Languish.org

Prompted by this article--

QuoteAs USS Ranger departs, Navy's cost dilemma takes off
One old aircraft carrier goes to scrap, but behind this symbolic moment is very real debate over whether flattops are obsolete and the cost of the future Navy
John Talton, Seattle Times

The aircraft carrier USS Ranger was scheduled to be towed from the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard today. Its destination: a shipbreaking facility in Texas where it will be scrapped. Because the Ranger won't fit through the Panama Canal, it must be towed 16,000 miles around the tip of South America.  :lol:

According to the Kitsap Sun, this leaves two carriers in mothballs at the Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility: USS Independence and USS Kitty Hawk. The latter will be held in reserve until the USS Gerald R. Ford enters service.

Ranger served from 1957 to 1993. While preservationists are downcast that they couldn't turn the big ship into a museum somewhere, this moment can also take us inside today's naval and defense industry debate over the future of carriers and the cost of ship replacement.

When Ranger was at its peak, aircraft carriers were the undisputed capital ships they had been since supplanting battleships in World War II. Into the 21st century, they were America's way of projecting power and backing down potential adversaries worldwide, as well as the naval backbone of any U.S. involvement in war.

Now many strategists are wondering if the carrier's days are done. For example, China's DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile is dubbed the "carrier killer," at least by American analysts. It has the potential to penetrate many defenses of a carrier and its escorts (the task force or strike group) and sink or grievously damage a flattop. At the least, such missiles disrupt America's close-in war fighting strategy, part of China's anti-access/area denial strategy.

Even if the carrier isn't obsolete — and this fierce debate is far from settled — the Navy faces a huge challenge in replacing its ships in an era of austerity.

The Gerald R. Ford was supposed to cost $10 billion, but it will likely end up at $13 billion (it is the first of its class, so this doesn't include R&D). USS Ranger cost about $1.6 billion in today's dollars. To be sure, the Ford is more capable — but it faces viable counter-strategies and weapons not encountered by Cold War flattops. Ten billion is a lot to lose in a moment off Taiwan, not to mention the lives.

And the Ford class will be needed to replace the 10 Nimitz-class supercarriers as they age out in coming decades.

Another problem the Navy faces is replacing the aging Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, many of which are based at Bangor submarine base on Hood Canal. The sea service has estimated it will need as much as a third more for shipbuilding from 2020 through 2035. This may be over-optimistic.

Meanwhile, these two huge programs leave little for important other ships, such as destroyers. No wonder U.S. ship levels keep falling.

It's true that America spends more on the military than the next eight countries combined. But the Navy also protects the global commons and supply chains. Procurement needs reform. But even that won't pay the bill if austerity and tax cuts/avoidance continue.

Sounds like the article asks not whether the carrier is obsolete, but whether it is too expensive.

Yes

Then there's this, though I have no idea how credible it is:

http://www.news.com.au/world/us-supercarrier-sunk-by-french-submarine-in-wargames/story-fndir2ev-1227250666936

Shut your dirty whore mouth Seedy and ElevenB!

The aircraft carrier is clearly not obsolete, but neither is it the wave of the future.  The DF-21 doesn't really offer that much capability against carriers to the Chinese arsenal, because it is still reliant on external sensors to hit anything moving, and that opens up a lot of opportunities for spoofing and jamming.  Its warhead size is the big improvement over cruise missiles.  What is going to make the CVN obsolete is distributed deployment of drones to carry out the strike missions that the CVN currently has a lock on.  Building more CVNs seems like following in the footsteps of building the last dozen or so battleships (Vanguard, the Jean Barts, and the South Dakotas and Iowas) - yeah, they had some utility, but weren't worth the cost.

Its hard to fight against the entrenched interests favoring more CVN orders, though.

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2015, 02:40:14 AM
The aircraft carrier is clearly not obsolete, but neither is it the wave of the future.  The DF-21 doesn't really offer that much capability against carriers to the Chinese arsenal, because it is still reliant on external sensors to hit anything moving, and that opens up a lot of opportunities for spoofing and jamming.  Its warhead size is the big improvement over cruise missiles.  What is going to make the CVN obsolete is distributed deployment of drones to carry out the strike missions that the CVN currently has a lock on.  Building more CVNs seems like following in the footsteps of building the last dozen or so battleships (Vanguard, the Jean Barts, and the South Dakotas and Iowas) - yeah, they had some utility, but weren't worth the cost.

Its hard to fight against the entrenched interests favoring more CVN orders, though.

I'm gonna certainly defer to your knowledge in this, but surely drones need to be parked somewhere near the area of conflict to maximise mission time?

Quote from: Habbaku on March 07, 2015, 02:07:46 AM
Then there's this, though I have no idea how credible it is:

http://www.news.com.au/world/us-supercarrier-sunk-by-french-submarine-in-wargames/story-fndir2ev-1227250666936

Submarines are the biggest threat to carriers, no question.  But the results of wargames like this are often not what the bubbleheads pretend - I never, as an umpire in three fleetexes, ever had a sub acknowledge that it had been sunk, or that it's weapons ever missed.  So, it's possible the Saphir did what it claimed, but its equally possible that it didn't, or at least didn't make quite the sweep that it claims.

Quote from: celedhring on March 07, 2015, 02:44:37 AM
I'm gonna certainly defer to your knowledge in this, but surely drones need to be parked somewhere near the area of conflict to maximise mission time?

Sure.  That's what "distributed deployment" means - drones on lots of smaller ships deployed as a single force, but without a single high-value unit.

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2015, 02:46:37 AM

Quote from: celedhring on March 07, 2015, 02:44:37 AM
I'm gonna certainly defer to your knowledge in this, but surely drones need to be parked somewhere near the area of conflict to maximise mission time?

Sure.  That's what "distributed deployment" means - drones on lots of smaller ships deployed as a single force, but without a single high-value unit.

Aha, that makes sense. The Navy doesn't have any ship capable of that yet, I presume.

Quote from: celedhring on March 07, 2015, 02:58:37 AM
Aha, that makes sense. The Navy doesn't have any ship capable of that yet, I presume.

They have the ships (all the Aegis cruisers and half the Aegis destroyers) but they don't have the drones yet.  Drones capable of carrying the needed payloads are still being flight-tested, which is why existing CVNs are not obsolete and will probably serve out their lifespans as is.  It's the future ones that are going to be superseded in their own lifetimes.

Drones/UCAVs are hilariously vulnerable to anything with a meatbag controlling it.  The fix for this is to fully automate them and letting them kill people on their own.  Good luck with that!

E:  And after a certain point they're just about the same size as a "regular" airplane, especially if you want them to, you know, do things.  Burkes and Ticos aren't going to be launching a bunch of UCAVs that can compete with a Superbug off their flight decks.

E2:  (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fm9eK1J3.jpg&hash=57d688794e3416fbdc9b2b0847cd08d98f5ee96c)

That's a Global Hawk with a couple F-22s.  These things aren't small.  Even the old ass Predator has a 50ft wingspan with two hardpoints (F-22 has a 44ft span).  Newer ones, eh, you're looking at 35ft or so.

E3:  BTW, that's a really nice photo courtesy of a guy on SA from just a couple days ago, I think. Really shows how big they are vs. the usual solo shots of various UAVs.  The point is, real UCAVs with real capabilities aren't much smaller than an airplane with a guy on board who can also think and react much more quickly.  Here's one from Wiki of an X-45B:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F1%2F1d%2FAn_X-47B_Unmanned_Combat_Air_System_demonstrator_launches_from_the_aircraft_carrier_USS_George_H.W._Bush_%2528CVN_77%2529_May_14%252C_2013%252C_in_the_Atlantic_Ocean_130514-N-UZ648-182.jpg%2F1920px-thumbnail.jpg&hash=d90e19e273c62be4084fa004974f87c44a7d773e)

Superbug on the left.  These UCAVs have got to be large enough to hold the weapons, gas, and all the shit that makes them able to do their drone thing.

Sweden is best. :showoff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoMj1TjNTFw

Quote from: The Brain on March 07, 2015, 03:50:38 AM
Sweden is best. :showoff:

But someone recently told me that Sweden sucks ass and is self-destructing. Who should I believe? :unsure:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 07, 2015, 04:53:21 AM

Quote from: The Brain on March 07, 2015, 03:50:38 AM
Sweden is best. :showoff:

But someone recently told me that Sweden sucks ass and is self-destructing. Who should I believe? :unsure:

Listen to your heart.

That is Dangerous.

You're so vulnerable.

From the perspective of fighting a 'real' war; very much so.
For doing what western militaries do in the modern day: not entirely suited to purpose but useful.

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2015, 02:44:56 AM

Quote from: Habbaku on March 07, 2015, 02:07:46 AM
Then there's this, though I have no idea how credible it is:

http://www.news.com.au/world/us-supercarrier-sunk-by-french-submarine-in-wargames/story-fndir2ev-1227250666936

Submarines are the biggest threat to carriers, no question.  But the results of wargames like this are often not what the bubbleheads pretend - I never, as an umpire in three fleetexes, ever had a sub acknowledge that it had been sunk, or that it's weapons ever missed.  So, it's possible the Saphir did what it claimed, but its equally possible that it didn't, or at least didn't make quite the sweep that it claims.

How do wargames work anyway?  Does the sub commander go "pew, pew, you're dead", and the carrier commander go "no, kaboom, you're dead".

Quote from: DGuller on March 07, 2015, 08:23:40 AM

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2015, 02:44:56 AM

Quote from: Habbaku on March 07, 2015, 02:07:46 AM
Then there's this, though I have no idea how credible it is:

http://www.news.com.au/world/us-supercarrier-sunk-by-french-submarine-in-wargames/story-fndir2ev-1227250666936

Submarines are the biggest threat to carriers, no question.  But the results of wargames like this are often not what the bubbleheads pretend - I never, as an umpire in three fleetexes, ever had a sub acknowledge that it had been sunk, or that it's weapons ever missed.  So, it's possible the Saphir did what it claimed, but its equally possible that it didn't, or at least didn't make quite the sweep that it claims.

How do wargames work anyway?  Does the sub commander go "pew, pew, you're dead", and the carrier commander go "no, kaboom, you're dead".

No, more along the lines of you lost because the 2nd pew wasn't necessary, they should be divided by dots rather than a comma and you didn't include the regulation Kapow*.



* not correct capitalisation.

Quote from: DGuller on March 07, 2015, 08:23:40 AM
How do wargames work anyway?  Does the sub commander go "pew, pew, you're dead", and the carrier commander go "no, kaboom, you're dead".

In naval war games, each unit has an umpire (or team of umpires), who have their own radio network and crypto so they can communicate to one another where units are and who is firing what at whom.  A lot of that is handled by computers, of course.

Grumbler was the Dungeon Master.

Quote from: celedhring on March 07, 2015, 02:44:37 AM

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2015, 02:40:14 AM
The aircraft carrier is clearly not obsolete, but neither is it the wave of the future.  The DF-21 doesn't really offer that much capability against carriers to the Chinese arsenal, because it is still reliant on external sensors to hit anything moving, and that opens up a lot of opportunities for spoofing and jamming.  Its warhead size is the big improvement over cruise missiles.  What is going to make the CVN obsolete is distributed deployment of drones to carry out the strike missions that the CVN currently has a lock on.  Building more CVNs seems like following in the footsteps of building the last dozen or so battleships (Vanguard, the Jean Barts, and the South Dakotas and Iowas) - yeah, they had some utility, but weren't worth the cost.

Its hard to fight against the entrenched interests favoring more CVN orders, though.

I'm gonna certainly defer to your knowledge in this, but surely drones need to be parked somewhere near the area of conflict to maximise mission time?

Every mid-size ship in every navy in the world has helicopter facilities which could easily be adapted to the launching of the smaller drones.  The bigger ones, like the X-47s that the Navy is fond of, would require something like a carrier.  So long as you're making small strikes, you wouldn't miss the carriers, but to drop the heavy stuff, you're going to need a carrier or something like it.

The CVNs will always have a role, but there won't be a need for as many of them.  \They wouldn't be using them for the war on terror, but they'd be docked in Japan and the Med, awaiting the war with China or Russia.

Quote from: katmai on March 07, 2015, 02:08:04 AM
Shut your dirty whore mouth Seedy and ElevenB!

Fuck you, Nanook of the North.  I want more carriers.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2015, 10:18:22 AM

Quote from: katmai on March 07, 2015, 02:08:04 AM
Shut your dirty whore mouth Seedy and ElevenB!

Fuck you, Nanook of the North.  I want more carriers.

Why do you hate America?

Big carrier size is dictated by the weight of modern aircraft, not their wingspan.  Carriers have to be able to accelerate 50 tons of aircraft to 160 knots for launch and slow 150-knot 50-ton aircraft to speed zero for landing.  That takes room, even with catapults and arresting gear.   Once you are committed to that kind of room, you might as well go super-carrier because the marginal benefits outweigh marginal costs.

However, drones are maybe a third the weight of a strike fighter, and so can take of and land from much, much smaller areas at much, much lower speeds.  Drones will never be as capable in any kind of air-air action, but they won't rely on air-air action for survival.  They will rely on stealth and numbers.  You can afford a lot of drones and destroyers (and cruise missiles) for $12 billion worth of carrier and another $8 billion or so in aircraft.

So if the Incans had invested in drones instead of torpedo boats, their quantity would have carried the day?  :hmm:

Correct me if I am wrong, but the strenght of a carrier lies in its capacity at forcep projection, right?  The US sends a carrier group (carrier alone is a bad idea, IIRC?), and the planes fly ahead to intercept any ennemy before they even make it to be a dange to the carrier group.

Drones are good at bombing shit on the ground, not so good for air to air.

Can some sort of hybrid carrier, smaller, with a decent air-to-air force and drones for bombing ground be envisionned at a reduced cost compared to the super carriers currently built?  Could you have many of these hybrid, small carriers, rather than one big super carrier and still be efficient at what they do?

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2015, 10:57:22 AM
Big carrier size is dictated by the weight of modern aircraft, not their wingspan.  Carriers have to be able to accelerate 50 tons of aircraft to 160 knots for launch and slow 150-knot 50-ton aircraft to speed zero for landing.  That takes room, even with catapults and arresting gear.   Once you are committed to that kind of room, you might as well go super-carrier because the marginal benefits outweigh marginal costs.

However, drones are maybe a third the weight of a strike fighter, and so can take of and land from much, much smaller areas at much, much lower speeds.  Drones will never be as capable in any kind of air-air action, but they won't rely on air-air action for survival.  They will rely on stealth and numbers.  You can afford a lot of drones and destroyers (and cruise missiles) for $12 billion worth of carrier and another $8 billion or so in aircraft.

UCAVs, actual capable ones, aren't cheap, and they aren't all that light either when they're weighed down with gas and weapons.  That Global Hawk costs IIRC about as much as two Super Hornets (not including the cost of training a pilot, of course, which isn't cheap, although UCAVs will require those too.  They just aren't in immediate danger, which is a good thing.), and it doesn't shoot at anything.  We're talking F-35 price range for this thing.  Autonomous or semi-autonomous stealth UCAVs with a respectable payload?  Yeah, pony up some cash.  Even if they can get the price down to around what a Super Hornet costs, you still can't just send thousands and thousands of them to get blown up in a dronewave, because....damn that would be expensive and we still have to build the things.  Boeing and Lockheeed would probably be down though.  That's a helluva payday for them.

The size IS a factor when you start putting them on destroyers or destroyer sized ships.  Predators are cheap and light (and their 50 foot wingspan would prevent them from being kept assembled in a DDG hangar without some interesting modifications), but they also suck when you're talking about replacing the strike capabilities of a carrier air wing with a bunch of them.  You can't strap a 2,000lb bomb to something that weighs 5,000lbs and expect it to go anywhere except straight into the ocean after you roll it off the flight deck, let alone the kind of payload current planes like the Super Hornet can fly around with.

They also need a place to land.  A DDG flight deck isn't big enough to trap a UCAV coming back.  It would have to be amphibious, a VTOL, or disposable.

Also, are we just going to be getting rid of the helos that are currently on DDGs and CGs?  Because there wouldn't be any place to put those anymore, and those are pretty damn useful. 

Cruise missiles don't work like strike aircraft.

Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2015, 11:45:22 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but the strenght of a carrier lies in its capacity at forcep projection, right?  The US sends a carrier group (carrier alone is a bad idea, IIRC?), and the planes fly ahead to intercept any ennemy before they even make it to be a dange to the carrier group.

Drones are good at bombing shit on the ground, not so good for air to air.

Can some sort of hybrid carrier, smaller, with a decent air-to-air force and drones for bombing ground be envisionned at a reduced cost compared to the super carriers currently built?  Could you have many of these hybrid, small carriers, rather than one big super carrier and still be efficient at what they do?

For decent a/a from airplanes, you're going to need pilots, and to keep them from just getting offed by the first "real" land based fighter they come across, you're going to need to put them in something that's pretty capable.  That's getting right back in to the aircraft carrier range (not necessarily giant supercarriers though).  Something like the De Gaulle or around the size of our current big deck amphibs would probably work, I would think, but those aren't exactly small or cheap themselves.   Wiki says the new USS America was $3 billion, and they can only launch STOVLs planes like the Harrier or the shittastic F-35B.  Those are both better than drones in the air to air area though, so there you go.

Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2015, 11:45:22 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but the strenght of a carrier lies in its capacity at forcep projection, right?  The US sends a carrier group (carrier alone is a bad idea, IIRC?), and the planes fly ahead to intercept any ennemy before they even make it to be a dange to the carrier group.

Drones are good at bombing shit on the ground, not so good for air to air.

Can some sort of hybrid carrier, smaller, with a decent air-to-air force and drones for bombing ground be envisionned at a reduced cost compared to the super carriers currently built?  Could you have many of these hybrid, small carriers, rather than one big super carrier and still be efficient at what they do?

Smaller carriers are much less cost-effective than larger ones.  That's been shown time and again.  I don't think that there are any new technologies that have changed that conclusion.

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 07, 2015, 11:51:46 AM
UCAVs, actual capable ones, aren't cheap, and they aren't all that light either when they're weighed down with gas and weapons.  That Global Hawk costs IIRC about as much as two Super Hornets (not including the cost of training a pilot, of course, which isn't cheap, although UCAVs will require those too.  They just aren't in immediate danger, which is a good thing.), and it doesn't shoot at anything.  We're talking F-35 price range for this thing.  Autonomous or semi-autonomous stealth UCAVs with a respectable payload?  Yeah, pony up some cash.

Drones are expensive when they are bought in programs of a few dozen experimental aircraft.  Something like Global Hawk is expected to cost in the $40-50 million range when produced in volume; that's about a third the cost of an F-35.  Operating costs are probably less than a tenth the cost of an F-35, so it's a signifcant savings for a significant drop in any capability bar loiter time and sensor reach.  I'd expect the drones wouldn't carry any of the heavy ordinance; plenty of Tomahawks for that role.

QuoteThe size IS a factor when you start putting them on destroyers or destroyer sized ships.  Predators are cheap and light (and their 50 foot wingspan would prevent them from being kept assembled in a DDG hangar without some interesting modifications), but they also suck when you're talking about replacing the strike capabilities of a carrier air wing with a bunch of them.  You can't strap a 2,000lb bomb to something that weighs 5,000lbs and expect it to go anywhere except straight into the ocean after you roll it off the flight deck, let alone the kind of payload current planes like the Super Hornet can fly around with.

They also need a place to land.  A DDG flight deck isn't big enough to trap a UCAV coming back.  It would have to be amphibious, a VTOL, or disposable.

You are focusing your arguments here on current systems.  I don't think current systems make CVNs obsolete (in fact, that was precisely my point).  None of your arguments apply to future systems designed for the role.

QuoteAlso, are we just going to be getting rid of the helos that are currently on DDGs and CGs?  Because there wouldn't be any place to put those anymore, and those are pretty damn useful. 

Why would we?  Presumably, if we are not building CVNs but replacing them with DDGs and CGs, we are building additional DDGs and CGs, not just maintaining current force levels.

QuoteCruise missiles don't work like strike aircraft.

Nor does artillery.

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2015, 12:26:35 PM
Drones are expensive when they are bought in programs of a few dozen experimental aircraft.  Something like Global Hawk is expected to cost in the $40-50 million range when produced in volume; that's about a third the cost of an F-35.  Operating costs are probably less than a tenth the cost of an F-35, so it's a signifcant savings for a significant drop in any capability bar loiter time and sensor reach.  I'd expect the drones wouldn't carry any of the heavy ordinance; plenty of Tomahawks for that role.

That's not much less expensive than a Super Hornet, and it's a surveillance UAV.  So now tack on stealth, payload capabilities, and everything they need to run something that isn't just loitering and looking at things.  And again, Tomahawks aren't replacements for strike aircraft.  We already use Tomahawks where we can, and there's not exactly a shortage of need for regular airplanes with heavy ordinance, even with the bullshit COIN type crap going on now.

QuoteYou are focusing your arguments here on current systems.  I don't think current systems make CVNs obsolete (in fact, that was precisely my point).  None of your arguments apply to future systems designed for the role.

Of course they do.  UCAVs that are capable replacements for strike aircraft are going to need to be able to take off with a real payload and are going to need to land when they come back and are going to need to be put somewhere when they aren't flying.  Explain how that doesn't apply to "future systems."  Massive operating range would be great and would work to avoid those problems, but having one that can do that with a payload that makes it worthwhile....that would be a bigass, ultra expensive drone, so you can't exactly consider those all that expendable.  You also wouldn't need ships in the first place with something like that, so why bother talking about carriers and USN hangar facilities?

QuoteWhy would we?  Presumably, if we are not building CVNs but replacing them with DDGs and CGs, we are building additional DDGs and CGs, not just maintaining current force levels.

Where would we put the drones on them if we aren't taking the helos off?  You're wanting to build a whole new class of drone carriers to be escorted by DDGs and CGs then?  The drone helos are cool, but I wouldn't get in one of those for SAR, so I guess we'd just go back to using the RHIBs full time?  Sub hunting and VERTREP could probably be automated at least.

QuoteNor does artillery.

Okay?  You cannot just say "cruise missiles!" when talking about replacing a carrier air group.  Cruise missiles (and.....artillery?) can't do what a carrier wing can do.  Cruise missiles and drones also can't do what a carrier wing does.

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2015, 12:13:50 PM

Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2015, 11:45:22 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but the strenght of a carrier lies in its capacity at forcep projection, right?  The US sends a carrier group (carrier alone is a bad idea, IIRC?), and the planes fly ahead to intercept any ennemy before they even make it to be a dange to the carrier group.

Drones are good at bombing shit on the ground, not so good for air to air.

Can some sort of hybrid carrier, smaller, with a decent air-to-air force and drones for bombing ground be envisionned at a reduced cost compared to the super carriers currently built?  Could you have many of these hybrid, small carriers, rather than one big super carrier and still be efficient at what they do?

Smaller carriers are much less cost-effective than larger ones.  That's been shown time and again.  I don't think that there are any new technologies that have changed that conclusion.

all right then :)

All those drones are going to look pretty silly over the battlespace when their links to their PlayStations are disrupted from cyberwarfare.  Can't replace a pilot's independence of action in that respect.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2015, 01:01:46 PM
All those drones are going to look pretty silly over the battlespace when their links to their PlayStations are disrupted from cyberwarfare.  Can't replace a pilot's independence of action in that respect.

Surely this cyberwarfare would also make the super high tech manned fighters fall from the sky too?

Quote from: Tyr on March 07, 2015, 02:25:09 PM
Surely this cyberwarfare would also make the super high tech manned fighters fall from the sky too?

He's talking about the control signal getting screwed up.  In a manned plane, there's a guy onboard flying it vs. someone in a room some number of miles away doing the "flying."  UAVs and such won't, or shouldn't, fall out of the sky if the signal is lost, but they also wouldn't be able to receive instructions.  I want to say the newer ones have a failsafe type deal where they return to a designated base after a certain amount of time, but I don't know that for sure.

Is it possible for an enemy to send signals to the drone to make it crash or something?

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 07, 2015, 02:29:41 PM

Quote from: Tyr on March 07, 2015, 02:25:09 PM
Surely this cyberwarfare would also make the super high tech manned fighters fall from the sky too?

He's talking about the control signal getting screwed up.  In a manned plane, there's a guy onboard flying it vs. someone in a room some number of miles away doing the "flying."  UAVs and such won't, or shouldn't, fall out of the sky if the signal is lost, but they also wouldn't be able to receive instructions.  I want to say the newer ones have a failsafe type deal where they return to a designated base after a certain amount of time, but I don't know that for sure.

Yeah, but with modern fighters there are a lot of computer systems needed to keep the thing in the air, the actual control of the plane is ever more abstracted from the pilot

Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2015, 02:32:27 PM
Is it possible for an enemy to send signals to the drone to make it crash or something?

Dunno.  I would imagine link security, or whatever you want to call it, is a pretty big deal for everyone involved.

Quote from: Tyr on March 07, 2015, 02:37:53 PM
Yeah, but with modern fighters there are a lot of computer systems needed to keep the thing in the air, the actual control of the plane is ever more abstracted from the pilot

Right, but all that stuff is actually on board.  If communications or whatever are jammed, the plane can still continue on because there is a person able to tell it what to do.  But yeah, if the computer systems all shut down somehow, a lot of these fly by wire unstable designs are going to have some...issues.

I think the...Rafale?  I think that one has a way where if there's a catastrophic computer error or something that causes it to not be able to fly, the canards will adjust to make it aerodynamically stable and generally controllable.  Maybe it's the Eurofighter.  One of those Euro-canard planes.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2015, 02:32:27 PM
Is it possible for an enemy to send signals to the drone to make it crash or something?

yes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24:_Live_Another_Day)
;)

I suppose it is a possibility that someone, somewhere, with enough resources could manage to crack the encryption and decypher the commands needed to control the drone.  Though I would imagine you need access to US defense satellites too for that.

So, impossible, no.  Unlikely, yes.  I'd say about the same probability that a terrorist group would disguise themselves as musicians to hijack a destroyer.

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 07, 2015, 12:36:54 PM
That's not much less expensive than a Super Hornet, and it's a surveillance UAV.  So now tack on stealth, payload capabilities, and everything they need to run something that isn't just loitering and looking at things.  And again, Tomahawks aren't replacements for strike aircraft.  We already use Tomahawks where we can, and there's not exactly a shortage of need for regular airplanes with heavy ordinance, even with the bullshit COIN type crap going on now.

Future drones are estimated at about half the price of semi-obsolescent current aircraft, correct.  And about a third the price of contemporary combat aircraft (what ones are left).  Drones will have a much lower operating cost, but also likely a lower lifespan.  Still, they will be a quarter to a fifth of the cost of a strike fighter from the same generation when all is said and done, I'd bet.

QuoteOf course they do.  UCAVs that are capable replacements for strike aircraft are going to need to be able to take off with a real payload and are going to need to land when they come back and are going to need to be put somewhere when they aren't flying.  Explain how that doesn't apply to "future systems."  Massive operating range would be great and would work to avoid those problems, but having one that can do that with a payload that makes it worthwhile....that would be a bigass, ultra expensive drone, so you can't exactly consider those all that expendable.  You also wouldn't need ships in the first place with something like that, so why bother talking about carriers and USN hangar facilities?

I have no idea what most of this means.  A drone-based strike system doesn't have to have vastly capable individual elements.  And, yes, any aerial vehicle is going to have to be able to take off and land, no matter how it is based. 

As far as the advantages of sea-basing air power, I'd just invite you to check on any web site that talks about carriers.  Sea-basing makes sense, even if you don't have carriers.

QuoteWhere would we put the drones on them if we aren't taking the helos off?  You're wanting to build a whole new class of drone carriers to be escorted by DDGs and CGs then?  The drone helos are cool, but I wouldn't get in one of those for SAR, so I guess we'd just go back to using the RHIBs full time?  Sub hunting and VERTREP could probably be automated at least.

Again, you've lost me.  What non-existent ships have helos right now, that we'd be "taking off?"

QuoteOkay?  You cannot just say "cruise missiles!" when talking about replacing a carrier air group.  Cruise missiles (and.....artillery?) can't do what a carrier wing can do.  Cruise missiles and drones also can't do what a carrier wing does.

Nor can a carrier air wing do what a distributed strike force (even one that is just Tomahawk cruise missiles) can do.  The point is that we are going to need the future unique capabilities and affordability of the distributed strike system a lot more than the future unique capabilities and affordability of the carrier air wing.  That's why I think that this generation of carriers now in service will be the last ones to live out their lifetimes as viable front line ships.  The Ford class will be recognized as white elephants long before their planned lifespan expires.

Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2015, 03:25:11 PM
yes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24:_Live_Another_Day)
;)

I suppose it is a possibility that someone, somewhere, with enough resources could manage to crack the encryption and decypher the commands needed to control the drone.  Though I would imagine you need access to US defense satellites too for that.

So, impossible, no.  Unlikely, yes.  I'd say about the same probability that a terrorist group would disguise themselves as musicians to hijack a destroyer.

If the opponent can break US comms crypto like that, drones will be the very least of your worries.  They'll be sending false orders to every US unit, and false information to every US headquarters unit.  They may not be able to force aircraft to crash, but they will easily send them into situations impossible for them to survive.

Luckily, this scenario is so close to impossible as to be indistinguishable from it.

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2015, 03:25:44 PM
Future drones are estimated at about half the price of semi-obsolescent current aircraft, correct.  And about a third the price of contemporary combat aircraft (what ones are left).  Drones will have a much lower operating cost, but also likely a lower lifespan.  Still, they will be a quarter to a fifth of the cost of a strike fighter from the same generation when all is said and done, I'd bet.

I wouldn't be willing to take that bet, and I question why you would willingly believe something like that knowing what you do about the defense procurement...process.  If Global Hawk is "only" going to cost $40-50 million (where are you seeing this, btw), how is an armed UCAV that can operate in non-permissive areas going to be even cheaper than that?  Why is the operating cost of a UCAV going to be significantly cheaper?  They will still require regular maintenance and repair. 

Right now, we've got the actual price of a Global Hawk reaching over $100m after something like 20 years of service.  Where are these savings on something that has WAY more capability going to come from?  Shit, where are the savings on the Global Hawk going to come from? 

QuoteI have no idea what most of this means.  A drone-based strike system doesn't have to have vastly capable individual elements.  And, yes, any aerial vehicle is going to have to be able to take off and land, no matter how it is based. 

Okay, what don't you understand?  There isn't the space for real drone operations off of a current DDG or CG.

QuoteAs far as the advantages of sea-basing air power, I'd just invite you to check on any web site that talks about carriers.  Sea-basing makes sense, even if you don't have carriers.

Without a carrier, where are you sea basing aircraft? 

QuoteAgain, you've lost me.  What non-existent ships have helos right now, that we'd be "taking off?"

Non-existent ships?  What?  Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga class ships tend to carry helos around if they have the hangars for them (earlier Burkes didn't have hangars).  If you're going to be putting drones on board, you're going to have to create space for them somewhere, yes?  Where do you put them other than the hangars that are right next to the flight deck? 

This is a thing you were saying could be done right there on the first page.  You can't.  Not without making space for them (no more helos) and coming up with drones that can actually operate from those flight decks like VTOLs or some sort of amphibious vehicles.  If that happens and you remove the helos in favor of these UCAVs so you can have this distributed group, what is going to perform SAR, VERTREPs, ASW, and all the other stuff helos currently take care of?  Are we just....not doing that now?  Are you going to have other drones take care of that too?  Where are they going to be put?  And, again, good luck getting a swimmer in one of those things.

QuoteNor can a carrier air wing do what a distributed strike force (even one that is just Tomahawk cruise missiles) can do.

This is why we have, and use, both.  You can't just toss the carrier wings without a viable replacement.  Currently drones are not that replacement, and without some pretty huge technological advancements, they won't be for a while.

QuoteThe point is that we are going to need the future unique capabilities and affordability of the distributed strike system a lot more than the future unique capabilities and affordability of the carrier air wing.  That's why I think that this generation of carriers now in service will be the last ones to live out their lifetimes as viable front line ships.  The Ford class will be recognized as white elephants long before their planned lifespan expires.

If we do somehow figure out a way to overcome things like communications/control lag time and such, the Navy is still going to need to have a place to launch them from. 


E:  Hm. Tyr, looking back, it may be the Gripen that can change the canard "configuration" in the event of an emergency.  I have also just named off every  modern Eurocanard fighter so I guess one of them is correct.  :P

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 07, 2015, 02:42:10 PM
Right, but all that stuff is actually on board.  If communications or whatever are jammed, the plane can still continue on because there is a person able to tell it what to do.  But yeah, if the computer systems all shut down somehow, a lot of these fly by wire unstable designs are going to have some...issues.

Jamming or otherwise disrupting communications is one thing, but knocking out all of an aircraft's on-board electronics is a completely different matter.  I'm not sure anything but an EMP would do it, and I'm not sure you could generate enough of one with anything short of a nuke.  And an enemy wouldn't want to be generating an EMP near their own forces, either way.

Quote from: dps on March 07, 2015, 05:52:01 PM
Jamming or otherwise disrupting communications is one thing, but knocking out all of an aircraft's on-board electronics is a completely different matter.  I'm not sure anything but an EMP would do it, and I'm not sure you could generate enough of one with anything short of a nuke.  And an enemy wouldn't want to be generating an EMP near their own forces, either way.

Yeah, I'm not aware of anything (non EMP) that could do something like that either.  That would be a real shitty surprise for a lot of pilots though if someone did figure something out.

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2015, 10:57:22 AM
Big carrier size is dictated by the weight of modern aircraft, not their wingspan.  Carriers have to be able to accelerate 50 tons of aircraft to 160 knots for launch and slow 150-knot 50-ton aircraft to speed zero for landing.  That takes room, even with catapults and arresting gear.   Once you are committed to that kind of room, you might as well go super-carrier because the marginal benefits outweigh marginal costs.

However, drones are maybe a third the weight of a strike fighter, and so can take of and land from much, much smaller areas at much, much lower speeds.  Drones will never be as capable in any kind of air-air action, but they won't rely on air-air action for survival.  They will rely on stealth and numbers.  You can afford a lot of drones and destroyers (and cruise missiles) for $12 billion worth of carrier and another $8 billion or so in aircraft.

The big payload delivery drones aren't all that much smaller than the Phantoms and Intruders that the supercarriers were running in the 60s.  Max takeoff weight is about 70-80% from what I can find.  It's not like you're going to be able to build a 25,000-ton drone carrier or something, even if you wanted to.  When it comes to the big drones like the Global Hawk or the X-47, you're probably going to be launching them off CVNs anyways.

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 07, 2015, 04:18:39 PM
[I wouldn't be willing to take that bet, and I question why you would willingly believe something like that knowing what you do about the defense procurement...process.  If Global Hawk is "only" going to cost $40-50 million (where are you seeing this, btw), how is an armed UCAV that can operate in non-permissive areas going to be even cheaper than that?  Why is the operating cost of a UCAV going to be significantly cheaper?  They will still require regular maintenance and repair. 

Fine, you can disagree that unmanned vehicles of a given type are significantly cheaper than manned ones.  I don't think that history is on your side, but that's fine.  As for why unmanned aircraft are significantly cheaper to operate (besides saving on crew costs), it largely has to do with the different reliability standards for maintenance and replacement between manned and unmanned anything.  Rockets designed for unmanned space missions cost a lot less than those for manned missions.  Space shuttle marginal costs were about $8,000 (total program costs over all missions about $23,000 per pound) to low earth orbit, according to the wiki, while Ariadne's marginal cost was less than half that (and total program costs about a third), while Proton was one quarter and one-eighth, though proton costs are probably not directly comparable.  And, while the numbers probably aren't right, the proportions probably are.

QuoteRight now...

Who is talking about right now?

QuoteOkay, what don't you understand?  There isn't the space for real drone operations off of a current DDG or CG.

There are no drones for them to operate.  I suppose you could argue, if you were aware of all possible drone designs, that no drone could ever be built to operate off of current DDG and CGs, but so what?

QuoteWithout a carrier, where are you sea basing aircraft? 

Sigh.  I give up.  You haven't even attempted to comprehend a fucking thing I've written, have you?  All the bullshit about the Ticos and Burkes and Global Hawks and whatnot that you've been spewing has nothing whatsoever to do with my contention.  I'm done.

Quote from: Neil on March 07, 2015, 06:35:35 PM
The big payload delivery drones aren't all that much smaller than the Phantoms and Intruders that the supercarriers were running in the 60s.  Max takeoff weight is about 70-80% from what I can find.  It's not like you're going to be able to build a 25,000-ton drone carrier or something, even if you wanted to.  When it comes to the big drones like the Global Hawk or the X-47, you're probably going to be launching them off CVNs anyways.

Yep.  But we are talking about drones 30 or so years from now.  Global Hawk won't be one of the contenders.  Until those contenders come along, as I pointed out, carriers will be the bees knees. 

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2015, 06:40:08 PM

Quote from: Neil on March 07, 2015, 06:35:35 PM
The big payload delivery drones aren't all that much smaller than the Phantoms and Intruders that the supercarriers were running in the 60s.  Max takeoff weight is about 70-80% from what I can find.  It's not like you're going to be able to build a 25,000-ton drone carrier or something, even if you wanted to.  When it comes to the big drones like the Global Hawk or the X-47, you're probably going to be launching them off CVNs anyways.

Yep.  But we are talking about drones 30 or so years from now.  Global Hawk won't be one of the contenders.  Until those contenders come along, as I pointed out, carriers will be the bees knees.

I wonder what the drones of 30 years from now will be like.  Is it likely that they'll get a decent strike platform under 15 tons?

Really, it's kind of interesting.  For the longest time, the size of aircraft was driving up the size of the carriers.  But once they brought in the CVNs, the size of the aircraft pretty much plateaued for a variety of reasons.  Some of them were technological (like the obsolescence of aircraft-delivered hydrogen bombs), some of them were financial (the expense of the CVNs was already the cause of a lot of reluctance in Congress), some of them were institutional (the elimination of the two-man carrier aircraft), but they all served to limit the growth in aircraft size.

Quote from: Neil on March 07, 2015, 07:54:04 PM
I wonder what the drones of 30 years from now will be like.  Is it likely that they'll get a decent strike platform under 15 tons?

Sure.  The Tomahawk is under 2 tons.

QuoteReally, it's kind of interesting.  For the longest time, the size of aircraft was driving up the size of the carriers.  But once they brought in the CVNs, the size of the aircraft pretty much plateaued for a variety of reasons.  Some of them were technological (like the obsolescence of aircraft-delivered hydrogen bombs), some of them were financial (the expense of the CVNs was already the cause of a lot of reluctance in Congress), some of them were institutional (the elimination of the two-man carrier aircraft), but they all served to limit the growth in aircraft size.

I think that cost was the big driver, and it forced the aviation admirals to accept aircraft performance in range and payload that would have been anathema a generation earlier.  Aircraft grew too expensive to keep specialized fighter and attack types, and the strikefighters are, frankly, not all that great at either job.  That's why we don't see the A-12 or a follow-on to the F-14. 

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2015, 06:37:22 PMFine, you can disagree that unmanned vehicles of a given type are significantly cheaper than manned ones.  I don't think that history is on your side, but that's fine.  As for why unmanned aircraft are significantly cheaper to operate (besides saving on crew costs), it largely has to do with the different reliability standards for maintenance and replacement between manned and unmanned anything.  Rockets designed for unmanned space missions cost a lot less than those for manned missions.  Space shuttle marginal costs were about $8,000 (total program costs over all missions about $23,000 per pound) to low earth orbit, according to the wiki, while Ariadne's marginal cost was less than half that (and total program costs about a third), while Proton was one quarter and one-eighth, though proton costs are probably not directly comparable.  And, while the numbers probably aren't right, the proportions probably are.

What I know is a Global Hawk costs in the range of $150 million dollars.  A Reaper, which can carry smaller 500lb bombs, Hellfires, and I think Stingers now, costs the Navy around $30 million (they call them something else, Mariner, IIRC, which is a shame since Reaper is definitely a cool name) and is also pretty freaking big.  None of these things can deliver a Maverick or 2k JDAM or Sidewinder or AMRAAM or Harpoon or HARM or anything like that.

QuoteWho is talking about right now?

QuoteThere are no drones for them to operate.  I suppose you could argue, if you were aware of all possible drone designs, that no drone could ever be built to operate off of current DDG and CGs, but so what?

You were talking about right now on page 1 when you said we currently have "Aegis destroyers" and "Aegis cruisers" that can carry the types of drones we are talking about.  We don't without a) major tech advances including things like VTOL drones, totally automated programming that doesn't shit itself when something looks different/AI/major advances in instant BVR control/communications, and smaller designs that can handle a respectable amount of ordinance, etc, and b) getting rid of very useful things like helicopters to free up space, and probably several other things. 

Quote
Sigh.  I give up.  You haven't even attempted to comprehend a fucking thing I've written, have you?  All the bullshit about the Ticos and Burkes and Global Hawks and whatnot that you've been spewing has nothing whatsoever to do with my contention. 

Except when you specifically mentioned Burkes and Ticos, right? 

Quote from: you page 1They have the ships (all the Aegis cruisers and half the Aegis destroyers) but they don't have the drones yet.

Unless we have other AEGIS cruisers and destroyers that no one knows about?  Thirty years from now (there probably won't be any Ticos btw), if we've come up with a kickass UCAV that can take off and land vertically while carrying enough of a payload for a long enough range to actually do away with a carrier air wing and the bigass ships they go on, a relatively small destroyer is still a shitty way to go. 

How many are you going to have to send over somewhere to make up for the amount of aircraft one CVN can haul?  20? 30? More?  If they're the size of a current Seahawk, because it still has to be able to carry ordinance, lets say you can shove two in a hangar.  We've got the biggest navy in the world by far, and you're looking at sending like half our damn fleet somewhere to make up for one carrier.  The alternative to this is, of course, to put the same number of them on a CVN and surround it with several destroyers, then do the same thing a few more times and have hundreds of these awesome UCAVs flying around all over the place. 

They also wouldn't need to be VTOL anymore.  I just saved a few billion in R&D right there.  We could build a new amphib with that kind of cash.  Hey we could also put up a helo when a guy falls in the water and perform VERTREPs when we need to!  Bonus!

QuoteI'm done.

Doesn't really look like it, as I see yet another cruise missile post and something about Global Hawk not being a contender while failing to mention an actual UCAV that currently exists in a testing form, was brought up in the post, will be semi-automated, doesn't have solo a/a capability, and is fucking huge and requires a carrier.  Also, they're going to be over $100,000,000.  More like 150, actually.

http://news.usni.org/2013/12/23/navy-uclass-will-stealthy-tomcat-size

Thats a real upcoming UCAV, not some fantasy bullshit.  70,000lbs and the size of a damn F-14, and half of your 30 year time limit before they even have real operational experience with it to see what UCAVs can actually contribute to a carrier air wing.  The only way that is going into a destroyer hangar is if it bluescreens and crashes into one. 

MBM, arguing with grumbler is like thermonuclear war...you don't want to play that game.

Quote from: Tonitrus on March 07, 2015, 09:22:57 PM
MBM, arguing with grumbler is like thermonuclear war...you don't want to play that game.

I know.  At least it's an interesting topic though.  UCAVs and UAVs are pretty nifty, and carriers are gigantic floating targets.

E:  Well, I guess last month the Navy pushed delivery for that UCLASS back to 2022 or 2023, so add another couple of years to actual "field testing" of this thing.  Bummer.

:timmah: The answer is giant submarine carriers!  :nerd: :timmah:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdigital-art-gallery.com%2Foid%2F51%2F1205x634_9742_Submarine_Aircraft_Carrier_2d_submarine_aircraft_carrier_concept_art_picture_image_digital_art.jpg&hash=2451f2d05f24a82bb24db645909d1db334b0041d)

 :lol:  I gotta admit my inner nerd really finds that cool.

*F-35 smashes into that bow plane thing after a fish on the deck FODs the engine and the whole thing sinks*

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2015, 08:35:23 PM

Quote from: Neil on March 07, 2015, 07:54:04 PM
I wonder what the drones of 30 years from now will be like.  Is it likely that they'll get a decent strike platform under 15 tons?

Sure.  The Tomahawk is under 2 tons.

And the Tomahawk is great for the sorts of operations that the USN finds itself in now, whether that means blowing up a terrorist stronghold or glassing a baby formula factory/weapons plant.  But in a wartime situation, where the intensity of your operations goes way, way up, are they cost effective?  Will you end up with a production bottleneck?  I'm also a little more leery of the Tomahawk, since once it's fired, it is expended.  The advantage of an aircraft, be it UAV or convention airplane, is that if you launch it, you have the ability to call off an attack without having blown a million and a half dollars.  It's not a bad idea, when you're using missiles on terrorists.

Quote

QuoteReally, it's kind of interesting.  For the longest time, the size of aircraft was driving up the size of the carriers.  But once they brought in the CVNs, the size of the aircraft pretty much plateaued for a variety of reasons.  Some of them were technological (like the obsolescence of aircraft-delivered hydrogen bombs), some of them were financial (the expense of the CVNs was already the cause of a lot of reluctance in Congress), some of them were institutional (the elimination of the two-man carrier aircraft), but they all served to limit the growth in aircraft size.

I think that cost was the big driver, and it forced the aviation admirals to accept aircraft performance in range and payload that would have been anathema a generation earlier.  Aircraft grew too expensive to keep specialized fighter and attack types, and the strikefighters are, frankly, not all that great at either job.  That's why we don't see the A-12 or a follow-on to the F-14.

Cost-cutting times are always interesting times in naval design.  The treaty years were the same.  Still, it's nice of the USN to leave it to the USAF to waste American taxpayer money on white elephant aircraft.  After all, if the USN made a successor to the F-14, what would it do?  It's not like the terrorists have Backfires to splash.

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 07, 2015, 09:43:50 PM
:lol:  I gotta admit my inner nerd really finds that cool.

*F-35 smashes into that bow plane thing after a fish on the deck FODs the engine and the whole thing sinks*

You laugh, but there's a very good reason that carriers are built so high.  Keeping the sea away from your planes is a good thing.  If you try and land on a deck full of fish, you're going to have a rough time of it.  Not to mention all the deck crew that keep slipping and falling into jet engines.

Quote from: Neil on March 07, 2015, 09:52:19 PM
You laugh, but there's a very good reason that carriers are built so high.  Keeping the sea away from your planes is a good thing.  If you try and land on a deck full of fish, you're going to have a rough time of it.  Not to mention all the deck crew that keep slipping and falling into jet engines.

Yeah, FOD walkdowns are great fun.  Looks like theres a complete lack of any kind of railing and safety netting around the edge of that thing too, now that I look at it again.  That deck is ultra hazardous.

STILL COOL THOUGH :nerd: 

E:  Looks like a choppy day too.  Having your plane suck in a bunch of seawater on takeoff because a wave broke over the bow would ruin anyone's day too. 

Quote from: Neil on March 07, 2015, 09:48:03 PM
After all, if the USN made a successor to the F-14, what would it do?  It's not like the terrorists have Backfires to splash.

Backfires are still out there, though.   As are big fucking ASMs.  The mission of the fleet interceptor hasn't changed:  as long as there's a fleet, there will be a need for fleet interceptors.

Do the Chinese have anything like a Tu-22M, or even the Tu-160?  Seems like that would be right up their alley.

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 07, 2015, 11:05:48 PM
Do the Chinese have anything like a Tu-22M, or even the Tu-160?  Seems like that would be right up their alley.

They're still running around with the Tu-16 ripoff they've always had, merely adding cruise missile variants. 

Thing is, even with the alleged "carrier killer" missiles, they're still big enough to necessitate a supersonic fleet interceptor.  The point is to intercept the threat from as far from the carrier as possible.

Speaking of Chinese jet pilots (lulz), here's a nifty article--
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/five-planes-of-the-chinese-air-force-you-really-ought-to-know-about-a0b27549c4bb

Only eight tankers?  Huh.

e: 

QuoteThing is, even with the alleged "carrier killer" missiles, they're still big enough to necessitate a supersonic fleet interceptor.  The point is to intercept the threat from as far from the carrier as possible.

Yeah.  I think I've seen somewhere that the new long range AMRAAM is delayed or some such too.


Oh here we go.  Wiki has something about it being fielded in 2014, but not being with every Pacific squadron until 2020-2022.  Welp.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2015, 10:54:17 PM

Quote from: Neil on March 07, 2015, 09:48:03 PM
After all, if the USN made a successor to the F-14, what would it do?  It's not like the terrorists have Backfires to splash.

Backfires are still out there, though.   As are big fucking ASMs.  The mission of the fleet interceptor hasn't changed:  as long as there's a fleet, there will be a need for fleet interceptors.

Yeah, but at this point the F-14 has been superseded by AEGIS ships with SM-3 and SM-6 missiles.  If you really need air-to-air interceptors, there's always shitty Hornets, not to mention ground-based aircraft from Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.

Quote from: Neil on March 07, 2015, 11:21:58 PM
Yeah, but at this point the F-14 has been superseded by AEGIS ships with SM-3 and SM-6 missiles.  If you really need air-to-air interceptors, there's always shitty Hornets, not to mention ground-based aircraft from Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.

Missiles don't always make for good dogfighters, as they can be Wild Weasel'd.  An F-14 can still engage the enemy if necessary farther away than the AEGIS umbrella.  Shitty Hornets have shitty range, which is why they made not-as-shitty SuperHornets.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2015, 11:37:08 PM
Missiles don't always make for good dogfighters, as they can be Wild Weasel'd.  An F-14 can still engage the enemy if necessary farther away than the AEGIS umbrella.  Shitty Hornets have shitty range, which is why they made not-as-shitty SuperHornets.

Here's something stupid: The USMC declined the upgrade from regular Hornet to Super Hornet because reasons (something along the lines of making sure they get the F-35B or whatever), and they contribute airplanes to carrier groups, so there's going to be a chunk of old Hornets still flying from carriers until they get the F-35Cs the Navy is making them replace them with.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2015, 11:37:08 PM

Quote from: Neil on March 07, 2015, 11:21:58 PM
Yeah, but at this point the F-14 has been superseded by AEGIS ships with SM-3 and SM-6 missiles.  If you really need air-to-air interceptors, there's always shitty Hornets, not to mention ground-based aircraft from Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.

Missiles don't always make for good dogfighters, as they can be Wild Weasel'd.  An F-14 can still engage the enemy if necessary farther away than the AEGIS umbrella.  Shitty Hornets have shitty range, which is why they made not-as-shitty SuperHornets.

Modern missiles have internal guidance, and if destroying the base radar sets with anti-radiation missiles isn't really an option.  And the F-14 wasn't a great dogfighter either.

Quote from: Neil on March 08, 2015, 12:11:39 AM
Modern missiles have internal guidance, and if destroying the base radar sets with anti-radiation missiles isn't really an option.  And the F-14 wasn't a great dogfighter either.

:mellow:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2015, 12:12:55 AM

Quote from: Neil on March 08, 2015, 12:11:39 AM
Modern missiles have internal guidance, and if destroying the base radar sets with anti-radiation missiles isn't really an option.  And the F-14 wasn't a great dogfighter either.

:mellow:

:mad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyjNInIH4Hw

Does the development of hypersonic weapons have any impact on the carrier debate? Or is that only relevant to naval missile platforms?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2015, 10:18:22 AM

Quote from: katmai on March 07, 2015, 02:08:04 AM
Shut your dirty whore mouth Seedy and ElevenB!

Fuck you, Nanook of the North.  I want more carriers.

You also want more voicemail. Unfortunately for you, the times they are a-changing.  :)

Go fuck yourself and your multiple accounts, you filthy fucking sociopath.

 :lol:

You must be fukcin drunk.
Airsift carriers are the still the best way to project power across the globe.

Quote from: alfred russel on March 08, 2015, 01:36:10 AM
You also want more voicemail. Unfortunately for you, the times they are a-changing.  :)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm.memegen.com%2F8xjkzg.jpg&hash=f07df1996a3ce2dc3a49a907fb554566c87e6d01)

Quote from: Tonitrus on March 07, 2015, 09:38:02 PM
:timmah: The answer is giant submarine carriers!  :nerd: :timmah:

Well, the Japanese worked on that concept. War ended before they saw action, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I-400-class_submarine&redirect=no

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2015, 03:32:08 PM
If the opponent can break US comms crypto like that, drones will be the very least of your worries.  They'll be sending false orders to every US unit, and false information to every US headquarters unit. 

Let me guess: orders to invade Iraq and information that Saddam supported Al-Qaeda? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Neil on March 07, 2015, 09:48:03 PM
And the Tomahawk is great for the sorts of operations that the USN finds itself in now, whether that means blowing up a terrorist stronghold or glassing a baby formula factory/weapons plant.  But in a wartime situation, where the intensity of your operations goes way, way up, are they cost effective?  Will you end up with a production bottleneck?  I'm also a little more leery of the Tomahawk, since once it's fired, it is expended.  The advantage of an aircraft, be it UAV or convention airplane, is that if you launch it, you have the ability to call off an attack without having blown a million and a half dollars.  It's not a bad idea, when you're using missiles on terrorists.

Agreed.  My point, though, is that you don't need to have a single platform that can do all the things a manned aircraft can do.  That's the point of a distributed system: it seeks to accomplish all the tasks, but not all the time and with all the same assets.  Maybe we want our weapons delivery platform to be survivable and/or re-usable, and maybe we don't.  Without a man involved, that decision becomes a lot more about cost-effectiveness than about OMG think of the pilot.  And, of course, the fact is that, to launch that strikefighter mission, you've already blown a million and a half dollars.

QuoteCost-cutting times are always interesting times in naval design.  The treaty years were the same.  Still, it's nice of the USN to leave it to the USAF to waste American taxpayer money on white elephant aircraft.  After all, if the USN made a successor to the F-14, what would it do?  It's not like the terrorists have Backfires to splash.

Agreed about the interesting nature of cost-cutting times; I've always had a weak spot for the York and Arethusa class cruisers, as stringent economies forced both to be someone innovative (the latter being far more successful at innovation than the former, but even failure is interesting).

An F-14 follow-on would presumably do air superiority missions for a serious deep strike aircraft like the A-12, in places like Iran.  But, it seems, the USN cannot develop two aircraft like that and so must cede those Iran missions to the USAF.  Puddle-jumpers like the F-18 and F-35 will perform most sea control and amphib support missions about as well as longer-ranged aircraft.

Quote from: The Brain on March 08, 2015, 07:57:15 AM

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2015, 03:32:08 PM
If the opponent can break US comms crypto like that, drones will be the very least of your worries.  They'll be sending false orders to every US unit, and false information to every US headquarters unit. 

Let me guess: orders to invade Iraq and information that Saddam supported Al-Qaeda? :rolleyes:

:lol:  Well-played.

Quote from: celedhring on March 08, 2015, 04:53:49 AM
Well, the Japanese worked on that concept. War ended before they saw action, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I-400-class_submarine&redirect=no

Like most Japanese WW2 concepts, the I-400 class was total fail from the brainfart that initiated it to the attempt to build it.  The designers didn't understand enough about either submarine ops or air ops.  How long do you think it would take that pig to submerge?  How did the designers not expect the slow-ass seaplanes to be simply followed back to the sub (if they weren't shot down by virtually anything)?

Sir, enemy aircraft off the port bow!

Clear the bridge!  Emergency dive!  Diving officer, take us to 300 feet!

Aye, sir!  300 feet, aye, sir!

COB, how long will it take us to get to 300 feet?

We should be there by this time tomorrow, sir.

[quote author=MadBurgerMaker link=topic=12601.msg854113#msg854113
I think the...Rafale?  I think that one has a way where if there's a catastrophic computer error or something that causes it to not be able to fly, the canards will adjust to make it aerodynamically stable and generally controllable.  Maybe it's the Eurofighter.  One of those Euro-canard planes.
[/quote]

The Rafale has an all analog backup computer.

Just kidding. I have no idea :P

According to Wiki, the U.S. did some design studies for submarine aircraft carriers from 1946-52.  At one point, they envisioned 34,000 ton subs that could carry 4 Banshee fighters.  That's pretty nutty--keep in mind that the largest subs ever actually built are about 24,000 tons.  At least it was just a study;  we didn't actually try to build the things.

Quote from: dps on March 08, 2015, 01:15:49 PM
According to Wiki, the U.S. did some design studies for submarine aircraft carriers from 1946-52.  At one point, they envisioned 34,000 ton subs that could carry 4 Banshee fighters.  That's pretty nutty--keep in mind that the largest subs ever actually built are about 24,000 tons.  At least it was just a study;  we didn't actually try to build the things.

Those were feasibility studies, not design studies per se (in other words, they weren't intended to produce a design, but rather to decide if the effort to do a design was worthwhile).  The conclusion was that no such design could be successful, for a whole host of reasons.  This was found to be true even when the mission was a one-way nuclear strike mission (which was undertaken by unmanned Regulus missiles, instead - is this starting to sound familiar?).

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 07, 2015, 11:16:47 PM
Only eight tankers?  Huh.

Only eight Il-78 tankers.  The article also indicates they have 10 H-6 tankers.

Quote from: The Brain on March 08, 2015, 07:57:15 AM

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2015, 03:32:08 PM
If the opponent can break US comms crypto like that, drones will be the very least of your worries.  They'll be sending false orders to every US unit, and false information to every US headquarters unit. 

Let me guess: orders to invade Iraq and information that Saddam supported Al-Qaeda? :rolleyes:

He didn't?
Why do you always subscribe to all those fringe conspiracy theories?