The USS Abraham Lincoln and escorts, comprising Carrier
Strike Group 3 (CSG-3), are headed to the Middle East in reaction to a
potential attack on Israel by Iran. The
mighty CSG-3 consists of,
Ships
Air Wing
There you have it … CSG-3;
one carrier and three destroyers.
The carrier’s air wing (Carrier Air Wing 9) consists of three Hornet
squadrons, one F-35 Marine squadron, and the usual mix of AEW, EW, and helos.
The mighty CSG-3.
Awesome combat power.
As you know, CSG-3 has existed for many years. Purely as a point of historical interest, Wikipedia
describes the group’s composition in 1992 as the Lincoln, five cruisers, four
destroyers, and two frigates.
The carrier’s air wing consisted of two Tomcat squadrons,
two Hornet squadrons, one Intruder squadron, one Viking squadron, and the usual
mix of AEW, EW, and helos.
Ships
Air Wing
Does this really need any discussion? The decreased in numbers, firepower, and
capability is self-evident. We are on
the wrong path.
_____________________________
- USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
- USS O'Kane (DDG-77)
- USS Frank E. Petersen Jr. (DDG-121)
- USS Spruance (DDG-111)
- Strike Fighter Squadron 14 F/A-18E
- Strike Fighter Squadron 41 F/A-18F
- Strike Fighter Squadron 151 F/A-18E
- Strike Fighter Squadron 314 F-35C
- Electronic Attack Squadron 133 EA-18G
- Airborne Early Warning Squadron 117 E-2D
- Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 14 MH-60S
- Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 71 MH-60R
- USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
- USS Shiloh (CG-67)
- USS Princeton (CG-59)
- USS Texas (CGN-39)
- USS California (CGN-36)
- USS Sterett (CG-31)
- USS Ingersoll (DD-990)
- USS John Young (DD-973)
- USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62)
- USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53)
- USS Ingraham (FFG-61)
- USS Gary (FFG-51)
- Fighter Squadron 213: F-14A
- Fighter Squadron 114: F-14A
- Strike Fighter Squadron 94: F/A-18C
- Strike Fighter Squadron 22: F/A-18C
- Attack Squadron 95: A-6E, KA-6D
- Electronic Warfare Squadron 135: EA-6B
- Airborne Early Warning Squadron 117: E-2C
- Sea Control Squadron 29: S-3B
- Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron 6: SH-60F, HH-60H
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_Strike_Group_3
So, we have lots and lots of destroyers, and a few cruisers left. What are they all doing where they can't be assigned to this group?
ReplyDeleteWell, the vast majority are not in deployable condition either due to their place in the deployment cycle or due to backlogged maintenance issues that prevent them from sailing. The remainder, those few that are deployed, are engaged in mostly worthless tasks around the globe. A few are pointlessly trading shots with the Houthis.
DeleteOur utilization priorities are badly misguided. I've often advocated for home basing and missions instead of deployments and this would seem to be a perfect example of the wisdom of that approach. Had we been home based, we could have quickly assembled a suitable escort.
"I've often advocated for home basing and missions instead of deployments". You are the Jackie Fisher of our days.
DeleteYet another data point that we are a declining economic power.
ReplyDeleteForgive Medical Officer stupid question (CGN-37): are there submarines attached also to the Carrier Group? Also, sad to see California and Texas on the list. Great ships, expensive to maintain and man. My ship, South Carolina, was decommissioned something like 2 years after a multi-year RCOH.
ReplyDeleteSubs used to be attached to carrier groups. I don't know if that's still the case or not. Worryingly, I've not seen anything in recent years that suggests that's still the practice.
DeleteThat previously mentioned (in another post) HM squadron just embarked aboard Roosevelt- a pretty uncommon occurrence, as they normally will attatch to amphibs. If that's an important and useful move, maybe theyll crossdeck to Lincoln if/when TR leaves. I wonder what the implications of this squadron move is...???
ReplyDeleteCould have been worse, at least they didn't send the LCS.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to know how many aircraft are in each of these squadrons. I think the F-35s should have just 10 and the Hornets 12, but often deploy with fewer. With aircraft shortages they may have only 30 flyable attack aircraft.
ReplyDeleteDon't remember what the serviceability of the F35C was, think it was in between the A being the best and B the worst? If you have 10 C on board, maybe lucky to have 7 to 8 operational? Don't know BUT it does make one wonder why you need the FORDS to be so big if you only have about 30 fighters ready to go......what's the point?
DeleteThe A is around 55% being able to get in the air and do something useful, with only 29% being fully combat capable. That was testimony from a House Armed Services hearing a couple of months ago.
DeleteAnd you know those numbers are pencil whipped to seem the best they can. The real numbers are assuredly far worse!
DeleteAbsolutely. The F-35 program is an almost unimaginable disaster. If you read a novel with this kind of failure in it you would say it stretches suspension of disbelief way too far!
DeleteRead where the navy has taken under consideration the reduction funding for their gen 6 fighter program. They have stopped placing orders for the superhornet and now we se e F35 problems. According to this article the carrier will not be a viable warship ?
ReplyDeletehttps://nationalinterest.org/feature/era-large-us-navy-surface-warships-over-209999
My take is that that the carrier could be a force to recken with but the Ford class with it's massive bill to build ,maintain
& operate is hugely problematic and the curenr airwings are smaller. ( We know about the serious issues with this class )
"The era of large surface warships, particularly aircraft carriers, as primary tools of naval power projection is facing significant challenges due to the rise of anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities, particularly from China. "
" Yet for a fraction of the cost, China’s Dong-Feng 26B missile can either sink an aircraft carrier outright or simply destroy its flight deck, rendering the carrier useless in battle. "
The author has stated that the navy needs to rethink its use of carriers for power projection.
Can a carrier be used in other roles to avoid A2/AD ?
This entire blog is about the proper role of the aircraft carrier and how it is still a vitally important asset, IF USED PROPERLY.
DeleteThe article you reference is an example of the worst kind of pseudo-militaristic analysis. The author has almost no relevant background and the article's foundational conclusions are uniformly incorrect. The article appears to be sensationalistic click-bait.
I expect better of readers than to be influenced by this kind of shoddy article.
DeleteIn a artice by Robert Farley, "He mentions a Navy dilemma." That is the Navy will stop purchasing more superhornets & and are hesitating to spend money on the F/A-XX gen 6 fighter." So now we see a trend to having smaller air wings aboard carriers. ( Looks like the availability of the F35 is subpar as well....based on a post above )
ReplyDeleteReply
The Navy is hesitating because they have no idea what they should do. They utterly lack professional warriors and it shows in their indecisiveness.
DeleteOff topic.
ReplyDeleteA couple years ago, Navy/Marine leaders acknowledged that the new ultra-expensive LPD luxury cruise ship design was flawed and much smaller affordable amphib ships would be built. New LPD purchases would halt. I hoped my 2017 article had been read by those in charge.
https://www.g2mil.com/Devo-Amphibs.htm
But the LPD has its own lobby so it was just announced.
LPD-34 in FY 2027 for $2.3 billion and LPD-35 in FY 2029 for $2.4 billion.
...it will provide over 650 companies across 39 states with the stability we need to invest in our skilled workforce, get ahead of inflation and ensure on time deliveries,” reads a statement from Amphibious Warship Industrial Base Coalition provided to USNI News.
https://news.usni.org/2024/08/15/navy-notifies-congress-of-pending-11-5b-4-ship-amphibious-warship-deal
It's even worse with the new "Flight II" SA class LPD. It's "improvements" include:
Delete"The Flight II would carry 500 Marines (300 less than LPD-17), reduce the size of the medical facilities by half and eliminate the hangar facilities."
Speaking of smaller air wings and just plain numbers of what is the USN buying:
ReplyDelete1. The SH last buy that I could find was for 17 SH Block III to be delivered late 2026/ early 2027. If no further buys, the line will more than likely close or at best will see only refurbished/rebuilt birds go thru but really, no new birds. So SH production will be over.
2. The recent FY25 F35C orders that I could find is USN 15 F35C and 4 F35B for USMC. The line is still hot so USN can still keep buying them but those numbers suggest that USN isn't exactly enamored with the F35, would be interesting to see the last time in USN history that they bought such a small number of jets, 19 fighters a year seems pretty small and more than likely will not even cover losses, down for maintenance, spare jets,etc etc let alone the fighters shortage USN says IT ALREADY HAS! IF USN only buys 19 jets a year after FY27, the shortage will only get worse!
3. The future F/A-XX: we don't know much about it and USN has gone back and forth on the info released, assuming that USN still wants to have it replace the SH, USN has to be looking at between 500 to 600 new FAXX. It is nowhere near in production, as far as we know, it hasn't even flown in some top secret remote desert, if it has any problems, it only will be pushed back further to the right on the timeline and USN has to hope that the price tag won't be eye watering.....it's really a lot of ifs and maybes and nothing can go wrong.
4 Drones: considering how long it's taking USN to get that tanker drone in service and the price tag when looking at the ISR version or combat UCAVs, I doubt we will see much critical mass early 2030s, maybe 2035+? Still seems optimistic to me. And if the drones are too expensive, how many can USN buy anyways? Too expensive and they don't help the number game either!
So, what does the USN do and what does the future look like in 2030s?
1. Dwindling amount of SHs that will have to be rebuilt to last into the late 30s to 40s. Even just a few crashes and incidents a year will have a serious effect since the line will be closed. More than likely USN will need to reduce the number of jets per squadron or shut down some squadrons.
2. F35C block buys stay the same, then it never really achieves critical mass and just stays at small "silver bullet" per 1 squadron per carrier, maybe if USN decides to push to 24 a year, then it could replace a few SH squadrons and relieve the shortage pressure but I doubt USN wants to buy more F35C than what it said the stated number was. So F35C really doesn't help the numbers game.
3. Current trends don't suggest F/A-XX will be on time or on budget, I'm inclined to believe that won't even be in serious production before 2040 so it won't help at all for the 2030 decade.
IMO: USN fighters numbers hit the wall starting 2030 or so with old SH, small number of F35Cs and nothing significant till 2040. What does it do? Reduce further the number of jets per squadron? So maybe 1 squadron of 6 to 8? F35Cs and 2 squadrons of SH of 8 to 10 fighters? Less?
At this point, these giant carriers start to look very empty flight decks and their power projections looks very weak, their capability to provide defense for US attack cruise missiles or US drones/UCAVs looks weak, the defense of the fleet task force looks weak....so do we still need carriers with such a paltry number of fighters?!?
China has publicly declared they want a fully capable blue water combat fleet up and running by 2035. With progress to date, I don't see why they can't make that happen. Type 055 heavy destroyer, type 052D destroyer, type 054B frigate, and of course the ubiquitous mass produced type 056A ASW corvettes. Plus a pretty decent missile development program that appears to cover all the bases. Of course no one knows how good any of this is, but at least they are working on it, in conjunction with their carrier program (that suggests the next class, the type 004 will be nuclear and comparable to a Nimitz)
DeleteThe US Navy doesn't want to buy a ton more F-35Cs because they are fairly expensive and they can't keep them in the air.
So if we can't keep the SH fleet flying because they are aging out, and the Fords don't work properly even if we had the aircraft, then what are we going to do? To me, the last half of the 2030s looks kind of unpromising.