Fórum Defesa Brasil

QDR Likely Kills Two Carriers, EFV

QDR Likely Kills Two Carriers, EFV
By Colin Clark Wednesday, December 9th, 2009 11:17 am
Posted in Air, Land, Naval, Policy, Rumors

UPDATED: JSF Cut About 100 Planes, One Year Added to Schedule

Word on Capitol Hill is that the Quadrennial Defense Review should result in the demise of two Navy car¬rier groups and the Marines’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. On top of that, the Joint Strike Fighter pro¬gram is likely to lose a so-far uncer¬tain num¬ber of planes and the Air Force looks to lose two air wings.

Folks on the Hill are watch¬ing the car¬rier cuts par¬tic¬u¬larly closely. They were will¬ing to accept the tem¬po¬rary loss of one car¬rier but two groups may just be too much for law¬mak¬ers to swal¬low though it would con¬ve¬niently answer the hot debate about whether the Navy faces a fighter gap.

“Even if they cut two car¬rier strike groups (which will be an uphill bat¬tle for DOD), they still face a sig¬nif¬i¬cant USN fighter gap,” said a con¬gres¬sional aide fol¬low¬ing this. “The Navy seems to rec¬og¬nize this, but every¬thing we’ve heard thus far from OSD seems to indi¬cate that they’d rather try funny math then address a clear gap.”

The 2010 defense autho¬riza¬tion report noted care¬fully that Congress was will¬ing to accept the “tem¬po¬rary reduc¬tion in min¬i¬mum num¬ber of oper¬a¬tional air¬craft car¬ri¬ers” from 11 to 10 until CVN 78 is com¬mis¬sioned in 2015. The report also noted that “the Navy has made a long-term com¬mit¬ment to field 11 air¬craft car¬ri¬ers out¬fit¬ted with 10 car¬rier air wings com¬posed of 44 strike-fighters in each wing.” Congress, the report’s authors said, is “very con¬cerned” about “cur¬rent and fore¬casted short¬falls in the strike-fighter inven¬tory.” Given the totemic nature of car¬ri¬ers for the Navy and the num¬bers of jobs and the money at stake for mem¬bers of Congress, a bat¬tle royal over plans to per¬ma¬nently reduce the fleet by two car¬rier groups seems assured.

On the Joint Strike Fighter, one con¬gres¬sional aide said a cut to the F-35’s over¬all num¬bers would not be sur¬pris¬ing given the program’s ris¬ing costs and the tight¬ened bud¬get sit¬u¬a¬tion the coun¬try faces for 2011. And now we have some detail about just how big those cuts may be, Our col¬leagues at Inside Defense are report¬ing that a draft Pentagon direc¬tive would result in extend¬ing, “devel¬op¬ment by at least a year, reduce pro¬duc¬tion by approx¬i¬mately 100 air¬craft and require the addi¬tion of bil¬lions of dol¬lars to the effort through 2015.”

The Marines are unlikely to sit still for the EFV kill. Reports are that Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway will come out swing¬ing to pre¬serve the abil¬ity to kick down the door and ensure forcible entry from the sea. Jones made his basic posi¬tion on the problem-plagued EFV dur¬ing a May speech at CSIS.

The larger strat¬egy debate would seem to embrace such cuts, or at least make them eas¬ier to pro¬pose. Gen. Hoss Cartwright, vice chair¬man of the Joint Chiefs, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in July that the ven¬er¬a¬ble two major the¬ater war strat¬egy was dead.

“The mil¬i¬tary require¬ment right now is asso¬ci¬ated with the strat¬egy that we are lay¬ing out in the QDR, and it is a depar¬ture from the two major the¬ater war con¬struct that we have adhered to in the past and in which this air¬craft [the F-22] grew up. I mean it grew up in that con¬struct of two major the¬ater wars, and both of them being of a peer com¬peti¬tor qual¬ity,” Cartwright said.

“The strat¬egy that we are mov¬ing towards is one that is acknowl¬edg¬ing of the fact that we are not in that type of con¬flict, that the more likely con¬flicts are going to be the ones that we—similar to the ones that we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that we do need to have a capa¬bil¬ity against a major peer com¬peti¬tor and that we believe that the siz¬ing con¬struct, one, demands that we have fifth gen¬er¬a¬tion fight¬ers across all three ser¬vices rather than just one and that the num¬ber of those fight¬ers prob¬a¬bly does not need to be suf¬fi¬cient to take on two simul¬ta¬ne¬ous peer com¬peti¬tors, that we don’t see that as the likely. We see that as the extreme,” Cartwright told sen¬a¬tors then.

soultrain escreveu:P44,

Esse site faz parte do military.com e sim é de confiança, se lá está e não é da secção de rumores, já vai um pouco mais avançado, mas como o artigo diz ainda é conversa de corredor, proposta etc.

[[]]'s

Walterciclone escreveu:

soultrain escreveu:P44,

Esse site faz parte do military.com e sim é de confiança, se lá está e não é da secção de rumores, já vai um pouco mais avançado, mas como o artigo diz ainda é conversa de corredor, proposta etc.

[[]]'s

Perder 2 CBGs , acho que não vai passar de conversa de corredor. É muito cruel.

LeandroGCard escreveu:

Walterciclone escreveu: Perder 2 CBGs , acho que não vai passar de conversa de corredor. É muito cruel.

Nem tanto, quantos eles tem mesmo?

Leandro G. Card

P44 escreveu:Obrigado soul

segundo li esta semana, a USN tem de momento 11 PAs, fala-se que o Enterprise poderá ser retirado de serviço antes do inicialmente previsto, ou seja antes da entrada do CVN-78 que o irá substituir, o que deixará a USN com 10 PAs durante algum tempo, podendo então diminuir para 8 ou 9...

Ah, a bela guerra no Vietnamistão, a quanto obrigas...

nota: PAs actuais da USN:

Classe Enterprise:

CVN 65 - Enterprise

Classe Nimitz:

USS Nimitz
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower
USS Carl Vinson
USS Theodore Roosevelt
USS Abraham Lincoln
USS George Washington
USS John C. Stennis
USS Harry S. Truman
USS Ronald Reagan
USS George H. W. Bush

oswaldo208 escreveu:Kitty Hawk teve sua venda negada para a India e deverá ficar na reserva até 2016

Ñao India !!! only is brazilian navy .... buy is new aircaft aircraft Kitty Hawk.

Brazilian navy presente two carrier aircraft and future three 3 project carrier aircraft

-Sao Paulo A-12
-ex-Kitty Hawk
- project 1
- project 2
- project 3


US Navy is 11 carrier aircraft present
The active carriers of the US Navy as of 2009
Active Enterprise-class carriers:
Enterprise (CVN-65)
Active Nimitz-class carriers:
Nimitz (CVN-68)
Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69)
Carl Vinson (CVN-70)
Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)
Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
George Washington (CVN-73)
John C. Stennis (CVN-74)
Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)
Ronald Reagan (CVN-76)
George H.W. Bush (CVN-77)

P44 escreveu:

oswaldo208 escreveu:Kitty Hawk teve sua venda negada para a India e deverá ficar na reserva até 2016

Ñao India !!! only is brazilian navy .... buy is new aircaft aircraft Kitty Hawk.

Brazilian navy presente two carrier aircraft and future three 3 project carrier aircraft

-Sao Paulo A-12
-ex-Kitty Hawk
- project 1
- project 2
- project 3


US Navy is 11 carrier aircraft present
The active carriers of the US Navy as of 2009
Active Enterprise-class carriers:
Enterprise (CVN-65)
Active Nimitz-class carriers:
Nimitz (CVN-68)
Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69)
Carl Vinson (CVN-70)
Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)
Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
George Washington (CVN-73)
John C. Stennis (CVN-74)
Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)
Ronald Reagan (CVN-76)
George H.W. Bush (CVN-77)

de onde saiu essa "informação"? Fuentes?

Marino escreveu:Abaixo o link para um artigo que está causando intensa polêmica nos EUA, que trata de como os mesmos perderam a guerra naval de 2015 contra a China, com o afundamento do USS George Washington.
Se alguém conseguir uma tradução decente, seria um ótimo tema de debates aqui no DB.

http://www.fpri.org/orbis/5401/kraska.navalwar2015.pdf

Marino escreveu:

Marino escreveu:Abaixo o link para um artigo que está causando intensa polêmica nos EUA, que trata de como os mesmos perderam a guerra naval de 2015 contra a China, com o afundamento do USS George Washington.
Se alguém conseguir uma tradução decente, seria um ótimo tema de debates aqui no DB.

http://www.fpri.org/orbis/5401/kraska.navalwar2015.pdf

Existe algum tradutor juramentado no DB?

Marino escreveu:Abaixo o link para um artigo que está causando intensa polêmica nos EUA, que trata de como os mesmos perderam a guerra naval de 2015 contra a China, com o afundamento do USS George Washington.
Se alguém conseguir uma tradução decente, seria um ótimo tema de debates aqui no DB.

http://www.fpri.org/orbis/5401/kraska.navalwar2015.pdf