SinoDefence Forum

Obi Wan Russell · 07-25-2006

You can't buy new Harriers any more as the production lines have closed, but the Royal Navy has 40 or 50 second hand Sea Harriers for sale at about £5million each if you are interested...

bd popeye · 07-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

You can't buy new Harriers any more as the production lines have closed, but the Royal Navy has 40 or 50 second hand Sea Harriers for sale at about £5million each if you are interested...

Hey Obi Wan..the USN has a decomissioned LHA,the USS Belleau Wood(LHA-3), sitting in Hawaii starting to rust..Hummm???

Well I know the max capacity for an LHA is 20 Sea Harriers. 20 Sea harriers deployed for 82 days on the USS Nassau(LHA-4) in 1981 to the Medterrian Sea.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...mc/vma-231.htm

...That's without any helos but SAR/ASW.. I doubt that the US would sell any nation an LHA...But it would be an interesting configuration.....Perhaps a modified LHA could carry as many as 24 Sea Harriers along with 12 helos of various types....Just a thought...

Obi Wan Russell · 07-25-2006

Funny you should mention that, I hear both Canada and Australia are in the market for LHA/LHD type ships, which I've always thought look naked without Harriers on deck. Perhaps the US would consider loaning or leasing the ship to one of those countries until they can build their own vessels...

bd popeye · 07-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

Funny you should mention that, I hear both Canada and Australia are in the market for LHA/LHD type ships, which I've always thought look naked without Harriers on deck. Perhaps the US would consider loaning or leasing the ship to one of those countries until they can build their own vessels...

Sell or give away is a better word..I know that Canada could have really used an LHA/LHD to evac it's citizens from Lebanon.

It's one thing to have a ship like this. But another thing to operate it. It is not cheap to fuel these levithants..Extremely costly. Not to mention the crew, logistics etc.....

Obi Wan Russell · 07-25-2006

Granted. But the cost of buying and the time taken to construct one usually puts governments off. Lend them one in working order and they may get hooked. Once they find out how indispensible a ship of this type is, they will be more likely to order a new one. I have heard a lot of Canadians on the radio this week expressing their disgust at their government's lack of action over the situation in Lebanon, apparently the Canadian government has put several frigates and support vessels 'on standby' to help. But as they are still in the St Lawrence seaway (about 2 weeks sailing from the eastern med) this has not impressed anyone. The consenus of cannuck opinion is that they should have been ordered to sail at the beginning of last week when every one else did (USN, RN, Fr N, Italian navy etc.). Sorry to stray off topic.

Actually the thought of the ex- USS Belleau Wood setting sail again equipped with ex-RN Sea Harrier F/A 2s as possibly the next HMAS Australia or HMCS Bonaventure (alternative suggestions on a post card please) does make me salivate somewhat. A ready made csg for whoever has the right cash and is in the USAs /UKs good books, along with a few Spruance class DDs upgraded with modern SAMs and you get an invitation to sit at the top table with the 'Big Boys'. I'd consider remodelling the Belleau Wood with a wider forward flight deck (as in the Wasp class) incorporating a portside ski jump for the Harriers (never understood why the USN didn't fit them to the LHAs/LHDs in the first place, the excuse about maximising helo spots is a bit weak), as well as possibly fitting a portside flight deck extension to maximise deck space (as in the British CVF design) since the island takes up a lot of deck space. The 'overhang' thus created would increase internal volume (as in US CVs/CVNs) and extend from the portside deck edge lift forward as far as the new ski jump (you'll have to use your imagination a bit). US ships of this size and importance are usually well maitained and, refitted she should be good for another 20+ years service with her new owners. Perhaps the list of potential candidates could include Japan (they have the money but the constitution would be a problem) but this would hinge more on developments locally, ie South Korea's new carriers (sorry LPDs, who are they kidding?) and of course the Varyag.

Artists impression of proposed JMSDF DDH. Destroyer? I don't think so...

And in the blue corner... the first of four "LPD"s for South Korea. This twisting of the language is getting beyond a joke. I mean, c'mon it was funny when the Royal Navy called the Invincible class 'Through Deck Cruisers' in the 70's, but we all knew they were lying then to get round ignorant politicians. Now it's just getting silly, as the colonel from Monty Python would probably have said were he still with us.

ahho · 07-26-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

ahho sez

A cripled F-35?

You mean downgraded of course. . We will just have to wait and see the real differences between the US variant and the export. The US is never going to give it's technology away.

that is what i meant to say, I went to too much PC forums. What i mean cripled is basically not at the original potential or as you said "downgraded"

bd popeye · 07-26-2006

Obi Wan sez..

Quote:

Actually the thought of the ex- USS Belleau Wood setting sail again equipped with ex-RN Sea Harrier F/A 2s as possibly the next HMAS Australia or HMCS Bonaventure (alternative suggestions on a post card please) does make me salivate somewhat. A ready made csg for whoever has the right cash and is in the USAs /UKs good books, along with a few Spruance class DDs upgraded with modern SAMs and you get an invitation to sit at the top table with the 'Big Boys'.

Too bad for some navy..probaly the Aussie side that the USN continues to frigging sink these great ships...The USN sinks most of it's decomissioned Spruance class DD's. And guess what ship the USN & her pals just sunk during RIMPAC?..the Belleau Wood!!! Jeezzz what a total waste of a fine naval asset.

http://navysite.de/ships/lha3.htm

The photos below were taken on July 13, 2006, and show the BELLEAU WOOD being sunk by EOD set munitions. On July 12, 2006, the ship had already taken Harpoon hits and gunfire from the USS MOBILE BAY (CG 53) but refused to sink.

Obi Wan Russell · 07-27-2006

Never mind, there's always the next one they decommission (USS SAIPAN next year I believe). Surely they still have some Spruances left? The Belleau Wood's refusal to sink after (presumably) multiple Harpoon hits should go some way to rebuke those who claim carriers are easy to sink with AShMs. Remember she had no damage control parties aboard, and a CV/CVN is a hell of a lot bigger and tougher. American carrier designs have always been very battleworthy, just look at how much damage the USS Hornet CV6 took before she finally sank, and she was a fraction the size of a modern CV. The only real weak point in WW2 US CV design was the wooden flight deck, but that was eliminated from postwar designs makeing them a tough nut to crack from any direction. I still maintain that if you are serious about destroying a USN CV/CVN, anything short of a nuke is a waste of time and resources.

bd popeye · 07-27-2006

Obi Wan sez...

Quote:

I still maintain that if you are serious about destroying a USN CV/CVN, anything short of a nuke is a waste of time and resources.

Ahhhh..You should have been around during we can sink your CV discussions in this forum and the old one. I you want to read our "discussions" feel free!

http://p079.ezboard.com/fsinodefence...picID=95.topic

Obi Wan Russell · 07-27-2006

Yes very interesting. The debate goes round and around and they just don't seem to get it. The anti carrier faction always seem to assume in their scenarios that a CV/CVN will be
a, on its own (no escorts),
b, have no defensive aircraft aboard,
c, have no operational radars or sonars, and
d, have a hull with the structural integrity of a box of corn flakes.
Find me a carrier that meets those criteria and I'll concede its an easy kill.
Well, I'm waiting...

bd popeye · 07-27-2006

This is probally the best "we can sink your carrier thread" Also if you go to old forum almost any thread about aircraft carrier this subject is bantied about.

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=848

Another thing the posters seem to ignore is the training of the USN sailors. Or any other nation sailors as far as that is concerned. Sailors will fight fires, flooding, battle damage 'til the last man is standing to save their ship.

Obi Wan Russell · 07-27-2006

My hackles were rising again reading that thread (and that isn't a pretty sight I can tell you!), so much ignorance gathered together in one place! The original thrust seemed to center around the absurd notion that a few Cessnas loaded with HE divebombing a CVN could sink it, excuse me while I die laughing! Back from the dead now... in ww2, Japanese Kamikaze aircraft (similar in size but a lot faster than the cessnas) dived onto the flight decks of, amongst others, the British Pacific Fleet's Illustrious class and Implacable class armoured fleet carriers (the nearest historical example I could think of on the spur of the moment. An American journalist aboard one of the RN ships noted the difference between American wooden flight decks and British Armoured Steel ones said "If a Yank carrier gets hit its three months repair in Pearl, if a Limey carrier gets hit it's 'sweepers man your brooms!", as beyond any damage to aircraft and personnel on deck, Kamikazes did little more than scratch the paint work. And as you know, sailors spend a lot of time painting the ship when its quiet, so even that damage couldn't be described as long lasting. After the war, the USN wasn't slow or too proud to admit where they went wrong design wise (I'll declare an interest here, I was trained as a design engineer and thats the perspective I approach these matters from) and subsequently adopted the Armoured flight deck in all CV designs from Midway onwards.
As for the 'small boats packed with explosives' argument, that was tried against the USS Cole, an Arleigh Burke class DDG which was at anchor, not expecting an attack (in this day and age, eternal vigilance should be the norm), and not only did she not sink, she could probably still have put up a fight if required. Modern warships are a lot tougher than the uninformed masses give them credit for, and I agree with your point about sailors and damage control. My brother served in the RN aboard SSNs and never stopped going on about how much time they spent on DC drills! Practice makes perfect...
Anyway, to anwer the underlying question here, if carriers are such a bad idea, why is everyone who is serious about being a world naval power buying or building them (even if as I pointed out earlier they are 'changing the labels' to avoid the ignoramii from realising this)? If Aircraft Carriers are obsolete then so are Aircraft (their primary weapon system), so why don't we disband the world's Air Forces while we are at it. After all, when was the last time anyone saw an airfield that could manouvre to avoid an incoming attack? How many Carriers have been lost since 1945?
None. How many airfields have been lost (and put to use by their former owners' enemies)?
A hell of a lot. An airfield only needs to be located once every 50 years or so (if that) while a Carrier can lose itself anywhere within an area of 100,000 sq miles in six hours. Finding your target comes before attacking it and airfields don't put up much of a fight on that score. This brings us neatly back to the subject of the Harrier, whose whole 'Raison d' etre' (pardon my french) was to provide air forces and navies with a survivable strike asset, one that could operate away from vulnerable airfields and could fly from small and uncomplicated ships.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Without Organic airpower at sea you don't have a navy, you have a coastguard.

FreeAsia2000 · 07-28-2006

Obi how do you see carriers being affected by the widespread use
of near real time or real time satellite data by even mid-power countries
and how do you think carrier defences will be affected by space based
weapons ?

Obi Wan Russell · 07-28-2006

Space based weapons? All modern Armed forces around the world utilise space based technology e.g. GPS systems, spy satellites and SATCOM systems and these already have the effect of making Military and Naval operations more efficient. Your enemy now has nowhere to hide, and you can receive up to the minute tasking orders from your central command even if you are on the opposite side of the globe. In the near future, space based lasers and particle beam weapons may become available, but these will primarily be useful against enemy spy satellites to blind their ability to watch your forces. Firing such weapons at ships at sea for example isn't likely in the near term, because whilst targetting the vessls is feasible, any such weapon would require an enormous amout of power to inflict any real damage. Satellites aren't that big, whilst the world's first operational military laser system, the USAFs airborne laser, is housed inside a converted Boeing 747. Current laser technology is just to big and bulky to fit a worthwhile weapon into a satellite if CSGs are your intended target. Being optimistic, a usable system is still twenty or thirty years away, and you can be sure effective countermeasures won't be far behind. That's just the natural order of things, for every development, there is a counter development to negate its worst effects. Any space based weapon that could threaten a carrier strike group could also threaten any land based force so the question should not be viewed in isolation. A possible counter measure would be a ship based laser system to return fire and disable the satellite, which would be unmanned and following a fixed orbital trajectory thus unable to take evasive action. Anti satellite weapons are already in service, such as the USAF ASAT missile which is launched from F-15s into low orbit in order to take out enemy satellites. More advanced systems are in the works, you can be sure of that.

Obi Wan Russell · 07-28-2006

I've been messing about with a pic of an LHA on my computer to illustrate the upgrade I outlined earlier. A bit crude, but you get the idea...

Of course this kind of upgrade could also be applied to the follow on Wasp class LHDs, which are still in production. Not too late for the USS Makin Island LHD8...
If you have a medium sized navy and are looking to join the carrier club, but also need an expeditionary capability and can only afford one vessel, this would be an ideal solution. The new Australian LHDs whilst smaller, will incorporate both roles. I hear the USS Saipan LHA2 is due for decommissioning next year, so get your bids in now...

SinoDefence Forum

Harrier supersonic?

Harrier supersonic?

DefenceTalk Military Pictures

vBulletin Tweet Poster