF from a Carrier, nothing more. Like the above Air Force's planes US Air Force Planes train to do such operations but no one even tries to store them overnight let alone for any combat mission.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

22. Flying a Warthog off a carrier would be cool

[Adrahil]

27. Just a point.... you can launch A-10's using a deck-run launch....

But A-10's are not equipped or engineered for a catapult launch, and neither are they suitable for carrier landings. The tail hook they have is intended for field arresting gear, and the gear is much too weak for routine unflared arrested landings.

I worked in carrier suitability R&D for 20 years. A-10's will not become carrier planes without a LOT of re-engineering.

[happyslug]

28. The point was COULD be launched

I agree with you any A-10 would have to be extensivly reworked to operate off a carrier. My point was COULD a A-10 land on a Carrier and it can. The problems of operating off a carrier are huge thus not the issue I was addressing. In a pinch it can land and take off. It would be a desperate situation to do such a maneuver but doable. That is all I was saying nothing more.

[Xithras]

25. I was reading something recently about replacing the A-10 with the Scorpions.

Textron has been pushing the Scorpion to the Pentagon as a possible replacement for the Warthog, and there's apparently some interest in it. The flight envelopes for the Scorpion are actually better than the Warthog...it can fly both slower and faster, allowing it more time on target during attack runs anda better ability to quickly get out of the fire zone afterward. It's relatively cheap to buy, and far cheaper to operate than either the F-22 or the F-35. Is it a perfect replacement? Well, it lacks the heavy internal armor of the A-10 and doesn't have that massive gun up front, but heavy weapons can be mounted externally and its smaller profile should make it more difficult to hit with conventional ground arms. Another big plus is that its development is already quite advanced, so the Pentagon won't get stuck in another decades long development process as they were with the F-22 and F-35. It's a practical, off the shelf solution.

Whether the Air Force and Navy will actually bite and buy any remains to be seen. The military expresses interest in a lot of things without actually buying them, and the AF has already spent a lot of time trying to convince people that the A-10's niche can be filled by the F-35. They may find it difficult to backpedal on those claims now to justify the purchase of a new aircraft...even if it is "cheap and sensible".

[Angleae]

20. Last time I looked, the F-22 can't fly off a carrier.

And before someone else says it, modifying it to do so would result in a less capable plane that would cost much more.

[msongs]

2. the newest ship has to be towed into combat by a tug. can we get a refund? hmmm nt

[PersonNumber503602]

11. That's more of an expected hiccup of any freshly minted ship

They will fix that with ease. They won't fix the fact that the concepts of those ships seem to be lacking any real value. At least not for how much they cost.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Why does this clown still have a job?

[Rafale]

4. Cannot believe...

Can't believe how much each jet costs so we can go up against an imaginary enemy and trade more lives for oil. #Insane

I say imaginary because it is unlikely we would go to war against either Russia or China. Who's left that we need these ridiculously expensive weapons to fight after those two countries?

These companies are robbing us blind. They need to be nationalized. Enough is enough.

[longship]

7. And the newest, the Zumwalt, looks like it's already capsized.

Last edited Fri Dec 18, 2015, 02:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Which it will likely do the first big wave it encounters.

BTW, it is longer than a WWII battleship.

[happyslug]

14. Expensive toy, named for an Admiral who wanted to get AWAY from such toys

Zumwalt was known to advocate the adoption of small carriers, only slightly larger then the WWII Essex Carriers. He thought 20 such Carriers would better than the dozen large Carriers other admirals has been advocating since the end of WWII. Zumwalt thought the more Carriers the better and by concentrating on super carriers the Navy would never have enough for sooner or later the costs of such Carriers will lead to them being canceled.

Zumwalt saw 20 Essex size Carriers as a better investment then 12 super carriers. Please note, Zumwalt liked the Super carrier concept, Zumwalt just pointed out the US could not afford more then a dozen such Carriers and US commitments required those Carriers to be in up to two dozen locations all at the same time. Thus a mixed carrier force of six to eight super carriers supported by another or so smaller Carriers would be a better mix.

Please note in the post WWII era, the US has built nothing but super carriers. The reason for this is we had 20 or so Essex Carriers left over from WWII, that filled the role Zumwalt advocated for his proposed smaller Carriers. The problem was by the 1970s those Essex class Carriers had been used extensively since WWII and were at the end of their service life. In the early 1970s most were scrapped, the last one the Oriskany, remained in the reserve fleet till sunk in the 1990s as a new reef off the Florida coast. The US loss some Flexibility with that scraping but everyone but Zumwalt wanted those super carriers only even if the US could afford only a dozen.

Thus my comment on the Destroyer with Zumwalt's name on it, avhigh tech wonder that the Navy is now saying it can not afford and ordering more of its predecessor.

[lovemydog]

8. Yes, the Jets can use a strong running back.

Some good blockers up front. A great back up quarterback. Toughen up the defense with some smart acquisitions too. Playoffs here we come!

Oh wait. F-35 Jets?

Never mind.

[Phlem]

13. Of course fuck the MIC but they have a plan.

I've read new aircraft carriers can generate hydrogen fuel while out at sea. If the F-35 runs on it, I can see the push. Still, Policing the world? I'd rather we build the best fusion reactor on earth, cause then it's off to the stars with us!

[bemildred]

19. "Well, how about ships with little wings then?" nt

[Angleae]

21. Don't give them any ideas.

They'll all the sudden want a helicarrier.

[happyslug]

24. We already have Nine in Active Service, One being built and five in Reserve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_assault_ship

The US has 8 WASP class Amphibious Assault Ships in Service:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship

The US has one AMERICAN Amphibious Assault Ships in Service, One being built and 11 more planned (The First two of this class of "Helicarriers" have no "well deck". A "Well Deck is a floodable deck for storage, and loading of landing crafts. The remaining 9 proposed Carriers of this class will have a "Well Deck". The "Well Deck" was eliminated for more space for Helicopters and their crew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assault_ship

The US Navy has Five Tanawa Carriers in Reserve:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarawa-class_amphibious_assault_ship

Thus the US has NINE Amphibious Assault Ship in use, none helicarriers for that is such ships main aircraft along with the Harriers.

[Angleae]

26. Not that kind of helicarrier.

This one.

http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Helicarrier