US Navy's Carrier Gap (merged)

[CougarKing]

More proposed cuts to the rest of their surface fleet:

from Defense News


Pentagon Changes Course, Halts LCS at 32 Ships

No Money for Carrier Refueling; 11 Cruisers, 3 Amphibs To Be 'Laid Up'

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon leadership doubled back Monday on its direction for the US Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, returning to where things stood at the beginning of the year: End procurement at 32 ships — 20 short of the previously planned goal — and begin work on development of a new small surface combatant.


(...EDITED)

As previously reported, the service will not request funds to refuel and overhaul the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier George Washington, scheduled to begin a three-and-a-half-year overhaul at Newport News Shipbuilding beginning in 2016.

For now, the Navy will sidestep the issue of permanently reducing the 11-ship carrier force to 10 ships by decommissioning the GW — a highly problematic issue in an election year.

“However,” Hagel said, “we will have to make a final decision on the future of the George Washington aircraft carrier in the 2016 budget submission. If sequestration spending levels remain in place in fiscal year 2016, she would need to be retired before her scheduled nuclear refueling and overhaul. That would leave the Navy with 10 carrier strike groups. But keeping the George Washington in the fleet would cost $6 billion, so we would have no other choice than to retire her should sequestration-level cuts be reimposed.”

Hagel also discussed a plan to take half the fleet’s 22 Aegis cruisers out of service, laying them up pending the availability of modernization funds. In recent years the Navy has asked to decommission seven cruisers, along with two amphibious ship docks, but Congress has demurred, instructing the Navy to keep the ships in service and providing partial funding to do so.


The cruisers, Hagel said, would be “placed in reduced operating status while they are modernized, and eventually returned to service with greater capability and a longer lifespan.” He did not mention the amphibious ships, although Pentagon sources said the budget will also seek to lay up three amphibs.

The issue is expected — again — to be hotly debated in Congress.

The cruisers — all are the newest Ticonderoga-class ships still in service, but yet to receive full modernization — are the Cowpens, Gettysburg, Chosin, Hue City, Shiloh, Anzio, Vicksburg, Lake Erie, Cape St. George, Vella Gulf and Port Royal.

The amphibious ships are the Whidbey Island, Germantown and Tortuga.

Hagel did not address naval aviation issues, other than to note that if sequestration-level cuts return in 2016 and beyond, purchases of new F-35C carrier variants of the joint strike fighter would be halted for two years. Six additional ships would need to be laid up, he said, should sequestration cuts return.


The secretary noted the Navy will continue to buy two destroyers and two attack submarines per year, although sequestration could “slow the rate at which we buy destroyers.”

Hagel declared that “the Navy will launch an aggressive and ambitious effort to reduce acquisition costs and maximize resources available to buy and build new ships,” but he provided no details. Since that has been the service’s stated policy for some years, and Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley has achieved remarkable successes introducing stability and cost management into the service’s acquisition programs, it is not yet clear what Hagel is referring to.

The president’s full 2015 budget request is expected to be sent to Congress on March 4. ■

 

[CougarKing]

Military.com

USS George Washington's Future Uncertain

Stars and Stripes | May 24, 2014 | by Erik Slavin

YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan -- The aircraft carrier USS George Washington embarked Saturday on what is likely one of its last patrols of the western Pacific Ocean as a Japan-based carrier.

(...EDITED)

In the summer of 2015, USS Ronald Reagan is scheduled to replace George Washington as the Navy's Japan-deployed carrier.

USS George Washington's future remains uncertain after that.

The ship is scheduled for a mid-life nuclear refueling and maintenance overhaul in 2016, which would take up to four years to finish. Some lawmakers and Pentagon officials have suggested retiring the ship instead, in order to meet mandatory budget caps on defense spending.

Estimates on keeping George Washington and its air wing in the fleet have run as high as $7 billion over five years.

 

[tomahawk6]

The Navy and USAF could save ships and aircraft by cutting their officer strength.In the case of the USAF if they brought back the CWO ranks to fly choppers,it would be a real cost savings.Open up the UAV field to CWO's.

Snapshot of the Air Force
326,259 Active Duty
64,070 Officers
262,189 Enlisted
The Air Force has 13,805 pilots, 3,600 navigators and 1,539 air battle managers in the grade of lieutenant colonel and below. The Air Force has 25,299 nonrated line officers in the grade of lieutenant colonel and below.

The USN uses the CWO rank.

Navy Personnel
Active Duty:  323,681
Officers:  53,254
Enlisted:  266,020
Midshipmen:  4,407
Ready Reserve:  108,496 [As of Apr 2014 ]

 

[dimsum]

The Navy and USAF could save ships and aircraft by cutting their officer strength.In the case of the USAF if they brought back the CWO ranks to fly choppers,it would be a real cost savings.Open up the UAV field to CWO's.

T6:

How much (or less) do CWOs make in comparison to junior officers, and why would you suggest just helicopters and UAVs for CWOs and not other aircraft types? 

 

[tomahawk6]

The USAF is top heavy and it wouldnt hurt to cut 10,000 officers to match USN officer strength.The USAF made the decision in the 50's to use senior NCO's to replace Warrant Officers,as that service's technical experts.Meanwhile the other services continue to utilize WO/CWO's.

 

[dimsum]

The USAF is top heavy and it wouldnt hurt to cut 10,000 officers to match USN officer strength.  The USAF made the decision in the 50's to use senior NCO's to replace Warrant Officers,as that service's technical experts.Meanwhile the other services continue to utilize WO/CWO's.

About the USAF v. USN officer strength, there's a bit of an apples-and-oranges comparison because the USN numbers also take into account the surface/sub-surface/other forces, not just aviation. 

Personally, I don't see a problem with having CWOs fly - the US Army does it - but to repeat my previous question, how much do they earn (and consequently, how much will the USAF/USN save) if that were to happen? 

 

[tomahawk6]

These are base pay rates.Housing and subsistance[rations] are paid as allowances.The higher the rank equals more BAH.Perhaps just cutting back the number of officers would work without the Warrant issue.

http://www.militaryrates.com/military-pay-bah_2014.cfm


W1-W5
http://www.militaryrates.com/military-pay-charts-w1_w5_2014.cfm

01-05
http://www.militaryrates.com/military-pay-charts-o1_o5_2014.cfm

 

[Good2Golf]

The USAF is top heavy and it wouldnt hurt to cut 10,000 officers to match USN officer strength.The USAF made the decision in the 50's to use senior NCO's to replace Warrant Officers,as that service's technical experts.Meanwhile the other services continue to utilize WO/CWO's.

Not for long.  The Pentagon is eliminating Warrant Officers.

 

[Old Sweat]

Brain fart, this is from the Duffle Blog.

 

[Good2Golf]

Brain fart, this is from the Duffle Blog.

Sweatie, the 'Blog has more stuff that's truer to life, than most people would think.  ;D

 

[Journeyman]

.....the 'Blog has more stuff that's truer to life, than most people would think. 

Judging by the intensity of some of the article's comments, I think this one hit pretty close to home for some folks.  :nod:

 

[dimsum]

Judging by the intensity of some of the article's comments, I think this one hit pretty close to home for some folks.  :nod:

I normally avoid reading comments, but some of those were gold. 

 

[CougarKing]

Money for the 11th carrier?

Defense News

US House Panel Proposes $570B for Defense; Adds Monies for Carrier, Growlers

WASHINGTON — US House defense appropriators moved one step closer Thursday morning to approving $570.4 billion in base and war spending for the Pentagon, including funds for an 11th aircraft carrier and electronic-attack planes.

Notably, the lower chamber’s Appropriations Defense subcommittee’s mark of a 2015 military spending bill does not mention the Air Force’s A-10 attack plane fleet, which service officials are proposing to retire to save money. House and Senate authorizers found budgetary offsets to block the move, and the full House Appropriations Committee still could follow suit when it marks up the bill.

Aides say the bill should be approved by the subcommittee and sent to the full committee Friday morning. It includes a $491 billion defense appropriations bill and a separate $79.4 billion overseas contingency operations (OCO), or war funding, section.

(...EDITED)

 

[CougarKing]

"3.5" carriers deployed? What does the "0.5" mean in this context? One more carrier might be available half the time?  ???

Military.com

With Tight Budget, How Many Carriers Are Enough?

(...EDITED)

The Pentagon is considering retiring the carrier USS George Washington to save money if Congress doesn't lift the budget caps imposed on the Defense Department. Such a move would cut the authorized carrier fleet from 11 to 10 ships.

"We would have to change the way we do presence and the way we think about contingency response if we go to 10 aircraft carriers," Greenert said. In that scenario, according to the Navy chief, the U.S. would have to accept coverage gaps or change its force posture model.

The Navy aims to always have three carriers on station in the strategically vital regions of the Western Pacific and the Middle East. How those three carriers are divvied up among those areas depends on the security situation in both places.

Only a fraction of the fleet are at sea at any given time, due to maintenance and training.

With 11 carriers, the Navy can maintain an average of 3.5 carriers deployed, according to retired Vice Adm. Peter Daly, who commanded a carrier strike group. The average is higher than three because when one carrier is relieving another in an area of operations, there are more than three carriers at sea.

But with a 10-carrier fleet, that average number of carriers deployed drops to about 3.0, and there are times when fewer than three carriers are at sea, Daly said. With nine carriers, the deployment average drops to 2.5. Going down to eight would make it difficult to keep even two carriers deployed, according to Daly.

(...EDITED)

 

[KevinB]

"3.5" carriers deployed? What does the "0.5" mean in this context? One more carrier might be available half the time?  ???

It simply means that for half a year the 4th carrier will not be deployed

 

[CougarKing]

An update on possible cutbacks to the USN's remaining AEGIS cruisers:

US Navy's Cruiser Problem

[defensenews] - Jul. 6, 2014

A level of discomfort — if not outright distrust — has been created as the service changed its original 2012 request to decommission seven cruisers under a spending reduction strategy to one where the Navy wants to keep them, but temporarily inactivate 11 its 22 Ticonderoga-class CGs under a modernization plan. Many on the Hill suspect that behind the rhetoric, there lurks a desire to save money by killing the ships.

Meanwhile, production of new DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers continues. To some, the DDGs, equipped with more up-to-date versions of the same Aegis combat system that equips the cruisers, seem up to the task of replacing the older CGs. But the Navy insists it needs its cruiser force, and the issue brings up some fundamental questions: What is a cruiser, what’s the difference between a cruiser and a destroyer, and what ship will protect the fleet’s aircraft carriers in the 2030s?


<snipped>

The destroyers in the carrier’s strike group often will disperse — sometimes on tasks that take them hundreds of miles away. But a missile cruiser is always riding shotgun, commanded by a senior officer acting as the strike group’s air warfare commander — a critical role in the defense of the carrier.

But the Navy’s force of 22 cruisers is aging, and with lifespans of about 35 years, the last of the ships will wear out and leave service by the end of the 2020s — long before replacement ships are in service to guard the fleet’s flattops.

 

[tomahawk6]

USN DDG's are as large as some WW2 cruisers.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=900&ct=4

 

[CougarKing]

Related: Budget woes for the USN.

Military.com/DoD Buzz

Navy: Cuts Threaten 306-Ship Fleet Goal
Navy: Cuts Threaten 306-Ship Fleet Goal
By Kris Osborn Thursday, August 7th, 2014 9:25 am
Posted in Naval, Sequestration

The Navy’s recently released 2015 30-year shipbuilding plan says the service is in danger of not realizing its anticipated vision for a fleet size of more than 300 ships and submarines because there simply is not enough money available to meet stated requirements.

The planned pace of retirement for many of the surface ships built between 1980 and 1990 and the funding needed to secure production in 2021 for the first next-generation ballistic missile submarine, the Ohio Replacement program, are placing extensive strain on available resources, according to the plan.

Navy acquisition executive Sean Stackley recently told Congress that the shipbuilding plan seeks to correctly identify this problem.

The plan, called the “Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY2015,” breaks down required funding for future ships into three ten-year blocks and specifies that the Navy will need $19.7 billion per year for shipbuilding from 2025 through 2034 due to the expected production of the Ohio Replacement Program, or ORP.“In order to meet our 306 ship requirements, the funding that’s needed greatly exceeds what we have had for the past 20 years,” he said. “We’re identifying this problem years in advance so that we collectively have the opportunity to work on it. The 306-ship plan is under great budget stress.”

(...EDITED)

 

[CougarKing]

Note a similar "carrier gap" in the Pacific described in another thread.

CNN

U.S. won't have aircraft carrier in Persian Gulf for at least 2 months
By Barbara Starr, CNN Pentagon Correspondent
Updated 7:46 AM ET, Thu August 6, 2015

Washington (CNN)The U.S. Navy will not be able to keep an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf for much of the fall season, according to a Navy official.

The official said that's because the Navy has to schedule needed maintenance after years of extended deployments and because of reduced spending due to mandatory budget cuts.

While there have been so-called "carrier gaps" in the Persian Gulf before, this one will leave the Navy without the presence of a high-profile aircraft carrier just as a proposed nuclear deal with Iran is at center stage. It also comes as Iranian naval forces have conducted low-level harassment of U.S. and other shipping in the region.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[CougarKing]

A problem that won't be alleviated in the near future? 

Defense News

Congress Considers the Carrier 'Gap'
By Christopher P. Cavas 8:22 p.m. EST November 3, 2015

WASHINGTON — There is no US carrier operating today in the Middle East, a situation that is the product of several years of high-tempo operations and the need to catch up on major maintenance put off to sustain that pace. Carriers have been absent from Central Command's operating area before — the last time was in 2007 — but this particular gap has caught a lot of people's attention, even more so as the Navy has warned that another gap will occur in 2016 in the Pacific operating area.

The US Navy is also unable to meet its commitment to field two carrier strike groups, with another three able to surge and deploy should the need arise. Even if sequestration cuts are reversed and full funding is restored, service leaders have said it would be at least 2018 before the Navy would be able to regain those operational readiness levels.

(...SNIPPED)

(...SNIPPED)

"We require 11, today we have 10," Stackley said. "We have more in depot maintenance today than we would normally have under a stable operational cycle. So we have a shortfall in our ability to generate the forces we need."

Exacerbating the effort to restore the 11-ship fleet are delays in getting the new carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) to sea. The ship, which will be delivered and commissioned in 2016 as the first of a new carrier design, was to have made its first deployment in 2019 after extensive tests and training. But the Pentagon decided in early August to acquiesce to the urging of Michael Gilmore, director of the Office of Test and Evaluation, and carry out shock tests on the Ford rather than wait, as the Navy had planned, to perform the tests on a later ship in the class.

(...SNIPPED)

Meanwhile, haters of the brown shoes/naval aviators seem to be out in force today: perhaps they are premature in declaring that the aircraft carrier will be as obsolete as the dreadnought battleships of WW1 and WW2?

CNN

Report: U.S. aircraft carriers could become ineffective
Zachary Cohen-Profile-Image

By Zachary Cohen

(CNN)Calling the U.S. aircraft carrier the "backbone" of America's global military presence, the Navy's top brass highlighted the risks of failing to maintain a big enough fleet during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Tuesday.

But a new report on the future of aircraft carriers suggests that the Navy's problems run deeper than the number of ships or planes on these mobile airfields.

The Pentagon's focus on developing a "jack of all trades, master of none" aircraft, while rival countries build technology capable of sinking American carriers, could make these expensive warships ineffective in the coming years, according to the naval expert who authored the report.

The rise of new powers now threatens to push the Navy farther from shore and beyond the range of the aircraft the carriers hold, according to the report written by naval expert Jerry Hendrix of the Center for New American Security. "This push back would limit the service's ability to project power and thus undermine the credibility of the United States."

(...SNIPPED)