Let's suggest a CAW consists of 4 F/A-18 strike squadrons and an EA squadron.
Qty 22 F/A-18E's
Qty 22 F/A-18F's
Qty 5 Growlers
Let's assume an expected FMC rate (deployed) of .63
Let's assume an actual FMC rate (deployed) of ~.5
You've started w/49 F/A-18's and you're left with ~24.
If you add to this the fact that the Navy sends 1/2 their F-18's out as tankers the numbers are more alarming.
The rest of the aircraft support the CSG - Fleet Logistics, Submarine Defense, Early Warning, etc.
Hmm yes, but in that case shouldn't all aircraft carriers (F-35B/LHA/CVLs) be considered in terms of their FMC rate? And also, I think more important than FMC rate is the sortie rate that a carrier can generate, where I expect the larger airwing of a CVN and the larger more optimized flight deck should allow for an overall significantly higher sortie rate generation than a CVL.
I suppose what I'm getting at, is that in practice any aircraft carrier's "effective" fixed wing combat capability/availability/sortie rate is always a fraction of their overall on-paper airwing, and unless there is a reason to think that an F-35B CVL type carrier for USN LHAs is able to generate a more cost effective sortie rate and combat capability than the USN's own future F-35C equipped CVNs, I don't think the supercarrier should be judged that harshly.
Perhaps... It would also suck to lose a crew of 6k, a $10B ship and $7B in aircraft.
My irritation is with naval aviation decision makers as it relates to MQ-XX and develops to the CVN.
One can make a case that 30 CVL's will be more "effective" than 10 CVN's at projecting presence and, ultimately, power. They can be built at multiple yards. They can be built in larger quantities. They can shorten the life span to "engineer in" new development faster. On a war footing, replacements will be coming out of the yards faster - you have to plan on ships being taken out of action. It currently takes 15 years to build and float a CVN.
The Navy needs to build ships as they are learning to build aircraft. Aircraft are being designed with open systems as they know technological obsolescence is a given. They only way to build in obsolescence in capital ships is to plan to replace them sooner. That's much easier with smaller ships.
As it relates to this topic, the direction of MQ-XX is a symptom to the current mindset. Their going to build a tanker that will require an air-cap. It perpetuates the existing problem. A CBG that exists to protect itself with self-limited strike capability.