End of an era

[Anon]

90TACAIR was the quintessential full load big carrier cold war load out.

The "90" = Ninety fixed wing aircraft(96 in total)

20 F14A+/B/D
36 F18A/C
12 A6E/TRAM
6 KA6D
4 EA6B
6 S3C
4 E2C
2 ES3A
6 SH60F

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Maybe when talking about switching out 1 Brad Company for a 113 Company. But here we are talking about assets that most commanders don't know how to use. Because they havn't used them before. How far do you need to lower your rate of march so the ABLV can keep up? ect....

If a commander has any sense about him he'll let the engineering officer that shows up with the engineering unit determine how best to use those assets.

Some commanders are excellent at this, some not so excellent. Each of us knows that all too well.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

The "standard" wing after the intro of the F/A 18 in the late 80s early 90s was composed of 74 planes.

And that was the following:

Plane/#
F-14/ 14
F/A-18/ 36
E-2C/ 4
EA-6B/ 4
S-3B/8
ES-3A/2
H-60 /6

Actually that's a slightly misrepresented TACAIR50 wing.
It should be 20 Tomcats and 6 S3Bs.(Janes warship recognition guide 2d edition, 1999)

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

So what is your 90 plane Wing and what does it consist of?

The navy has run countless permutations of air groups over the decades with the constant phasing in and out of assets as was common all throughout the seventies up into the 80s, so i'm sure all kinds of different compositions were used.

The 90 tacair was the maximum combat load possible. Call it the "Kola package".

LOL.

[rickusn]

A little more on carrier air wings. In 1990 the nominal conventional(Deployed) air wing consisted of:

24 F-14
24 F/A 18/A-7
10 A-6
4 KA-6
4 EA-6
4 E-2C
10 S-3
2 ES-3 (when conversions enter service(only when deployed)*
6 SH-60/3
2 C-2(only when deployed)*

The T. Roosevelt, Kennedy and Midway all had differently configured air wings.

A new "transitional" wing was to replace the above configuration during the 1990's with the reduction in the # of carrier wings and with A-6's received from the USMC making this possible.:

20 F-14
20 F/18
20 A-6
5 EA-6
5 E-2C
10 S-3(Also replacing the KA-6 in the tanker role)
2 ES-3*
6 SH-60
2 C-2*


Events forced this to change when it became clear that not enough F-14's would be available to have two 10 plane squadrons for each wing and the A-6 was suddenly and prematurely retired.

Some F-14 squadrons did indeed have 14 aircraft assigned**(see example below). 10 or 11 more normal. Eventually some squadrons consisted of only 8 aircraft. And of course most wings had only one squadron assigned.

All F/A 18 squadrons reverted to 12 aircraft in a squadron.

The EA-6 & E-2C squadrons reverted to four aircraft and the S-3 squadron dropped to eight(sometimes actually fewer Im told). Helos were increased to as many as eight. The ES-3's were withdrawn in 1999. The C-2's are not always assigned.

**Example:

14 F-14(Eventually less)
36 F/A 18
10 A-6(Eventually none)

Notice this kept air wing at 60 combat aircraft and 50 with the demise of the A-6.

And the 50 # has proved elusive although often cited as a goal to return to.

It was to be regained by:

14 F/A 18F
12 F/A 18E
24 F-35C

But the F/A 18F suadron will only have 12 aircraft and the F-35C squadrons only 10 each.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

If a commander has any sense about him he'll let the engineering officer that shows up with the engineering unit determine how best to use those assets.

Some commanders are excellent at this, some not so excellent. Each of us knows that all too well.

Not a good operational concept." Let the attachments decide how they will be used." The Commander decides how to employ his assets based on their demonstrated capabilities and limitations, not on what the book says they can do, or what their OIC says.

You keep your ear open to what suggestions that they give but in the end you have to incorporate their employment into your plan. Not the other way around.

Nothing like pulling up on a "bridgehead" ready to roll across at showtime and the bridge isnt ready.
Arty guys love seeing that jam packed target area.

Actually that's a slightly misrepresented TACAIR50 wing.
It should be 20 Tomcats and 6 S3Bs.(Janes warship recognition guide 2d edition, 1999)

The 90 tacair was the maximum combat load possible. Call it the "Kola package".

LOL.

The Numbers I posted came from the Navy and reported in GAO report "GAO/NSIAD-98-1 -- August 1998"
"Cost-Effectiveness of Conventionally and Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carriers"

In it the Navy also says that:

Maximum density takes into account the space on the hanger and flight decks that the aircraft and helicopters in the air wing need as well as space for
other items such as boats, boat skids, aircraft ground support
equipment, forklifts, cranes, and aircraft jacks. It also allows for
the clearances needed between the aircraft and between the aircraft
and ship structures. The Navy's guidance on aircraft carrier density
states that 75-78 percent of maximum density is the optimum number of
aircraft to have aboard and that deck loading in excess of 80 percent
must be coordinated with headquarters. [u] Ship officials said that
about 47-50 aircraft on the flight deck at any one time provides the
flexibility to conduct flight operations and move aircraft on the
flight deck and between the flight deck and hangar bay.[u]

So your 90+ aircraft actually inhibit smooth flight operations. Regardless,
I'll post later on how the 50 plane F/A-18 loadout is more effective than your 96 plane one.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Not a good operational concept." Let the attachments decide how they will be used."

That is IMO by FAR the best way to do it. The officer or SNCO that just showed up commanding that element knows better than any general exactly what his men can do. This is true at all levels from theater CINC to Platoon leader.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

The Commander decides how to employ his assets based on their demonstrated capabilities and limitations, not on what the book says they can do, or what their OIC says.

Or based on the ADVICE of an officer or SNCO that is INTIMATELY familiar with THAT SPECIFIC formation.

The GOOD overall force commander tells you what he wants you doing and where based/shaped by your input, and then allows you to execute that mission as you best see fit.

That's the way it's done(or rather the way it's supposed to be done- some officers are meddling control freaks) in the Army. You arguing isn't going to change that fact.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Nothing like pulling up on a "bridgehead" ready to roll across at showtime and the bridge isnt ready.
Arty guys love seeing that jam packed target area.

War is dangerous...those things happen sometimes. The US Army has excellent bridigng units that we pay a lot of money for. I am perfectly fine in trusting them to do their jobs as we trusted them to do in Central Europe if the Reds came.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

The Numbers I posted came from the Navy and reported in GAO report "GAO/NSIAD-98-1 -- August 1998"
"Cost-Effectiveness of Conventionally and Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carriers"

In it the Navy also says that:

Maximum density takes into account the space on the hanger and flight decks that the aircraft and helicopters in the air wing need as well as space for
other items such as boats, boat skids, aircraft ground support
equipment, forklifts, cranes, and aircraft jacks. It also allows for
the clearances needed between the aircraft and between the aircraft
and ship structures. The Navy's guidance on aircraft carrier density
states that 75-78 percent of maximum density is the optimum number of
aircraft to have aboard and that deck loading in excess of 80 percent
must be coordinated with headquarters. Ship officials said that
about 47-50 aircraft on the flight deck at any one time provides the flexibility to conduct flight operations and move aircraft on the
flight deck and between the flight deck and hangar bay.


So your 90+ aircraft actually inhibit smooth flight operations. Regardless,
I'll post later on how the 50 plane F/A-18 loadout is more effective than your 96 plane one.

Rick posted the numbers from the 80s and 90s. The TO&E wings were all 84 fixed wing plus 6 helos.

The wing i mention has six more fixed wing than that.

And now you want to state that a FIFTY F/W AIRCRAFT WING is as good?

And most of those DONT EVEN HAVE their full compliment of aircraft!

Dude.......that's barely even maximum optimum deck capacity. Did you even read the article you posted?

You're going to try and make a distorted argument that 40 F18E/Fs is as good as a full airwing compliment based on 'enhanced capabilities'....

And that argument is going to be FULL OF SHIIT.

Because if you put 60 F18E/Fs on that same carrier it will be just that much more effective.
Pluse, in overly multiroling your F18s with the tanker job thats six to ten less shooters you now have available.

You are a smart cookie, but IMO you are way out in left field on this one.

It is widely accpeted as fact that the USN is desperately short on aircraft.

And even still, even a full strength six sqn S.Hornet CAG still could not touch an A6E/F14D carrier group in the deep strike/long range escort role.(IMO one of the two most important carrier missions)

NOT EVEN CLOSE.

[rickusn]

In 1997 the year the GAO apparently looked at deployments the "standard" air wing was as GG described.

IN 1996 there were many variations as some carriers still were deployed with A-6's and some with two squadrons of F-14's.

In 1998 the "standard" complement changed yet again.

CVN 74 deployed with basically an old "conventional air wing" lee the A-6's.:

12 F-14B
13 F-14B
12 F/A 18
12 F/A 18
6 EA-6
6 E-2C
8 S-3
8 SH-60
2 ES-3
2 C-2

The more usual complement was with (a one aircraft difference here and there):

12 F-14A/B
or
10 F-14D

36 F/A-18
4 EA-6
4 E-2C
8 S-3
8 SH-60
2 ES-3
2 C-2

And like I stated before F-14 squadrons especially the "D" squads continued to drop slightly in the 2000's and the ES--3 was withdrawn in 1999.

This is a pretty informative, accurate and reliable site:

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/gonavy/atsugi/gonavy606.html

And meshes well with other info I have come accross.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by rickusn

12 F-14B
13 F-14B
12 F/A 18
12 F/A 18
6 EA-6
6 E-2C
8 S-3
8 SH-60
2 ES-3
2 C-2

Nominal 81 fixed wing.

Originally Posted by rickusn

12 F-14A/B
or
10 F-14D

36 F/A-18
4 EA-6
4 E-2C
8 S-3
8 SH-60
2 ES-3
2 C-2

Nominal 74-76 fixed wing.

Thanx rick, that clearly shows how the numbers drop as the USNs self proclaimed airframe shortage has become more and more severe, especially when you compare it to the nominal 84 nominal fixed wings from your previous post.

What's the new composition? I'm not sure what size sqns they ended up settling on, it was 10 wasnt it?

Regardless, Boeing is going to be making F18E/F/Gs for a very long time, especially if the JSF gets axed like it looks like may happen, lol.

PS: The USNs budget forced impending move from 12 carriers to 10 makes the small air wings all the more of a hindrance.

[Officer of Engineers]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

That is IMO by FAR the best way to do it. The officer or SNCO that just showed up commanding that element knows better than any general exactly what his men can do. This is true at all levels from theater CINC to Platoon leader.

On more than one occasion when I had to deal with entire reserves units on exercise, the book says one thing but the reality is completely different. The reserves are often raided by the regforce for men and material. Come exercise time, the prhase "well, that plan is fvccked" was said on more than one occasion.

[rickusn]

"What's the new composition? I'm not sure what size sqns they ended up settling on, it was 10 wasnt it?"

I posted this earlier but here Ill do it again.

Just for the new F-35 squadrons.

Nominal:
12 F/A 18F(Down from 14)
12 F/A 18E(Holding steady)
20 F-35(Down from 24)

Total 44 vice 50

But no S-3 squadron.
Two extra helos included.

Probably reduced support from the P-3 community remains to be seen on what missions that down-sizing community will focus on.


"PS: The USNs budget forced impending move from 12 carriers to 10 makes the small air wings all the more of a hindrance."


Well yes and no.

The smaller air wings theoretically can hit more targets with the same amount of weapons due to increased precison.

All aircraft are self-escorting.

All aircraft are strike capable.

Logistics status is greatly enhanced.

Maintenance status is better.

Flight operations as GG pointed out are more efficient.

All these parameters increase even more positively as new aircraft enter service.

OTOH #s have a quality all its own.

The USAF is rapidly having to come to grips with older aircraft costs and less than the desired # of aircraft.

Look at the F-22A 750 projected now down to 183.

And the USAF always win the budget battle by $10b a year or more year in and year out.

They also get short-shrifted on the supplementals.

Not to mention the black-program funding. Where the USAF hides alot more development costs than the USN.

If the USN got a similar budget and supplemetals they would have no crisis.

Not to be confused with that they wouldnt still have shortcomings and problems.

Im not complaining. And for sure not saying the USAF doesnt require that funding.

Just that the USN sucks at making their case.

The USAF is just much better at the politics and PR game always has been since WWII and apparently always will be.

Before WWII the Navy historically faired much better than the Army.

Got and from time to time get a bit complacent and/or arrogant IMHO.

The USAF is now fighting to keep from falling into the same trap.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by rickusn

Nominal:
12 F/A 18F(Down from 14)
12 F/A 18E(Holding steady)
20 F-35(Down from 24)

You can take six of those right off the top cause they'll spend their whole life lugging buddy tanks around.

That leaves a combat element of a maximum of 38 aircraft(Vs 68 strikers for a 50TACAIR wing).

My how the mighty have fallen...

PS: There is no way to make a reasonable case that the USN is as combat capable with 10 carriers as it was with 12 considering that the air wing in both cases would've been identical.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

On more than one occasion when I had to deal with entire reserves units on exercise, the book says one thing but the reality is completely different. The reserves are often raided by the regforce for men and material. Come exercise time, the prhase "well, that plan is fvccked" was said on more than one occasion.

It's par for the course.

A commander that cannot work arond that sorts of expected friction is not much of a commander at all IMO.

[rickusn]

"PS: There is no way to make a reasonable case that the USN is as combat capable with 10 carriers as it was with 12 considering that the air wing in both cases would've been identical."

I was really addressing smaller air wings rather than a reduced carrier force.

But again. Yes and No.

There are only 10 carrier wings now for 12 carriers.

So what exactly do you lose if you keep those remaining carriers at a higher state of readiness for longer periods? Dont equate with deployed but rather surge ready..

And whos to say that with reduced carriers that a reduced # of air wings with larger CAW's wouldnt be doable?

Which would in some ways actually increase combat power for each individual unit.

Tanking is still a concern for me with the demise of the S-3 plus other missions a support aircraft could undertake.

But a reasonable case could be made.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by rickusn

There are only 10 carrier wings now for 12 carriers..

LOL, good point.

The USN is caught in a vicious cylce of cost imposed downsizing.
It's painful to watch.

[rickusn]

"The USN is caught in a vicious cylce of cost imposed downsizing.
It's painful to watch."

The entire defense department is caught in this "vicious cycle".

You dont see it but its the truth nonetheless.