Originally Posted by
Asturias56
"A submarine cannot control the airspace, and therefore a group of submarines cannot perform a sea control role in the same way as a carrier group."
they're likely to last a lot longer tho'
Not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that you think that the enemy submarines would present a threat that cannot be countered? Are you saying that there will never be a need to protect things moving by sea on the surface? Are you claiming that a surface group has more ASW capability without a carrier? From my perspective the enemy submarine has never had it so bad, with technologies like low frequency sonar allowing long range detection. Without a carrier - where will all the ASW helicopters go? This 1977 film from the IWM collections comments on these things:
THE ROYAL NAVY AND THE SOVIET THREAT
At 22.35 we get told about 'the most important surface ship of the future' - the 'anti submarine cruiser'. The point is made that a carrier provides easily the most cost effective means of deploying large anti submarine helicopters to sea in worthwhile numbers as well as command facilities for a task group. From 24.15 the presenter mentions that these ships will carry the Sea Harrier to supplement land based air cover for the fleet outside the range of shore bases and mentions dealing with shadowing aircraft used by the Soviets for targeting long range missiles.
You might also enjoy this talk by the late Professor Eric Grove:
Professor Grove mentions carriers a lot, in terms of protecting shipping and amphibious forces. At 50:15 he suggests that the thing hostile submarine captains dread most of all is the dipping sonar - and that an airborne radar flooding an area will keep the hostile submarines down. He then describes witnessing an ASW exercise in which a number of NATO submarines transmitted Soviet levels of noise, and every one was covered by either an ASW helicopter or an MPA. Then they turned off the extra noise...
However - it is safer to assume that some SSGNs may get to fire some missiles. What then? When this film (also from the IWM Collections) was made in 1977, it was assumed that the air to air missile could engage enemy missiles as well as aircraft.
PRINCIPLES OF ANTI AIR WARFARE
The last few months have proved that this is indeed the case:
Super Hornets Now Flying With Nine Air-To-Air Missiles To Counter Houthi Drones - The War Zone
The extra Sidewinder capacity was added to the Super Hornet and Growler to provide more ‘magazine depth’ to shoot down Houthi drones. For the Navy's EA-18Gs, the AIM-9X was an entirely new option added to their armory.
The need for this expanded air-to-air capacity became clear during IKE’s months on station in the Gulf of Aden, where it’s part of a task force that is defending shipping in the region while degrading the ability of the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen to continue to threaten that shipping.
I believe that the Super Hornets have splashed a few anti ship missiles - definitely something to do at the greatest possible range. How many more merchant vessels would have been sunk, and how many more merchant seamen would have been killed or injured had it not been for the USS Dwight D Eisenhower and her Super Hornets?
A US aircraft carrier and its crew have fought Houthi attacks for months. How long can it last? - AP News
ABOARD THE USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER IN THE RED SEA (AP) — The combat markings emblazoned on the F/A-18 fighter jet tell the story: 15 missiles and six drones, painted in black just below the cockpit windshield...
How many of these missiles were shot down in flight?
Originally Posted by
ORAC
Arsenal ships represent an opportunity to increase the number of high value units that will need to be defended, soak up more personnel, and cause other problems. I am sure that the US Navy look at and rejected the arsenal ship concept decades ago, with the exception of converting the four surplus SSBNs to carry one hundred and fifty or so Tomahawks.
Originally Posted by
rattman
So dumb while I am not convinced of the plan that AU and US are doing LUSV/MUSV its still an infinately better plan and concept than arsenal ships
Same reports coming out today more submarines (SSGN) and more type 26's. Lots or more but no actual where is the money and crew coming from.
Why do these people never notice that we need more ASW helicopters?
Originally Posted by
Biggus
rattman,
With regard to where crews will come from, I believe the plan is to build ships with a crew of 50, rather than 150 (exact numbers may be incorrect, but the principle is the point). So there is a requirement for less personnel, or the same number can crew more ships.
No doubt someone with more knowledge will be along soon to give a more detailed/accurate answer.
As for where the money comes from...
As far as I know all these ideas have been forward by companies with no experience of operating warships, and not by the RN or warship designers. How does a tiny crew sustain defence watches for weeks? Or perform ship's husbandry to stop corrosion? Or deal with possible floods or fires?
Originally Posted by
ORAC
We should be wary of learning lessons that apply to somebody else's unique geography and not our own. For example, some people think that we should have small and fast corvettes like the Norway and Sweden have in their fjords, designed to hide in nooks and crannies. Pity we do not have fjords...
Originally Posted by
Asturias56
"There's also a difference between an unpowered barge and a mobile missile carrier...."
I agree - but then they haven't thought of that -they want it to be minimally manned and CHEAP! - So forget about beds, a/c, radios/ radar, a kitchen and other softening luxuries . and maybe powered by outboard engines.... Outsource the crew and flag them in the Marshall Islands....... Read any history of UK warship design since 1945 and it's often about how the original design grows when such things are suddenly remembered...................
The River Class cost the RN approx three times the price of similar vessels sold to Brazil - not all of that was extra kit, and yes it was probably a better ship but it shows how hard it is to get anything "cheap" in UK procurement. Possibly they'll finish up as T31's without a helicopter or anti-sub capability.
I wait in anticipation.
One of the lessons from the past is not to build small ships - the greater the internal volume within the hull the easier it will be to insert new capabilities and the better the sea handling. Other lessons include not building frontline ships without up to date sensors at weapons (cf the loss of HM Ships
Ardent and
Antelope in the Falklands), not fitting old radar to new ships (the excessive beamwidth of the 965 radar was a factor in the loss of
Sheffield and
Coventry), and not ignoring the limited ranges of ship based weapons and sensors.