$140,000,000 goes up in smoke in Californian desert
- Thread starter Deimos Anomaly
- Start date
The enemy fire that is dooming the Super Carrier is cost. Do you have any idea what it costs to build one? Do you have any idea what it costs in maintenance? Do you have any idea what it costs every day to operate *while at sea*?
They aren't cheap. The LHD ships, such as the USS Wasp, were developed as the future. The highest number of aircraft carriers on active duty ever was 15, and that was for a scant 3 months. There are no conventional carriers left, and I believe the number of active carriers has now dropped to 12, with rumors that it will be further reduced to 10.
Sounds like he's a gonner,
RIP
the military don't release any details until his family has been informed
(or her family)
Anyhow that's part of the whole risk behind training, the training is serious business and its why all those frigates, fighter aircraft, tanks, and carriers are in top shape because of good training.
I think the human element will always be part of warfare and the need for human risk.
Drones will always have limits, if the United States ever does face a technologically sophisticated enemy, I have no doubt that they will try to at the very least jam communications to drones, or even hack into robotic stuff and sooner or later they will succeed. This is why I'm not delighted about automated, or even remote combatants.
RIP
the military don't release any details until his family has been informed
(or her family)
Anyhow that's part of the whole risk behind training, the training is serious business and its why all those frigates, fighter aircraft, tanks, and carriers are in top shape because of good training.
I think the human element will always be part of warfare and the need for human risk.
Drones will always have limits, if the United States ever does face a technologically sophisticated enemy, I have no doubt that they will try to at the very least jam communications to drones, or even hack into robotic stuff and sooner or later they will succeed. This is why I'm not delighted about automated, or even remote combatants.
They are costly.
But what evidence is there that you can put the same firepower on station with smaller, cheaper ships?
Where is John Stennis when you need him?
This is a bit of a misnomer perpetrated by the fact it is based on the F-5 of which the F-16 is an upgraded version.
In actuality, however, they're completely different animals. The F-16 is a multi-role that really favors anti-ground. The F-20, on the other hand, was pretty much a long range interceptor. It was fast (could do Mach 2.2) and very agile. It was also designed to carry sophisticated long-range AA weaponry. While, it was originally intended to have attack capabilities, it was soon realized it just wasn't practical, and the focus moved to anti-air. There was even a proposed refit late in its life span that would have increased its maximum payload, it's ceiling, and max speed (Closer to the 2.6-2.8 range) to essentially make it one bad-ass, yet cheap, interceptor.
But as I pointed out, the whole "stealth" thing is blown out of proportion. For one thing, it doesn't do a damn thing for a guy with a SAM On his shoulder. And, as I said, the technology to detect it is there and it is quickly becoming more powerful, cheaper, and easier to obtain. It is also starting to be used in more places than people realize like, oh I don't know, China and Korea?
On the flip side, the F-15/MTDs were intended to have upgraded parts and electronics than a standard Strike Eagle, and it's performance and weaponry was better than an F-22s. In situations where stealth is irrelevant, wich would you rather have?
As I stated at the beginning of my post.
I don't really buy this. There were a whole bunch of other reasons given that really didn't hold any water--like the F-22 having the potential for Navy use even though it had pretty much been established neither one of them could be formatted for carrier use. I think the real reason was Lockheed just happens to be one of the biggest lobbies in Washington.
I didn't say "air superiority" I said "air superiority fighter." Air superiority is capturing and holding the air-space above a combat zone. This used to be done via dogfights. But in the age of aircraft that can fly at 1,600 MPH and have attack radii in excess of 350 miles, you do this with interceptors and attackers.
An air-superiority fighter is just a fancy name for a pure dogfigter: one that can fly into a furball and be that last man standing.
Upgraded to be faster with a higher rate of climb, has a larger mission radius, more sophisticated weaponry, the most advanced radar system in the world, and is built like a brick shit house. This is of course the original that was basically built to answer the Bone, but obviously that quickly dismissed with that change to the B-1B. So they modified them to be more anti-air based.
Enter the M variant that was first proposed in the mid 80s and put into action in the 90s that is even faster, supports even more sophisticated radar, and a long rang multi-target weapons system similar to that of the F-14 and Typhoon.
The radar thing is a real dozy. It can be set up like a "network" of radar systems that encompass several of the fighters, AWACS, and GPS and other satellite systems. It can do active an inactive scans and supports low-pas (frequency) pinging. It sorta works like that thing Data set up in "Redemption". It's really quite amazing. It also can light those F-22 up like Christmas trees. Oh and China has a bunch of 'em.
There has been no proof that stealth is easy to foil.
A guy with a shoulder launched SAM still has to have a heat source to lock on to.
And both the F-22 and F-23 were designed so that their engine nozzles could minimize infrared signatures.
And dogfighting is actually quite rare and the best pilots avoid it when possible.
Finally, high speeds are also largely irrelevant.
No one engages in air to air combat hardly at above Mach 1. Virtually all air to air combat occurs at high subsonic speeds.
That said, the F-22 can still supercruise which allows it to patrol a far larger area.
A guy with a shoulder launched SAM still has to have a heat source to lock on to.
And both the F-22 and F-23 were designed so that their engine nozzles could minimize infrared signatures.
And dogfighting is actually quite rare and the best pilots avoid it when possible.
Finally, high speeds are also largely irrelevant.
No one engages in air to air combat hardly at above Mach 1. Virtually all air to air combat occurs at high subsonic speeds.
That said, the F-22 can still supercruise which allows it to patrol a far larger area.
We've done it before. Hence why battleships and dreadnoughts are extinct. Hence why even cruisers are still used by only two nations on the planet (The U.S. and Russia). Historical trends show that as technology progresses, we install better weapons on smaller boats and forsake the larger vessels largely because they're easier targets for the enemy and because the smaller boats now have enough firepower to do the larger ship's job. As we continue to make advancments towards VTOL craft, super-long-range bombers, and rail gun technology which will permit shelling from hundreds of miles away- the large scale super-carriers we have today WILL begin to look increasingly unappetizing.
The following two classes of ships are cheaper and more efficient than the Iowa Class Battleship.
Arleigh Burke class destroyer
Ticonderoga class cruiser
The Stennis is homeported in San Diego.
But as I pointed out, the whole "stealth" thing is blown out of proportion. For one thing, it doesn't do a damn thing for a guy with a SAM On his shoulder. And, as I said, the technology to detect it is there and it is quickly becoming more powerful, cheaper, and easier to obtain. It is also starting to be used in more places than people realize like, oh I don't know, China and Korea?
On the flip side, the F-15/MTDs were intended to have upgraded parts and electronics than a standard Strike Eagle, and it's performance and weaponry was better than an F-22s. In situations where stealth is irrelevant, wich would you rather have?
the biggest lobbies in Washington.
While the F-15 is s very powerful aircraft I gather than it's maintanence requirements i.e ground service time for each hour of flight time, is pretty horrendous. Have any later models gone anyway to counter this problem?
While no U.S fighter may not of been lost in combat since Vietnam, when was the last time they actually went mano-e-mano against an enemy who could come close to matching them?
Well in 1999 the submarine HNLMS Walrus of the Royal Dutch Navy succesfully sunk a US carrier and several other ships during an excercise.
As I understand it, those events occurred mainly because the carrier's ASW gear was not active during the exercise, including the sub-hunting planes. What people don't take into account that in a time of war, anything is possible.
Plecostomus
Commodore
A diesel-electric is by design MUCH MUCH quieter than a nuclear boat. Despite what they tell you a nuclear boat generates a slight sound because of the coolant water that has to remain circulating, water has to be inducted to the condensers/heat-exchangers and discharged overboard. They can secure nuclear ops for a brief period but it's like holding your breath: Sooner or later you have to give otherwise Very Bad Things happen.
A D-E boat can motor in, kill the motors and become a dead-spot in the water.
The Cannuks wanted to convert two of their boats to hybrid thermo-electric nuclear generator boats... More or less they were going to build a direct thermoelectric cell and use that to power a motor-battery train rather than the complex steam-turbine arrangements the big boats used. Actually that's a great idea from an engineering POV.
AFIK the plan was killed due to political pressure, that'd mean that suddenly Canada is a "military nuclear technology user" instad of a "conventional force only" military.
A D-E boat can motor in, kill the motors and become a dead-spot in the water.
The Cannuks wanted to convert two of their boats to hybrid thermo-electric nuclear generator boats... More or less they were going to build a direct thermoelectric cell and use that to power a motor-battery train rather than the complex steam-turbine arrangements the big boats used. Actually that's a great idea from an engineering POV.
AFIK the plan was killed due to political pressure, that'd mean that suddenly Canada is a "military nuclear technology user" instad of a "conventional force only" military.
sorry for being offtopic, but years ago I saw a rather trashy yet funny movie about the captain of an obsolete US diesel-sub trying to sink some superior US ships in a wargame, but I can't remember who was in the cast or what it is called. Anyone know what I'm talking about?
Down Periscope. I love the movie. Much of it is how the Navy really can besorry for being offtopic, but years ago I saw a rather trashy yet funny movie about the captain of an obsolete US diesel-sub trying to sink some superior US ships in a wargame, but I can't remember who was in the cast or what it is called. Anyone know what I'm talking about?
Yeah, that's it, thanks. 
Though doesn't it still have the one thing that adds noise and complexity to a nuke boat - the coolant system for the reactor it's self (don't know how true it is, but a comment in a one novel was the nuclear subs use a large chunk of their power on the cooling for the reactor).
Plecostomus
Commodore
A thermoelectric cell operates at a lower temp and the fuel is designed so it can't melt... hard to explain without a diagram.
What they were thinking is they could put this cell in the sub and an internal tank of water that could be used as a heat-sink for a period of several hours. After that, they'd have to start the circulating pumps again.
Far far far longer than a full-blown fission reactor. Even shutdown those things stay dangerously hot for quite awile.... Most people don't realize that the damage done at Three Mile Island happened AFTER the reactor had been shut down.
What they were thinking is they could put this cell in the sub and an internal tank of water that could be used as a heat-sink for a period of several hours. After that, they'd have to start the circulating pumps again.
Far far far longer than a full-blown fission reactor. Even shutdown those things stay dangerously hot for quite awile.... Most people don't realize that the damage done at Three Mile Island happened AFTER the reactor had been shut down.
So in a nut shell the thermo-electric would allow them to utilise a nuclear reactor but provide a means go dead quite by not allowing the cooling pumps to be shut off?
Though the one part I can't quite fathom (no pun intended) - it didn't have a steam turbine how would they generate power? Or would their still be a steam turbine for the generator but not for the actual propulsion?
Similar threads
