Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Old 22nd Jul 2008, 11:16
  #1841 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 516
Wader 2

Many thanks. Understand.
dervish is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2008, 12:27
  #1842 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,317
greenfreddie,

I agree 100% with your post. Unfortunately even the FAA pilots will struggle to make the grade when it comes to ship driving as they are not getting anything like enough sea time due to being in some desert. Hopefully things will improve as we get nearer to CVF.
Navaleye is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2008, 14:08
  #1843 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Yes, that's exactly what I was getting at. An acquaintance of mine in the FAA feels that to make a decent job of operating JSF, a pilot won't have time to drive ships.
Occasional Aviator is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2008, 00:41
  #1844 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Germany Completes Radar Constellation


Jul 22, 2008
#content td div img { padding-right:10px; padding-bottom:2px}html.ie6 #content td div img { padding-right:10px; padding-bottom:0px; }div.storyContent p { margin-top: 2px; margin-bottom: 14px;}html.ie6 div.storyContent p { margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;}#mainNav { margin-top:0px;}By Michael A. Taverna
Germany has orbited the fifth and final satellite in its SARLupe X-band satellite constellation, providing the German armed forces and Europe with its first full space-based radar imaging capability.
Like the four preceding spacecraft, the 1,700-pound satellite was orbited from the Plesetsk cosmodrome in northern Russia atop a Cosmos 3M launcher.
First contact between the spacecraft and the German Aerospace Center control facility in Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany, was established at 5:43 Central European Time on July 22, 1 hour 3 minutes after launch, and a preliminary check found all systems working nominally, according to prime contractor OHB-System.
The satellite will be handed over to the German forces in late August, when the system will reahttp://151.108.55.35/iw-cc/command/iw.group.formspub.save_valid_form Save Form EntrySavech full deployment status. The five SARLupe spacecraft occupy three orbital planes to provide coverage of the entire globe. The first SARLupe launch was in December 2006 (Aerospace DAILY, Dec. 22, 2006).
Germany will be able to fuse the radar imagery from SARLupe with optical images from France's Helios II system under a data sharing agreement between the two countries that went into effect in January, providing timely all-weather day/night IMINT support to troops in overseas theaters, notably in Afghanistan.

Germany Completes Radar Constellation | AVIATION WEEK

You gents understand what this means?

With five radarsats up, the D-landers can find and track your large surface ships anywhere on the planet. Hope they don't share info with not-so-nice people.
Modern Elmo is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2008, 06:37
  #1845 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,575
Hope they don't share info with not-so-nice people.
Such as Mad George Dubya's spooks?
BEagle is online now  
Old 24th Jul 2008, 13:58
  #1846 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Mr. BAEgle,

Was your boy Tony any saner in 2003?

Now, to return to topic, you fellows need to absorb the fact that large surface ships CANNOT hide anywhere on this planet's oceans from better-equipped foreigners.

The same is true for the US Nav.

The main point is: large, ultra expensive aircraft carriers are on their way to becoming the battleships of the 21st century, heading for the "must keep the fleet in being" syndrome of 1917-1918.
Modern Elmo is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2008, 14:51
  #1847 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 131
Quite right, they cannot hide, though they can be defended so long as we choose to equip the Navy to be better equipped vs a/c than just submarines.

If we are going to continue to alienate much of the Middle East and fight the world over in conflicts debatable and often unpopular, then having our own portable airfielf without desperate need of overflight rights, dipclear etc could be almost indispensable.
drustsonoferp is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2008, 15:08
  #1848 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,317
Lets get real. Back in the 80s the Ruskies had a thing called SOSS (Soviet Ocean Surveillance System) which could tell pretty accurately where our surface units were and we could do the same more accurately by other means. This is nothing new and therefore changes nothing.
Navaleye is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2008, 15:44
  #1849 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Lets get real. Back in the 80s the Ruskies had a thing called SOSS (Soviet Ocean Surveillance System) which could tell pretty accurately where our surface units were and we could do the same more accurately by other means. This is nothing new and therefore changes nothing.


You are correct. Back then the trend was already underway for aircraft carriers to become the battleships of 2017-2018. At least the big CV's that cannot be replaced in a finite number of years are going to go the way of the dreadnoughts.

I suppose we can debate whether or not your two enlarged Invincibles ought to be lumped into this category.

You British large aircraft carrier fanboys always seem to assume that your future war will be a replay of Los Islas Malvinas 1982.

Today's Britain ... Always chasing yesteryear's military technology.
Modern Elmo is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2008, 16:34
  #1850 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,317
You British large aircraft carrier fanboys always seem to assume that your future war will be a replay of Los Islas Malvinas 1982.

Today's Britain ... Always chasing yesteryear's military technology.
Modern,

How do you arrive at that conclusion? Current RN doctrine differs little from that of the USN and USMC. A CVF with 40 Dave-Bs will offer a comparable first night capability to a CVN with a mixed airgroup. If you look at most military conflicts they are one-off events and it is sensible to look at the past when considering the future. The RN does not plan in the dark, it is done in the broader NATO context. CVF offers excellent value for money by any measure. Argentina is still making bellicose comments regarding sovereign British territory which is why we have an airbase and a permanent naval presence. I would not be surprised if a CVF did not pass that way on its way to the Pacific via Cape Horn just to prove a point to the Corned Beef producers. I would like to see them take a pop at a Queen Elizabeth battlegroup with an Astute, two T45s and T23 escorts. Military power is all about deterrence you see.
Navaleye is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2008, 20:53
  #1851 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
I would not be surprised if a CVF did not pass that way on its way to the Pacific via Cape Horn just to prove a point to the Corned Beef producers.


And that's the point of Britain allocating scarce military funds to build two large aircraft carriers?

What are Prince of Wales and the Queen E. going to do in the Pacific? Cruise around the Yellow Sea and through the Straits of Taiwan to show the flag?
Modern Elmo is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2008, 20:57
  #1852 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,963
Modern Elmo

"The main point is: large, ultra expensive aircraft carriers are on their way to becoming the battleships of the 21st century, heading for the "must keep the fleet in being" syndrome of 1917-1918."






(and an extremely slow, vulnerable, inflexible, expensive and inefficient way of delivering air power....)
Jackonicko is online now  
Old 25th Jul 2008, 00:30
  #1853 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,317
and being the most capable and flexible strike platform the UK armed forces have ever had. You folks really need to kep up with current affairs ! Off to a nice bar in West Palm Beach. Good night chaps.
Navaleye is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2008, 04:45
  #1854 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,317
and an extremely slow, vulnerable, inflexible, expensive and inefficient way of delivering air power.
Jacko, please name me one land facility that can move 500 miles in a day and can approach its target from virtually any direction.

Could the following have happened without carriers?

1917: Cuxhaven airship raids
1940: Taranto
1941: Pearl Harbour

add: Korea, Suez, Vietnam, Libya

1982: Falklands

Do you see a pattern building here? Flexibility is the key and carrier air strike offers it at the best available price which is why HMG have gone for it it. Face facts.

I know many of us see your position this way


Last edited by Navaleye; 25th Jul 2008 at 05:14.
Navaleye is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2008, 06:16
  #1855 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,575
Off to a nice bar in West Palm Beach
That'll be the Blue Oyster, I guess.....

If the UK armed forces really needed flexibility, we wouldn't have allowed the government to throw away our strategic bombing capability, strategic reconnaissance ability etc etc....and to have contracted out core capabilities to civilian companies.

Some of our clapped out old aeroplanes need replacement NOW. I'm just not convinced that the 2 carriers have such priority in our defence budget.
BEagle is online now  
Old 25th Jul 2008, 10:54
  #1856 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Agree'd however since most of our aircraft are now built by foreign companies we would have to wait to get them any way.
The decision to order is nothing to do with the UKDF strageic needs its to do with Gordon Brown having a job after the next election!
The Defence budget espically the Naval one will go into melt down soon when the trident replacement boats have to be ordered and the treasury tell the mod to find the money out of their budgets.
NURSE is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2008, 12:31
  #1857 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,770
Well ( as I'm sure everyone will agree ) I'm no strategic expert, but it strikes me that;

If we stick to asymetric warfare, carriers are very useful

( would the 'Black Hawk Down' incident have happened if there was a US or USMC carrier handy ? )

If we end up in a real, full-on war, carriers will be very useful.

On another tack, going back to the beginning of this thread, I remember seeing high photo-quality images of an American port supposedly taken by a Russian RORSAT quite a few years ago - the point is this thing could map out the UNDERWATER details to quite a depth...

Was that just B.S, or what with that & ever quieter attack subs ( air independent SSK's in particular ) are SSBN's more likely to 'go the way of the battleship ' ?

Hey presto ! Trident replacement budget problem solved...Treasury please PM me for where to send your large cheque in gratitude.

More likely, whether that RORSAT capability exists or not, it doesn't take a genius to see anti-satellite warfare becoming trendy, now other people are joining in and treaties seem redundant.
Double Zero is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2008, 13:54
  #1858 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,317
It used to be the case that the nuclear deterrent budget was shared amongst all three services and not just a navy liability. Is this still the case?
Navaleye is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2008, 14:48
  #1859 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 1,549
Certainly wasn't the case for the V-boat build programme - part of the reason that we went from 50+ to 44 DD/FF IIRC and the extended life (decrepitude?) of Feraless & Intrepid. Elements of the supporting infrastructure might be purple, but AIUI the boats come straight out of Fleet & DGSM budgets.

While I'm at it, just having SOSS and RORSATs doesn't solve all your problems. Are they geostationary? Predictable orbits?
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2008, 15:15
  #1860 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,317
NaB,

SOSS was a mish-mash of satellites monitoring predicted operating areas of NATO battlegroups, backed up by aerial surveillance and shore based monitoring stations. Not perfect but always a worry that it was good enough.

Hoping to fly-out to Ark Royal this PM to monitor JFTEX-08. I asked who her RN escort was and the answer is none could be spared. That's how bad things are.
Navaleye is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.