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 18th Aug 2018, 08:59
  #5161 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,224
Received 1,494 Likes on 677 Posts
Carry out UK Defence Diplomacy Activities - including visits to USN bases, the port of New York, and other ports as yet to be announced
At least the big deck and hangar provide ample space for the ship to perform its primary duty in both fair and foul weather - cocktail parties.
ORAC is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2018, 10:57
  #5162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Still it's true Plod...................... even if you don't like it.................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2018, 10:58
  #5163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
At least the big deck and hangar provide ample space for the ship to perform its primary duty in both fair and foul weather - cocktail parties.
Ahhh - the days when the Admiralty insisted on teak decks and fittings so the RN could carry out diplomacy - IIRC the "Fearless" class were the last ones that had that "capability" built in?
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2018, 12:25
  #5164 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,808
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
"Of course land bases are available in a few hours even if bombed to hell. "

It takes a lot more effort to render a land base unusable for any length of time than it takes to damage or sink a carrier
Is this based on evidence or just your opinion?

Destroying runways is hard - I have heard than one of the lessons of the Falklands Conflict was that specialist weapons were needed to destroy runways (hence the development of JP233 as used by the RAF in 1991), however structures such as hangars with aircraft inside are easily targeted, as are aircraft in the open, radar facilities, and so on. Recent conflicts how the difficulty of protecting the perimeter of bases from determined attack. An airfield cannot move, and cannot do much to stop everyone knowing it is there.

A carrier can use EMCON and other procedures to keep her exact position hidden. Method exists to counter hostile radars/sonars (the QEC design is quieter than previous carriers). The carrier will operate as part of a task group and/or joint force with a full range of capabilities. I could go on, but to what end? If someone said "no need to worry about that as long as the Earth is round" you would reply "what it was discovered it was not?"
WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2018, 13:28
  #5165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I certainly hope that there is never a need for QE's to go into action/ on operations.

But by their very existence you know some dip**** politician will just be dying to flex his muscles.

But they won't be the ones doing the dying.

you see what has been created?
glad rag is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2018, 14:50
  #5166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
Ahhh - the days when the Admiralty insisted on teak decks and fittings so the RN could carry out diplomacy - IIRC the "Fearless" class were the last ones that had that "capability" built in?
The first Type 23, NORFOLK, initially had a lovely varnished hardwood flight deck. Fabulous for cocktail parties, not so good for flight operations. One of the first FOCFT tasks was to scuff it up, bigly.
BossEyed is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2018, 17:18
  #5167 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,808
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
She is on her way:


Fair winds.

A good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guarantee of peace - Theodore Roosevelt.

Si vis pacem para bellum!

Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 18th Aug 2018 at 17:30.
WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2018, 19:09
  #5168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There are numerous things people seem to forget whenever the ‘golly aren’t carriers easy to sink’ argument starts raging.

The first is that an army - which most countries have - is unlikely to hurt an aircraft carrier, but they could do a lot of damage to an airfield. I think the SAS or LRDG did it quite a lot.

Militia are much the same. I didn’t occur to me at the time but when we were under (half arsed) rocket attack at KAF - the CVNs weren’t. And for whatever reason we weren’t allowed to fly after IDF - I think due to FOD. Good drills.

I know that Black Buck effected Stanley in some way, the SF did over Pebble Island and had their bimble around Tierra Del Fuego - but I don’t think any of the three carriers involved in ‘82 were hit by anything. So I guess Air can attack airfields. That makes sense.

There’s terrorism - to the best of my knowledge there hasn’t been a single case of attempted kidnap of anyone doing flight deck phys.

Then there’s organic self protection. The aircraft carrier must have some but Akrotiri really doesn’t need it. Never really understood why.

Then there’s the main threat to any capital ship - Sub surface weaponry (when I say main - I mean the type that has accounted for most over the years); with which you don’t deal with organically - you take a SSN with you. The same sort of SSN that carries TLAM that seem to do over air fields regularly. (So you could say that airfield are vulnerable in three domains...I wonder if anyone’s got a space based JP233...that would make it four).

I guess the parallel is that that an airfield would have DCA. A carrier with DCA is a self licking lolly (odd phrase - never understood it); a DOB with DCA is just being sensible. Never understood that either.

I suppose we better talk about carrier killing missiles. Not that one’s ever killed a carrier but they work on the principle that you need specialist weaponry to attack a carrier. Unlike an airfield which can be attacked by a bloke with some wire cutters and a mallet. I suppose you could use your carrier killing weapons against carriers - leaving only your knives, guns, dumb bombs, PGMs, ALCMs etc for the airfields.

I’d very much like to see two RAF QWIs at work - one planning a strike on an airfield, the other scratching his head about attacking a carrier, wondering where the pickets would be, wondering what SURPIC was and who was going to feed it to him, wondering where to hide....the first one would probably get his done first.

Now that QNLZ has sailed any idea where she is. I know it’s somewhere in the Atlantic...I wonder if that counts as a JDAM grade coordinate these days?

All good fun. Best wishes to the boys and girls down range of whatever cloth who quite rightly get the job done and leave pointless arguments to school kids and has beens.





orca is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2018, 21:45
  #5169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by orca
There are numerous things people seem to forget whenever the ‘golly aren’t carriers easy to sink’ argument starts raging.

The first is that an army - which most countries have - is unlikely to hurt an aircraft carrier, but they could do a lot of damage to an airfield. I think the SAS or LRDG did it quite a lot.

Militia are much the same. I didn’t occur to me at the time but when we were under (half arsed) rocket attack at KAF - the CVNs weren’t. And for whatever reason we weren’t allowed to fly after IDF - I think due to FOD. Good drills.

I know that Black Buck effected Stanley in some way, the SF did over Pebble Island and had their bimble around Tierra Del Fuego - but I don’t think any of the three carriers involved in ‘82 were hit by anything. So I guess Air can attack airfields. That makes sense.

There’s terrorism - to the best of my knowledge there hasn’t been a single case of attempted kidnap of anyone doing flight deck phys.

Then there’s organic self protection. The aircraft carrier must have some but Akrotiri really doesn’t need it. Never really understood why.

Then there’s the main threat to any capital ship - Sub surface weaponry (when I say main - I mean the type that has accounted for most over the years); with which you don’t deal with organically - you take a SSN with you. The same sort of SSN that carries TLAM that seem to do over air fields regularly. (So you could say that airfield are vulnerable in three domains...I wonder if anyone’s got a space based JP233...that would make it four).

I guess the parallel is that that an airfield would have DCA. A carrier with DCA is a self licking lolly (odd phrase - never understood it); a DOB with DCA is just being sensible. Never understood that either.

I suppose we better talk about carrier killing missiles. Not that one’s ever killed a carrier but they work on the principle that you need specialist weaponry to attack a carrier. Unlike an airfield which can be attacked by a bloke with some wire cutters and a mallet. I suppose you could use your carrier killing weapons against carriers - leaving only your knives, guns, dumb bombs, PGMs, ALCMs etc for the airfields.

I’d very much like to see two RAF QWIs at work - one planning a strike on an airfield, the other scratching his head about attacking a carrier, wondering where the pickets would be, wondering what SURPIC was and who was going to feed it to him, wondering where to hide....the first one would probably get his done first.

Now that QNLZ has sailed any idea where she is. I know it’s somewhere in the Atlantic...I wonder if that counts as a JDAM grade coordinate these days?

All good fun. Best wishes to the boys and girls down range of whatever cloth who quite rightly get the job done and leave pointless arguments to school kids and has beens.
Are you drunk?
glad rag is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2018, 22:04
  #5170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Errr, no. I ought to be but have had to delay due to picking up OIC Domestic Bliss from the train.

Shall get to it in just a second.
orca is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2018, 22:13
  #5171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 819
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by orca
There are numerous things people seem to forget whenever the ‘golly aren’t carriers easy to sink’ argument starts raging...
Good case, well put (unlike the expected standard of retort).

Any rational person would realise you know what you're talking about. BZ!
FODPlod is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2018, 08:02
  #5172 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,224
Received 1,494 Likes on 677 Posts
Assuming an airfield had an organic airfield repair force (bulldozers, gravel, PSP etc), and the attacking force had a plentiful supply of JP233 pods, the number of sorties required to keep an airfield suppressed was 8-12 sorties - every 24 hours. The anticipated loss rate to SAW was also high as delivery required flying down the length of the runway.

I know the anticipated loss rate for the Buccaneers against a carrier/cruiser with Sea Eagle were also high - but only expected to have to do it once.

ORAC is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2018, 08:55
  #5173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I’m sure both missions would have been quite the caper.

Of course, there are ways of reducing activity on/ utility of an airfield other than an attack on the main operating surface. Not sure our weaponeering would be up to targeting those pesky tractors!

My personal view is that wrt an attack on a capital ship the SSN/ SSK option would be the one to exhaust before asking Air to have a crack.

High tariff day for those guys as well though.
orca is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2018, 09:42
  #5174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 819
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If the anti-carrier lobby would cease banging on about the supposed vulnerability of QNLZ, I'm sure the pro-carrier lobby wouldn't feel the need to mention the aircraft lost to land attacks (let alone air raids or missile attacks) throughout history on Sidi Haneish, Da Nang, Pebble Island, Camp Bastion, RAF Fairford, etc.

Land and sea-based air are complementary, NOT mutually exclusive. Or are you having too much fun senselessly arguing the toss?
FODPlod is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2018, 14:02
  #5175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The one positive about sea launched missions is their comparatively high level of secrecy.

Of course with land launches you can dick around with deceptive planning, feints, tankers etc, BUT once the wheels are in the wells, the wheels are in the wells, for all to "see"...
glad rag is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2018, 14:03
  #5176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FODPlod
If the anti-carrier lobby would cease banging on about the supposed vulnerability of QNLZ, I'm sure the pro-carrier lobby wouldn't feel the need to mention the aircraft lost to land attacks (let alone air raids or missile attacks) throughout history on Sidi Haneish, Da Nang, Pebble Island, Camp Bastion, RAF Fairford, etc.

Land and sea-based air are complementary, NOT mutually exclusive. Or are you having too much fun senselessly arguing the toss?
You missed out RAF Leuchars and Warton off your list....
glad rag is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2018, 14:05
  #5177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by orca
Errr, no. I ought to be but have had to delay due to picking up OIC Domestic Bliss from the train.

Shall get to it in just a second.

glad rag is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2018, 14:21
  #5178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FODPlod
I wondered how long it would take.

I intended posting this yesterday but my better nature made me reconsider:
The Kh-22 uses an Tumanski liquid-fuel rocket engine, fueled with TG-02 (Tonka-250) and IRFNA (inhibited red fuming nitric acid), giving it a maximum speed of Mach 4.6 and a range of up to 600 km (320 nmi). It can be launched in either high-altitude or low-altitude mode. In high-altitude mode, it climbs to an altitude of 27,000 m (89,000 ft) and makes a high-speed dive into the target, with a terminal speed of about Mach 4.6. In low-altitude mode, it climbs to 12,000 m (39,000 ft) and makes a shallow dive at about Mach 3.5, making the final approach at an altitude under 500 m (1,600 ft). The missile is guided by a gyroscope-stabilized autopilot in conjunction with a radio altimeter.

Soviet tests revealed that when a shaped charge warhead weighing 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) was used in the missile, the resulting hole measured 5 m (16 ft) in diameter (19.63 m2 (211.3 sq ft)), and was 12 m (40 ft) deep.[3]

"By August 2016, Russia was finalizing the trials of the Kh-32 cruise missile, a derivative of the Kh-22. Designed for use by the Tu-22M3 bomber, the missile is designed to climb to 40 km (130,000 ft) to the stratosphere after launch, transition to level flight, then perform a steep dive to the target; its combination of speed and flight path makes it virtually invulnerable to interception by ground-based air defenses and fighters.[[i]citation needed] The advanced cruise missile is designed to target enemy ships, radars, and "radio-contrast targets" like bridges, military bases, electric power plants, and others. The Kh-32 has an inertial navigation system and radar homing head, making it independent of GPS/GLONASS navigation satellites. Presumably, it has a range of 1,000 km (620 mi; 540 nmi) and a speed of at least 5,000 km/h (3,100 mph; Mach 4.1).[10] Apparently the missile entered service in the same year.[11] 32 Kh-22 missiles will be modernized to the Kh-32 level in 2018-2020.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-22
glad rag is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2018, 17:23
  #5179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So there’s no point building ships, bridges, military bases or power stations...no dramas, the Harrier chaps are all over this sort of thing!😉
orca is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2018, 18:05
  #5180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Land bases are susceptible to damage or harassment, but short of a BoS are almost impossible to destroy, or disable for weeks or months. The reverse applies to carriers at sea.

JP233, by the way, dates from well before the Falklands. It was mentioned in Flight in 1977. It was expected to shut down airfields for a considerable time and the Sovs were expected to come up with something similar, hence the desire to retain some STOVL and STOL capability in the force. This resulted in the GR5 and some features of the Typhoon. You'll recall that, around the same time, the USAF set a 1,500-foot STOL target for the ATF.

Land-based aircraft can be protected by GBAD, CCD and dispersal, all of which present Red with a cost-imposition problem that gets less favorable with standoff range, and by built-in resilience.

Carriers, by contrast, present a location problem - but one that gets easier the more imaging satellites there are in the sky.
LowObservable is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.