Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSSETOWTF,
'From a pilot's perspective' - just about says it all. If the perspective is the stick and rudder skills to takeoff and land on, you are absolutely right. That's why STOVL is a good way to enable Joint Ops. (Unlike going cat and trap). But there's a bit more to it than stick and rudder....
We are currently working with a token force of 5 or 6 aircraft doing short dets on a CVS. Think about what getting a 25 or 30 ship force operating might require - weapon generation, loading, deck handling, strike planning, working within a really joined up littoral campaign - a world away from what JFH have been able to do so far.
The key is that CVF is not merely 'a basing option' - it's a different way of delivering precision strike effect, and it's going to have to be practiced, like all other combat skills. It's either a core skill set or not. Going for 2 CVFs the size of a Kitty Hawk indicates that we are going to have to get serious about it.
'From a pilot's perspective' - just about says it all. If the perspective is the stick and rudder skills to takeoff and land on, you are absolutely right. That's why STOVL is a good way to enable Joint Ops. (Unlike going cat and trap). But there's a bit more to it than stick and rudder....
We are currently working with a token force of 5 or 6 aircraft doing short dets on a CVS. Think about what getting a 25 or 30 ship force operating might require - weapon generation, loading, deck handling, strike planning, working within a really joined up littoral campaign - a world away from what JFH have been able to do so far.
The key is that CVF is not merely 'a basing option' - it's a different way of delivering precision strike effect, and it's going to have to be practiced, like all other combat skills. It's either a core skill set or not. Going for 2 CVFs the size of a Kitty Hawk indicates that we are going to have to get serious about it.
Engines
And your reply to........
'You say....I'm also bothered by the assertion that 'the target will be on land' - really? All the time? Ever heard of things called enemy ships?.....
Well I have a question. With the demise of Sea Eagle, which went before the Sea Harrier, I thought UK plc had got out of the game of attacking ships with fast jets? Or are LGBs/Brimstone supposed to be the solution.
I don't know what the proposed armament of Dave is in UK service, are we getting back into fast jet anti ship missions with its introduction? ......
is??????
And your reply to........
'You say....I'm also bothered by the assertion that 'the target will be on land' - really? All the time? Ever heard of things called enemy ships?.....
Well I have a question. With the demise of Sea Eagle, which went before the Sea Harrier, I thought UK plc had got out of the game of attacking ships with fast jets? Or are LGBs/Brimstone supposed to be the solution.
I don't know what the proposed armament of Dave is in UK service, are we getting back into fast jet anti ship missions with its introduction? ......
is??????
Suspicion breeds confidence
Biggus,
As I recall the official line is that their is "no obvious threat" and the Nimrod with Harpoons could do any job required. Attacking warships with LGB is not recommended if they have a decent SAM. AFAIK Brimstone's mmwave radar is not programmed with shapes of boats or ships so its unlikely to hit anything. Even if its launch platform got close enough.
Richard Beedal has just updated his site here on this subject and I hope he does not mind me quoting him. I find his observations to be very accurate, especially the last 7 words.
As I recall the official line is that their is "no obvious threat" and the Nimrod with Harpoons could do any job required. Attacking warships with LGB is not recommended if they have a decent SAM. AFAIK Brimstone's mmwave radar is not programmed with shapes of boats or ships so its unlikely to hit anything. Even if its launch platform got close enough.
Richard Beedal has just updated his site here on this subject and I hope he does not mind me quoting him. I find his observations to be very accurate, especially the last 7 words.
Perhaps the most worrying problem is finding aircraft for the new carriers to operate. Currently the Royal Navy simply does not have regular access to UK operated fast jet aircraft to operate from its designated high readiness strike carrier, HMS Illustrious. Disastrously the Sea Harrier FA.2 is now long gone and the sole operational naval air squadron (800 NAS) re-equipped with the Harrier GR.7/9 is about to deploy [again] to Afghanistan, providing land-based close air support to NATO forces there. In order to maintain some level of experience in the operation of fixed wing aircraft, HMS Illustrious recently operated 14 American (US Marine Corps) AV-8B Harrier s for an exercise and will soon embark Spanish Navy Harrier’s for another. Although the MOD has tried to put a positive spin on these deployments, the underlying desperation is impossible to hide.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a question for you guys. Crystal ball time.
Has there been a revolutionary change in naval aviation with the advent of the current anti air warfware ships? I mean the sort of revolution that the machine gun brought to cavalry charges, the tank brought to trench warfare and the aircraft carrier brought to battleships.
Is it the case that ships such as the T-45, supported by proper MASC platforms can negate the threat of carrier borne aircraft, being able to engage the attack planes before they are able to launch their anti ship weapons?
Could future high intensity naval conflicts be fought by warships engaging each other at the extreme range of their anti ship missles and the victory being decided by the side with the most effective (largest radar cover)MASC system?
Through history technology has swung the advantage between defense and offense. Has the wheel turned again? Perhaps the time of the battleship will come again, being packed with systems to combat surface, air and submerged threats.
Cheers
Has there been a revolutionary change in naval aviation with the advent of the current anti air warfware ships? I mean the sort of revolution that the machine gun brought to cavalry charges, the tank brought to trench warfare and the aircraft carrier brought to battleships.
Is it the case that ships such as the T-45, supported by proper MASC platforms can negate the threat of carrier borne aircraft, being able to engage the attack planes before they are able to launch their anti ship weapons?
Could future high intensity naval conflicts be fought by warships engaging each other at the extreme range of their anti ship missles and the victory being decided by the side with the most effective (largest radar cover)MASC system?
Through history technology has swung the advantage between defense and offense. Has the wheel turned again? Perhaps the time of the battleship will come again, being packed with systems to combat surface, air and submerged threats.
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High Intensity Naval Conflict
Well, there is more than one way to look at that. A few months ago, I heard a USAF general point out that he could sink all the USN's carriers in one day using B-2 strikes from the USA. Since, for the reasons ponited out by others above [See Not A Boffin's post on the last page], you're not going to generate the capability to run a full air campaign from a deck (even the US can't do that), I wonder if anyone has done the investment appraisal of buying a sqn or two of global-range, survivable bombers (B-1B might even do) with CALCM/StormShadow for land attack and SDB for CAS, against operating one carrier which is probably going to be in the wrong place? Just a thought....
(Waits for cries of 'No HNS', 'Access, basing and overflight' etc... doesn't seem to bother the US in JV2020!)
(Waits for cries of 'No HNS', 'Access, basing and overflight' etc... doesn't seem to bother the US in JV2020!)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I heard a USAF general point out that he could sink all the USN's carriers in one day using B-2 strikes from the USA."
So it would appear that our Air Force is not the only one that comes out with spectacular distortions of the truth in order to enhance their position/funding.
Australia being moved 1000 miles west anyone?
Since our (considerably less advanced) warships detection systems have spotted B2s in the past in the Gulf, I find it highly unlikely that the USN cannot find them also.
So it would appear that our Air Force is not the only one that comes out with spectacular distortions of the truth in order to enhance their position/funding.
Australia being moved 1000 miles west anyone?
Since our (considerably less advanced) warships detection systems have spotted B2s in the past in the Gulf, I find it highly unlikely that the USN cannot find them also.
OA
Bit of a misrepresentation of my post I think. My point was that due entirely to the purportedly temporary "risk taken" on AD, there was a further risk that it would become permanent - not through a characteristic of the aircraft, but due entirely to the beancounters. 36 JCA, plus a decent MASC ought to be able to put up a decent DCA capability and provide a BAI / strike capability as well.
The USAF general was also doing the usual Billy Mitchell impersonation which tends to occur every time they go for another attempt at a Buff / Bone replacement.
As you are probably well aware the US has not signed up to the capability-driven drivel prevalent this side of the pond and recognises the value of complementary systems and capabilities....
C237 - in a word, no. Always kill the archer, not his arrows...
Bit of a misrepresentation of my post I think. My point was that due entirely to the purportedly temporary "risk taken" on AD, there was a further risk that it would become permanent - not through a characteristic of the aircraft, but due entirely to the beancounters. 36 JCA, plus a decent MASC ought to be able to put up a decent DCA capability and provide a BAI / strike capability as well.
The USAF general was also doing the usual Billy Mitchell impersonation which tends to occur every time they go for another attempt at a Buff / Bone replacement.
As you are probably well aware the US has not signed up to the capability-driven drivel prevalent this side of the pond and recognises the value of complementary systems and capabilities....
C237 - in a word, no. Always kill the archer, not his arrows...
I got involved in a long forum fight over a B-2-versus-carrier claim.
The fish-heads stoutly maintained that the use of tactics, decoys and EMCON would prevent B-2s from finding them using LPI radar. They were probably right in that you'd have needed some offboard cueing (TacSats or HALE UAVs would be the way to do that now.)
We also had an existing-weapon constraint in the discussion (I'd have used ultra-LO GPS-plus-update glide bombs).
However, a long-range, long-endurance LO platform poses a hell of a problem to carriers. The bad guys have not got one. Yet.
The fish-heads stoutly maintained that the use of tactics, decoys and EMCON would prevent B-2s from finding them using LPI radar. They were probably right in that you'd have needed some offboard cueing (TacSats or HALE UAVs would be the way to do that now.)
We also had an existing-weapon constraint in the discussion (I'd have used ultra-LO GPS-plus-update glide bombs).
However, a long-range, long-endurance LO platform poses a hell of a problem to carriers. The bad guys have not got one. Yet.
NaB
While the General was surely overstating the case, I'm wary of applying the Billy Mitchell analogy. After all, the reason that the admirals everywhere disregarded Mitchell was that nobody could ever hit a moving battleship, shooting back - the idea was just dratted ridiculous.
While the General was surely overstating the case, I'm wary of applying the Billy Mitchell analogy. After all, the reason that the admirals everywhere disregarded Mitchell was that nobody could ever hit a moving battleship, shooting back - the idea was just dratted ridiculous.
But Billy's contention was not just that he could hit a battleship, but that long-range strategic bombers had made capital ships irrelevant.
The first was clearly true, the second not.
The first was clearly true, the second not.
I will concede that point.
The capital ship (now the aircraft carrier) has a new lease of life with the disbandment of AVMF and the absence of a large fleet of Tu-22M3 (You Can Get Rid of Pesky Carriers NOW!!!!) Backfires...
The capital ship (now the aircraft carrier) has a new lease of life with the disbandment of AVMF and the absence of a large fleet of Tu-22M3 (You Can Get Rid of Pesky Carriers NOW!!!!) Backfires...
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist,
Without knowing the facts of the incidents you talk about (RN ships seeing B2s), it's not possible to use them as evidence of the utility, or otherwise, of stealth. The whole premise of stealth is that you cannot (with current technology) build a klingon-cloaked aircraft that is totally invisible. Rather, you shape your aircraft to deflect the incident radar into very restricted arcs, none of which are in the head sector. With appropriate planning you can then reach your intended target and kill it before its radars see you.
So the RN spouting gumf about being able to see B2s is as deceptive as the infamous 'moving Australia' incident.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Without knowing the facts of the incidents you talk about (RN ships seeing B2s), it's not possible to use them as evidence of the utility, or otherwise, of stealth. The whole premise of stealth is that you cannot (with current technology) build a klingon-cloaked aircraft that is totally invisible. Rather, you shape your aircraft to deflect the incident radar into very restricted arcs, none of which are in the head sector. With appropriate planning you can then reach your intended target and kill it before its radars see you.
So the RN spouting gumf about being able to see B2s is as deceptive as the infamous 'moving Australia' incident.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSSETOWTF
With a US carrier fleet there are a great many very powerful raders on many different ships and aircraft spread over a very large area. Some of that radar energy will get back to some platform or other.
Plus, they gotta open those bomb bay doors eventually. You don't think goalkeeper/phalanx can shoot bombs?
Once you find it, a B2 is a big slow target.
With a US carrier fleet there are a great many very powerful raders on many different ships and aircraft spread over a very large area. Some of that radar energy will get back to some platform or other.
Plus, they gotta open those bomb bay doors eventually. You don't think goalkeeper/phalanx can shoot bombs?
Once you find it, a B2 is a big slow target.
Stealth detections have to be looked at carefully.
First, the only detections I heard about in the Gulf were F-117s, not B-2s.
If so, they may have been spotted from the side. Neither were they trying to evade the RN's radar - and indeed couldn't, because the 117 can't detect a mobile radar.
It's also possible that they had radar reflectors deployed or attached to (1) avoid traffic control problems on non-combat missions or (2) to mask the real signature from Rear-Admiral Rodney Rumbum RN and his merry crew of Nosy Parkers.
A B-2 in serious go-to-war mode is a different beast because first, it's got wideband all-aspect LO (this is why, like the freshmen down at Yale, it has no tail) and second, it has some ability to detect the radar and warn the crew.
First, the only detections I heard about in the Gulf were F-117s, not B-2s.
If so, they may have been spotted from the side. Neither were they trying to evade the RN's radar - and indeed couldn't, because the 117 can't detect a mobile radar.
It's also possible that they had radar reflectors deployed or attached to (1) avoid traffic control problems on non-combat missions or (2) to mask the real signature from Rear-Admiral Rodney Rumbum RN and his merry crew of Nosy Parkers.
A B-2 in serious go-to-war mode is a different beast because first, it's got wideband all-aspect LO (this is why, like the freshmen down at Yale, it has no tail) and second, it has some ability to detect the radar and warn the crew.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Once you find it, a B2 is a big slow target.>> - Whereas an aircraft carrier is smaller and faster (and has a smaller RCS)???
I'm sure phalanx & goalkeeper can indeed shoot bombs, but anyone seriously considering attacking any modern ship from the air is probably going to employ the principle of saturating the air defence system - and the B2 carries an awful lot of bombs... It's all a bit of a moot point, but if your scenario now relies on the whole CAG helping, then could the USAF use more than one airframe at a time?
It'd be a good thing to banter about over a couple of pints.
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
I'm sure phalanx & goalkeeper can indeed shoot bombs, but anyone seriously considering attacking any modern ship from the air is probably going to employ the principle of saturating the air defence system - and the B2 carries an awful lot of bombs... It's all a bit of a moot point, but if your scenario now relies on the whole CAG helping, then could the USAF use more than one airframe at a time?
It'd be a good thing to banter about over a couple of pints.
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Thread Starter
But surely the B2 would need ISTAR support to find the CVBG? This ISTAR asset could be taken out. Or the bases they operate from. Likewise an enemy stealth aircraft. The bases these aircraft operate from are going to be very high on the target list. And as for that MPA searching on radar....
I note that the USN is having some problems with equipment for CVN21, as this article from Jane's reports.
A tight development schedule for the ship's critical technologies could impede the design process and delay the construction of CVN 78. Equipment singled out as the main potential causes of delay include the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS), the advanced arresting gear - both built by General Atomics - and the dual-band radar manufactured by Raytheon.
Another reason (in addition to cost, deck landing training issues etc) that STOVL was the right choice for CVF?
Meanwhile, certain items have been ordered for CVF, including the IFF, diesel generating sets and the weapon handling system.
I note that the USN is having some problems with equipment for CVN21, as this article from Jane's reports.
A tight development schedule for the ship's critical technologies could impede the design process and delay the construction of CVN 78. Equipment singled out as the main potential causes of delay include the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS), the advanced arresting gear - both built by General Atomics - and the dual-band radar manufactured by Raytheon.
Another reason (in addition to cost, deck landing training issues etc) that STOVL was the right choice for CVF?
Meanwhile, certain items have been ordered for CVF, including the IFF, diesel generating sets and the weapon handling system.
Finding/tracking the battle group has always been the problem, and it's always been the US Navy's point of pride to make it difficult. (That was why LeMay's B-17s finding the Roma was, for the Air Corps, an important stunt.)
Two things, though.
Yes, it's a force-on-force issue. It's not a knock against the B-2 to say it can't do the job by itself. When it comes to that, a carrier on its own is a big fat submarine target. My recommendation today would be satellite imagery.
Second point: Bound the problem. Searching every piece of water more than 60 feet deep is pretty difficult. But if I'm concerned with a specific set of targets, then the carrier's got to be somewhere within a few hundred miles of them, and there's only so much water in that circle.
Two things, though.
Yes, it's a force-on-force issue. It's not a knock against the B-2 to say it can't do the job by itself. When it comes to that, a carrier on its own is a big fat submarine target. My recommendation today would be satellite imagery.
Second point: Bound the problem. Searching every piece of water more than 60 feet deep is pretty difficult. But if I'm concerned with a specific set of targets, then the carrier's got to be somewhere within a few hundred miles of them, and there's only so much water in that circle.
Reading the GAO report and looking at the history, I think EMALS has suffered from an inadequate sense of urgency. Now that the CV community has decided that they need it for the future, they realize that some of the tech is not mature even though EMALS has been going for a long time.
I think it will get there - but the USN can also tolerate a slip in CVN-21 if need be.
I think it will get there - but the USN can also tolerate a slip in CVN-21 if need be.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Age: 75
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ho-Ho!!
Excellent question about T45's Missile engagement zones etc, the answer, as you proabably suspected, is "of course not"
That's often true if you have the proper missilery, which is SM-2 block 4, and something like the proper radar (""Spy" or its derivatives)
Low flyers, cunning devils that they are, demand that you net your missile capability into a "co-operative engagement capability" This in theory enables one surface vessel to use missiles fired from another to effect an engagement. "CEC" as it is known is not new, and can be used for other aspects of warfare such as McM but in the RN, because of cash and political constraints, a rather difficult situation has emerged. T45 will carry Aster, not SM-2, because, whatever BAe might tell you, it's a French system and that, politically, is tres bon. Our other surface assets however carry Sea-Dart and the two cannot talk to each other. You cannot "gather" a Sea Dart into another ship's engagement zone for a number of technical reasons, but partly because the poor old thing needs an signal up, and past, its chuff to work. If it loses it it goes bang and auto destructs. It's also good if we can all work together, code for working with the Americans. The Americans are somewhat reluctant to share certain bits of sensitive software with anybody (sound familiar?) but they are especially, hugely, determinedly not prepared to share it with, guess who?
This of course completely ignores the fact that we have no "airborne adjunct" to enable the Aster to see low flyers at range anyway. Sampson can sanitize the ship its on, but cannot sanitise other ships beyond its own low level acquisition range which is itself a lot less than Aster 30's engagement range. Ships other than T45's cannot use the T45's aster 30 in a CEC role because they are not equipped to do so, and T45's, or indeed any other ship, cannot use other ships Sea Darts etc because Sea Dart does not have the architecture to do it. And it's unlikely that budget will stretch to more than a notional number of Aster 30's anyway! Wouldn't it be nice if we did away with all these acronyms? What we'll get is a sort of "Co-operative information exchange thingy" Any help?
That's often true if you have the proper missilery, which is SM-2 block 4, and something like the proper radar (""Spy" or its derivatives)
Low flyers, cunning devils that they are, demand that you net your missile capability into a "co-operative engagement capability" This in theory enables one surface vessel to use missiles fired from another to effect an engagement. "CEC" as it is known is not new, and can be used for other aspects of warfare such as McM but in the RN, because of cash and political constraints, a rather difficult situation has emerged. T45 will carry Aster, not SM-2, because, whatever BAe might tell you, it's a French system and that, politically, is tres bon. Our other surface assets however carry Sea-Dart and the two cannot talk to each other. You cannot "gather" a Sea Dart into another ship's engagement zone for a number of technical reasons, but partly because the poor old thing needs an signal up, and past, its chuff to work. If it loses it it goes bang and auto destructs. It's also good if we can all work together, code for working with the Americans. The Americans are somewhat reluctant to share certain bits of sensitive software with anybody (sound familiar?) but they are especially, hugely, determinedly not prepared to share it with, guess who?
This of course completely ignores the fact that we have no "airborne adjunct" to enable the Aster to see low flyers at range anyway. Sampson can sanitize the ship its on, but cannot sanitise other ships beyond its own low level acquisition range which is itself a lot less than Aster 30's engagement range. Ships other than T45's cannot use the T45's aster 30 in a CEC role because they are not equipped to do so, and T45's, or indeed any other ship, cannot use other ships Sea Darts etc because Sea Dart does not have the architecture to do it. And it's unlikely that budget will stretch to more than a notional number of Aster 30's anyway! Wouldn't it be nice if we did away with all these acronyms? What we'll get is a sort of "Co-operative information exchange thingy" Any help?