User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:52:59 PM EDT
[#1]
Yes, but who's going to tell the Admiralty? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:53:35 PM EDT
[#2]
$50 million for "feasibility studies".
 "Yep, well, we discovered it would be feasible if the cost could be trimmed by, oh, about $50 million. Any ideas?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:54:29 PM EDT
[#3]
Ouch! I see a big future for LHA(R) with those sorts of CVN sticker prices. ANdy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:58:04 PM EDT
[#4]
RN carriers, 1,500 crew including Air Wing. ANdy |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:58:48 PM EDT
[#5]
So where do the E-2s operate from on the STOVL version? Why push toward all this STOVL stuff when your eyes are old school? If you have to include cats and arrestor gear anyway...?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:00:40 PM EDT
[#6]
Thanks for asking the question Forest, I was getting around to it. Figure 1/3 the crew, 1/3 the cost. We *could* afford a 36 carrier fleet with the exception of the fuel costs. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:02:47 PM EDT
[#7]
Because EMALS is not built yet!!!! USN is talking 2013 as the earlist and that set is earmarked for their carrier... Grumman say the E-2's can operate using the ski jump. ANdy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:05:53 PM EDT
[#8]
THAT will be fun to see! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:06:50 PM EDT
[#9]
36 carriers with 48 plane Air Wings would give the USN about 75% more offensive air power. Quantity has a quality all of it's own. ANdy |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:06:51 PM EDT
[#10]
The problem, of course, is that we would still end up with 12, once the politicians get going. We're better off with CVN-21 and the LHA(R). Once a CVN is built, Congress won't can it, there's too much money already spent. If we want to grow the expeditionary capacity of the fleet, build more LHA(R)'s, and build up the USMC. You can even sell that as a 'war on terror' thing... Build more ships to handle the increase in infantry that we need to prosecute the war. Politically, there's only a need for 12 carriers. To a Politician, a carrier is a carrier. Doesn't matter how many aircraft it carries, how capable it is, etc. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:10:44 PM EDT
[#11]
I don't think we need 36 of those carriers, but I think the case could be made for 18 of them. The problem is aircraft are getting bigger, not smaller. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:12:13 PM EDT
[#12]
The Ruskies have been launching Sukhoi SU-33's off ski jumps without cats for years....  ANdy |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:14:20 PM EDT
[#13]
Be fun to have a cap that says: "HMS POW"
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:15:00 PM EDT
[#14]
Sure, but they almost look like they belong there. A big, lumbering, turboprop with a portobello on top will be altogether different. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:18:42 PM EDT
[#15]
There is only one solution to the RN AEW woes:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:18:47 PM EDT
[#16]
I hear you there. I just fear we'll be left with 12. And the 48 aircraft fleet, as I read it, is the surge capacity. I don't know how many planes you could operate off a Nimitz, but our CV's have operated more Aircraft in the past than they do now... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:20:22 PM EDT
[#17]
Remember that a C-130 CAN land and take off on the deck of one of our carriers. They did it with Forrestal. Put 30 knots under their wings and a long enough run, and I'm not surprised they could do it. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:21:33 PM EDT
[#18]
Plus, unless it's changed, russian naval air doctrine espouses a DEFENSEIVE role for their planes... They see the '33 as an interceptor, with the strike mission covered by ASMs (which is why the Adm K (and pretty much every major Russian surface combatinant) carries a good load of long-range offensive ASMs.... Contrast launching fighters loades for A-t-A vs A-t-G.... And that doesn't even begin to consider the larger aircraft we fly (E-2, S-3, etc)... |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:22:08 PM EDT
[#19]
How about for ASW? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:27:26 PM EDT
[#20]
ANdy a few questions.
A compliment of 40 aircraft seems small to me. I know if there are multiple carriers its not a problem but I can see 40 aircraft getting overwhelmed just in fleet defense. Also WTF are the phrench going to use on their carrier? I doubt the US will give them any F35s or Hornets for that matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:40:05 PM EDT
[#21]
Rafales, probably. Like they do on Charles De Gaulle... When it works... 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:43:21 PM EDT
[#22]
Gotta admit, that is one sexy beast... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:44:18 PM EDT
[#23]
But how's it compare to a Superbug? 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:55:11 PM EDT
[#24]
Well, you know... That is like comparing your local prom queen to Miss Universe. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 2:01:34 PM EDT
[#25]
It's actually very basic aeronautics, the planes goes off into a ballistic trajectory and presents it's wing in it's most lift efficient configuration and flies out. ANdy |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 2:05:14 PM EDT
[#26]
They can do that too, but we also have 17 ASW Frigats with reasonably impressive anti surface capabilities. ANdy |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 2:10:04 PM EDT
[#27]
I have no doubt it can be done. I flew backwards with my neighbor in his Piper J3 Cub a couple of years ago (into a 40+ knot headwind). All kinds of things CAN be done. But should they? |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 2:20:33 PM EDT
[#28]
40 aircraft but that is up to 36 F-35's in a shooting war. How many Bugs does a USN carrier have? Not a lot more. Think layers anyway. You have the main CAP out at 200+ miles with AWACS, then you have the main missile trap running in from 80 miles to the horizon, then the point defence missiles/guns down to point blank, plus the carriers own CAP. Getting through that lot would be 'exciting'. The SAMPSON system on the T45 destroyers can take on 8 simultanious engagements and you will have at least two per carrier. It will also run CEC with AEGIS. The Phrench will run Rafales M's and E-2's with cats and wires like they already do on le Batueax Maudit. ANdy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 2:31:16 PM EDT
[#29]
 What the heck is that squatting on top of the bridge...a giant Dalek? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 3:54:15 PM EDT
[#30]
Nimitz class is claimed by the Navy to have capacity of 85 aircraft. However, maximum density is up to 130 F/A-18s (I couldn't find whether this was C/D or E/F). Assuming this means C/D variants, and F-35C is only 8.5% wider than F/A-18C/D (and is 10% shorter), then this probably implies space for roughly 115-120 F-35Cs. Note these numbers leave room for no other aircraft, so I don't know exactly how this compares to the 48 above. So a Nimitz class CVN can definitely carry twice as many planes as the British strike carrier, and maybe up to 2.5x as many, while someone estimated it costs three times as much as the British ship. However, its a little misleading to compare # of aircraft and cost without looking at how these carrier would operate. For example, the British carrier carries 4 E2s, which is 10% of its aircraft complement. I don't know how many a CVN generally carries, but there's no particular reason it would need more than the British carrier does. So while the CVN may have nominally only twice the aircraft capacity, it has more than twice the space for offensive aircraft, since it would have no need to carry twice the number of E2s. Same logic applies to fleet defense. A CVN does not need more dedicated fleet defense aircraft than a smaller carrier (although in practice it may operate that way). A CVN also has greater ability to react in an emergency, due to 4 catapults instead of the one ramp (or future 2 catapults) of the British ship. Finally, the cost/aircraft analysis ignores money spent on non-capacity related advantages of the CVN over the British design -- nuclear propulsion, computer/radar systems, wood-panelling in the admiral's quarters, advanced fryolater in the galley, 8-way adjustable leather seats in the briefing rooms, web cams in the women's showers, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:02:16 PM EDT
[#31]
Hurrah for the RN! However, I'd consider the names HMS Ark Royal or Argus, Hermes, Glorious, Courageous, Furious instead as they're classic names for RN carriers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:07:13 PM EDT
[#32]
Sell the plans to Al Qaeda and provide engineers to assist in the construction of the HJS Osama and its brothers. Dammit.How did you get a copy of John McCains newest terrorist rights law 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:07:23 PM EDT
[#33]
Hhmm, I think that's a little misleading. Last specific numbers I've seen are that a CVN carries 36 F/A-18s. However, that's on top of anywhere from 14 to 36 F-14s. I don't know how many 18s they carry now that they aren't using the 14. An F-14 has to count for more than one F-35, right? So, by my estimation, we're back to about twice the airpower of the British ship, with much more flexibility. EDIT: Its certainly conceivable that both carriers make sense in light of the financial capacity of their countries. The British get something that can throw more planes in the air per dollar spent while the Americans have the ability to pay the extra money for extra capacity and extra bells/whistles. My point is that (unlike Invincible-class) the new British carrier is far from a partial solution ... the American CVN, however, is not only the complete solution, but comes with leather seats and surround sound. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:20:24 PM EDT
[#34]
According to open sources a CVW has:
48 Hornets of various types 4 E-2s 6 H-60 (HHs and Foxtrots) 4 EA-6Bs 4 C-2s The CVWs will vary in composition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:23:45 PM EDT
[#35]
Source? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:24:18 PM EDT
[#36]
US CVN; @$14 Billion to carry 72 fighters, UK CVF, @$3.5 Billion to carry 36 fighters. I don't see your argument about flexibility. One carrier cannot be in two places and the nuclear propulsion 'advantages' are pretty moot when the escort and replenishment groups run on DIESO. And F-35 is at least 3 generations beyond the F-14, better in all respects except top speed. ANdy |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:26:19 PM EDT
[#37]
This is from Tom Clancy's book "Carrier" in 1999 and is a little outdated, but he gives a good evolution of the Nimitz class air wing. I believe that most of his info comes from Admiral Jay Johnson
Cold War Wing 24 F-14s (interceptors) 24 FA-18s (strike fighters) 10 A-6s (bombers) (edited) 4 KA-6D (tankers) 4 E-2C (AEW) 4 EA-6B (electronic warefare) 8-10 SA-3 (anti-sub) 2 EKA-3B (communications intelligence) 8 SH-60F (ASW/rescue helicopters) Post Cold War 14 F-14s (interceptors) 36 FA-18s (strike fighters) 4 E-2C (AEW) 4 EA-6B (electronic warefare) 6 SA-3 (anti-sub) 2 ES-3B (communications intelligence) 6 SH-60F (ASW/rescue helicopters) Current (I believe, althought the changeover may not be complete yet) 14 FA-18 SuperHornets (strike fighters) 36 FA-18s (strike fighters) 4 E-2C (AEW) 4 EA-6B (electronic warefare) 6 SA-3 (anti-sub) 2 ES-3B (communications intelligence) 8 SH-60F (ASW/rescue helicopters) Future 36 FA-18 SuperHornets (strike fighters) 10 Joint Strike Fighters(stealth strike fighters) 4 Common Support Aircraft AEW variant (AEW) 4 EF-18F (electronic warefare) 6 Common Support Aircraft Sea Control variant (anti-sub) 2 Common Support Aircraft ESM variant (communications intelligence) 8 SH-60F (ASW/rescue helicopters) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:27:09 PM EDT
[#38]
Just a point of order. The $14 billion number is for CVN-21 not for the current NIMITZ class, which is significantly cheaper. On the order of $5billion IIRC.
The advantage of a nuke is all the fuel bunkers are for the aircraft.
Agreed. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:28:41 PM EDT
[#39]
How firm are those numbers? Our miiltary programs tend to overrun quite a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:33:06 PM EDT
[#40]
ANdy |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:36:02 PM EDT
[#41]
GAO |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:37:24 PM EDT
[#42]
Hmmm, seems we will be the stealthy 'big hitters' in Joint Ops...  UK CVF 36 F-35's 4 E-2's 8 Merlin Helos |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:38:33 PM EDT
[#43]
God knows!  But you can be sure they will grew on both sides of the Pond.ANdy |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:39:11 PM EDT
[#44]
One of the reasons CVN21 is so expensive is they want to put a SPY-3 on it and it will come ready to support UCAVs. I'm not sure the CVF has such capabilities.
Not when you consider you have to feed both the CV and the AOR fuel and you have to interrupt FC to go to RC. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:39:45 PM EDT
[#45]
Link? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:41:33 PM EDT
[#46]
Actually, the F-35 will replace the A/C variants of the F-18, so our wings will probably carry 36 F-35s as well. That information, while interesting, is outdated. There isn't even talk about a CSA anymore. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:42:50 PM EDT
[#47]
Weapons load? Fleet defense is all about missiles in the air. And speed doesn't hurt either. Ground attack is all about bombs under the wings. Regardless, though, my point was that F-35 is smaller than F-14 -- and we were discussing carrying capacity of the ship. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:44:06 PM EDT
[#48]
Can you ballpark the cost of the SPY-3? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:45:59 PM EDT
[#49]
UCAVS? you better believe it! As soon as they are ready we're buying them off you too! MoD has announced the F-35 and Typhoon will be the last manned fighters we ever buy, it's UCAVS from here on in. ANdy |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:46:11 PM EDT
[#50]
I can't. Maybe LWilde can, if he's not bound by confidentiality agreements. |
|||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
