Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy

Exactly - but notice in the offical world of Navy Ops Analysis they used
the Enterprise - (1) still trying not to go head on with the "law" that
all big carriers will be nuclear even when any such littoral ship would
be banned from most allied harbors and sea ports because it is a nuclear
ship and (2) trying to find budget and a home for the Enterprise so
there can be another CVN-21 put into production. Hence an argument
could be made about that option also.

You see the Navy concept as explained still has the Navy leading the
show, the Marine LHA(R) scenario is a Marine one with the Navy driving
the buses and making chow. Can you see the infighting in the literature
just by who is writing it. Now go to the Marine Corps Gazette and you
would wonder if there was even a Navy.



"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Flashnews wrote:
So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault
aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine
aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible and
may be done in the next administration.
The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to look
to the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal with
COIN which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural
sparring - if the JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is
always a chance and the Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet. This
also doubles MV-22 production and you can see the vulnerability still
exists low to the ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but
ended the helicopter as a combat attack platform - we need a new
platform a cross between the A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as
some call it - and guess what - the simple fact that nothing could
directly escort the MV-22 right now is paramount to the fact that the
planning was selectively biased against doing what is needed for
COIN.

Like this?

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/0...fleet_070422w/
Among ideas it proposes are converting the aging aircraft carrier
Enterprise into an “afloat forward staging base” for special
operations forces with embarked joint air wings. He also proposed
converting four more Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into
multimission guided missile subs, for a force of eight SSGNs.

-HJC

On Apr 22, 7:46 pm, "Flashnews" wrote:
Exactly - but notice in the offical world of Navy Ops Analysis they used
the Enterprise - (1) still trying not to go head on with the "law" that
all big carriers will be nuclear even when any such littoral ship would
be banned from most allied harbors and sea ports because it is a nuclear
ship and (2) trying to find budget and a home for the Enterprise so
there can be another CVN-21 put into production. Hence an argument
could be made about that option also.

You see the Navy concept as explained still has the Navy leading the
show, the Marine LHA(R) scenario is a Marine one with the Navy driving
the buses and making chow. Can you see the infighting in the literature
just by who is writing it. Now go to the Marine Corps Gazette and you
would wonder if there was even a Navy.

But, that's always been true with the idiot marines,
which is why they're still the ONLY military
service that publishes Gazettes rather than
robots.




"Henry J Cobb" wrote in m...



Flashnews wrote:
So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault
aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine
aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible and
may be done in the next administration.
The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to look
to the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal with
COIN which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural
sparring - if the JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is
always a chance and the Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet. This
also doubles MV-22 production and you can see the vulnerability still
exists low to the ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but
ended the helicopter as a combat attack platform - we need a new
platform a cross between the A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as
some call it - and guess what - the simple fact that nothing could
directly escort the MV-22 right now is paramount to the fact that the
planning was selectively biased against doing what is needed for
COIN.

Like this?

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/0...fleet_070422w/
Among ideas it proposes are converting the aging aircraft carrier
Enterprise into an "afloat forward staging base" for special
operations forces with embarked joint air wings. He also proposed
converting four more Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into
multimission guided missile subs, for a force of eight SSGNs.

-HJC- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey I be one of those guys - be nice



wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 22, 7:46 pm, "Flashnews" wrote:
Exactly - but notice in the offical world of Navy Ops Analysis they
used
the Enterprise - (1) still trying not to go head on with the "law"
that
all big carriers will be nuclear even when any such littoral ship
would
be banned from most allied harbors and sea ports because it is a
nuclear
ship and (2) trying to find budget and a home for the Enterprise so
there can be another CVN-21 put into production. Hence an argument
could be made about that option also.

You see the Navy concept as explained still has the Navy leading the
show, the Marine LHA(R) scenario is a Marine one with the Navy
driving
the buses and making chow. Can you see the infighting in the
literature
just by who is writing it. Now go to the Marine Corps Gazette and
you
would wonder if there was even a Navy.

But, that's always been true with the idiot marines,
which is why they're still the ONLY military
service that publishes Gazettes rather than
robots.




"Henry J Cobb" wrote in
m...



Flashnews wrote:
So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault
aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine
aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible
and
may be done in the next administration.
The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to
look
to the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal
with
COIN which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural
sparring - if the JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is
always a chance and the Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet.
This
also doubles MV-22 production and you can see the vulnerability
still
exists low to the ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but
ended the helicopter as a combat attack platform - we need a new
platform a cross between the A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter
as
some call it - and guess what - the simple fact that nothing could
directly escort the MV-22 right now is paramount to the fact that
the
planning was selectively biased against doing what is needed for
COIN.

Like this?

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/0...fleet_070422w/
Among ideas it proposes are converting the aging aircraft carrier
Enterprise into an "afloat forward staging base" for special
operations forces with embarked joint air wings. He also proposed
converting four more Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into
multimission guided missile subs, for a force of eight SSGNs.

-HJC- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:24:25 UTC, "Flashnews"
wrote:

However the argument against the JFK was that it had to be modernized to
keep up with the nuclear CVN's and of course that would reach a brick
wall in sustainability and flat out speed

I don't know where you got that. The reason for dumping the JFK was
primarily that her arresting gear had degraded into uselessness and
would cost a huge wad to replace. Secondarily, ships with high
pressure oil-fired boilers and steam turbines are virtually extinct.
The boiler tech (BT) rating is defunct with propulsion machinery
either going gas turbine, nuclear, or (in the future) electric. It's
not just the number of boilers that counts, it's the fact that there
ARE boilers that counts.

This proposal is just about as sensible as the local yokel who wanted
to anchor the JFK off the coast instead of building a new outlying
landing field (OLF).

Let cleaning fire-sides die a praiseworthy death---
Jerry
--

In message , Flashnews
writes
we need a new platform a cross between the
A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it -

Ah, yes. The concept that would darken the skies with its wings on the
morning of Day 1 of the war... and blot out the sun with parachutes by
the afternoon of Day 1.

Getting down low into the AAA and IR-SAM envelope in a slow airframe
without _lots_ of expensive electronics is called "Operation Hasty
Suicide", which is why even the A-10 keeps getting more DAS and more
standoff weapons and why AH-64s rapidly amended their tactics.

In short - the whole shipbuilding world is a mess but it may be more
from the fact that we do not know where our Naval forces are going while
they seem to be on Pluto looking for a mission - the war is right in
front of them ready to make toast of the thin-skinned and under
protected ships

I'd advise a quick review of 1940s and 1950s naval weapon testing. The
reason ships lost their armour plate, was because the threat moved from
gun-armed Sverdlov-class cruisers (lobbing ninety-pound shells to a
dozen miles, with maybe one shot in fifty hitting) to Kynda-class
cruisers (lobbing five-ton missiles to three hundred miles, with most of
them hitting). You can't wear enough armour to ignore hits from post-WW2
weapons: to be confident of remaining capable, you have to "not be hit"
for long enough to take out the enemy's ability to fight. WW2-style
armour plate can actually make things _worse_ on weapon impact...


--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)codotuk

2015: Somewhere in the Dasht-e Kavir one Marine asks another, "Where's my CAS?" and the response is "They're doing CAP sir."

FCLPs, more likely. g

--
Mike Kanze

"I would love to change the world, but I can't find a diaper large enough."

- Anonymous

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ...
Mike wrote:
...
Recent moves by Navy officials have shed doubt on the service's
commitment to the international, tri-service JSF effort.
One industry official with ties to naval leaders said senior sea
service officials disagree about how they should shape the Navy's
tactical air fleet. The service has said it likely will face an
"inventory shortfall" of nearly 230 planes over the next 15 years.

"The Department of the Navy is already trying to figure out how to buy
fewer aircraft and save money to plow into shipbuilding" accounts, one
congressional aide said.
...
"The committee is concerned that the Navy will confront a sizeable gap
in aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D Hornets retire before the
aircraft carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is available.

If the Navy manages to kill the JSF then the Marines will be forced into
Super Hornets which can then be sucked into carrier ops.

2015: Somewhere in the Dasht-e Kavir one Marine asks another, "Where's
my CAS?" and the response is "They're doing CAP sir."

-HJC

Jerry the JFK hull would last decades, what you are saying that costs "a
huge wad" turns out to be quite affordable once you consider the $7-10
billion for a new CVN and the $3-4 billion for the LHA(R). I am just so
facinated at how smart you are on these things. Would it be possible that
oil-fired boilers would be just what an assault ship would want, especially
one that is anchored for weeks off of someone's coastline - maybe even
Virginia so carquals could occur.
And steam turbines are not extinct by a long shot and the arresting gear
issue is one thast is refurbished on every carrier SLEP but in the case I
suggested much of the normal deck work will go away as will much of the
available interior. Now if you going to tell me that this new Navy we are
seeing with just about every major new design type falling into enormous
cost overruns, engineering difficulties, and flat out bad construction from
bad design - well shucks cusion let's just keep pouring money on this fire
cuz that's the way we do it here. GMAFB


"Jerry" wrote in message
news:EsFkI7LVLls8-pn2-Xx4Uz71obNbi@localhost...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:24:25 UTC, "Flashnews"
wrote:

However the argument against the JFK was that it had to be modernized to
keep up with the nuclear CVN's and of course that would reach a brick
wall in sustainability and flat out speed

I don't know where you got that. The reason for dumping the JFK was
primarily that her arresting gear had degraded into uselessness and
would cost a huge wad to replace. Secondarily, ships with high
pressure oil-fired boilers and steam turbines are virtually extinct.
The boiler tech (BT) rating is defunct with propulsion machinery
either going gas turbine, nuclear, or (in the future) electric. It's
not just the number of boilers that counts, it's the fact that there
ARE boilers that counts.

This proposal is just about as sensible as the local yokel who wanted
to anchor the JFK off the coast instead of building a new outlying
landing field (OLF).

Let cleaning fire-sides die a praiseworthy death---
Jerry
--

In article , "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

I'd advise a quick review of 1940s and 1950s naval weapon testing. The
reason ships lost their armour plate, was because the threat moved from
gun-armed Sverdlov-class cruisers (lobbing ninety-pound shells to a
dozen miles, with maybe one shot in fifty hitting) to Kynda-class
cruisers (lobbing five-ton missiles to three hundred miles, with most of
them hitting). You can't wear enough armour to ignore hits from post-WW2
weapons: to be confident of remaining capable, you have to "not be hit"
for long enough to take out the enemy's ability to fight. WW2-style
armour plate can actually make things _worse_ on weapon impact...


Paul, armour capabilities is not one of my strong points. Can you elucidate
on why WWII armour might make things worse?
thx

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

In message , Harry Andreas
writes
In article , "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
WW2-style
armour plate can actually make things _worse_ on weapon impact...

Paul, armour capabilities is not one of my strong points. Can you elucidate
on why WWII armour might make things worse?

In an underkeel detonation (influence-fuzed mine or torpedo) armouring
the hull stiffens it. So, instead of fairly vigorous movements, flexing,
and whipping - like the USS PRINCETON in 1991 - you get more transmitted
shock, which tends to do more damage to systems mounted to the hull.
PRINCETON set off two mines, was significantly damaged, but was able to
get key systems back up, resume her duties as AAWC and await relief and
a tug back to Bahrain: two months after that she returned to the US
under her own power (though she did need a fair bit of repair)

HMS Belfast ran over a mine in late 1939, was similarly sized to
PRINCETON, suffered nineteen casualties, mostly broken legs and ankles
from the shock, and had such serious shock effects that her torpedo
tubes were thrown off their mounts. (She also had major problems from
cast-iron pipes and machinery bases shattering, but that was an issue
quickly designed out of ships). It was the end of 1942 before she
returned to service.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)codotuk

In message , Flashnews
writes

we need a new platform a cross between the
A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it -


Aren't UCAV's like Predator/Reaper already evolving to fulfill
that role?

http://www.defense-update.com/products/p/predatorB.htm