USMCFLYR

Define the terms bolded above.
I can assure you that development programs and procurement are looking ahead. Was the ADA community just sitting back and watching the world go by or were they constantly looking at new and improving technologies and developmental programs?

rickair7777

Take it from an expert, it's not. We don't have enough subs to "rotate" and we couldn't do it fast enough to cover even a day or two of flights ops from one carrier and even if we did we don't have enough missiles...we have a limited NATIONAL arsenal of TLAMs, and it would get used up very quickly in any major contingency.

Cruise missiles are small jet airplanes...meaning they are far more expensive (orders of magnitude) than iron bombs. They are specialty weapons with specific uses, but they're totally impractical as a replacement for tacair bombs.

We are seriously talking orders of magnitude on the cost delta alone, not to mention all the issues with launch platforms and reloading...it takes days or even weeks in most cases to reload a TLAM platform (including transit time)...it's takes minutes to reload an F-18.

rickair7777

The future of power projection will be UCAVs operating from aircraft carriers, probably lead/supported by manned assets. They will not be much smaller than current systems because they have to deliver the same load (assuming no revolutionary breakthroughs in organic chemistry as it applies to HE...which would require a breakthrough in the fundamental laws of physics as well ).

There are other alternatives...

Smaller carriers, and more of them, but they can only be so small. A hornet-sized strike UCAS will not be operating off the helo deck of a destroyer or LCS. This would actually be more expensive (more overhead) and the only benefit is survivability. We only plan on doing two contingencies at once, so we don't need simultaneous carrier coverage in 20 different spots around the globe.

Land-based strike. The big problem here is that whoever owns the base will only let us conduct ops if they agree with our policies. Or I'm the sure the USAF would oblige with a fleet of 3,000 CONUS-based global-reach strike bombers...at a billion dollars a pop.

Conventional Ballistic missiles. Super-fast response time and super, super-expensive. Also likely to start WWIII since the target (and anybody between you and the target) will only know that you launched...they'll have no idea where the thing is going to land or what's bolted onto the nose.

I would not advocate carrier power for psychological affect alone...any system that's effective will generate all the psych effect you need.

Next-gen bombers will be manned. They're so large anyway that the extra weight of the crew is negligible, and crew provides tremendous flexibility (especially for a nuclear capable asset). It's not like airlines where you employ ten pilots for every airframe and could save a lot of money if you could build an affordable and reliable automated aircraft.

Also, I became more understanding of the F-35 cost escalation after I found out that some of it was due to recent, massive and wholesale compromise of the design data by the Chinese (mostly internet hacking, on a grandiose scale...picture senior Chinese defense officials sitting in on Lockheed's internal video-teleconferences ). This situation apparently necessitated the redesign of some systems.

BDGERJMN

The argument for or against a CSG or even an ESG is really an argument for or against sortie generation and the cost of doing that business. Yes CVNs are the single biggest line item in the NDAA, that said and as has been said in every major conflict and some minor conflicts by national command authority "Where are the carriers?". I didnt make that up and yes it's cliche but when POTUS asks that question, they are relavent regardless of what they cost. Why? Because they can get the job done when USAF assets aren't in place or don't have overflight rights to get in place when they are needed.

Additionally there is a huge strategic detterence and communication piece to the CSG and it's mobility and lethality. Is it vulnerable...sure, is it survivable in some conflicts...to be determined and debated.

There is a concept out there called the single Naval(to include the Marines) battle and in some cases it is a self licking ice cream cone, but at the end of the day when executed correctly the Navy/Marine Corps can function as the air, sea and land components simultaneously. Is it the best way to do businesss? Arguably no, but the capability is there and it is trained to.

At the end of the day each of the services rely on the other and their inherent capabilities whether its the targeting/Fires cell in the AOC relying on TLAM support or CSG sorties, or CFMCC leadership relying on PR assets from USA/USAF in theater. Its a team effort, sometimes we're just not very good at working as a team especially in fiscally constrained times when the services are vying individually for every dollar they can get.