|
Post by steel selachian on Feb 3, 2015 19:06:59 GMT -6
I think the submarine threat from the "resurgent" Russians is a bit overblown. They are building some impressive newer boats and bringing some older ones back online (possibly; I take those announcements with a large grain of salt), but their current sub fleet is still dated and deploys sporadically. The Deltas, Akulas, Sierras, Oscars, and Victors are only going to last so much longer before their reactor lives are spent. Reliability and safety are likely questionable. Furthermore the geography is still the same as it was in the Cold War - in order to get somewhere, the Russian fleets have to pass Western-controlled choke points. The GIUK gap didn't go away. During the Cold War the Soviets' primary threat was numbers - they had a LOT of boats and could bear some heavy attrition. Now they're on the low end of the numbers equation and even with the new construction their sub fleet will likely shrink in the near future. Not good when you can virtually guarantee there are one or more Western subs in wait at all times off the Kola and Kamchatka Peninsulas.
The PLAN is a bit better off, but their new SSNs and SSBNs still seem to be behind even the late Cold War era Russian boats and they still don't seem to have arrived at a design they like well enough to commence more than limited-batch production. The more pressing issue is how well they've done in turning out modern SSKs like the upgraded Song and Yuan classes. Those little buggers are going to be a pain in the posterior in regional waters.
Really, the big issue for the USN isn't so much what everyone else is building as the need to replace the 688s as they go offline. The remaining Flight-I and Flight-II boats are going to be hitting retirement age very quickly and once those go the 688Is - which right now are probably better than what our prospective bad guys are just fielding - will be feeling their age. The 774 boats are coming off the ways at a good clip, but there's still probably going to be a shortfall.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Feb 4, 2015 9:31:28 GMT -6
Interesting reading. Everyone wanted the Cold War to go away, be careful what you wish for. BTW, several years ago we did a cruise on the inland waterway from Amelia Island near Jacksonville to Charleston. We sailed right by Kings Bay, Georgia sub base. There was a big hanger like structure with several boats moored outside and one inside.
There is one silver lining to this cloud. We now have a target rich environment to shoot at; Russia, China, North Korea, Syria and don't forget Iran. Nice
I think we were better off during the Cold War. The hangar-like structure you saw at Kings Bay is probably used for loading ballistic missiles. I was stationed in Bangor, Washington when I was on the USS Georgia SSBN 729, and that base had a building that the subs would pull into to on-load and off-load missiles (the structure had a crane built in to the ceiling).
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 4, 2015 9:44:58 GMT -6
Interesting reading. Everyone wanted the Cold War to go away, be careful what you wish for. BTW, several years ago we did a cruise on the inland waterway from Amelia Island near Jacksonville to Charleston. We sailed right by Kings Bay, Georgia sub base. There was a big hanger like structure with several boats moored outside and one inside.
There is one silver lining to this cloud. We now have a target rich environment to shoot at; Russia, China, North Korea, Syria and don't forget Iran. Nice
I think we were better off during the Cold War. The hangar-like structure you saw at Kings Bay is probably used for loading ballistic missiles. I was stationed in Bangor, Washington when I was on the USS Georgia SSBN 729, and that base had a building that the subs would pull into to on-load and off-load missiles (the structure had a crane built in to the ceiling). Ok, it did have a crane in the ceiling. I was hoping you would get on here and tell me what I saw. The boat was moving very slowly so we did get a good look. I think I got pictures, let me look.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 5, 2015 20:15:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 5, 2015 20:52:30 GMT -6
Interesting article and it will take time to read through.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 29, 2015 19:12:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 29, 2015 19:59:10 GMT -6
I wouldn't cue "Top Gun" just yet, that was a simple demonstration for the cameras. Let's see how they do during combat operations; getting an Alpha strike ready, recovering barrier patrols etc. After a couple of days of that, they might be a little less professional. Interesting though.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 29, 2015 22:21:34 GMT -6
I wouldn't cue "Top Gun" just yet, that was a simple demonstration for the cameras. Let's see how they do during combat operations; getting an Alpha strike ready, recovering barrier patrols etc. After a couple of days of that, they might be a little less professional. Interesting though. On the original blog post I got the link from, there were also observations made regarding how we only see one aircraft take off with a light AAM loadout (looks like 2x PL-12 MRAAM and 2x PL-8 or PL-9 SRAAM). All other takeoffs and recoveries are in clean configuration. No alpha strikes anytime soon, I'd gather.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 29, 2015 22:28:12 GMT -6
I wouldn't cue "Top Gun" just yet, that was a simple demonstration for the cameras. Let's see how they do during combat operations; getting an Alpha strike ready, recovering barrier patrols etc. After a couple of days of that, they might be a little less professional. Interesting though. On the original blog post I got the link from, there were also observations made regarding how we only see one aircraft take off with a light AAM loadout (looks like 2x PL-12 MRAAM and 2x PL-8 or PL-9 SRAAM). All other takeoffs and recoveries are in clean configuration. No alpha strikes anytime soon, I'd gather. I noticed that myself, I also noticed that the inboard missiles might not be real missiles but training missiles. I think this whole video is just propaganda and training. As you say, no alpha strikes today.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jan 3, 2016 17:44:41 GMT -6
On the original blog post I got the link from, there were also observations made regarding how we only see one aircraft take off with a light AAM loadout (looks like 2x PL-12 MRAAM and 2x PL-8 or PL-9 SRAAM). All other takeoffs and recoveries are in clean configuration. No alpha strikes anytime soon, I'd gather. I noticed that myself, I also noticed that the inboard missiles might not be real missiles but training missiles. I think this whole video is just propaganda and training. As you say, no alpha strikes today. It's also a question of whether those J-15s can even take off with much more in the way of weapons. Note that with 4 AAMs they have the aircraft spotted in the aft launch position, where it has the longest possible takeoff run. Which means if they want to launch a jet with actual weapons, they're limited to 1 launch at a time and probably can't land aircraft at the same time. It'll be interesting to see if they try to put a catapult on their next bird farm; reportedly it's under construction at the Dalian yards. Also, for additional discussion: www.informationdissemination.net/2016/01/some-new-years-thoughts-on-aircraft.html
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 4, 2016 10:31:26 GMT -6
One of the issues is that this was a demonstration and we can't get a real feel for how they would really conduct air operations but I feel that the limited launch capability could slow down everything.
As to the article, here are my salient points:
1. The carrier is just a truck to carry the air wing, As the article states, it must evolve to perform its mission. The air wing and its birds are the essential ingredient. f-35's and drones are the key.
2. As to the cost, I agree with the article. How do we cost out this weapon? What is affordable? Cost per performance is one good measure. Unless we decide to develop smaller carriers, and produce more of them, we must attempt to buy as many as the defense budget will allow and keep the shipyards in business. There is no real answer, especially with the Chinese now building their own.
3. As to item 3, possibly we should explore alternatives to the Ford's, not replacements, but augment them with something smaller. Why not take the America class LHA design which is 844 feet by 106 feet and weigh about 44,854 tons, and modify it to be an alternative carrier. Remove the troop carrying capability and rear loading deck and increase the air wing. Don't carry AEW aircraft, no Osprey's or Super Stallions or attack helicopters, just F-35 JSF aircraft. We might be able to get well over 27 F-35's on board, maybe more. Provide tanker aircraft in the form of F-35's with large fuel tanks. These ships could give us quick reaction air operational capability until the Ford's can arrive and the USAF can move its forces forward. Something to explore.
4 I don't think competition is going to work anymore, these are very complex ships but I do believe that supplying parts to the building could be diversified better.
5. I Agree with the article but I believe that we need good, sensible well conceived discussion to help to improve the weapons. We should carefully review our geostrategy. Do we need to be the primary leader all the time, just support the regional power. We should review the actions of the Arab's led by Saudi Arabia currently, this maybe the wave of the future.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jan 4, 2016 21:44:25 GMT -6
As far as the cost and size issue, I agree with the author - if you can provide 1/2 the capability for 1/2 the cost, great. If not, then you're getting less capability for more money. When the Royal Navy was designing CVA-01 in the 1960s, they compared a 42,000-ton design to a 55,000-ton design; the former would have carried 27 aircraft and the latter 49. A ~30% increase in displacement increased the airgroup by almost 80%. At present the LHA-6 hulls cost 1/3rd that of a CVN-78, but that's without a nuclear plant, catapults, and a lot of other high-cost systems and they can maybe fit a quarter of the airwing. There are arguments that it's better to spread your eggs around, but then you're pretty much stating outright that you'll have to deploy two smaller carriers in place of one large one, and they probably won't be as effective in terms of sortie generation and on-station time. Arguably at present we only use about 2/3rds the capacity of the existing CVNs, but future developments (such as perhaps adding extra EW aircraft, a fixed-wing ASW squadron, dedicated tankers, or a large UCAV contingent) might utilize that.
If you were to adapt the LHA-6 design as a light carrier, it might be worth it to include a few V-22s and MH-60s - maybe 2 and 2. The V-22 has been tested with a roll-on/roll-off hose and drogue refueling kit (and refueled a Super Hornet with it) that can probably deliver a lot more gas than an F-35 with buddy tanks and get off and on the deck easier while doing so. You'd also probably want a pair of MH-60s either for ASW work or utility duties. That still provides for 20-24 F-35s. In fact, LHA-6 and LHA-7 do omit the well deck in favor of a bigger hangar; LHA-8 will re-introduce the well deck and have a smaller island to increase flight deck space. It might be interesting to test the "baby carrier" idea with LHA-6 and LHA-7.
I do agree with the idea of looking at geostrategy first, although given recent events the Gulf Cooperation Council example isn't a very good one (unless the idea is to get the heck out of there and let the chips fall where they may). A better example would be how British, French, and Italian flattops (along with a USN LHD) were used in Libya, or the network of US allies forming up in the eastern Pacific.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 4, 2016 22:20:35 GMT -6
An LHA America class can carry a dozen MV-22B's, six F-35B's, four CH-53K's, seven AH-1Z's and a pair of MH-60S Seahawks. All right, lets reduce the MV-22'b's to four equipped as tankers. Remove the four CH-53K's and Seven AH-1Z's, which frees up eleven slots although the AH-1Z is smaller so let's say eight. Keep the two MH-60S's but make them SH-60S ASW helicopters.
So what do we have; eight slots from the MV-22's, eight slots from the CH-53's and AH-1's which gives us an additional sixteen F-35C's. Remove the six F-35B's and use C's. We now have a grand total of 22 F-35C's, four MV-22 tankers, possibly develop an AEW version of the MV-22 that converts easily and two MH-60's. It might be possible to add a drone squadron, which would add addition combat strength.
Now we can build a strike group with two of these carriers, which gives us a grand total of 44 F-35C's for operations. If we can create 10 of these strike groups, that's twenty carriers.
I like that, but we must use the LHA America's. We could explore a combination of small nuclear power reactor and turbine augmentation. No really my forte but it might be possible.
I strongly believe that we must support regional powers and coalitions, this could be very beneficial in the control of nations like China and Russia.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 25, 2016 9:36:32 GMT -6
What I think we are likely to see is a few supercarriers continuing to be built alongside an increasing use of drones from smaller craft - frigates up to 'baby flattop' LHAs. Perhaps it's time to look at a small flattop dedicated purely to drones and copters. They'd still need fighter support, but would be a big force-multiplier for an existing carrier group in dangerous waters.
Back when the Soviets were on-point they had a possibly-workable carrier-cracking strategy involving co-ordinated air-launched and sea-launched missiles. I don't think they have the stuff to do it now... but it only takes one solid hit to put a carrier 'gas-station' out of business. And you don't need 100,000 tons of battle-steel for drones.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jul 5, 2016 18:58:10 GMT -6
|
|