Future Carrier (Including Costs)
N-a-B - When the business of shutting down land bases was active, it was not considered that easily done with conventional ballistic missiles. They're just really big things to put out of action with one 1 K blast at a time, and the vital bits and pieces can be dispersed. The infamous JP233 was designed for the job, but combined concrete-heavers with mines to impede repair. You "harden" by dispersal and repair.
Also, although the adversary knows where the target is in the case of a land base, the defender has some options because he is not limited to the magazine size of an Aegis ship. A regional TPY-2 and a whole bunch of David's Sling missiles could give the attacker some problems.
The survivability issue that really interests me here is that of the career of Capt. Henry J. Hendrix, USN, which would by now have taken more hits than Yamato if his views were not at least tolerated by the Rulers of the President's Navee.
Also, although the adversary knows where the target is in the case of a land base, the defender has some options because he is not limited to the magazine size of an Aegis ship. A regional TPY-2 and a whole bunch of David's Sling missiles could give the attacker some problems.
The survivability issue that really interests me here is that of the career of Capt. Henry J. Hendrix, USN, which would by now have taken more hits than Yamato if his views were not at least tolerated by the Rulers of the President's Navee.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Hi ORAC,
Haven't we been here before regarding this 'star wars' issue in the Reagan era?
Haven't we been here before regarding this 'star wars' issue in the Reagan era?
Assuming the MIRV warheads are active guidance for the final phase (and I can't see how they'd otherwise hit a manoeuvring target), they just have to be blinded, so the lower power lasers should work OK. Main problem will be keeping them locked on target. And the FEL isn't far behind.
Last edited by ORAC; 13th Mar 2013 at 14:21.
ORAC,
The issue is neatly summed up in para 1 from your link.
Like I said, "Even the USN haven't come up with one [a solution] yet", all they have is an idea. A pretty sci fi idea at the moment.
The issue is neatly summed up in para 1 from your link.
These more powerful lasers might, among other things, provide Navy surface ships with a terminal-defense capability against certain ballistic missiles, including China’s new anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM).
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 13th Mar 2013 at 15:47.
When the business of shutting down land bases was active, it was not considered that easily done with conventional ballistic missiles. They're just really big things to put out of action with one 1 K blast at a time, and the vital bits and pieces can be dispersed. The infamous JP233 was designed for the job, but combined concrete-heavers with mines to impede repair. You "harden" by dispersal and repair.
The issue with conventional BM was always that although they could suppress a base, they were never sufficiently accurate enough to target discrete facilities like those above. Now if people are suggesting that a BM is capable of targetting a 300m x 70m platform moving at 12m/s+ in a oner, then I'd suggest that the same weapon is perfectly capable of targeting a static runway intersection, a fuel farm, a bomb shop or the C2 bunker. Losing any one of those is likely to stop operations. The cratering effect of a targetted hypervelocity HE warhead will far outweigh that of Durandal or JP233 on whatever it hits - repair may not actually be possible in a tactical timescale.
Just as a comparison, the good old Grand Slam weighed in at 10000kg and arrived at just about the speed of sound (320m/s), which by my calcs is about 512MJ of energy, excluding the 4000kg of explosive power carried. If you assume that your DF21 presents a calling card of 1000kg at (say) 2500m/s (not unreasonable for an RV), that's 3125MJ, excluding the stuff that goes bang. Now I'm pretty sure runway repair teams aren't scaled to deal with a Grand Slam level crater easily, so I think they might struggle with something delivering 6 times the energy before it goes bang. If something like that hit the fuel or bomb dump, the effects are likely to be on the spectacular side.....
Also, although the adversary knows where the target is in the case of a land base, the defender has some options because he is not limited to the magazine size of an Aegis ship. A regional TPY-2 and a whole bunch of David's Sling missiles could give the attacker some problems.
I should have thought 150+ SM2 block VI/SM3 ready to fire in VLS from just two Aegis ships defending a small area is probably more than might be available from a theatre-level Patriot unit in the US Army. Not that it's designed to go after real ballistic RVs like DF21, nor is David's Sling apparently.
No one is suggesting carriers are invulnerable to attack. It's just that folk tend to assume that land bases are - which is a long way from the truth.
Like I said, "Even the USN haven't come up with one [a solution] yet", all they have is an idea. A pretty sci fi idea at the moment.
http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/aegis_tests.pdf
I think it is the "Ma" bit that would be the really big issue, even for SM3. That said, look at its kinetic warhead's ability to manoeuvre above the atmosphere, so great without the "Ma".
However, when the target is a re-entry vehicle, it's likely to be going at a hell of a lick, and any manoeuvre is going to require a lot of turn by the interceptor and a lot of speed. It's one thing hitting a very high velocity ballistic target, quite another hitting a very high velocity MaRV.
However, when the target is a re-entry vehicle, it's likely to be going at a hell of a lick, and any manoeuvre is going to require a lot of turn by the interceptor and a lot of speed. It's one thing hitting a very high velocity ballistic target, quite another hitting a very high velocity MaRV.
Glojoe,
No point in keeping 1 of a type. Generally you need 3 to keep one operational at any one time. Two is stretching it. Odds are when you need the thing it will be in deep maintenance.
No point in keeping 1 of a type. Generally you need 3 to keep one operational at any one time. Two is stretching it. Odds are when you need the thing it will be in deep maintenance.
Mk 1, in fairness to glojo I think it might have been me that mentioned only having one. And, yes, I do understand how limiting that option is.
I just wonder if the Government might reduce to one (even when breifed on all the reasons not to) when faced with a continuing economic crisis and the costs associated with adding the cat, purchasing a different aircraft, etc. After all, they could argue the French do it and we could co-ordinate with them.
I just wonder if the Government might reduce to one (even when breifed on all the reasons not to) when faced with a continuing economic crisis and the costs associated with adding the cat, purchasing a different aircraft, etc. After all, they could argue the French do it and we could co-ordinate with them.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 13th Mar 2013 at 16:32.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The French are indeed doing it but at what cost to the ship, the crew and the morale. The last pictures I saw of that ship gave the impression she was overworked and in dire need of a refit.
If we only have the one carrier and it is due a refit do we honestly believe there will never be any intereference from Her Majesty's Government to keep the thing at sea because of an ongoing political situation?
We all know the Admiralty will take this request on the chin and no matter the state of the ship ikt will try its hardest to carry out these requests.
I agree that having two of a type is asking a lot and three would be better but is the reality we would be hard pressed to even crew two such ships? (question NOT statement) I do not see the need for the US style battle group that comes with the carrier but I would assume it would have the minimum one surface escort.
We talk about whether this country will ever put both carriers to sea but a more pressing question still might be 'Will we have any aircraft to put on them?'
I suppose the answer might be that we already operate an aircraft-less carrier so why break this unique situation?
If we only have the one carrier and it is due a refit do we honestly believe there will never be any intereference from Her Majesty's Government to keep the thing at sea because of an ongoing political situation?
We all know the Admiralty will take this request on the chin and no matter the state of the ship ikt will try its hardest to carry out these requests.
I agree that having two of a type is asking a lot and three would be better but is the reality we would be hard pressed to even crew two such ships? (question NOT statement) I do not see the need for the US style battle group that comes with the carrier but I would assume it would have the minimum one surface escort.
We talk about whether this country will ever put both carriers to sea but a more pressing question still might be 'Will we have any aircraft to put on them?'
I suppose the answer might be that we already operate an aircraft-less carrier so why break this unique situation?
I fear it may all come down to what the PM wants, Glojo. If he sees himself as a big player on the international stage and suddenly realizes that he's (litterally) burned his boats, he just might try to make sure he has the forces to back up his ambitions - we certainly don't at the moment, as you rightly point out.
Of course there will. Remember the state of the ships we sent to the Falklands?
Originally Posted by Glojo
If we only have the one carrier and it is due a refit do we honestly believe there will never be any intereference from Her Majesty's Government to keep the thing at sea because of an ongoing political situation?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CM
Of course there will. Remember the state of the ships we sent to the Falklands?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney,
The ship I went down there on was in pretty good shape. So were lots of others. They all arrived there after a few weeks in good shape. The Navy was (is) actually quite good at keeping their kit in decent shape. The ones that were old still fought a very good fight. Some of them fought an epic fight.
As I remember, the Vulcans were a bit tired. And it took the GR3s quite a few extra weeks to get there. (Damn good job they did once they got there though).
Just trying to keep the facts straight....
Best Regards as ever
Engines
The ship I went down there on was in pretty good shape. So were lots of others. They all arrived there after a few weeks in good shape. The Navy was (is) actually quite good at keeping their kit in decent shape. The ones that were old still fought a very good fight. Some of them fought an epic fight.
As I remember, the Vulcans were a bit tired. And it took the GR3s quite a few extra weeks to get there. (Damn good job they did once they got there though).
Just trying to keep the facts straight....
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Engines,
We must never forget just how quickly those ships that were damaged by aircraft attacks were very quickly repaired and returned back into action being held together with two by two, gaffa tape and a lot of blood, sweat and tears.
A ship this government and its predecessors refuse to preserve
We must never forget just how quickly those ships that were damaged by aircraft attacks were very quickly repaired and returned back into action being held together with two by two, gaffa tape and a lot of blood, sweat and tears.
A ship this government and its predecessors refuse to preserve
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Starts to look really good, and somehow gives me the impression of a very high quality fit and finish product.
Captain's seat installed (together with the rest of the bridge)
What the QEC project is demonstrating, is a step-change in the UK build capability and is significantly in advance of how the US build their CVN.
The level of outfit in the lower blocks - ie beneath the hangar deck (and the islands) is very high, with a significant chunk of the systems commissioned and set to work.
The tricky bit is going to be outfitting the decks between the hangar and flight decks. Because of their shape and division, they're very difficult to outfit - particularly cabling - before they're erected on the ship. The next year is going to see those areas infested with sparkies running and banding cables along, up and across those decks. If that goes well, the rest should be relatively straightforward.
So far so good.
The level of outfit in the lower blocks - ie beneath the hangar deck (and the islands) is very high, with a significant chunk of the systems commissioned and set to work.
The tricky bit is going to be outfitting the decks between the hangar and flight decks. Because of their shape and division, they're very difficult to outfit - particularly cabling - before they're erected on the ship. The next year is going to see those areas infested with sparkies running and banding cables along, up and across those decks. If that goes well, the rest should be relatively straightforward.
So far so good.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not A Boffin,
Some years ago now I was treated to a bit of a Carrier alliance famil...I was invited down as a SME for something or other.
The chaps showed us a demonstration bit of bulkhead and described a method I think called 'blown fibre' which was going to make wiring etc a breeze. (
)
Is this still the plan and does it still work?
Some years ago now I was treated to a bit of a Carrier alliance famil...I was invited down as a SME for something or other.
The chaps showed us a demonstration bit of bulkhead and described a method I think called 'blown fibre' which was going to make wiring etc a breeze. (
)Is this still the plan and does it still work?
Orca - I believe the ship is still going to be commissioned with plenty of fibre. The issue is, that it has to go point to point - the longer the better. The ACA weren't kidding in terms of getting it through bulkheads etc, but, as WEBF correctly points out, fibre is great for data cabling, not for power Tx. There will be shedloads of both - not a problem, just demanding in terms of manhours - particularly if you have to leave it later in the build, which for this ship we do.
She is way in excess of any ship I've ever been in build on in terms of installed outfit. Doesn't mean the remainder is easy, but looks very good so far.
She is way in excess of any ship I've ever been in build on in terms of installed outfit. Doesn't mean the remainder is easy, but looks very good so far.