why does the AF NGAD stil have a PCA requiremnet. then? Why would PCA even be discussed if there was no requirement? Thes missiles would need to arrive from extreme distances or be carried internally by a mini-carrier borne B-21....
The Navy doesn't have an air force. It has a naval air arm that is focused on supporting maritime operations. Granted missions and roles have been blurred with Air Force and Navy fighters performing the same missions during regional conflicts since WWII. This is why the Air Force is tasked with certain missions as part of the joint force and must be funded accordingly.
Circumstances may force the CVW to perform deep strikes into the Chinese mainland in a war but that is likely the purview of Air Force assets - F-47/CCAs and B-21s. The CSG will be mainly focused on sea denial and sea control operations and operate at sea and the littorals.
Naval strategy and operational concepts will be determined by the threat and American objectives in a war. We know the Navy wants to operate the CSG at range from the enemy, but that doesn't mean it will not venture closer. The main advantage of the CSG is its mobility and flexibility. The threat is more forgiving the further out you are. The biggest threat to the CSG in the short term will likely be long range missiles which can be countered by anti air surface combatants. But the enemy gets a vote and the sub and bomber threat will increase overtime. The outer air battle will become increasingly important. The main disadvantage of the aircraft carrier is that it is a low density asset. A single B-1 bomber has about the payload of a Super Hornet squadron and with greater range.
In order for the US to implement Sam Paparo's "Hellscape" concept the CSG will need to contend with Chinese A2/AD bubble around Taiwan with SAGs and fighter cover guarding the approaches to Taiwan. It will also need to protect Marines establishing choke points ear Taiwan. The Navy might need long range strikers and their escorts to penetrate or they may need to peel away the outer defense ring first. We must use stand off weapons sparingly due to their cost and number, unless we shift the paradigm and produce long range munitions at a lower cost. I don't think we really know for sure what is the best course. A lot still has not been fleshed out by the services.
It's true that a lot of the same issues have been discussed previously. Some points are more valid than others, but I think the same points are continuously raised because there is so much uncertainty regarding the roles, missions, and capabilities of various systems, which is to be expected as many of these programs are in the black world. The services also might have intended for a system to play one role during development, but find other roles once the system is introduced because of the threat or the emergence of a certain technology. When the Super Hornet was introduced how many people thought it one day would emerge fleet defender packing AIM-260s or a sniper going after HVAs with AIM-174B or AIM-424s?
The emergence of autonomy also introduces uncertainty as to what should be their role and how they should be employed. I am reading Parshall's book on Midway. While the Japanese were innovators with regards to carrier aviation, some of their doctrine and tactics put them at a disadvantage during the battle and were slowly overtaken by the Americans.
I think some opinions on this forum are nutty, but we should be open to divergent ideas.
