US Navy Aircraft Carriers

Carrier Strike Group [CSG]
Introduction

Battle Groups


US Carrier Groups:

Carrier Task Force (CTF)

Where are the Carriers?

Kitty Hawk Strike Group
Enterprise Strike Group
Kennedy Strike Group
Nimitz Strike Group
Eisenhower Strike Group
Vinson Strike Group
Roosevelt Strike Group
Lincoln Strike Group
Washington Strike Group
Stennis Strike Group
Truman Strike Group
Reagan Strike Group
 


Deployment  Battle Force  Other  Deploys  Returns  
CV CVW CG DDG DD FFG SSN AOE  
WESTPAC 02 Lincoln CVW-14 CG-53
CG-67 DDG-60 DD-992 FFG-37
FFG-57 SSN-718 AOE-2 2002
24 Jul 2003
06 May
WESTPAC 03-1 Constellation CVW-2 CG-50
CG-52 DDG-69
DDG-76 DD-965 FFG-43 SSN-771 AOE-7 2002
2 Nov 2003
2 Jun
MED 03-1 Truman CVW-3 CG-56 DDG-57
DDG-75
DDG-79 DD-977
DD-989 FFG-53 SSN-720
SSN-765 T-AO-196
T-AE-34 2002
5 Dec 2003
23 May
MED 03-2 Roosevelt CVW-8 CG-68
CG-71 DDG-51
DDG-78
DDG-81  FFG-52  AOE-8 2003
4 Feb 2003
29 May
Kitty Hawk CVW-5 CG-62
CG-63 DDG-56 DD-975
DD-985  FFG-48
FFG-51 SSN-698 T-AO 204 2003
6 Feb 2003
06 May
WESTPAC 03-2 Vinson CVW-9 CG-54
CG- DDG-82  FFG-54
FFG-60
  2003
6 Feb 2003
19 Sep
WESTPAC 03-3 Nimitz CVW-11 CG-59
CG-65 DDG-53
DDG-62
DDG-65 DD-972  FFG 60 SSN-752 AOE-10 2003
3 Mar 2003
5 Nov
MED 03-4 Enterprise CVW-1 CG-58
CG-64  D-13   SSN-706 AOE-4 2003
02 Oct 2004
29 Feb
MED 04-1 Washington CVW-7 CG-72 DDG-84  FFH-333  T-AOE-6 20 Jan 2004 26 Jul 2004
Kitty Hawk CVW-5 CG-62
CG-63 DDG-56 DD-975
DD-985  FFG-48
FFG-51 SSN-698 T-AO 204 18 Feb 2004 24 May 2004
WESTPAC 04-1 Stennis CVW-14 CG-57 DDG-83  FFG-54 SSN-716 T-AOE-7 24 May 2004 01 Nov 2004  
MED 04-2 Kennedy CVW-17 CG-66
CG-69 DDG-64
DDG-68
DDG-80 DD-963 FFG-36
FFG-50  AOE-3 07 Jun 2004 13 Dec 2004  
WESTPAC 04 Lincoln CVW-2 CG 67 DDG 65
DDG 86    AOE-7 19 Oct 2004 04 Mar 2005
MED 05 Truman CVW-3 CG 61
DDG-52
DDG-87    SSN-706
SSN- AOE-8 13 Oct 2004 18 Apr 2005
WESTPAC 05 Vinson CVW-9 CG-54
DDG-77
DDG-89    SSN-717
SSN- AOE-2 01 Feb 2005  31 Jul 2005
WESTPAC 05 Nimitz CVW-11 CG-59 DDG-76
DDG-90   SSN-724 AOE-10 07 May 2005 08 Nov 2005
MED 05 Roosevelt CVW-8 CG-56 DDG-75
DDG-79    T-AE 34
T-AO 196 01 Sep 2005 11 Mar 2006
WESTPAC 06 Reagan CVW-14 CG-57 DDG-73
DDG-85    AOE 7 04 Jan 2006 06 Jul 2006
WESTPAC 06 Lincoln CVW-2 CG-53 DDG-59
DDG-86     27 Feb 2006 08 Aug 2006
MED 06 Enterprise CVW-1 CG-55 DDG-74  FFG-47 SSN-757 T-AOE 6 02 May 2006 22 Nov 2006
MED 07 Eisenhower CVW 7 CG 68 DDG 61
DDG 87   SSN 750 T-AOE 8 01 Oct 2006 01 Apr 2007
WESTPAC 07 Stennis CVW-9 CG-54 DDG-77
DDG-88
DDG-60
DD-  SSN-722 T-AOE 10 16 Jan 2007 15 Jul 2007
MED 07 Nimitz CVW- CG-
CG- DDG-
DDG- DD-
DD- FFG- SSN-
SSN- AOE- Mar 2007 Sep 2007
MED 07 Washington CVW- CG-
CG- DDG-
DDG- DD-
DD- FFG- SSN-
SSN- AOE- Jun 2007 Dec 2007
WESTPAC 08 Lincoln CVW- CG-
CG- DDG-
DDG- DD-
DD- FFG- SSN-
SSN- AOE- 2007  
MED 08 Roosevelt CVW- CG-
CG- DDG-
DDG- DD-
FFG- SSN-
SSN- AOE- 2008  
MED 08 Truman CVW- CG-
CG- DDG-
DDG- DD-
HMS Manchester FFG- SSN-

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/csg.htm
SSN- AOE- 2008

Reagan Carrier Strike Group Enters U.S. 5th Fleet
Navy NewsStand

Story Number: NNS060219-04
Release Date: 2/19/2006 11:03:00 PM



From USS Ronald Reagan Public Affairs

ABOARD USS RONALD REAGAN (NNS) -- The Navy’s newest aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), along with embarked Commander, Carrier Strike Group (CCSG) 7 and Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 14 arrived in the U.S. 5th Fleet Area of Operations Feb. 18 as part of a routine rotation of U.S. maritime forces.

While in the region, Reagan will support Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, as well as conduct Maritime Security Operations (MSO). More than 6,000 Sailors are currently assigned to the Reagan Carrier Strike Group.

“The Ronald Reagan Strike Group is ready on arrival,” said Rear Adm. Michael H. Miller, commander, Carrier Strike Group 7.

“Our past nine months of training have been in preparation to support our troops on the ground in Iraq and carry out Maritime Security Operations. It is an honor to serve with them and to once again prove President Reagan’s motto 'Peace through Strength' really works. With the speed, agility and persistence of the modern carrier strike group, we intend to make a difference in helping to set the conditions for security and stability,” said Miller.

MSO help preserve the free and secure use of the world’s oceans by legitimate mariners and prevent terrorists from attempting to use the maritime environment as a venue for attack or as a medium to transport personnel, weapons or other material that could support their efforts.

According to Reagan’s Commanding Officer, Capt. Terry B. Kraft, the ship was made ready for the Western Pacific deployment through the hard work and dedication of crew.

“We have spent months of training preparing us for the types of real-world operations we are now conducting,” said Kraft. “I know this particular crew and air wing are ready to carry out any mission that will be asked of us during this deployment. This theater is where the rubber meets the road.”

The Ronald Reagan Strike Group is comprised of CVW-14, Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 7, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Reagan, the guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Champlain (CG 57), the guided-missile destroyers USS McCampbell (DDG 85) and USS Decatur (DDG 73), the fast-combat support ship USS Rainer (T-AOE 7), and Explosives Ordnance Disposal Unit 11, Det. 15.

The squadrons of CVW-14 include the “Redcocks” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 22, the “Fist of the Fleet” of VFA-25, the “Stingers” of VFA-113, the “Eagles” of VFA-115, the “Black Eagles” of Airborne Early Warning Squadron (VAW) 113, the “Cougars” of Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron (VAQ) 139, the “Providers” of Carrier Logistics Support (VRC) 30, and the “Black Knights” of Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron (HS) 4.

Commander, U.S. 5th Fleet's area of responsibility encompasses about 7.5 million square miles and includes the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman and parts of the Indian Ocean. This expanse, comprised of 25 countries, includes three critical chokepoints at the Suez Canal, the Straits of Hormuz, and the Straits of Bab al Mandeb at the southern tip of Yemen.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/02/mil-060219-nns01.htm

Nimitz Carrier Strike Group Deploys to U. S. Central Command
Navy NewsStand

Story Number: NNS070403-03
Release Date: 4/3/2007 2:53:00 PM



From USS Nimitz Public Affairs Office

USS NIMITZ, At Sea (NNS) -- More than 6,000 Sailors and Marines attached to the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) Carrier Strike Group (CSG) deployed from their homeport of San Diego on April 2.

The Nimitz CSG will join the USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) CSG and relieve the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) CSG, currently operating in the Persian Gulf.

Nimitz’s arrival will continue the current two-carrier presence in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, demonstrating the U.S. resolve to build regional security and bring long-term stability to the region.

While deployed, the Nimitz CSG will work closely with allies to support Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom and to conduct Maritime Security Operations (MSO).

“We’re ready to fight the war on terrorism and support troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq,” said Capt. Michael Manazir, Nimitz commanding officer.

This is the fifth deployment for Interior Communications Electrician 1st Class (SW) David Wilson, Nimitz's Combat Systems Department. He knows every deployment can be unpredictable.

“You can’t really say 'this is what’s going to happen,' 'this is what you’re going to experience'; they’re all different,” said Wilson.

This is the Nimitz’s third deployment to the Central Command area of operations in four years. In mid-2005, the Nimitz CSG operated in the supported operations in Iraq and throughout the region. In 2003, the carrier flew combat missions over Iraq and supported combat operations during an eight-month deployment.

The Nimitz CSG, commanded by Rear Adm. Terry Blake, is comprised of Commander, Carrier Strike Group (CCG) 11, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 11 and Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 23. It includes the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Nimitz; guided-missile cruiser USS Princeton (CG 59); guided-missile destroyers USS Higgins (DDG 76), USS Chafee (DDG 90), USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53), and USS Pinckney (DDG 91); two detachments from the Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light (HSL) 49 “Scorpions,” and Explosives Ordnance Disposal Unit 11, Det. 15.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/04/mil-070403-nns01.htm

John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group Arrives in 7th Fleet

Navy NewsStand

Story Number: NNS070201-09
Release Date: 2/1/2007 3:33:00 PM



By Lt. Nathan Christensen, Deputy Public Affairs Officer, USS John C. Stennis Public Affairs

USS JOHN C. STENNIS, At Sea (NNS) -- The USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) Carrier Strike Group (JCSSG) entered the U.S. 7th Fleet’s area of responsibility (AOR) Jan. 31, as part of a deployment to promote peace, regional cooperation and stability.

While Stennis and the rest of the strike group, led by Rear Adm. Kevin Quinn, is scheduled to transit from 7th Fleet to U.S. Central Command to provide support for coalition forces operating there, JCSSG remains ready to respond to any mission in any theatre of operation.

“Our strike group provides an agile, flexible, responsive and robust set of capabilities ranging from humanitarian assistance all the way up through major combat operations,” said Quinn, commander, Carrier Strike Group Three (CCSG 3). “We have spent a year preparing for this deployment and we are ready for whatever tasking comes our way.”

Since the beginning of 2006, JCSSG has completed multiple training events, qualifications and inspections, leading up to certification as a combat-ready strike group.

“Though we are planning to simply transit through the Pacific en route the Persian Gulf, we are prepared to respond to any emergent tasking in the Pacific Command area of operations,” said Quinn.

The ship will remain postured to render aid in the region if needed, in support of Commander, U.S. 7th Fleet’s goal of delivering responsive, short-term readiness.

JCSSG is comprised of Commander, CSG 3, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 9, Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 21, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Stennis, the guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam (CG 54), the guided-missile destroyers USS Preble (DDG 88) and USS O’Kane (DDG 77), the fast combat-support ship USNS Bridge (T-AOE 10), and Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit 11, Det. 11. In all, more than 6,000 Sailors are currently assigned to JCSSG.

Commander, U.S. 7th Fleet is permanently embarked aboard USS Blue Ridge (LCC 19), which is forward deployed to Yokosuka, Japan. The 7th Fleet AOR includes more than 52 million square miles of the Pacific and Indian oceans -- stretching from the international date line to the east coast of Africa, and from the Kuril Islands in the north to the Antarctic in the south.

More than half of the world's population lives within the 7th Fleet AOR. In addition, more than 80 percent of that population lives within 500 miles of the oceans, which means this is an inherently maritime region.

“We are ready; we are sustainable; we are flexible; and we provide awesome combat capability,” said Quinn.

JCSSG is headed west to provide support for U.S. and coalition forces operating in the 5th Fleet and will support Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, be prepared to take part in Horn of Africa operations, and conduct maritime security operations (MSO).

Coalition forces conduct MSO under international maritime conventions to ensure security and safety in international waters so that all commercial shipping can operate freely while transiting the region.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/02/mil-070201-nns01.htm

Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group Returns from Deployment

Navy NewsStand

Story Number: NNS070523-25
Release Date: 5/23/2007 6:42:00 PM



By Mass Communication Specialist Seaman (SW) Seth Scarlett and Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class (SW) Carla Morton, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Public Affairs

ONBOARD USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (NNS) -- Nearly 6,000 Sailors from Eisenhower (Ike) Carrier Strike Group's (CSG) ships and aircraft squadrons returned home May 23 after successfully completing an extended deployment of almost eight months.

Eisenhower CSG deployed Oct. 3 in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Enduring Freedom (OEF) and in support of maritime security operations (MSO) in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility (AOR).

“I’m extremely proud of our nearly 6,000 men and women of the Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group,” said Rear Adm. Allen G. Myers, Commander CSG 8. “We were successful in supporting our coalition and regional allies by strengthening our collective efforts to keep the seas free, safe and secure for trade and commerce, conducting maritime security operations and flying missions in support of U.S. and multinational ground troops in both OIF and OEF.

"Ike CSG's deployment reflected the speed, agility, persistent presence and joint/combined warfighting capabilities that a carrier strike group provides in support of our national defense.”

Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 7 flew approximately 12,000 sorties and has put in more than 31,400 flight hours since deployment began, providing air support for multinational coalition forces on the ground in support of various operations in the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command AOR.

“We supported joint coalition forces both in Iraq and Afghanistan, not only with kinetic effects, such as precision guided weapons and 20 mm cannon fire, but also with essential non-kinetic support through show of force and the work of the EA-6B, helicopter and E-2C squadrons,” said Lt. Dale Gregory, CVW-7 operations staff officer. “Throughout our deployment, we have been an essential part, whether that be in support of troops on the ground or in our mere presence at sea, global war on [terrorism].”

The guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio (CG 68) supported MSO throughout the U.S. 5th Fleet AOR, from the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea. Anzio participated in 32 compliant boardings, demonstrating our nation's commitment to maintaining international sea lines of communications open to all mariners, free from the threats of piracy, smugglers and terrorists. Anzio's boarding teams provided both local fishermen and merchants with fuel, food and medical care to ensure their safety and spread a sense of cooperation to fellow mariners.

While deployed to the Central Command AOR working for Combined Task Forces 150 and 152, the guided-missile destroyer USS Ramage (DDG 61) participated in multiple pulse operations across the AOR.

These pulse operations focused on building a comprehensive recognized maritime picture in support of national and coalition tasking in numerous regions, to include the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Horn of Africa. Ramage conducted more than 40 approach and assist visits, three boardings, more than 100 maritime-awareness calls and 13 coordinated maritime-awareness calls.

The guided-missile destroyer USS Mason (DDG 87) successfully executed Exercise Neon Falcon, a bilateral exercise between the United States and Royal Bahraini navies.

The exercise was a vital step toward the chief of Naval Operation’s goal of an international “1,000-ship navy.” Additionally, Mason, USS Whirlwind (PC 11), and Bahraini ships participated in extensive in-port and at-sea exercises designed to flex the warfighting capabilities of both navies.

A critical part in supporting sustained operations are underway replenishments (UNREP). From bringing to the ship everything from jet parts to food to fuel, an UNREP is essential. USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) completed 36 UNREPs, taking on more than 8,000 pallets of supplies and approximately 21,000,000 gallons of JP-5.

"The underway replenishment operations are critical to keeping Eisenhower Strike Group on-station and combat-ready," said Ike ship's bos'n, CWO3 Lyedell Gibson.

Boosting morale and keeping Ike Sailors in touch with their loved ones, the ship’s post office and mail are very important to Ike and her mission. During deployment, Ike's postal clerks brought on more than 300,000 pounds of mail.

Another division tasked with keeping the lines of communication open is Combat Systems, CS-3 Division.

Since deployment began, there were approximately 6,800,000 e-mails sent off the ship and approximately 7,300,000 e-mails sent to the ship.

"I think the techs in CS-3 Division are amazing," said CWO3 Ken Kipler, CS-3 Division officer. "They have directly impacted the mission of the strike group by ensuring that when the top leaders have had to make decisions, they had all the required information at their fingertips and the ability to communicate that decision over multiple communications paths."

Sailors have many opportunities to stay in touch with their loved ones at home, including use of the United Through Reading (UTR) program, which was established to provide a way for Sailors to comfort their children during an extended absence, such as deployment.

Ike broke the record set by the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) for the most participation in UTR, producing a record number of 2,066 messages during a single cruise.

Food Service Division also played a big part in keeping the crew happy. In eight months, Ike Sailors have gone through 45,780 gallons of milk, 633,120 eggs, 155,189 pounds of ground beef and 238,970 pounds of chicken. Food Service Division served a total of 3,190,211 meals to the crew.

"We have a lot of pride in preparing the quality food for the crew,” said Culinary Specialist 1st Class (SW/AW) Jerry Johnson. “We do our best to make sure everybody is happy with the food we serve. It's been a very challenging experience serving everyone while underway, but also a very rewarding one."

Looking back on the cruise, Ike Sailors reflect on some of the best experiences they’ve had.

“This was my first deployment,” said Storekeeper Seaman Shannon Gray. “It was really challenging, especially dealing with such a large crew. I really enjoyed all the ports we visited and experiencing new cultures. I also realize how much I have grown from the experience.”

Ike Sailors also had the opportunity to take part in a Navy tradition when the ship conducted a “crossing the line” ceremony to commemorate the ship’s crossing of the equator.

“What surprised me the most was when we crossed the equator,” said Yeoman Seaman Eric Tyson. “My dad is a Shellback, and I am really glad that I got to follow in his footsteps and become one myself.”

The world famous Harlem Globetrotters visited Ike, bringing great basketball and entertainment to Sailors.

“This was a great cruise for so many reasons,” said Damage Controlman 3rd Class (SW) Jon Gerringer. “I loved it when we had the Harlem Globetrotters on board. I had never seen them before and they were great.”

“I believe this team excelled at every mission they were assigned. Our Sailors, 70 percent of whom had never deployed before, are the most inspiring men and women I’ve ever served with,” said Capt. Dan Cloyd, commanding officer of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

“Looking back on the past eight months we know we’ve made a difference, that we saved lives every day and that we contributed significantly to the security and stability of uniquely important and remarkable parts of the world. We also know that our families helped make this excellence possible -- we can’t thank them enough for their sacrifices and support. It’ll be great to be together with them again,” Cloyd added.

Eisenhower CSG includes the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, with its embarked air wing, CVW-7, and embarked Destroyer Squadron 28; the guided-missile cruiser Anzio; guided-missile destroyers Ramage and Mason, all homeported in Norfolk.

CVW-7 includes Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 125 “Tigertails,” Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 103 “Jolly Rogers,” VFA-131 “Wildcats,” VFA-143 “Pukin’ Dogs,” VFA-83 “Rampagers,” Electronic Attack Squadron 140 “Patriots,” Helicopter Anti-submarine 5 “Nightdippers,” and Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 40 “Rawhides.”

CVW-7 squadrons returned to Norfolk on May 21 and 22.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/05/mil-070523-nns03.htm

Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group Coming Home

Navy NewsStand

Story Number: NNS091015-12
Release Date: 10/15/2009 3:17:00 PM

By Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class (SW/AW) Frank Nealy, Commander, U.S. 3rd Fleet Public Affairs

SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- Four ships and more than 5,000 Sailors of Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 7 will return to their homeport of San Diego Oct. 21 after a five-month Western Pacific deployment.

The Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), the guided-missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG 62), the guided-missile destroyers USS Gridley (DDG 101) and USS Howard (DDG 83) will arrive in San Diego to be greeted by family members on the pier.

The guided-missile destroyer USS Decatur (DDG 73) and the guided-missile frigate USS Thach (FFG 43) will remain deployed in the Persian Gulf for a few extra weeks to provide maritime security operations (MSO), but are expected to arrive next month.

"This is the finest team of Sailors I've been fortunate to call shipmate," said Rear Adm. Scott Hebner, commander, CSG 7. "I could not be more proud of each and every Sailor and their families. The Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group has been pretty busy the last few years, executing missions across the capabilities of our national maritime strategy – and answering the call with impressive results every time."

USS Ronald Reagan and embarked Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 14 operated in the 5th Fleet Area of Operations, which encompasses the Arabian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman and parts of the Indian Ocean, for more than two months, providing 30 percent of all air support to U.S. and coalition ground forces in Afghanistan. In total, the air wing flew more than 1,600 sorties in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Ships of the Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group were also vital in counterpiracy and MSO operations off of Somalia and the Horn of Africa, and protected vital Iraqi infrastructure in the North Arabian Gulf.

"Every single Sailor knew how vital the mission was to accomplish," said Capt. Kenneth Norton, USS Ronald Reagan's commanding officer. "Because they understood, regardless of their operational tempo, they performed the mission, not just to get it done, but to get it done well. They're selfless. Everybody did their job well, to provide service to our Marines, Sailors, Soldiers, and Airmen in Afghanistan."

Additionally, Ronald Reagan's Sailors participated in 50 community relations (COMREL) projects during port visits to Singapore, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and Thailand.

"Being able to afford our Sailors the opportunity to lend a helping hand to those who are truly in need, speaks volumes to the character of our Sailors," said Chief Religious Programs Specialist (SW/AW/FMF) Marcus Taylor, who coordinated Reagan's COMREL projects. "I believe the Sailors that volunteer really should be commended for their selfless efforts. It is a clear display of maturity and devotion to being goodwill ambassadors for the Navy and the United States."

After returning home, many Sailors of the Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group will take leave to spend time with family and friends.

"This is my second deployment in two years," said Interior Communications Electrician 2nd Class Adam Treptow, who will be going on leave to his hometown of Parker, Colo. "Homecoming is always an indescribable feeling. I'm too excited. This is a chance for me to get off the ship, relax, unwind and finally buy myself a new truck."

The squadrons of CVW-14 include the "Redcocks" of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 22, the "Fist of the Fleet" of VFA-25, the "Stingers" of VFA-113, the "Eagles" of VFA-115, the "Black Eagles" of Airborne Early Warning Squadron (VAW) 113, the "Cougars" of Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron (VAQ) 139, the "Providers" of Carrier Logistics Support (VRC) 30, and the "Black Knights" of Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron (HS) 4.

The Reagan is named after the 40th U.S. president, and carries the motto of "Peace through Strength," a recurrent theme during the Reagan presidency.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/10/mil-091015-nns04.htm

Smaller, cheaper flattops; modified tanker ships; and missile-hauling submarines are three cheaper, more efficient and arguably more resilient options says a new study done for the US Navy by Navy Capt. Jerry Hendrix in his report entitled " At What Cost A Carrier " .

http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS%20Carrier_Hendrix_FINAL.pdf

Sujoy wrote:Smaller, cheaper flattops; modified tanker ships; and missile-hauling submarines are three cheaper, more efficient and arguably more resilient options says a new study done for the US Navy by Navy Capt. Jerry Hendrix in his report entitled " At What Cost A Carrier " .

http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS%20Carrier_Hendrix_FINAL.pdf

Interesting this. I've been thinking about aircraft carriers. I thought the submarine with VTOL planes was an interesting idea- esp with Russia's prowess in building giant subs. I noticed Garry was not a fan of this idea.

There are other options. A long time ago, planes landing on the sea was explored. Ofcourse this has limitations. But it also has advantages.

There is also the option for a giant aircraft carrier eg a "temporary island" made up of several ships joined together.

Another one is several small ships joining up to form a carrier platform. The advantage here is that the small ships can then split up and be less detectable.

ANother option I wonder about is having two ships with some sort of "rolled out" runway "mat". More and more materials with properties like this could be developed with new tech.

The final idea I can think of currently is a "micro carrier", fitted out with UCAVs etc, but no fighters etc.

As an aside I wonder how far the concept of inflight refuelling could be brought forward.

PS obviously a modified oil tanker isn't perfect. But it IS a cost effective possibility. Maybe it has a place...

I noticed Garry was not a fan of this idea.

Which doesn't mean it is a bad idea of course...

But there are problems when you look into it.

Smaller, cheaper flattops; modified tanker ships; and missile-hauling submarines are three cheaper, more efficient and arguably more resilient options says a new study done for the US Navy by Navy Capt. Jerry Hendrix in his report entitled " At What Cost A Carrier " .

The first option is what the Russian Navy is going with in their Kuznetsov carrier in the 50-60K ton weight range... they lack long range strike capability, but that can be achieved with cruise missiles.

Modified tankers on the other hand have problems because a real military ship is built to a standard of protection and safety, oil tankers are built for different considerations.

An aircraft carrier isn't just something that floats with a flat top for planes to take off and land on... it needs to carry fuel and ordinance for those aircraft to keep them operational, which means it is a floating bomb. Without the correct design that is what it becomes.

Modern angle deck carriers are designed so aircraft can take off and land at the same time. WIth a simple flat deck like an oil tanker a landing aircraft... if there was a problem and it lost control could hit aircraft near the front of the deck waiting to take off, so when planes are landing no planes can be sitting ready to take off and vice versa... which means very slow launch and recovery performance. The K can launch three aircraft at once, or have two launching and one landing at once if needed... with a flat straight deck on a tanker or container ship that would not be possible.

A carriers power is its aircraft, so when the aircraft are on the carrier it is a target and a liability. When its aircraft are in the air it greatly extends the vision and reach of the ships it is operating with. Even more it can send planes out hundreds of kms to inspect and check things that ships alone could only launch missiles at or leave alone. An approaching blip on the radar could be an F-14 or an Airbus... a missile wont know the difference... an aircraft sent out to investigate why that blip is not answering the radio can.

PS obviously a modified oil tanker isn't perfect. But it IS a cost effective possibility. Maybe it has a place...

As an emergency measure it might be useful... especially as a helicopter carrier, but at the end of the day if you want to start making your container ships and oil tankers targets for the enemy then you are inviting trouble by making them legitimate targets... I imagine most enemies would love for their enemy to do this as it legitimises attacks on otherwise non military targets.

BTW I would say I actually agree that 100K ton carriers are excessive and too expensive, but if you have them they are also very valuable assets as well... you don't need overflight or foreign basing permissions and they can move as a unit to different areas within weeks or days... a very powerful and useful tool.

Actually one could argue that in 2018-20 when the Kuznetsov comes out of refit... if there is a naval PAK FA ready then the long range strike capability of the bigger carriers starts to become achievable with a smaller lighter carrier with fewer planes and fewer weapons.

Certainly a naval PAK FA that can take off from a carrier perhaps with a conformal Brahmos II like missile would be as potent a long range strike package as anything a Hornet could carry... if not more so.

During WWII you could send 1000 heavy bombers to hit a factory and still have to send them out a couple of times to make sure the job is done. Improvements in guidance and precision means today you could send one or two planes to destroy specific targets, but you will still need inflight refuelling aircraft. AWACS, top cover fighters, jammers, SEAD aircraft to suppress enemy air defences etc etc. In 10-20 years time however real 5th gen fighters should be able to handle most of that themselves so instead of sending dozens of aircraft you can send half a dozen... all armed and ready to fight whatever rears up in their way.

The PAK FA is smaller than a Flanker and its power to weight ratio should make takeoffs no problem at all... perhaps the carrier compliment for the K in the 2020s will be Mig-29K2s/-35 as the fighter inner defence component hunting incoming anti ship and anti radiation missiles and a PAK FA based naval aircraft for long range interception/interdiction and perhaps AWACS with 360 degree radar coverage...

I wonder what the USN will do if that happens... F/A-12M?

Of course another option could be a huge airship with a flat top that could be moored to a customised mooring ship, or released to operate on its own.

Made out of modern lightweight and fireproof materials and using helium and hydrogen it could be a very interesting option.

Note helium is not as efficient, but is not flammable, though it is more expensive... the main internal lifting bags could use helium that is not released, while selected internal bags isolated and in the centre of the aircraft could be filled with hydrogen separated from the air to reduce the fire risk. A fuel cell could be used to generate electricity and also convert hydrogen from water ballast and back.

A common problem with airships is that as they fly they become lighter, so some lifting gas has to be released to allow it to control its height (ie land). That is ok with Hydrogen as it is cheap, but helium is expensive. By going with helium and not releasing it you save money and reduce the fire risk, but by having hydrogen and fuel cells that can consume hydrogen and create water ballast or create hydrogen from water then you have a means of changing your bouyancy without releasing any gas.

As aircraft land and take off then hydrogen would need to be created or converted to water ballast to compensate... but airships able to carry 1,000 ton payloads or more are certainly feasable... and putting radar antenna arrays on their sides means AWACS aircraft would not be needed... in fact very long wave radar antenna could be incorporated in the airships structure to make even stealth aircraft visible at long ranges... and perhaps as communications systems that can chat to deeply submerged submarines.

The Tu-142 has a very long antenna it uses for the purpose of communicating to submerged subs but it needs to keep the line as vertical as possible which means it needs to fly very slow, which is quite dangerously close to its stall speed... these airships could simply drop a line several kms long and talk to them at minimal risk.

The new Russian AIP systems for their subs that use diesel could be incorporated and it could operate with AIP and electric and diesel propulsion. Dropping a hose line to a tanker for refuelling at sea would be fairly straight forward... it could be designed so it can land on the ocean for maintainence or refuelling or in an emergency...

GarryB wrote:Of course another option could be a huge airship with a flat top that could be moored to a customised mooring ship, or released to operate on its own.

Made out of modern lightweight and fireproof materials and using helium and hydrogen it could be a very interesting option.

Note helium is not as efficient, but is not flammable, though it is more expensive... the main internal lifting bags could use helium that is not released, while selected internal bags isolated and in the centre of the aircraft could be filled with hydrogen separated from the air to reduce the fire risk. A fuel cell could be used to generate electricity and also convert hydrogen from water ballast and back.

A common problem with airships is that as they fly they become lighter, so some lifting gas has to be released to allow it to control its height (ie land). That is ok with Hydrogen as it is cheap, but helium is expensive. By going with helium and not releasing it you save money and reduce the fire risk, but by having hydrogen and fuel cells that can consume hydrogen and create water ballast or create hydrogen from water then you have a means of changing your bouyancy without releasing any gas.

As aircraft land and take off then hydrogen would need to be created or converted to water ballast to compensate... but airships able to carry 1,000 ton payloads or more are certainly feasable... and putting radar antenna arrays on their sides means AWACS aircraft would not be needed... in fact very long wave radar antenna could be incorporated in the airships structure to make even stealth aircraft visible at long ranges... and perhaps as communications systems that can chat to deeply submerged submarines.

The Tu-142 has a very long antenna it uses for the purpose of communicating to submerged subs but it needs to keep the line as vertical as possible which means it needs to fly very slow, which is quite dangerously close to its stall speed... these airships could simply drop a line several kms long and talk to them at minimal risk.

The new Russian AIP systems for their subs that use diesel could be incorporated and it could operate with AIP and electric and diesel propulsion. Dropping a hose line to a tanker for refuelling at sea would be fairly straight forward... it could be designed so it can land on the ocean for maintainence or refuelling or in an emergency...

I think airships (and ekranoplans) are a huge area for the navy and airforce to explore. My view is to use the airship/ inflatable landing strip just for landing planes. They could then be stored somewhere else eg in smaller ships, or even underwater.

The hydrogen v fuel cell v helium debate is one to consider.Likeiwse, whether the airships should be at low or high altitude. Perhaps even use airships as an aerial launch platform for certain missiles..

I really like the idea of modular construction. 3 airships coming together to form a landing strip etc..

Obviously naval doctrine as adhered to a conventional path for many years. But with the advent of drones as "mini-planes", perhaps we will start seeing some divergence in coming year...

[quote="Firebird"]

GarryB wrote: Airships
Made out of modern lightweight and fireproof materials and using helium and hydrogen it could be a very interesting option.

I really like the idea of modular construction. 3 airships coming together to form a landing strip etc..

The use of airship carriers has been tried, and rejected. They are to vulnereble to bad weather if anything else and i cant see them an serious option.
See USS Akron (ZRS-4).

Another feature of airships is their enormous size, so long wave radar built into the airships structure could be used for UHF and VHF and even ULF antenna fora range of detection and communication systems.

Airships operating at very high altitude could fly above weather and could operate dozens of long wing high altitude UCAVs that operate at 20,000m or above while operating as AWACS for a naval force.

US Carrier Group Joins Navy’s Sixth Fleet in Europe - US Navy

The Strike Group includes the Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier, a destroyer squadron and nine aircraft squadrons, serviced by 6,000 sailors and Marines.

The US Navy has started to deploy underwater drones beneath the arctic ice both to study the deterioration of the ice sheet due to climate change and to help plan for anticipated increases in traffic as previously frozen waterways open up.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The United States’ Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, complete with tactical airborne early warning aircraft, joined the US Navy’s Sixth Fleet in Europe as it embarks on an around-the-world deployment, the US Navy said in a statement on Monday.

“The strike group's various ships will work with allied and partner nations throughout Europe in order to continue building existing partnerships and improve war-fighting capability and interoperability,” the US Navy said.

The Strike Group includes the Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier, a destroyer squadron and nine aircraft squadrons, serviced by 6,000 sailors and Marines.

The carrier group will work on maritime security operations and European security cooperation.

The deployment in Europe will be the first time the E-2D Hawkeye, an early warning aircraft with advanced radar, will be tied to the USS Theodore Roosevelt.

Upon completing an around-the-world deployment, the Strike Group will be based in its new homeport of San Diego, California.

The US Sixth Fleet is based in Naples, Italy, and is responsible for operations concerning Europe and Africa.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150316/1019579371.html#ixzz3Ua8JR1SS

Dual Band Radar Swapped Out In New Carriers

WASHINGTON — In something of a surprise move, the US Navy revealed the long-touted dual band radar (DBR) being installed in new carriers of the Gerald R. Ford class will only be fitted on the first ship, and a new, yet-to-be-chosen radar will be installed on subsequent ships.

The revelation came Tuesday as Rear Adm. Thomas Moore, program executive officer for aircraft carriers, spoke at the McAleese Credit Suisse defense conference in Washington.

Moore indicated the move, decided upon last fall, was not due to particular problems with the DBR, now under development by Raytheon. Rather, he said, the decision was based on economics and need.

"It's a very capable radar," he said of the DBR, but analysis showed the carrier didn't need all the system's capabilities. The move to the EASR, he told reporters, could save up to $120 million on the second ship, the John F. Kennedy.

A specific EASR radar has not been chosen, Moore said, noting that "several candidates" were on the market.

Raytheon has been working on the EASR oncept under a $6 million study and demonstration contract awarded in June 2014 by the Office of Naval Research. The ONR study, according to a press release, is intended to "leverage proven Radar Modular Assembly (RMA) architecture matured on Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR)." The EASR, like the AMDR — also under development by Raytheon to replace SPY-1 radars in new Aegis combat systems — is intended to be a scalable family of radars tailored to suit different sizes of ships.

The complex DBR suite was once intended to be a cornerstone of a new combat system, fitted on DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers and CVN 78 Ford-class carriers. The system combines a SPY-3 X-band multifunction radar with a SPY-4 S-band volume search radar.

The Navy decided in 2010 to remove the SPY-4 radar from the Zumwalt destroyers as a cost-reduction move, although the carriers were to retain the original configuration.

With the decision to remove the DBR from subsequent ships of the class, the Ford now will be the only ship in the fleet to operate the full system.

A spokeswoman for the Naval Sea Systems Command said an EASR Request for Proposals "should be forthcoming."

The Ford, Kennedy and all other US aircraft carriers are built at the Huntington Ingalls Shipbuilding shipyard in Newport News, Virginia.

Pentagon’s Newest Aircraft Carrier Already $370M Over Budget
23:57 21.05.2015(updated 00:47 22.05.2015)

The estimated cost to the US Navy's second Ford-class aircraft carrier is already $370 million above a Congressionally mandated cap set for its construction after the USS Ford ran $2 billion over budget.

The cost of the USS John F. Kennedy was capped at $11.498 billion, but a new estimate from the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office (CAPE) on Wednesday revised the numbers up to $11.868. That figure is a working estimate and the office is still waiting for more information from the Navy about particular costs to be confirmed.

The USS Kennedy — also known as CVN-79, using the Navy's designation for a nuclear powered aircraft carrier — is the second of three Ford-class carriers included in a program whose budget is supposed to be $42.8 billion.

Currently, Virginia-based Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. has been building the carriers in the Ford-class program, and the Kennedy is supposed to be completed by 2023.

Since the USS Ford — slated for delivery in March 2016 — ran $2 billion over budget to a final cost of $12.8 billion, current cost overruns are likely to encounter extra scrutiny.

Sen John McCain (R-Ariz.) — a longtime critic of wasteful, bloated military spending — responded that cost overruns on this project could put the entire Ford-class project at risk.

"Accountability must be restored to the Ford-class aircraft carrier program," McCain, who is the head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement in response to the revised estimate. "Our nation simply cannot afford these kinds of cost overruns amid rising global threats and fiscal challenges."

McCain asserted that he expects the Pentagon to tell his committee "who is responsible for this cost overrun and what will be done to hold those individuals accountable."

The Pentagon has decided that no one is to blame, and no one will face consequences, for wasting a staggering $36 million building a shiny, new, sprawling military facility in Afghanistan that has never been used and will probably be demolished.

It does not bode well that just the day before, McCain was also issuing statements of condemnation over the Pentagon's inability to do exactly that — find someone accountable — for the waste of $36 million on a Marine facility in Afghanistan that military personnel never even used.

The Navy declined to respond to the latest estimates from CAPE.

"We do not discuss pending legislation, however controlling and improving CVN 79’s cost is of highest priority to the Navy. The Navy is committed to maintaining the cost of CVN 79 within the Congressional cost cap of $11.498 billion," Navy leaders said in a statement.

Broken Promises

The cost increases come after many Navy officials had asserted that lessons from the USS Ford were being applied to the Kennedy to reduce costs.

"I fully expect we will build Kennedy for a billion [dollars] less than we built Ford," Rear Adm. Tom Moore told Military.com in July 2013 as the first pieces of the Kennedy were being constructed, an expectation that is now almost certainly out of reach.


The USS Ford - seen here under construction in 2012 - ran $2 billion over budget but the Navy promised most of those costs were due to its being the first of its class and would not recur with the USS Kennedy.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150521/1022434359.html#ixzz3aoVcTOuS

The possible cost overruns — estimated at 3.2% of the original budget — are being evaluated while the Defense Department's chief weapons buyer, Frank Kendall, considers the approval of a $4 billion construction contract for the Kennedy.

Beci Brenton, a spokeswoman for Huntington Ingalls, told Bloomberg in an e-mail that the company expects a contract by June 30.

The Senate Armed Services Committee's version of the 2016 defense authorization bill, S. 1118, includes provisions to review costs for the Ford-class program and to limit some funds for the Kennedy and the third carrier in the program — the USS Enterprise.

New Class, New Costs, New Concerns

The Ford-class carriers feature larger deck space, with an electromagnetic catapult to launch jets into the air at sea, as well as more computer automation to reduce manpower needs compared to the Nimitz class.

The new carriers are also designed to generate three times the electrical energy of their predecessors, with four 26-megawatt generators supplying 104 megawatts to the ship.

One of the reasons the Navy said the Ford cost more, and the subsequent ships will not, is that it was the first of its class, and some of the engineering that had to be completed for it will not recur with the next two ships using the same model.

For example, there were problems with the Ford's new advanced arresting gear which catches the jets as they land on deck. That particular component underwent a two year delay due to redesign needs.


However, the Ford is not entirely complete, while work has already begun on the Kennedy, and it is still being equipped with some of the new advanced technology unique to the class.

McCain has pushed to have certain "shock tests" moved up to be performed on the Ford, which the Navy would prefer to have wait to test on the Kennedy. But McCain has had concerns about the stability of the new systems.

"These issues with CVN-78 raise questions about whether now is the time to award this contract for CVN-79, " McCain said. "This latest news report does not give me confidence that the Department of Defense understands the risk and cost of CVN-79, which they will be passing along to American taxpayers."



Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150521/1022434359.html#ixzz3aoTArsY2

US Navy Aircraft Carriers to Pull Out of ISIL Fight This Fall

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20150611/1023197153.html#ixzz3ckxXoq2W

US Navy Plans to Equip Next-Generation Aircraft Carriers With Laser Weapons

Interesting article on the vulnerability of US carriers to current and next generation Russian anti ship missiles. A good VT article.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/03/07/americas-newest-aircraft-carrier-a-15-billion-floating-graveyard/

The age of aircraft carriers could be coming to an end

Since World War II, flat-topped aircraft carriers have been the backbone of US power projection and military might at sea, but a new generation of long-range missiles being developed by the US's adversaries could push these mechanical marvels off the front lines.

The US's massive aircraft carriers have a problem. The F-18s aboard US aircraft carriers have a range of about 500 nautical miles, as Ben Ho Wan Beng notes at the US Naval Institute.

The incoming F-35Cs are expected to have a marginally better range of about 550 nautical miles.

Meanwhile, China's aptly named DF-21 "Carrier Killer" anti-ship ballistic missile is said to have a range of 810 nautical miles, and is capable of sinking an entire 1,100 foot carrier with 70 aircraft and 6,000 sailors on board.

Such long-range anti-ship missiles create anti-access/area denial areas (also established in the Baltics by Russia) wherein the US can't position it's most powerful assets, the aircraft carriers.

Thusly, aircraft carriers, which have been the star of the show since their emergence during World War II, may end up taking a back seat to smaller vessels.

The US Navy has long been working towards achieving "distributed lethality," or a strategy that entails arming even the smallest ship with long-range missiles capable of knocking out enemy defenses from far away. Engaging enemies with smaller ships also helps to keep extraordinarily valuable targets like carriers out of harm's way.

In fact, the Navy plans to have at least 40 Littoral Combat Ships with a "full suite of anti-ship and anti-submarine sensors and weapons ... Plus such improvements as a medium-range 'over the horizon' missile to sink enemy ships," as Breaking Defense notes.

So instead of putting a carrier in harm's way, the Navy would likely look to use longer ranged platforms, like cruiser-destroyers that carry the Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile, which have a range of about 900 nautical miles.

In the end, a Carrier Strike Group would no longer lead with the carrier.

Instead, Destroyers firing Tomahawk missiles would initiate the attacks, softening up enemy anti-access/area-denial capabilities before the big carriers moved in closer to shore

The Real Problem with America’s Aircraft Carriers Is Easy to See (But Near Impossible to Fix)

Stretching back several decades, the concept of missile defense has been hotly debated. Some well reasoned scholars argue that the United States and other countries need such defenses incase deterrence breaks down or an irrational actor gets their finger on the nuclear trigger. Others argue that missile defenses are a waste of money given that they are easily defeated, and defensive technology will always stay behind the curve — never ready for primetime.

Both sides have logical arguments. For the record, I am an advocate of missile defense — under certain conditions. With various nations all over the planet purchasing or developing ballistic and cruise weapons, defenses against such weaponry are vital — especially for the American navy in the form of Aegis missile defenses. When it comes to missile defense in nuclear matters- I have some shall we say, complex views. For regimes such as Iran, North Korea and others when sometimes rationality is not their strongest suit — missile defense all the way. When it comes to nations with larger missile arsenals such as China or Russia, I am not sold — yet.

There is however one thing you can't argue against, simple math.

Case in point, take a look at a recent book chapter by Dr. Toshi Yoshihara in Chinese Aerospace Power (a really good book, China defense geeks I am talking to you — it's a classic — get your credit card out) from our friends over at the Chinese Maritime Studies Institute.

Dr. Yoshihara notes:

"ASBMs (anti-ship ballistic missiles) may not need to produce mission kills against the surface fleet to complicate U.S. plans. They only need to reach the fleet's defensive envelope for the Aegis to engage the incoming threats, thus forcing the defender to expend valuable ammunition that cannot be easily resupplied at sea under combat conditions. Even inaccurate ASBMs, then, could compel the Aegis to exhaust its weapons inventory, leaving it defenseless against further PLA actions. Used in conjunction with conventional ballistic missile strikes against U.S. bases and other land targets across Asia — strikes that would elicit more intercept attempts — ASBM raids could deprive the United States and its allies of their staying power in a sea fight."

Such a point raises a larger question. Will American commanders in the future face large missile forces aimed at their ships that can just simply overwhelm their defenses through sheer numbers?

Another example comes from a 2011 report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis entitled Outside-In: Operating from Range to Defeat Iran’s Anti-Access and Area-Denial Threats (A2/AD geeks, this is truly a must read). In sketching out a scenario for a possible Iranian A2/AD campaign between 2020-2025, the authors explain:

"Iran could deploy its land-based ASCMs (anti-ship cruise missiles) from camouflaged and hardened sites to firing positions along its coastline and on Iranian-occupied islands in the Strait of Hormuz while placing decoys at false firing positions to complicate U.S. counterstrikes. Hundreds of ASCMs may cover the Strait, awaiting target cueing data from coastal radars, UAVs, surface vessels, and submarines. Salvo and multiple axis attacks could enable these ASCMs to saturate U.S. defenses…salvos of less capable ASCMs might be used to exhaust U.S. defenses, paving the way for attacks by more advanced missiles."

Think about it — could we someday see a scenario where American forces at sea with a fixed amount of defensive countermeasures facing an enemy with large numbers of cruise and ballistic weapons that have the potential to simply overwhelm them? Could a potential adversary fire off older weapons that are not as accurate, causing a defensive response that exhausts all available missile interceptors so more advanced weapons with better accuracy can deliver the crushing blow?

Simply put: does math win?

Truth be told, this is a very simplistic way of looking at the classic missile vs. missile-interceptor game. Many complex scenarios could be easily envisioned. Sea-based forces on the defensive would likely employ multiple methods to secure themselves. Jamming of missile and land-based guidance systems, counterstrikes on enemy missile launchers and attacks on enemy command and control would all likely be employed on some level once offensive missiles are launched. Preemptive strikes could also be employed if a credible threat of a launch was presumed. Not to mention possible available land-based interceptors could be in the mix depending on the area of hostilities as well as cyber and UAV strikes. And this says nothing about nuclear weapons…

Yet, you have to wonder, math does have a powerful say in such a scenario. And considering the cost of missile defenses vs. offensive missiles, "math" seems to have some valid arguments.

Ford carrier delayed until November, at least a year late

• The navy now estimates Gerald R Ford may be delivered in November 2016, more than a year late
  

• Some key subsystems will still be unproven when the carrier is delivered

The US Navy's (USN's) next class of nuclear-power carriers, USS Gerald R Ford (CVN 78), is to be delayed another two months and now delivered more than a year later than the original contracted delivery date.

"The current estimated delivery date is in November 2016," USN spokesperson Captain Thurraya S Kent said on 12 July. Shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) signed a detailed design contract with the navy that stated a delivery date of 30 September 2015.

As of June, Gerald R Ford was 98% complete and HII has turned over 97% of compartments, Capt Kent said.

So far 89% of the overall shipboard testing has been completed, but the November delivery date may need to be revised "if additional issues arise during the remaining shipboard testing", Capt Kent noted.

The revelation drew reproach from John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a long-term critic of the programme.

"Even if everything goes according to the navy's plan, CVN 78 will be delivered with multiple systems unproven," he said. "The advanced arresting gear [AAG] cannot recover airplanes. Advanced weapons elevators cannot lift munitions. The dual-band radar cannot integrate two radar bands," the senator said.

Indeed, the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG) published the redacted report on 11 July stating the navy had not proven the capability or safety of the AAG system. AAG's developmental testing, originally scheduled to end in 2009, will continue through 2018.

The DoD IG recommended the navy "perform cost-benefit analyses to determine whether the AAG is an affordable solution for navy aircraft carriers before deciding to go forward with the system on future aircraft carriers".