Future Carrier (Including Costs)

[Geordie_Expat]

Originally Posted by glad rag

The relevance being...............????????

[SARF]

They can land 100 marines as a boarding party on the deck of a carrier and take it over spacex style

[SARF]

Or blow all the superstructure off

[glad rag]

The relevance being that was a benign ballistic re entry lol.

Now try to imagine 6 metric tons of multiple kinetics say lumps of du coming in...

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by SpazSinbad

At http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post9723562 on 30 Mar 2017 is a story about the refurbished BAE Sim at Warton - for SRVL training. Now here is the viddy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAPcvOGZ-hY

Is that the FMS?

[SpazSinbad]

The story at this link makes it clear I hope that the BAE Warton CVF/F-35B simulator is what it is: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post9723562

An FMS Full Mission Simulator for the F-35 is a lot different. Cockpit does not move but has 360 degree DOME screen (almost - with a tunnel for access by pilot in cockpit on rails which then moves up into the dome). FMS seen from 2 minutes onwards. First two minutes are desktop sims in use for switchology training.

You Tube

[SpazSinbad]

An SRVL approach in the pre refurbished BAE Warton Sim:

You Tube

You Tube

[Onceapilot]

Quote POTUS 11 Apr '17,
" We have submarines. Very powerful. Far more powerful than the aircraft carrier."

Now, he has no real knowledge of this, and that quote will be the essence of the top Mil briefing he has been given.

OAP

[MSOCS]

Submarines have nukes, carriers don't. Unless your operational plan is to go nuclear then the submarine represents a single conventional weapon system against land targets and therefore a single point of failure. A submarine lacks flexibility in the roles of air power it can project -i.e it has missiles that have limitations across a target set that demands full-spectrum treatment.

The carrier is an overt, visible sign of deterrence and coercion with a large air force of its own.

I think that's more powerful than any submarine, unless we've now resorted to defining power only kinetically and purely in terms of megatons of equivalent TNT!!!

[Bing]

Now, he has no real knowledge of this, and that quote will be the essence of the top Mil briefing he has been given.

By submariners.

[Onceapilot]

I suspect that he has let slip the plan he might use is based upon the use of submarine assets.

OAP

[Turbine D]

So sending the carrier task force into Korean waters is really a ruse, the subs are already there. No wonder Un convened the parliament meeting.

[Bigpants]

Interesting responses and food for thought. I wonder if the Aircraft Carrier in time will become as vulnerable and irrelevant as the Fixed land based Fortress? Might seem like an odd analogy but since the Romans here in the UK a Fortress was built not only to defend the occupants and control the ground but to be as was said above to be "an overt, visible sign of deterrence and coercion"

The trouble is that although land based forts had a good run every few years someone would invent something to negate them; siege engines, ballistas, undermining, artillery and so on. By WW2 the French had invested a fortune in the Maginot Line and Belgium had its fortifications. Blitzkrieg swept past them glider borne assault troops landed on them and they used shape charges to disable them.

Carrier groups, especially when deployed into the Gulf or close to Korean shores look vulnerable to me. It only takes one lucky hit or an accident of seamanship for a list to negate most of its firepower.

[KenV]

Let's assume an aircraft carrier is as vulnerable as many people claim. An utterly false assumption, but for argument's sake, let's assume it is.

Suppose China or North Korea opt to sink or otherwise take out a CVN. Would that be an explicit and very visible act of war? I tend to think so. What would the US response be to such an action, even assuming the US decides not to use nukes as its response? Would whoever took out the CVN shortly be on the receiving end of a VERY devastating (non nuclear) response? I tend to think so. I also tend to think that whoever is contemplating such an action would think so too and upon further contemplation would be dissuaded from even attempting it.

[KenV]

Originally Posted by MSOCS

Submarines have nukes, carriers don't.

Officially, I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on board any USN vessel or naval station, however I know for a fact that.........

[KenV]

Originally Posted by glad rag

The relevance being that was a benign ballistic re entry lol.
Now try to imagine 6 metric tons of multiple kinetics say lumps of du coming in...

I have zero trouble "imagining" the above.

I have great trouble imaging the above with a terminal sensor/targeting system with the precision needed to hit a moving CVN, to say nothing of doing it in an intense defensive EW environment. And that completely ignores an Aegis anti-missile system targeting that 6+ metric ton re-entry vehicle which contains the above.

[Bigpants]

KenV point taken about an overt act of war. Now assume that one of the carrier group hits a mine in "international waters" try proving that the Koreans or Iranians were responsible? If were the Iranians I would use one of their nice quiet German Submarines to go lay some mines around the straights and not tell anyone.

Has happened before, the RN had a ship hit a mine while travelling between Corfu and Albania many years back.

Corfu Channel Incident 1946, Mining of HMS Saumarez and Volage

[SpazSinbad]

The FUTURE CARRIER ashore at RAF Marham after UPgrade: 13 Apr 2017

http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/up...PI-FOR-WEB.jpg
&/or
Preparing for the Operation of the Lightning Force: Infrastructure, Operations and the Way Ahead at RAF Marham | SLDInfo

[KenV]

Originally Posted by Bigpants

KenV point taken about an overt act of war. Now assume that one of the carrier group hits a mine in "international waters" try proving that the Koreans or Iranians were responsible?

I was referring to the various posts that claimed it was "easy" to sink a CVN using anti-ship ballistic missiles. Even assuming that were true (which I seriously doubt), such a kill would have massive repercussions that probably no nation would consider acceptable.

As for mines, it's doubtful a single mine could sink a CVN, although one might sink a CVBG escort ship. But mines are indiscriminate and very very non-precision weapons, being essentially area denial weapons. Since there are far far more commercial vessels on the seas than military vessels, it's far more likely a commercial vessel will strike a random mine, including a "friendly" vessel.

Incidentally, 1946 was not the last time a warship struck a mine. USS Princeton (CG-59) and USS Tripoli (LPH-10) both hit mines during the first Iraq war. And FWIW, these were Italian manufactured influence mines. And although it did not strike a mine, USS Cole (DDG-67) was severely damaged by a suicide bomber attack. These are a very different type of event than a deliberate military attack on a CVN using ballistic missiles.

[SARF]

And of course there have not been any advances in mine detection ever in the
Last decade or so. Especially one big enough to dent a U.S. nuclear carrier