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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Nope but the place they land sure is...
So what? BRBR You don't really need to ask this, do you?? Well, then, perhaps you could answer some of the question I've asked in this discussion. Nobody else seems able to. BRBR Adios MF....another clueless civilian... P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
thlink.net Remember how difficult it was for the Air Force to get in the fight against Libya? Eldorado Canyon? I recall the F-111s had to take a lengthier route than desired and that carrier aviation alone wasn't up to the task. Is that not correct? USN A-6s and A-7s were busy beating up on targets around Benghazi while the F-111s were hitting Tripoli. Basically, it came down to numbers of suitable aircraft. The plan called for precision night attack, which meant either A-6s or F-111s. With two carriers, there were only 20 A-6s in the region, but 32 were needed to strike all the planned targets in one go. So the Air Force was recruited to fly the rest of the strikes. It took the Air Force 57 aircraft (half of them tankers) to hit roughly the same number of targets as 26 Navy aircraft. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/el_dorado_canyon.htm Today, many of the factors that restricted the Lybia strikes are no longer factors. A single carrier could put up at least 40 aircraft qualified for night proecision strike today; two carriers could easily cover both the Benghazi and Tripoli target sets without Air Force augmentation, even excluding the possible use of Tomahawks against some or all of these targets. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
And another, more philosopical, take on this evolution in progress:
http://web.mit.edu/13a/100th/mit13a.pdf |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Kambic" wrote in message ...
"s.p.i." wrote in message 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. No, not really. Even with a carrier of the era (much less a BB) you had to get "up close and personal" with your potential target. Sure they do. Not in any specific technical aspect, but in the tenor and tone of, "Its the way its always been and there is no improving on the status quo...These new systems are inferior or too outlandish...etc." But don't believe me. Check out what this USNA academic has to say on the matter: http://web.mit.edu/13a/100th/mit13a.pdf 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. Not being real current (and not being a Strike type) I won't comment on this. And you too, Mr. Kambic, have have studiously avoided these odious facts. 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. Oh, poppycock. You are right about an AOE in for a brief port visit not being as intrusive as air ops at Thumrait or some such. But the ship still must make those visits and those visits are at the whim of a host country. I know there are more components, but a disabled AOE represents at least short term single point of failure for a CVBG. After three days or so gas begins to get skosh in sustained ops even on the nukes...and don't forget about the small boys. 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. No, not even close. The CVBG, by definition, has NO host country. It may draw some stuff from a lot of countries, but what's new about that? You are simply wrong about that. Much of the ISR must live in nearby host countries because there are not enough parts on the boat. No ingress without that capability. Ditto for the big wing tankers that CVWs now rely on to get the job done. So, for a carrier to do its job, its as dependent as an AEF on basing and overflight rights when it comes time to head for the target in a great many scenarios because so much of the essenttial support is landbased now. The CV has always been a heavyweight boxer with a glass jaw. (Or maybe just a "bleeder.") That's the nature of the beast. Yet if you look at some of the catostrophic events of recent times (FORRESTAL fire comes to mind) air ops were underway within 24 hrs., IIRC. So, while that glass jaw is still there, it might be just a bit more tempered than you have indicated. I think they may have gotten a cat or two to work so they could launch aircraft to Cubi(hmmm...essential land base...?), but it took a year to get the FID back to a state in which she could fight a war in any realistic sense. The Enterprise was a better example because they learned from the FIDs misfortune and the potential for disaster was astutely and heroically avoided in many important ways. Even so, despite the official spin, she still had to spend a significant amount of time at Pearl before she was ready to go again. Carriers are perhaps the most vulnerable Capital ships devised. They overcame the problem in WWII by producing way more decks than the enemy could disable. That ain't gonna happen anymore. 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. Darwin lives. What else is new? So thats why NAVAIR needs to be looking ahead instead of being so enamored in the minutiae of the "The Boat" 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 I did not read this. After waiting two minutes for it to load I gave up. Its worth the wait. Its entitled "Future of the Aircraft Carrier" by the Defense Science Board whose members include the likes of Stan Arthur and Don Pilling. They may know a thing or two about carriers. You really shoud try to open it up. 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. To quote Chairman Mao, "War is politics by other means." He didn't make it up, but he did say it well. Far too many of the current incarnation of McNamara's Whiz Kids have forgotten this. A threat 300 miles overhead is just not real. Neither is one 12,000 miles away. And we have not yet had to deal with the U.N. and possible treaty violations with "space based weapons." And none of this will be on line for at least a couple of decades, if then. How many Iraqis or Al Qaeda saw any carriers. Are carriers any more real on CNN than the MOAB is? Time marches on. As it does, NAVAIR can embrace these new technologies or be marginalized into non existence. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Ahearn" wrote in message news:1pkNa.37001$Xm3.7696@sccrnsc02... "much of the Earth's surface is out of range of carrier aviation?" None of it.... We'll hit the AF tankers if needed, leave those silly flying wings parked in the desert ... Doesn't relying on USAF tankers also mean relying on host nation support? I thought the advantage carrier aviation had over land-based aviation was not having to rely on host nation support. You can't have it both ways. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"s.p.i." wrote in message
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. No, not really. Even with a carrier of the era (much less a BB) you had to get "up close and personal" with your potential target. Sure they do. Not in any specific technical aspect, but in the tenor and tone of, "Its the way its always been and there is no improving on the status quo...These new systems are inferior or too outlandish...etc." I was not there 70 years ago, so I can only go by what I read. I don't read it as you do. But don't believe me. Check out what this USNA academic has to say on the matter: http://web.mit.edu/13a/100th/mit13a.pdf I read it. Boiled down it says, "military organizations are conservative and always tend to fight the last war." Again, no surprises here. What the author does not seem to consider is that military technological advance is not steady, linear progress but a series of leaps and lags. For a 1921 admiral to have said, "we must abandon BBs and build just CVs" would have been monumentally stupid as the aircraft technology of the day was not up to the task. In 1931 the same situation existed. Indeed the BB retained a military role as late as the early 90s (70 years after Jutland) and probably could certainly fulfil a political role today (and even a limited military one, particularly against unsophisticated adversaries). Yet for an admiral in 2003 to build a strategy around them would be as dumb as the act of his 1921 predecessor. Continuing the thought, for a "defense expert" to suggest building a strategy around non-existant weapons systems is equally dumb. Further, note that when military thinking gets too advanced you can also have problems. In the late '40s the pundits, as a result of tests at Bikini, had written off Naval Aviation (and the Navy in general). "One bomb, one fleet" was their war cry. Then Naval Aviation was saved by a North Korean dictator. As was the USMC and large warfighting formations of the USA. Or, put another way, what peering too far over the horizon is a good way to run aground. Not being real current (and not being a Strike type) I won't comment on this. And you too, Mr. Kambic, have have studiously avoided these odious facts. Only in your mind's eye. I don't have the expertise to comment so I did not. That does not mean that I don't have an opinion (I do) but I choose not to share it as it is not backed by sufficient fact. You are right about an AOE in for a brief port visit not being as intrusive as air ops at Thumrait or some such. But the ship still must make those visits and those visits are at the whim of a host country. Agreed. I know there are more components, but a disabled AOE represents at least short term single point of failure for a CVBG. After three days or so gas begins to get skosh in sustained ops even on the nukes...and don't forget about the small boys. Agreed. But if country A says no, there's always country B. Or C. The idea that every AOE will have to stage out of CONUS is just wishful thinking for those intent on setting up some sort of "CV airwing out of gas on a CV filled with starving sailors" strawman. You are simply wrong about that. Much of the ISR must live in nearby host countries because there are not enough parts on the boat. No ingress without that capability. I say there is NO host country. I can't prove a negative; you have to prove a positive. Please list the host country(ies) for the CVBGs currently deployed. Ditto for the big wing tankers that CVWs now rely on to get the job done. Last time I looked those were not CVBG assets. They belonged to somebody else. They supported the airwing, but were part of it. So, for a carrier to do its job, its as dependent as an AEF on basing and overflight rights when it comes time to head for the target in a great many scenarios because so much of the essenttial support is landbased now. Does not this depend on exactly what geographical area is involved? With Afghanistan and Iraq you are looking at lots of complicated issues. With Libya or Liberia it would seem the issues are much simpler. The CV has always been a heavyweight boxer with a glass jaw. (Or maybe just a "bleeder.") That's the nature of the beast. Yet if you look at some of the catostrophic events of recent times (FORRESTAL fire comes to mind) air ops were underway within 24 hrs., IIRC. So, while that glass jaw is still there, it might be just a bit more tempered than you have indicated. I think they may have gotten a cat or two to work so they could launch aircraft to Cubi(hmmm...essential land base...?), but it took a year to get the FID back to a state in which she could fight a war in any realistic sense. It was peacetime and there was no serious war pressure in 1969. USS YORKTOWN had 90 days work done in 72 hours in 1942 because there was serious war pressure. The Enterprise was a better example because they learned from the FIDs misfortune and the potential for disaster was astutely and heroically avoided in many important ways. Even so, despite the official spin, she still had to spend a significant amount of time at Pearl before she was ready to go again. See above. Carriers are perhaps the most vulnerable Capital ships devised. They overcame the problem in WWII by producing way more decks than the enemy could disable. That ain't gonna happen anymore. I admit the CV has vulnerabilites. I don't admit that they are insurmountable. And we have not yet talked about the vulterabilities of possible replacements (which don't even exist; THAT'S a pretty big one to start with!g). 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 I did not read this. After waiting two minutes for it to load I gave up. Its worth the wait. Its entitled "Future of the Aircraft Carrier" by the Defense Science Board whose members include the likes of Stan Arthur and Don Pilling. They may know a thing or two about carriers. You really shoud try to open it up. I will. To quote Chairman Mao, "War is politics by other means." He didn't make it up, but he did say it well. Far too many of the current incarnation of McNamara's Whiz Kids have forgotten this. A threat 300 miles overhead is just not real. Neither is one 12,000 miles away. And we have not yet had to deal with the U.N. and possible treaty violations with "space based weapons." And none of this will be on line for at least a couple of decades, if then. How many Iraqis or Al Qaeda saw any carriers. Are carriers any more real on CNN than the MOAB is? MOAB is not in issue, here, as it is not, and for a long time won't, be a CONUS launched weapon. But to answer your question, yes, I think they are. They are regularly seen on TV. The aircraft are seen by the populace. The space based stuff still looks like it came from Dream Works. It will be a very long time before it is real to a bunch of third worlders. Time marches on. As it does, NAVAIR can embrace these new technologies or be marginalized into non existence. As long as the first question asked by the C-in-C" is "where is the nearest carrier" then "marginalization" is not on the horizon. That is the question that will be asked for at least the next few decades. Bill Kambic If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist, culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist, sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist, phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you to get over it. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"John Carrier" wrote in message ... Irrelevant. Land-based aviation requires runways. We operate from many of them at the pleasure of a host nation. What that nation gives, so can it take away. Why is it irrelevant? Yes, land-based aviation requires runways, but runways permit the operation of long-range aircraft. Carrier aviation is limited to short-range aircraft. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Pechs1" wrote in message ... If the CV is already there,,,lots faster. But if it's not already there it's lots slower. Cuz some countires will say no(?).... Will they all say no? Nope not correct...and we(CVs) werre on station for many moths after the USAF went home,,,flying 10 miles north of the 'line of death'...no USAF units were invloved.... You're wrong. USAF units were very much involved in Eldorado Canyon. See above and there were NO USAF landbased assets involved in this or many oher exercises... Were you in a coma in the spring of 1986? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Pechs1" wrote in message ... ummmmm vulnerability?? Predictabiulity? Ability to make a US 'statement'? Could you expand on that a bit? |
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 |