SinoDefence Forum

FuManChu · 04-28-2007

Popeye, do those Nimitz-class carriers that have had the RIM-116 fitted still use Sea Sparrow? I know that Washington has had her RIMs fitted.

If they do still use Sea Sparrow with the newer systems, do you think it's worth it? Should they just remove them?

bd popeye · 04-28-2007

Oh no! All of a sudden I'm an answer man!

Quote:

I thought the RF-4C was the USAF version, the Navy and USMC had the RF-4B? The F-4C was a minimum change USAF variant on the Navy's F-4B which they followed up with the F-4D (looked the same but more changes internally) and the definitive USAF versin the F-4E (smaller diameter nose radar and gun mounted underneath).

Honestly..I was just a "non-rate" on the Midway. All I know as thet we had the F-4s with the pointy nose so they could spy on the Russians ..But once agin you were correct Obi Wan. The USMC did indeed fly RF-4B's. I just looked it up and they flew them until 1990. The only ship I ever saw them on was the Midway.

Quote:

Other impressive recce aircraft on board Enterprise during its Hobart visit were a small number of RA5C Vigilantes. Were they in service during your time in the navy? I loved the look of them and they seemed almost as large as the Skywarriors (may actually have been longer).

Yes the Vigilante was in service up to 1980. Usally they deployed with 3-4 aircraft per air wing. Those things took up a lot of space. They were huge. Seems like one was always spotted(parked) in the aft(rear) end of the hangar deck..eating up a lot of space.

Quote:

http://www.bobjellison.com/RA5C_Vigilante2.htm

The RA-5C in the Vietnam war

The RA-5C was first deployed to south-east Asia in August of 1964, initially flying missions only over South Vietnam because the Navy was reluctant to jeopardize the aircraft's sophisticated and very expensive equipment, should the aircraft be lost over North Vietnam.

Eventually, the Vigilantes did go North, suffering the highest loss rate of any Naval aircraft in the war. In all, eighteen Vigilantes were lost in combat.

• 11 were lost to antiaircraft fire.
• 2 were shot down by SA-2 Guideline surface-to-air missiles (SAM's).
• 1 was lost to an Atoll missile fired from a MiG-21 fighter.
• 4 were lost for unknown reasons, over N. Vietnam.
• 1 other aircraft was lost for unknown reasons, not over N. Vietnam.

Of the 11 lost to antiaircraft artillery, the majority were during post-strike reconnaissance missions; North Vietnamese gunners knew that shortly after a strike a Vigilante would be overhead, without supporting flak suppression.

Thirty-one deployments were made to Vietnam by Vigilante squadrons. During the early period of Vietnam operations, Vigilante squadrons deployed with six aircraft. As the war progressed, this figure began declining, first to five, then to four and finally, by 1974/75, to three aircraft per squadron.

Gradual disestablishment of the "Vigilante" force occurred during 1979-1980 with the deactivation of the last RA-5C squadron, and phasing out of the last of the 156 RA-5/A-3Js produced.

Quote:

Popeye, do those Nimitz-class carriers that have had the RIM-116 fitted still use Sea Sparrow? I know that Washington has had her RIMs fitted.

If they do still use Sea Sparrow with the newer systems, do you think it's worth it? Should they just remove them?
7 Hours Ago 02:13 AM

The USN is gradually as CVN's go through re-fits replacing old Sea Sparrow systems with the RIM-116. In fact the USS Kitty Hawk CV-63 ,stationed in Japan, was the first CV to recieve the system. Also the now sunk USS Belleau wood LHA-3 had RIM-116 fitted. It too was at one time was stationed in Japan.

As far as I know those ships with the old Sea Sparrow system keep them in operation and soon they all will be replaced.

Quote:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_di...0&tid=800&ct=2

Features
The RIM-116 RAM is designed as an all-weather, high-firepower, low-cost, self-defense system against anti-ship cruise missiles and other asymmetric threats. Its original Block 0 design was based on the infrared seeker of the Stinger missile, and the warhead, rocket motor, and fuse from the Sidewinder missile. The Block 0 configuration uses Radio Frequency (RF) for midcourse guidance and transitions to Infrared (IR) guidance for terminal engagement. There is no shipboard support required (i.e. no illuminators) after missile launch. While retaining Block 0 guidance modes, Block 1 incorporates the added capability of autonomous IR-all-the-way guidance, thus countering advanced anti-ship missiles that do not employ onboard radar seekers. RIM-116 has been installed or is planned on the following ship classes: CV/CVN, DD-963, FFG, LHA, LHD, LSD, and LPD-17. The Navy expects to procure approximately 2,000 Block 1 missiles.

DD-963?? The USN needs to update that page!! The "Spru-cans" are all decomissioned.

bd popeye · 04-28-2007

The news in this article is a big blow to the Indian Navy. It puts their CV programme two years in the rears. seems their pals the Russians are saying their newly re-fit CV the former and now will be delayed for two years.!! If I were the IN I would be steaming mad!

Quote:

http://in.news.yahoo.com/070424/48/6eylt.html

Concern in Delhi as Moscow delays aircraft carrier delivery, cost spirals

By IE
Wednesday April 25, 02:02 AM
Admiral Gorshkov or the rechristened Vikramaditya aircraft carrier was slated to be a showpiece Independence Day 2008 gift from Russia. But the arrival of the floating airfield stands delayed to at least 2010 with Russian shipbuilders underestimating the length of cabling in the warship.
Much to the concern of New Delhi - India's sole aircraft carrier INS Viraat does not have many years left with only 12 Sea Harrier jumpjets on deck - the Gorshkov project is now going into cost over-run of over $113 million, provisions of which have not been made in the Indo-Russian contract.

The warship, refurbished at the cost of $1 billion, which includes 16 MiG 29K aircraft, is being built at the Sevmash shipyard in Serverodvinsk City, once home to Russia's Northern Fleet.

Earlier, Russian shipbuilders had estimated 700 km of cabling in the ship but that's been revised to a total of 2,400 km for the carrier to be operational with the Indian Navy for the next two decades. According to official sources, even the sky-jump on the deck of Gorshkov is not completed and work is going at a slow pace.

A team headed by Vice Admiral B S Randhawa, Controller of Warship Production, and Joint Secretary (Maritime Acquisition) is going to Moscow next month to impress upon the Russians to speed up the Gorshkov repairs. On May 15, Randhawa will also inspect Gorshkov at the shipyard in northern Russia.

Adding to concerns here is Moscow's decision to look the other way as Pakistan received Chinese JF-17 fighters last month. These aircraft are powered by Russian RD-93 engines. Pakistan will now get 15 more fighters next year and another 200 by 2015.

Scratch · 04-28-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

The USN is gradually as CVN's go through re-fits replacing old Sea Sparrow systems with the RIM-116. ..
As far as I know those ships with the old Sea Sparrow system keep them in operation and soon they all will be replaced.

That exchange seems perhaps a little strange to me. I would much more have thought the Phalanx could be replaced with RAMs, since these systems are rather in the same class, but not the sea sparrow.
That's a loss in range, thus the carrier can only engage AShM in it's close vicinity. It shouldn't be that hard to put some ESSM there.
However, in an era were saturation attacks have become really unlikely that reduction and relying on escorts while engaging close-in threats with a higher efficiency may be ok.

Quote:

The news in this article is a big blow to the Indian Navy. It puts their CV programme two years in the rears. seems their pals the Russians are saying their newly re-fit CV the former and now will be delayed for two years.!! If I were the IN I would be steaming mad!

Probably strains the CV branch, but I think the Viraat was to stay in service until 2012 when the Vikrant enters service anyway.
Now the indians will have to introduce two "new" CVs into the fleet nearly the same time.

Obi Wan Russell · 04-28-2007

I wouldm't worry about the Viraat/Hermes hanging on, she was built tough! The Sea Harriers are being upgraded too with the intention of retaining them beyong Viraat's withdrawal so the IN will remain credible in the CV field for some time yet. Of course they could make a bid for Invincible around 2010, even if they only lease her as a stopgap for say five years.

bd popeye · 04-28-2007

Thanks to one and all for keeping this great thread alive with some new discussion!

Quote:

That exchange seems perhaps a little strange to me. I would much more have thought the Phalanx could be replaced with RAMs, since these systems are rather in the same class, but not the sea sparrow.
That's a loss in range, thus the carrier can only engage AShM in it's close vicinity. It shouldn't be that hard to put some ESSM there.
However, in an era were saturation attacks have become really unlikely that reduction and relying on escorts while engaging close-in threats with a higher efficiency may be ok.

The USN is maintaining the Phalanx CIWS system on all CVN's.

As far as warding off any missile attack. USN CVN's never go to sea without an escort. I'm sure you are aware that a USN CVN would rely on it's Arliegh Burke and Tico escorts to fend off a missile attack.

Quote:

Of course they could make a bid for Invincible around 2010, even if they only lease her as a stopgap for say five years.

I wish I could find this article I once read that stated the RN was not planning on selling off the Invincible. Do you know if,for certain, they do plan on selling the ship off as you stated?

Tasman · 04-28-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Oh no! All of a sudden I'm an answer man!

And a good job you're doing to! Thanks for the info - some of these things you can't get off the net or from books, but you can get it from people who were there (or on board in this case)!

Cheers

Scratch · 04-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

The USN is maintaining the Phalanx CIWS system on all CVN's.

As far as warding off any missile attack. USN CVN's never go to sea without an escort. I'm sure you are aware that a USN CVN would rely on it's Arliegh Burke and Tico escorts to fend off a missile attack.

Yes I'm aware that a CVN will have it's excorts to defend against missile attacks. I just wanted to say that I think one or two dozen ESSMs on a Nimitz-class wouldn't really take up valuable space. But it adds another ship to the fleet that carries them making the simultanious engagement capability a little greater.
According to http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/ the CVN-21 will be armed with ESSM and RAM, while Phalanx is not mentioned. I havn't found anything else on the armament of it.

Besides the Invincibles and Principe de Austurias wich only have guns, current and future western (european) CVs have now at least point defence (Aster15 -> up to 30km; Aspide on Gabrialdi->14km)and not only CIWS SAMs.
The de Gaulle has all three types: Aster 15 point-defence, Mistral CIWS and eight 20mm guns.
But then again these vessels have not the same escorsting firepower like USN CVNs.

Obi Wan Russell · 04-29-2007

Quote:I wish I could find this article I once read that stated the RN was not planning on selling off the Invincible. Do you know if,for certain, they do plan on selling the ship off as you stated?

With this government nobody knows anything for certain. They are fond of selling the family silver, so to speak, and even though scrap metal prices are rising again they know they will still get a better price for Invincible as a going concern than as scrap. Warship sales are well established in principle because they lead to lucrative support contracts and follow on sales, and RN ships are only scrapped these days as a last resort.

The LPD HMS Intrepid was decommissioned in 1991 but is still hanging around Portsmouth harbour with her sister HMS Fearless (paid off 2002) because scrapping would be very expensive due to environmental concerns. There is still talk of preserving Fearless as a Falklands memorial, but Intrepid would not be a candidate as she was stripped for parts (including the massive stern gate) to keep Fearless running for her final 11 years. Recently there was a newspaper story that Intrepid would be 'Recycled' (new 'green' way of saying scrapped) in the UK in order to guarantee Health and Safety concerns would be met, but no details or dates were announced. In the current climate and unless something drastic changes I don't see Invincible going anywhere near a scrapyard anytime in the forseeable future. Part of the British influence on the JSF program has been to insist on keeping the size of the aircraft down so that it would fit on the Invincible class' lifts. Yet they were never scheduled to operate them... could it be a bit of forward sales planning to increse the number of buyers for the F-35B by seeling the Invincible class as cheap second hand platforms for Lightnings (FNS Foch went to Brazil for $15million, but the real money is in support contracts)? Big business has a lot of influence over this Government and I'm sure this thought has crossed a few minds. Just as in the US, scrapping ships here under current environmental and H&S rules is prohibitively expensive and towing them to India to be scrapped small children for a few pennies a month is politically unpopular to say the least. I believe they will sell the class on as going concerns simply for monetary reasons, and money is the only language modern pollies understand.

Tasman · 05-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

Quote:I wish I could find this article I once read that stated the RN was not planning on selling off the Invincible. Do you know if,for certain, they do plan on selling the ship off as you stated?

With this government nobody knows anything for certain. They are fond of selling the family silver, so to speak, and even though scrap metal prices are rising again they know they will still get a better price for Invincible as a going concern than as scrap. Warship sales are well established in principle because they lead to lucrative support contracts and follow on sales, and RN ships are only scrapped these days as a last resort...

In the current climate and unless something drastic changes I don't see Invincible going anywhere near a scrapyard anytime in the forseeable future. Part of the British influence on the JSF program has been to insist on keeping the size of the aircraft down so that it would fit on the Invincible class' lifts. Yet they were never scheduled to operate them... could it be a bit of forward sales planning to increse the number of buyers for the F-35B by seeling the Invincible class as cheap second hand platforms for Lightnings (FNS Foch went to Brazil for $15million, but the real money is in support contracts)? Big business has a lot of influence over this Government and I'm sure this thought has crossed a few minds. Just as in the US, scrapping ships here under current environmental and H&S rules is prohibitively expensive and towing them to India to be scrapped small children for a few pennies a month is politically unpopular to say the least. I believe they will sell the class on as going concerns simply for monetary reasons, and money is the only language modern pollies understand.

Who would be among the potential customers for these ships? South American countries come to my mind but I guess the UK would be reluctant to sell Invincible to Argentina. It would certainly be a bit ironic if they did!

Maybe India might be interested!

Cheers

Obi Wan Russell · 05-01-2007

India tops the list obviously, but how about an off the wall suggestion, Pakistan? They are cosying up to the US because of the war on terror so give it another ten years and they may have moved far enough into the American's good books to become approved customers for the F-35B. Chile is also on the list, and she would be very compatible with the T22/23s already in service there. Australia may run into problems with their LHDs and lease Invincible as a stopgap (long shot I know).
Running costs aren't as bad as some may think. The Invincible class require a crew of about 685 (nowhere near the thousands needed for a large deck carrier) so roughly equivalent to a couple of Destroyers, plus about 380 in the air group, doable for most medium sized navies. Most of Invincibles systems (ie propulsion etc) are the same as found in most of the worlds escorts, just on a larger scale (four Olympus GTs instead of two in many DDGs/FFGs). Australia may well not have been able to afford her in 1983 but the cost will be a lot less now and she would provide them with far more 'bang for their bucks' than say a fourth DDG.

I have noticed some anti carrier posters here and elswhere keep suggesting that the CVFs will require a crew in excess of 3,000 each, which seems strange as no one has mentioned steam propulsion for them (that's the only reason you would need so many on ships of this size). The GT plant planned for them will require no more engineers than the Invincibles (still only four engines, bigger and more powerful yes but thirty years more advanced in design so even less maintenance intensive) and the airgroup will be supported by the sqns own personnel (which they would have anyway if they were land based, so their cost cannot be lumped onto CVF exclusively). HMS Ocean has lead the way in this respect.

Jeff Head · 05-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

India tops the list obviously, but how about an off the wall suggestion, Pakistan? They are cosying up to the US because of the war on terror so give it another ten years and they may have moved far enough into the American's good books to become approved customers for the F-35B. Chile is also on the list, and she would be very compatible with the T22/23s already in service there. Australia may run into problems with their LHDs and lease Invincible as a stopgap (long shot I know).
Running costs aren't as bad as some may think. The Invincible class require a crew of about 685 (nowhere near the thousands needed for a large deck carrier) so roughly equivalent to a couple of Destroyers, plus about 380 in the air group, doable for most medium sized navies. Most of Invincibles systems (ie propulsion etc) are the same as found in most of the worlds escorts, just on a larger scale (four Olympus GTs instead of two in many DDGs/FFGs). Australia may well not have been able to afford her in 1983 but the cost will be a lot less now and she would provide them with far more 'bang for their bucks' than say a fourth DDG.

My money would be on India...though I would personally love to see the Aussies pick her up.

I have much more doubt about Pakistan because there is still too great a perception here in the US that Pakistan is just one step away form being overturned and becoming much more of a fundamental Islamic state at any given time.

Obi Wan Russell · 05-01-2007

Invincible officially comes on the market in 2010, Illustrious is due to pay off 2012 and Ark Royal 2015, but the latter two dates will probably be put back until the CVFs are ready (more likely to be 2015 for Illustrious and 2018 for Ark) so they will also be potential F-35B platforms, which is around the time production slots for export customers will be more available. The US may make a more concerted effort in the next few years to influence Pakistan into the fold, and arms sales will certainly be a part of any such move. A deal for F-35s may include a deal on one of the Invincibles (America giving Britain a discount on the Lightnings in return for transferring the carrier?). This sort of thing has been done in the past, though not always successfully, but considering India's steadfast intention of remaining non aligned Pakistan may become the US' new best friend in the region. Given a proper SLEP refit an Invincible could last another 25 years in service (no I'm not referring to the 'cut and plug' SLEP proposed for them a few years ago, just a comprehensive renewal and upgrade of existing systems). OK I'd fit a portside flight deck extension to increase deck parking space and free up internal volume by moving the GT downtakes outboard to the new sponson thus increasing hangar space over the current 'dumbell' shape, a modification I believe would be more practical than inserting a hull plug. The latter option was reckoned to increase capacity by only four aircraft, whereas my solution would do that anyway. But they could just be refitted as they are and transferred at very low cost.

Scratch · 05-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

Invincible officially comes on the market in 2010...

With the indians now getting Vikramaditya in 2010 or a little later and Vikrant in 2012, I somehow doubt they would also buy the Invincible in that same timeframe. Could they really incorporate three carriers in such a short timeframe into their fleet?

Obi Wan Russell · 05-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scratch

With the indians now getting Vikramaditya in 2010 or a little later and Vikrant in 2012, I somehow doubt they would also buy the Invincible in that same timeframe. Could they really incorporate three carriers in such a short timeframe into their fleet?

The Russians are having problems delivering on time, and it is quite possible the Indians will have problems delivering on time too. I suggested they might lease Invincible as a stopgap for say a five year period, and may hang on to her after Vikramaditya and Vkrant are delivered allowing Viraat to be retired, and pending delivery of Vikrant's projected sister. Their stated aim is for three CVs and this may be the quickest way to achieve it. Invincible requires far less crew than any of the other carriers scheduled to enter service as well as Viraat, and could simply accomodate Viraat's air group so would be the easiest option for putting a new CV into IN service. Further delays with the new CVs may make it inevitable as Viraat cannot run on forever.

SinoDefence Forum

Aircraft Carriers II

Aircraft Carriers II

DefenceTalk Military Pictures

LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/aircraft-carriers-ii-3125.html

vBulletin Tweet Poster