Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Future of the USN Carrier Force

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Future of the USN Carrier Force

Old 19th Aug 2020, 14:43
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,259
Received 329 Likes on 194 Posts
" steps to quickly develop " and "beginning in the 2030s" don't seem to be off the same page

It would eb interesting to find out just how fast you COULD get a decent new fighter designed and built if you adopted the J V Stalin style of management say..............
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2020, 15:56
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 4,067
Received 43 Likes on 28 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
" steps to quickly develop " and "beginning in the 2030s" don't seem to be off the same page

It would eb interesting to find out just how fast you COULD get a decent new fighter designed and built if you adopted the J V Stalin style of management say..............
Probably quite quickly if your life depended on having the aircraft flying by a particular date. Would you be doing the warfighter any favors by using a calendar rather than proper testing to determine when a new airframe and new avionics are ready, that a big negative ghostrider.
West Coast is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2020, 17:13
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,575
Received 18 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by West Coast
Probably quite quickly if your life depended on having the aircraft flying by a particular date. Would you be doing the warfighter any favors by using a calendar rather than proper testing to determine when a new airframe and new avionics are ready, that a big negative ghostrider.
Even quicker if you pinch critical technologies off your opponents, them having done all the investment and legwork.
dead_pan is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2020, 17:45
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Has anyone actually issued a specification or RFPs yet? Until then timescales are no more than than a finger in the wind.
Harley Quinn is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2020, 02:41
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Absent a much better new engine, which is currently at best in the research and development stage, it is hard to see how much more capable this aircraft could be.Yet there is no engine maker mentioned.
etudiant is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2020, 06:07
  #46 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,234
Received 1,502 Likes on 679 Posts
Etudiant - AETP program now in the design/hardware stage with GE and P&W

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_XA101

https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/0...ighter-engine/
ORAC is online now  
Old 20th Aug 2020, 08:55
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 513
Received 156 Likes on 83 Posts
Biggest issue likely to be debate over weapon system - or more precisely, future weapon system.

Because it'll be a clean sheet airframe with likely long range / ToS, there shouldn't be the same compromises forced on SuperBug or F35C. As long as you're at or below the spot factor of an F14 it'll be fine.

What is likely to cause extended debate / argument is what provision (space, weight and electrical power) is made for anything exotic weapons wise, given likely service out to 2060.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 12:51
  #48 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,234
Received 1,502 Likes on 679 Posts
https://aviationweek.com/defense-spa...ighter-engines

Budget Shows Flightworthy Sixth-Generation Fighter Engines Ready By 2025

Details of the first of two mostly secret initiatives to support the U.S. Air Force’s five-year-old pursuit of a sixth-generation successor to the Lockheed Martin F-22 are now released and reveal that a critical technology for the Next-Generation Air Dominance program could become flightworthy by mid-2025.

GE Aviation and Pratt & Whitney are scheduled to complete separate competitive designs for a Next-Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) system by the second quarter of 2022 and finish assessments on a full-scale engine three years later, according to Air Force budget documents........

In fact, the NGAP program reappeared in the fiscal 2021 budget documents for the first time in more than six years. The Air Force has kept all details about the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program highly secret since 2016, but there was a brief, two-year window in 2014-15 when senior defense officials provided information about the underlying technology development efforts.


The NGAP was first referenced in testimony by Alan Shaffer before House Armed Services Committee in March 2014. Shaffer is now the deputy to Ellen Lord, undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment. Six years ago, he was the principal deputy to the director for research and engineering. In that role, Shaffer introduced the NGAP as an enabler to the NGAD program, along with another, complementary initiative focused on new airframes. “This program will develop and fly two X-plane prototypes that demonstrate advanced technologies for future aircraft,” Shaffer said in 2014. “Teams will compete to produce the X-plane prototypes, one focused on future Navy operational capabilities, and the other on future Air Force operational capabilities.”

A year later, Frank Kendall, then undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, elaborated on the Aerospace Innovation Initiative (AII). The development of the X-planes would be led by DARPA, he said. “To be competitive, the Navy and the Air Force each will have variants focused on their mission requirements,” Kendall said. “There will be a technology period leading up to development of the prototypes. This will lead to the systems that ultimately will come after the F-35.”

The results of the AII program have not been released or even acknowledged by Air Force or defense officials since 2015, but the initiative suggests that one or two X-plane aircraft could be in testing now.......



ORAC is online now  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 15:38
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,259
Received 329 Likes on 194 Posts
" finish assessments on a full-scale engine three years later, " - I read that as 2 options- 1 is they will be finished BUILDING AND ASSESSING a full scale engine by 2025 ORi n 2025 they will finish three years of pushing paper around about building possible full scale engine

Which is most likely?
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 16:05
  #50 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,234
Received 1,502 Likes on 679 Posts
I read that as 2 options- 1 is they will be finished BUILDING AND ASSESSING a full scale engine by 2025 ORi n 2025 they will finish three years of pushing paper around about building possible full scale engine Which is most likely?
apparently the first, as deliverables include both hardware and test rig data....

...”Funding for the NGAD and NGAP programs is accounted for separately in Air Force budget documents. The fiscal 2021 budget justification documents reveal that the Air Force spent $106 million for the NGAP in fiscal 2019. Another $224 million is allocated to the NGAP this year. But the program has requested an additional $403 million in fiscal 2021, the budget documents show.“The Next-Generation Adaptive Propulsion effort consists of four phases: preliminary design, detailed design, engine fabrication and engine assessments,” the Air Force’s budget documents state.

“Program deliverables include military adaptive engine detailed design parameters and models, engine hardware (plus spare parts), matured technologies, major rig assessment data (controls, combustor, etc.), program reviews, and technology, affordability and sustainability studies for next generation fighter aircraft,” the documents add......”
ORAC is online now  
Old 8th Oct 2020, 07:15
  #51 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,234
Received 1,502 Likes on 679 Posts
https://news.usni.org/2020/10/06/sec...lementing-cvns

SECDEF Esper Calls for 500-Ship Fleet by 2045, With 3 SSNs a Year and Light Carriers Supplementing CVNs

Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced a new future fleet plan for the Navy that would grow the attack submarine force, supplement nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with light carriers to achieve greater day-to-day presence, and invest heavily in small and unmanned ships for distributed operations.......

Second, Esper stated that nuclear-powered aircraft carriers would remain the most visible deterrence on the seas, but he said a new future air wing would have to be developed to increase their range and lethality, and that light carriers would have to supplement the Nimitz- and Ford-class supercarriers to help achieve greater day-to-day presence while preserving limited CVN readiness, which has been strained recently by overuse and backups at maintenance yards.

Up to six light carriers, possibly based on the America-class amphibious assault ship design, would operate both instead of and alongside the CVNs.

“While we anticipate that additional study will be required to assess the proper high/low mix of carriers, eight to 11 nuclear-powered carriers will be necessary to execute a high-end conflict and maintain our global presence, with up to six light carriers joining them,” Esper said in his remarks......

Sixth, he said, the Navy would need unmanned aircraft launching off carrier decks to cover all the missions of today’s air wing: fighters, refueling, early warning and electronic attack. He alluded this recently while speaking to sailors aboard USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), USNI News previously reported........

On demand, Esper acknowledged that the Navy has been strained to keep up with demands for presence in U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, U.S. Central Command and U.S. European Command.......

Esper said NDS calls for INDOPACOM to be prioritized, and other COCOM requests to be scaled down so more forces can be sent to the Pacific or sent back home to rebuild readiness. It’s unclear when that will start happening for the Navy or what that will look like........
ORAC is online now  
Old 8th Oct 2020, 10:54
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,259
Received 329 Likes on 194 Posts
I don't have any problems with the plans but isn't building the fleet up going to need a major investment in the construction yards? I'm sure I read inteh last year that production of several classes are really constrained by the building facilities
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2020, 15:31
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,131
Received 320 Likes on 204 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
I don't have any problems with the plans but isn't building the fleet up going to need a major investment in the construction yards? I'm sure I read inteh last year that production of several classes are really constrained by the building facilities
Esper's idea on larger and smaller carriers is a good idea, and I think with an increas in unmanned flying vehicles it may be achievable. But that build rate requires serious plus ups to the infrastructure. (as you noted).

It's not just that, it's also the manpower bill to be paid that will probably make this dream of 545 ships fall short. You have to recruit them and then keep them sailors and junior officers, so that they become mid grade petty officers and officers and finally chief petty officers and senior officers to fill all of those currently non-existent billets.

One of the little known details in a previous Sec Nav (James Webb) initiative to pursue the Cold War objective of a 600 ship navy, was that the Manpower people never came up with a number that said "this is how we can support this" at a time when President Reagan was throwing money at the DoD and we dreamed of a 15 CVN Navy (from which the 600 ship number was derived)

That 600 ships never happened.

Ships have gotten significantly more expensive and we should note the 15 year time horizon. That's two or three presidents worth, with varying motivations to increase, flatline, or decrease Defense Spending.
I recall that the F-22 had a number ... that got cut.
The C-17 had a number .. that got cut.
The B-2 had a number ... that got cut.
IIRC the Zumwalt class had a number ... that got cut.
One of our recent submarine programs fared similarly. (I'd need to check back on some old newes, the name of the class escapes me)

Though I tend to favor things "pilot" I agree with plussing up the submarine force (though those manpower billets are some of the most expensive), and pushing for an increase. .
To expect that the political and funding momentum to achieve that 15 year build plan will be sustained?
I'll have some of what Secretary Esper is smoking.
Politics isn't that easy, and the House of Representatives hold the purse strings.
That's where funding comes from for ship building programs (and the associated aircraft building programs) like this (proposed) one.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2020, 18:00
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
Esper's idea on larger and smaller carriers is a good idea, and I think with an increas in unmanned flying vehicles it may be achievable. But that build rate requires serious plus ups to the infrastructure. (as you noted).

It's not just that, it's also the manpower bill to be paid that will probably make this dream of 545 ships fall short. You have to recruit them and then keep them sailors and junior officers, so that they become mid grade petty officers and officers and finally chief petty officers and senior officers to fill all of those currently non-existent billets.

One of the little known details in a previous Sec Nav (James Webb) initiative to pursue the Cold War objective of a 600 ship navy, was that the Manpower people never came up with a number that said "this is how we can support this" at a time when President Reagan was throwing money at the DoD and we dreamed of a 15 CVN Navy (from which the 600 ship number was derived)

That 600 ships never happened.

Ships have gotten significantly more expensive and we should note the 15 year time horizon. That's two or three presidents worth, with varying motivations to increase, flatline, or decrease Defense Spending.
I recall that the F-22 had a number ... that got cut.
The C-17 had a number .. that got cut.
The B-2 had a number ... that got cut.
IIRC the Zumwalt class had a number ... that got cut.
One of our recent submarine programs fared similarly. (I'd need to check back on some old newes, the name of the class escapes me)

Though I tend to favor things "pilot" I agree with plussing up the submarine force (though those manpower billets are some of the most expensive), and pushing for an increase. .
To expect that the political and funding momentum to achieve that 15 year build plan will be sustained?
I'll have some of what Secretary Esper is smoking.
Politics isn't that easy, and the House of Representatives hold the purse strings.
That's where funding comes from for ship building programs (and the associated aircraft building programs) like this (proposed) one.
Reading the text, what leaps out apart from the 500 ship hopium number, is the first indication of a formal reduction in large carriers to 8. Sure it is couched as 8-11 plus 6 smaller new carriers,but afaik this is the real message.
Maintaining a forward presence with 8 carriers means leaving one or more theaters, perhaps starting with the Med.
etudiant is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2020, 18:06
  #55 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,234
Received 1,502 Likes on 679 Posts
It's not just that, it's also the manpower bill to be paid that will probably make this dream of 545 ships fall short. You have to recruit them and then keep them sailors and junior officers, so that they become mid grade petty officers and officers and finally chief petty officers and senior officers to fill all of those currently non-existent billets.
Read the rest of the article - its a major push to unmanned, or minimally manned, naval combat units.....

.......Third, Esper called for between 140 and 240 unmanned and optionally manned ships on the surface and under the sea, conducting missions ranging from laying mines, conducting missile strikes, resupplying manned ships, surveillance, serving as decoys and more.“They will add significant offensive and defensive capabilities to the fleet at an affordable cost in terms of both sailors and dollars,” he said.

“Earlier this month, the Sea Hunter prototype completed operations with the USS Russell, demonstrating that unmanned surface vehicles are technologically feasible and operationally valuable.”
ORAC is online now  
Old 8th Oct 2020, 21:01
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
One of our recent submarine programs fared similarly. (I'd need to check back on some old newes, the name of the class escapes me)
Seawolf? 29 cut to 3.
Arcanum is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2020, 22:49
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Exit stage right.
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
The limiting factor on manned aircraft is the G Force the human is capable of withstanding, (yeah I know "No Sh*t Sherlock").

What is the fesability of a human compartment that operates at a different g level to the rest of the aircraft ?. The G force of the machinery then becomes the limiting factor not the person inside, without the need for expensive suits.
racedo is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2020, 07:32
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,259
Received 329 Likes on 194 Posts
"I recall that the F-22 had a number ... that got cut.
The C-17 had a number .. that got cut.
The B-2 had a number ... that got cut.
IIRC the Zumwalt class had a number ... that got cut.
One of our recent submarine programs fared similarly."

All of these programs suffered from enormous cost inflation - much of it due to the desire to go to the absolute cutting edge of technology on several fronts at the same time (the Zumwalts are typical). Sometimes you need a program like the F-16 - low risk and relatively cheap that you can deploy quickly in numbers.

Interesting that Esper mentions "increased range" which is of course an issue with the F-35 - but then why have the USN not built on the MQ-25 technology immediately for strike purposes? Kicking the can down the road seems to a classic case of vested interests in the manned fighter community
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2020, 15:54
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 1,257
Received 126 Likes on 82 Posts
I know I may be stating the obvious but isn't all this just speculation if the polls are right about the result of November 3's voting.

Joe Biden has stated he doesn’t foresee major reductions in the U.S. defence/defense budget but (shades of Dominic Cummings in the UK) priorities may change:
“We have to focus more on unmanned capacity, cyber and IT, in a very modern world that is changing rapidly,” Biden said. “I’ve met with a number of my advisors and some have suggested in certain areas the budget is going to have to be increased.”
Source: DefenseNews September 11, 2020
Although that may align with (as posted by ORAC):

Sixth, he (Secretary of Defense Mark Esper) said, the Navy would need unmanned aircraft launching off carrier decks to cover all the missions of today’s air wing: fighters, refueling, early warning and electronic attack. He alluded this recently while speaking to sailors aboard USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), USNI News previously reported........
SLXOwft is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.