Aircraft Carriers III

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
It is really interesting to see the Egyptian with these large LHDs.

They really have very little to defend them with.

They do have the one FREMM FFG, and four Oliver Hazard Perry FFGs, and the first Gowind LHD, which will be followed by three more.

But the only one really capable of defending them on an area basis in a modern environment is the FREMM, with its 16 modern VLS cells.

The Perrys can help against less capable missiles with the single arm launcher and the forty Standard SM-1MR missiles, and the Gowind has 16 VLS for Micas...but as I say, the Fremm is the only one that could mount a strong modern defense...and even then, the ammo reserves are small.

The MIstrals are great LHDs, but these ships have been sold to Egypt with very little in the way of self defense. I think right now they just have four .50- cal mounts.

I wonder if France or someone else is going to sell them and mount some sort of effect CIWS on them?

A couple of SeaRAMs and a couple of Phalanx would be very helpful for these vessels.
 
Last edited:

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Man the Egyptian navy has increased its capability many fold !!! Wow

Plus Russian did all that work on over 100 naval helicopters ready for use when they were due to get them

Now they can off load those Helos to Egypt

Egypt bagged a good deal

Sometimes making "white " pennant numbers can get you buyers from the most unexpected customers

One important point is that they need more advanced air defence ships to guard these units they don't have enough

You have one be ready to send it to war if not don't buy at all , they won't fair well unless they are properly defended
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Foreign esccort for carrier battle group Arromanches

The battle group will be operating against Daech under a fortnight, the eastern Mediterranean. Two foreign vessels will be part and are in Toulon since a short week: the German frigate F213 Augsburg (a type of frigate 122) and a US guided missile destroyer of the Arleigh Burke class, the DDG-71 Ross.

The frigate Augsburg (already deployed on the previous mandate Arromanches) is oriented primarily for the anti-submarine warfare, but it can also be used for air defense missions. She embarks Sea Sparrow missiles and RAM, as well as anti-ship Harpoon. A Sea Lynx is now on board, the two that can hold the helicopter hangar.

Ross entered service in 1997 and employs 281 sailors. It can fire Tomahawk missiles and surface-to-air SM-2, as well as anti-ship Harpoon. It can carry up to two Sea Hawk.

For now, these two ships, with Charles de Gaulle, the only components recognized by the Navy. In addition, expected to join a BCR for refueling at sea, an air defense frigate, a multi-mission frigate, a nuclear submarine attack and ATL-2.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
while writing my rants

Apr 10, 2016
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/aircraft-carriers-iii.t7304/page-110#post-413000

and

Sep 1, 2016
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/aircraft-carriers-iii.t7304/page-110#post-413135

I didn't know Carrier Ford Has Serious Power Problem
For over a year, the US Navy and its shipbuilders have been anxious to get the new aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) to sea and begin engineering trials of the first-of-class design. A number of publicly-announced target dates have come and gone, but the ship is still firmly moored at Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia.

Now, however, a key factor in preventing the ship from casting off lines and getting underway is coming into view. A serious voltage regulator problem on the carrier’s four main turbine generators (MTGs) has prevented engineers from running the motors up to full power, and only now has the problem been identified and a fix decided upon.

The MTGs are a significant element in the ship’s power generation system – an all-new layout supporting a plant developing at least three times the electrical power of previous carriers.

The problem manifested itself June 12 when a small electrical explosion took place on the No. 2 MTG during testing. Navy sources disagree whether the term “explosion” is appropriate, but two sources familiar with the situation used the reference, one noting that “it was enough of an explosion that debris got into the turbine.” Smoke from the event reportedly was drawn into other spaces, one source reported.

According to Capt. Thurraya Kent, spokesperson for the Navy’s acquisition directorate, “personnel detected a burning smell.” There was no fire, Kent insisted, and “no fire-extinguishing actions were taken.” No one was injured and there was no evacuation of personnel, she added.

In a statement responding to a Defense News query, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) said the issues “were not associated with the nuclear reactor plant and had no impact on safe operation of the nuclear reactor.”

On the record, NAVSEA declined to provide further details, other than to acknowledge that two MTG issues have been experienced.

But, according to sources, the June 12 event severely damaged the No. 2 MTG, and the accident slowed further MTG testing until the problem could be identified. Then in July, a similar, less-dramatic event took place on the No. 1 MTG, according to a Pentagon source.

Eventually the root cause was found to be faulty voltage regulators, the Pentagon source said. It is not clear if the voltage regulators are part of the generators, which are made by Northrop Grumman Marine Systems, or are a sub-component from another supplier.

Engineers were also debating how to repair the generators, and for a time it was feared the entire 12-ton No. 2 MTG would have to be lifted out and replaced – a complex, time-consuming and expensive operation that would involve disrupting numerous ship systems and making major cuts in several decks.

But subsequent investigation showed the No. 2 MTG’s rotors could be removed and replaced without the major disruption of a complete replacement, and No. 1 MTG could be repaired in place. Several repair options were developed, including whether or not to completely repair the MTGs before sea trials and delivery – causing further delays -- or wait until a post-commissioning shipyard period to finish the work.

On Sept. 14, the Pentagon source confirmed, Navy officials decided on a partial fix now and a permanent fix later. The No. 2 MTG rotors will be removed while repairs are made to No. 1, and full repairs to No. 2 will wait for the post-shakedown availability (PSA) overhaul sometime after the ship is commissioned.

Repairs are estimated to cost about $37 million, the Pentagon official said, and while delivery is likely delayed until about March 2017, Navy officials said enough cost offsets have been identified that the work can be completed under congressionally-imposed cost caps – currently set at $12.9 billion.

Even with the delivery delays, officials said, the planned initial deployment in 2021 is not affected, nor are full-scale shock trials now scheduled for 2019. The Pentagon source noted that if the shock trials are put off until subsequent ships – as was done with the previous carrier class – the first deployment could come sooner.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, in an Aug. 31 memo on the carrier’s technical issues to Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall, reported the MTG issue was “likely due to a manufacturing defect,” and that “analysis of this issue revealed design vulnerabilities that must be addressed prior to ship’s delivery.”

Mabus noted that “the nation’s leading experts on shipboard power generation systems are working resolution of these issues with a priority on safe, reliable system performance while balancing cost and schedule considerations.”

In the Aug. 31 memo, a copy of which was obtained by Defense News, Mabus also ticked off the status of several other issues highlighted by Kendall in an Aug. 23 memo directing a new, 60-day independent review team to look at issues with the CVN 78 class. The power generation issue was included in the memo, but none of the other issues seem to directly prevent the ship from getting under way to conduct hull, maintenance and engineering trials.

The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launching System (EMALS), Mabus reported, “has completed all shipboard testing pending the commencement of shipboard aircraft operations” during extensive post-delivery testing and trials, adding that “the Navy is confident that EMALS is on track to support CVN 78 system performance requirements and we look forward to demonstrating continued reliability growth of this system.”

The ship’s Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) is more problematic, and “has had significant delays in completing its land-based test program due to the technical challenges encountered in transitioning from design” through final testing, Mabus reported. Other Navy sources report dozens of roll-through tests have been conducted with the AAG at the Navy’s test facility in Lakehurst, New Jersey, but to date no true arrested landings have been accomplished.

Mabus noted that the Navy is reviewing whether to continue with AAG installation on the Enterprise (CVN 80), third ship in the class, or return to the standard Mark 7 aircraft recovery system operating on all current carriers. Installation of AAG on the second ship, John F. Kennedy (CVN 79), is continuing for now, Mabus noted, because design and construction work has progressed to the point where a replacement would have a significantly negative impact on costs and schedule.

The Ford’s dual band radar (DBR) installation is still completing its shipboard test program, Mabus reported, but full system testing won’t be carried out until the ship’s power system is lit off in conjunction with the shipboard test program. “We are confident in our ability to successfully demonstrate the functionality required for successful sea trials and, subsequently, for operation testing in post-delivery,” Mabus wrote.

Testing of the ship’s 11 advanced weapons elevators continues, Mabus said, acknowledging that “these new-design weapons elevators have experienced delays in late-stage integrated shipboard testing mainly due to correction of software discrepancies.”

While indicating he doesn’t expect all 11 elevators to be properly operating at the time of sea trials, Mabus declared that “the Navy is confident we will get through these first-of-class issues and ensure that lessons learned on CVN 78 are directly applied to CVN 79.”
source is DefenceNews
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

John2001

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Russian Carrier based SU-33s receive new bombing computer, to improve their air to ground capabilities ! Probably for their Mediterranean campaign in the end of this autumn 2016
I found this article in this forum :
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The original Source is from :
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


C4iSR: Air
Russian carrier-based Su-33 fighters receiving new bombing computer
Karl Soper, Washington D.C. - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
16 September 2016


1685946_-_main.jpg

The Russian Navy's Su-33 carrierborne fighter aircraft are being fitted with the SVP-24 targeting system to improve their air-to-ground capabilities. Source: Russian MoD
Russia is outfitting its carrier-based Sukhoi Su-33 fighter aircraft with the SVP-24 air-to-ground targeting system, according to Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) sources cited by the newspaper Izvestia.

The SVP-24 is a specialised navigation and targeting system produced by Russian avionics developer Gefest and T. It enables combat aircraft to deliver conventional ordnance with accuracy approaching guided munitions, Russian sources claim. Historically the Su-33 had only a basic air-to-ground capability.

Gefest and T has now delivered the first Su-33 with SVP-24 under its contract signed with the MoD, and is installing the system on two more naval fighters. The company expects to put SVP-24 on all aircraft in the squadron before Russian Navy carrier Admiral Kuznetsov deploys to the eastern Mediterranean in November, according to Izvestia . The carrier's air group will likely consist of 10 Su-33 and four MiG-29KR fighters.

The SVP-24 calculates the optimal point for bomb release based on the position of the aircraft and target, wind speed and direction, and other variables. The MoD has announced that the targeting computer produced a three-fold increase in the accuracy of aerial bombing when installed on the Su-24M. Russian sources add that as a permanent aircraft component the SVP-24 is cheaper to use than expendable kits attached to gravity bombs like the US Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM).

Initially developed in the mid-1990s and accepted for service by the MoD in 2008, the SVP-24 is installed on some Russian Su-24M, Su-25SM3, and Tu-22M3 bombers. The Su-24M is the primary bomber used in Syria. It has delivered mainly high-explosive FAB-250, FAB-500, and concrete-piercing BetAB-500 unguided gravity bombs.

Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options 
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I didn't know Carrier Ford Has Serious Power Problem

source is DefenceNews
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Whenever you are breaking into new technologies and frontiers and horizons, you are going to have these issues.

The USS Gerald Ford is a first in class with a completely new reactor and a completely new electrical system.

They have apparently identified the problem and the fix...and the problem apparently did not keep the ship from operating, just from running up to full power.

I expect they will fix it and we will see her at sea sooner rather than later...but probably with some dealy.

I'm okay with that.

What the US is doing with those new reactors, the all electrical distribution, EMALS, and the numerpous other innovations is expensive and risky in terms of schedules and budgets.

That's what it takes to stay in the number one position and to be a generation or two ahead of your potential competitors.
 
Whenever you are breaking into new technologies and frontiers and horizons, you are going to have these issues.

The USS Gerald Ford is a first in class with a completely new reactor and a completely new electrical system.

They have apparently identified the problem and the fix...and the problem apparently did not keep the ship from operating, just from running up to full power.

I expect they will fix it and we will see her at sea sooner rather than later...but probably with some dealy.

I'm okay with that.

What the US is doing with those new reactors, the all electrical distribution, EMALS, and the numerpous other innovations is expensive and risky in terms of schedules and budgets.

That's what it takes to stay in the number one position and to be a generation or two ahead of your potential competitors.
I'll be following what actually happens, but please
... let me ask you
... [another member]
how long a delay would you still consider acceptable?
  • USS Nimitz (CVN-68) was authorized in 1968 and "first deployed ... on 7 July 1976" according to wiki;
  • Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) was authorized in 2008 (there had been some advance funding which I ignore, but you may nitpick about)
so please tell me the year when it would be still fine, according to you, if the Ford sailed for her first deployment; as an example of the answer, I offer my guess: 2022, and thank you for the consideration

...
... what's your take, Jeff? the CVN-78 will be deployed for the first time in the year of 20..

(I was sorta surprised to see "Even with the delivery delays, officials said, the planned initial deployment in 2021 is not affected" in the article I posted in https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/aircraft-carriers-iii.t7304/page-117#post-416068 because while making my 2022 guess Jul 26, 2016 I was unaware of this info ... but I don't, and won't, second-guess, don't worry :)
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Jeff Head please
Now only EMALS cats built, finished for Steam ? or eventualy for price possible ? and what company build it ?
 
Top