If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Where will the money come from...
To pay for the envisioned force structure below? Well the seemingly
inviolate 12 carrier hull money is most likely one place. With what is being proposed why would you need 12 carriers anyway? Maybe its time to begin to transform Naval Aviation away from being so completely centered around a weapons system that hasn't fundamentally changed in 60 years-the Aircraft Carrier-before it becomes completely irrelevant... Julian Borger in Washington Tuesday July 1, 2003 The Guardian The Pentagon is planning a new generation of weapons, including huge hypersonic drones and bombs dropped from space, that will allow the US to strike its enemies at lightning speed from its own territory. Over the next 25 years, the new technology would free the US from dependence on forward bases and the cooperation of regional allies, part of the drive towards self-suffi ciency spurred by the difficulties of gaining international cooperation for the invasion of Iraq. The new weapons are being developed under a programme codenamed Falcon (Force Application and Launch from the Continental US). A US defence website has invited bids from contractors to develop the technology and the current edition of Jane's Defence Weekly reports that the first flight tests are scheduled to take place within three years. According to the website run by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) the programme is aimed at fulfilling "the government's vision of an ultimate prompt global reach capability (circa 2025 and beyond)". The Falcon technology would "free the US military from reliance on forward basing to enable it to react promptly and decisively to destabilising or threatening actions by hostile countries and terrorist organisations", according to the Darpa invitation for bids. The ultimate goal would be a "reusable hypersonic cruise vehicle (HCV) .... capable of taking off from a conventional military runway and striking targets 9,000 nautical miles distant in less than two hours". The unmanned HCV would carry a payload of up to 12,000 lbs and could ultimately fly at speeds of up to 10 times the speed of sound, according to Daniel Goure, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute in Washington. Propelling a warhead of that size at those speeds poses serious technological challenges and Darpa estimates it will take more than 20 years to develop. Over the next seven years, meanwhile, the US air force and Darpa will develop a cheaper "global reach" weapons system relying on expendable rocket boosters, known as small launch vehicles (SLV) that would take a warhead into space and drop it over its target. In US defence jargon, the warhead is known as a Com mon Aero Vehicle (Cav), an unpowered bomb which would be guided on to its target as it plummeted to earth at high and accelerating velocity. The Cav could carry 1,000 lbs of explosives but at those speeds explosives may not be necessary. A simple titanium rod would be able to penetrate 70 feet of solid rock and the shock wave would have enormous destructive force. It could be used against deeply buried bunkers, the sort of target the air force is looking for new ways to attack. Jane's Defence Weekly reported that the first Cav flight demonstration is provisionally scheduled by mid-2006, and the first SLV flight exercise would take place the next year. A test of the two systems combined would be carried out by late 2007. A prototype demonstrating HCV technology would be tested in 2009. SLV rockets will also give the air force a cheap and flexible means to launch military satellites at short notice, within weeks, days or even hours of a crisis developing. The SLV-Cav combination, according to the Darpa document, "will provide a near-term (approximately 2010) operational capability for prompt global strike from Consus (the continental US) while also enabling future development of a reusable HCV for the far-term (approximately 2025)". The range of this weapon is unclear. This is what I wrote in April and so far I'm half right... "And I'll bet a paycheck the Air Force will argue just that Real Soon Now. Also the Space folks will likely chime in about the operational usefulness of the Common Aero Vehicle as well. I wouldn't be surprised if there were only a six carrier force by 2015." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"s.p.i." wrote in message om... SNIP! With what is being proposed why would you need 12 carriers anyway? Because it is hard to park a B-2 just off some ones coast 24/7 as a reminder that you may not approve of their actions. (Besides the AF and satellites just isn't that visible). A Carrier Battle Group in someone's bathtub shows them you are very concerned. Two Carrier Battle Groups, plus a couple of MAU's tells them you are really PO'd. Three or more means the S**t is about to hit the fan. Its human nature, if they can't see it, they don't think about it. Now if you could park a space station that was visible from the ground over them it would be different. But we can't, and we probably can't do it in the foreseeable future either. So we will have to make do with the Carrier Battle Group, and once or twice a day have one of the escorts pop up above the horizon, have a few aircraft making contrails in the sky, and of course plenty of radio chatter, just to remind everyone who is watching. In the last 50 years or so the Carrier Battle Group, has become more of a diplomatic tool than an instrument of war. But war is really extreme diplomacy anyway. Red |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
...."reusable hypersonic cruise vehicle (HCV) ... capable of
taking off from a conventional military runway and striking targets 9,000 nautical miles distant in less than two hours".... And how long can this "HCV" loiter in the target area while the White House makes it's go-to-war decision? Those "ancient" aircraft carriers have been continuously on-station all day, every day at multiple hot spots all over the world for over HALF A CENTURY [almost half a million hours at EACH hot spot]! No, this latest engineering solution-in-search-of-a-problem does not preclude the continuing need for aircraft carriers and what only they can do!!! Incidentally such HCV concepts have been repeatedly considered over many decades. About every twenty years we revisit these old "new ideas". By the way, just calculate the pay load fraction needed for fuel to move that 12,000 pound HCV hypersonically over 9,000 miles. "Get it right or just forget it!" WDA end "s.p.i." wrote in message om... To pay for the envisioned force structure below? Well the seemingly inviolate 12 carrier hull money is most likely one place. With what is being proposed why would you need 12 carriers anyway? Maybe its time to begin to transform Naval Aviation away from being so completely centered around a weapons system that hasn't fundamentally changed in 60 years-the Aircraft Carrier-before it becomes completely irrelevant... Julian Borger in Washington Tuesday July 1, 2003 The Guardian The Pentagon is planning a new generation of weapons, including huge hypersonic drones and bombs dropped from space, that will allow the US to strike its enemies at lightning speed from its own territory. Over the next 25 years, the new technology would free the US from dependence on forward bases and the cooperation of regional allies, part of the drive towards self-suffi ciency spurred by the difficulties of gaining international cooperation for the invasion of Iraq. The new weapons are being developed under a programme codenamed Falcon (Force Application and Launch from the Continental US). A US defence website has invited bids from contractors to develop the technology and the current edition of Jane's Defence Weekly reports that the first flight tests are scheduled to take place within three years. According to the website run by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) the programme is aimed at fulfilling "the government's vision of an ultimate prompt global reach capability (circa 2025 and beyond)". The Falcon technology would "free the US military from reliance on forward basing to enable it to react promptly and decisively to destabilising or threatening actions by hostile countries and terrorist organisations", according to the Darpa invitation for bids. The ultimate goal would be a "reusable hypersonic cruise vehicle (HCV) ... capable of taking off from a conventional military runway and striking targets 9,000 nautical miles distant in less than two hours". The unmanned HCV would carry a payload of up to 12,000 lbs and could ultimately fly at speeds of up to 10 times the speed of sound, according to Daniel Goure, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute in Washington. Propelling a warhead of that size at those speeds poses serious technological challenges and Darpa estimates it will take more than 20 years to develop. Over the next seven years, meanwhile, the US air force and Darpa will develop a cheaper "global reach" weapons system relying on expendable rocket boosters, known as small launch vehicles (SLV) that would take a warhead into space and drop it over its target. In US defence jargon, the warhead is known as a Com mon Aero Vehicle (Cav), an unpowered bomb which would be guided on to its target as it plummeted to earth at high and accelerating velocity. The Cav could carry 1,000 lbs of explosives but at those speeds explosives may not be necessary. A simple titanium rod would be able to penetrate 70 feet of solid rock and the shock wave would have enormous destructive force. It could be used against deeply buried bunkers, the sort of target the air force is looking for new ways to attack. Jane's Defence Weekly reported that the first Cav flight demonstration is provisionally scheduled by mid-2006, and the first SLV flight exercise would take place the next year. A test of the two systems combined would be carried out by late 2007. A prototype demonstrating HCV technology would be tested in 2009. SLV rockets will also give the air force a cheap and flexible means to launch military satellites at short notice, within weeks, days or even hours of a crisis developing. The SLV-Cav combination, according to the Darpa document, "will provide a near-term (approximately 2010) operational capability for prompt global strike from Consus (the continental US) while also enabling future development of a reusable HCV for the far-term (approximately 2025)". The range of this weapon is unclear. This is what I wrote in April and so far I'm half right... "And I'll bet a paycheck the Air Force will argue just that Real Soon Now. Also the Space folks will likely chime in about the operational usefulness of the Common Aero Vehicle as well. I wouldn't be surprised if there were only a six carrier force by 2015." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"W. D. Allen Sr." wrote in message et...
All the arguments posited here about why DARPA's FALCON project will never supplant aircraft carriers remind me so much of the "Gun Club" arguments AGAINST carriers 70+ years ago. Some facts have been studiously avoided: 1. Carriers CANNOT operate without landbased support IN THEATER today. Sad but True. That ability, which never really existed fully but was better 40 years ago than today, has been squandered to pay for a series of obsolescent short legged fighters. Those big wing tankers that made carrier strikes possible in recent times didn't come from the ether. Niether did the essential ELINT/SIGINT support. They didn't come from CONUS either. Nobody seems to want to talk about how carrier air was forced to hot pit on ingress and stash their ordnance ashore to get back to the boat in this last conflict. That AOE gets its fuel(and FFV and various other sundries as well) from where? A CVBGs enourmously expensive-and vulnerable-logistics train is a dirty little secret. Bottom line is a carrier is now just about as beholden to host nation basing rights in order to remain viable as any AEF is. 2. Carriers are exceptionally vulnerable in littoral regions and will become increasingly so. Thats a lesson from WWII-whenever carriers ventured close to land they took significant losses;good thing they had alot of decks to lose in those days- that was reinforced again in last year's Millenium Challenge. Yet we are expecting them to be able to ModLoc (or whatever its called nowadays) with impunity off hostile shores for the next century...Yeah right. That notion is as full of hubris as the notion that BBs were impervious to air attack. In order to survive carriers will be forced back into blue water where their shortlegged[non stealthy] airwings will not be capable of projecting power ashore except in brief raids using expensive scarce standoff weapons(assuming of course they have the tanker assets *IN THEATER* available). So much for presence and persistence. 3. I'm not saying that carriers need to be scrapped today. I am saying that carriers are not any more immune to evolution in warfare than any other weapons system has been. Its evolve or die boys. I'm not expecting you Learned Denizens of R.A.M.N. to give me any credence but you should give these folks some of your consideration: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/acof.pdf Space based quick reaction weapons systems are on their way like it or not. Call me a troll if you wish but DARPA is offering to spend some big money on this FALCON project for a reason and the resulting progeny of the effort will inevitably encroach on the carrier's mission....and budget. Time marches on. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
roncachamp- Sea lines of communication and supply cannot be maintained
without carrier aviation? Other countries without carriers seem to manage. BRBR ya mean third or fourth world nations who's economy is a fraction of California's?? See confliuct, worlkd war, etc...If it weren't for the 'sea lines of communication', the UK would be speaking German. Well, if the response requires carrier aviation, then we'd have to call the US Navy. But why would any response necessarily require carrier aviation? BRBR Ya deploy a USAF TacAir wing? And put a load of Army guys on ships? Nope-you are going to call Naval Aviation with their ugly, ****ed off little sister, the USMC onboard Anphibs. Please explain why. BRBR Faster, more versatile, more effective, cheaper... How would a TacAir wing be any more anything, please explain..Your clue-lessness is fast approaching 'troll' status... P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Pechs1" wrote in message ... ya mean third or fourth world nations who's economy is a fraction of California's?? I mean the nations that don't have carriers yet still manage to engage in international trade. See confliuct, worlkd war, etc...If it weren't for the 'sea lines of communication', the UK would be speaking German. I'm speaking of the present. Faster, more versatile, more effective, cheaper... Carrier aircraft are faster than land-based aircraft? Why would operating from a carrier deck give an aircraft a speed advantage? How are carrier aircraft more versatile than land-based aircraft? It would seem that freed of the constraints imposed by having to be operable from a carrier could only result in greater versatility. Why does operating from a carrier render an aircraft more effective than a land-based aircraft? It would seem that the same would hold true for effectiveness as for versatility, freed of the design constraints imposed by having to be operable from a carrier could only result in greater effectiveness. Cheaper? Perhaps so, many land-based aircraft are considerably larger than carrier aircraft so undoubtedly cost more to operate. But if you include the costs of operating the carrier itself and the operations costs of the various support ships one would think the advantage would swing towards land-based aviation. How would a TacAir wing be any more anything, please explain..Your clue-lessness is fast approaching 'troll' status... So why don't you clue me in, then? I'm asking a lot of questions, but not getting many answers. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
ronca- But if you include
the costs of operating the carrier itself and the operations costs of the various support ships one would think the advantage would swing towards land-based aviation. BRBR Not so, look at the costs of maintaining a sprawling USAF base...I know you have correct?? Add the costs of transporting the whole mess to a forward base, and the costs involved of the move and the new base...let's not even mention the time involved. The USN had CVs on station for years before Desert Storm Two. P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
roncachamp- How much of the Earth's surface is out of range of land-based
aviation? How much of the Earth's surface is out of range of carrier aviation? BRBR Lots...center of Russia, lots of China...you aren't going to just wander around in their airspace w/o their permision. BUT how many seaports can be threatened by a CV that is already w/i 1000 NM of the country?? Compared to being theatened by land based aviation of the US... Has a runway ever been sunk? I seem to recall a few carriers have, that would seem to indicate a 1000 ft runway that moves at 25 knots is indeed more vulnerable than a 10,000 ft one that does not. BRBR you are out to lunch...I seem to think of a runway and some aircraft in Hawaii that were put out of action by some CVA based aircraft...I think they were Japanese.. P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Pechs1" wrote in message ... Lots...center of Russia, lots of China...you aren't going to just wander around in their airspace w/o their permision. You mean to say a B-2 couldn't refuel in non-hostile airspace and reach any point in Russia or China? I know they're big, but are they that big? You'll have to show your math. BUT how many seaports can be threatened by a CV that is already w/i 1000 NM of the country?? I don't know, that seems like a long distance to launch a carrier strike. What kind of ordnance can they deliver at that range? Compared to being theatened by land based aviation of the US... I'd have to say all of them. you are out to lunch...I seem to think of a runway and some aircraft in Hawaii that were put out of action by some CVA based aircraft...I think they were Japanese.. Many aircraft were put out of action, that's true, but I don't recall any runway being put out of action. Do you have anything to support your assertion? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
ronca- You mean to say a B-2 couldn't refuel in non-hostile airspace and
reach any point in Russia or China? I know they're big, but are they that big? You'll have to show your math. BRBR The 'math' is that a squadron of them, 6 aircarft, cost the same as a CV and the airwing. They are assets not normally included in any strike scenario. Too valuable and night time only. They were invited to show recently because they needed to be showcased...they really meant little unless they are delivering the 'big heat'.. I don't know, that seems like a long distance to launch a carrier strike. What kind of ordnance can they deliver at that range? BRBR The CV can close to w/i 500 miles in 20 hours...it takes 20 days just to decide to forward deploy a USAF wing... Many aircraft were put out of action, that's true, but I don't recall any runway being put out of action. Do you have anything to support your assertion? BRBR Ya think all those bombs hit just aircarft and not the runway at Hickam??? ya need to watch the mooovie again... P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
how much money have you lost on the lottery? NOW GET THAT MONEY BACK! | shane | Home Built | 0 | February 5th 05 07:54 AM |
Start receiving MONEY with this simple system. Guaranteed. | Mr Anderson | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | February 2nd 04 11:55 PM |