US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Brumby

Brumby

Major
Jeff Head said:
Of course carriers are expensive. So are SSBNs.

Of course carriers have a lot of people on them...relatively speaking, they always have.

But, they are important military units and they can make the difference in battle.

No one wants war...war is always costly and expensive and very risky. But sometimes you are left no choice.

But, as I told a poster on the last page...lets try and stay away from OpEd pieces on the "News," thread, and stick to news and a reasoned discussion of it.

This piece is really an OpEd piece and does not represent US Military "News," at all.
Click to expand...

Whilst the debate about carrier sizing and what is optimal is not new or news, such issues will continue to hog the frontline from time to time given the cost of the Ford, a limited budget, and competing major acquisition programs. Consequently what Thunderchief is saying that this issue is of interest and provision be made for such discussions. If not this thread maybe over at the USS Ford thread?

As recent as March, the USN mentioned that an alternative study was planned.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Brumby said:
Whilst the debate about carrier sizing and what is optimal is not new or news, such issues will continue to hog the frontline from time to time given the cost of the Ford, a limited budget, and competing major acquisition programs. Consequently what Thunderchief is saying that this issue is of interest and provision be made for such discussions. If not this thread maybe over at the USS Ford thread?

As recent as March, the USN mentioned that an alternative study was planned.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
This is pure politics...where this administration, who generally is adverse towards and feels that the military is wasteful...is asking for a study. And the USNI is reporting on it.

So the Navy is going to provide them one.

But this particular topic has been studied, scenarioed, engineered, and war gamed many, many times. The current basic configuration of the US Super Carrier is the absolute most optimum design, and over the life of the carrier the absolute most cost effective design available.

The Ford Class improves on it in terms of automation, power, new launch and recovery systems, and resulting manning...making it even cheaper over its life. But the basic design and air wing for the task that the US has for its carriers has been optimized in terms of size/displacement, air wing, deck configuration, etc.

Now, for the Ford class to improve on the Nimitz, the technologies for the nuclear plants, for the electrical distribution, for the EMALS, and for the new trap system had to be developed. Of course that is expensive. There is no getting around that.

But it is also ground breaking and will result in savings and efficiencies that go far beyond this class of carriers themselves.

But the people who want to naysay and degenerate will not only not mention it...they are oblivious to it.

So...yes, there will be a study. Short of their being an absolute sea change though, where the Congress and the industry and the planners, and the naval infrastructure itself decides to ditch the way the US Navy uses carriers...they are going to end up with the same results.

Perhaps one day there will be elected a majority of people who determine to do US military power projection and global deployments, sea lane protection, etc. differently. At that point things may change (and I might add I do not believe they would not be for the better). But that day and that time is not now.

Beyond that, one day in the more distant future when we master anti-gravity, inertial dampening, mass nullification, and other very exotic technologies that allow the types of things that a carrier does to be done from the air or from space...then things will change too. But you better believe it is going to be more expensive to get there than it has been to develop the Ford class.

(And for the record...I am not looking for, or going to allow a discussion of those last two paragraphs here on the news thread)

Now, the request for and the providing of such a study is news...and that is fine. But as I say, it is not new. And it is also not an OpEd.

OpEds are, as I said earlier, very dubious for news threads. They are not news.
 
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
New US Army BDUs, Fatigues, or ACU pattern.

size0.jpg


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
FORBIN

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Jeff Head said:
I think it is. There are three layers to the US BMD system...and all of them are deployed.

You have the AEGIS BMD at sea, you have these mid-course interceptors like these spoken of, then you have the terminal phase in THAADS and Patriots.

For a nation like Korea or other rogues who could only launch very small numbers, and with the success rates they have had...I am very confidant we have a system that gives us a far, far better chance than anyone on earth of avoiding such a nuclear strike by such a country.
Click to expand...
bmds_sys_overview.jpg
 
S

Scratch

Captain
The USAF is apperently looking to update their F-15C with an IRST capability. Long in the waiting, but for sure a good idea. Looks like a podded option. There's already developments from the industry. Multi-platform, reconfigurable designs. I like that idea. The mentioned LIDAR option seems especially interesting to me.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Northrop unveils OpenPod as USAF seeks F-15 IRST
By:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Washington DC
Source: Flightglobal.com - 16 hours ago

Northrop
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
has responded to US Air Force interest in an infrared search and track (IRST) capability for its F-15C Eagle by unveiling OpenPod, a reconfigurable sensor pod which the company says is already being flight tested on a tactical military aircraft. Northrop’s system would employ an IRST produced by Italy’s Selex ES, owned by Finmeccanica.

The front end of the rail-mounted pod can be swapped out between sorties to host either an IRST, light detection and ranging (LIDAR), targeting, or communications payload.

James Mocarski, Northrop’s vice president of airborne tactical sensors, says OpenPod is the company’s answer to an unspecified air force sources-sought notice for an IRST system. It could also host the air force’s planned Maps System, a capability that will allow F-22s and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to exchange tactical information with legacy fighters, he says.

“OpenPod IRST combines state-of-the-art IRST sensor system technology from our partner Selex ES with the latest advances in target identification, clutter rejection and tracking from Northrop Grumman’s F-35 distributed aperture system, fire control radar, and infrared countermeasures products,” Mocarski said at the June 2 unveiling in Washington DC. “It’s our intended entry into an upcoming air force competition for infrared search and track.”

The air force’s F-15 division has
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in a production-ready IRST capability for fielding in 2018, and in a longer-term development effort that would acquire a more advanced system in the 2020 time frame. The sensor would allow legacy, fourth-generation aircraft to “detect, track, target, and engage threats in radar denied environments.”

Meanwhile, the air force research laboratory is exploring next-generation IRST technologies with a programme to mature and demonstrate advanced, long-range offensive infrared search and track capabilities.

Northrop’s OpenPod would will compete against
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
’s Legion Pod, unveiled in February. Legion Pod is a derivative of the company’s IRST21 sensor for the US Navy
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Lockheed intends to qualify the Legion Pod on the F-15 and F-16 with test flights planned this spring and into 2016. Mocarski declined to name any specific aircraft type for Northrop's product, but the F-16 and F-15 would be ideal candidates. ...
Click to expand...
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
the LRASM contract modification (dated June 02, 2015; suppose it's good news):
Lockheed Martin Corp., Orlando, Florida, has been awarded a $104,251,040 modification P00014 to previously awarded contract HR0011-14-C-0079 for the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile Accelerated Acquisition program. This modification raises the total cumulative face value of the contract from $202,618,254 to $306,869,294. Work will be performed at Lockheed Martin Corp. (Orlando, Florida; Troy, Alabama, 57.40%); BAE Systems (Nashua, New Hampshire, 35.70%), Harris Corp. (Melbourne, Florida, 3.11%), Northrop Grumman (Linthicum, Maryland, 1.43%), Ball Aerospace (Westminster, Colorado, 1.25%) and Williams Corp. (Walled Lake, Michigan, 1.11%), with an expected completion date of July 6, 2016. Research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $228,432 are being obligated at the time of award. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, Virginia, is the contracting activity.
Click to expand...
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
thunderchief

thunderchief

Senior Member
Jeff Head said:
This is pure politics...where this administration, who generally is adverse towards and feels that the military is wasteful...is asking for a study. And the USNI is reporting on it.
Click to expand...

This is not just a usual partisan question (GOP pro-military , Democrats against military etc .. ) It is more a strategic dilemma : sea control or power projection

At the beginning of WW2, USN mostly viewed aircraft carriers as a tools for sea control - they were to detect enemy ships, submarines and aircraft , and destroy them , protecting own fleet and sea lanes . Naval aircraft on carriers had limited capability to attack ground targets ( SBD Dauntless , TBD Devastator etc .. ) . Instead, battleships and heavy cruisers were tasked with ground support to disembarking troops .

As the war progressed, carriers more and more become tools of power projection . Instead of battling IJN, in 1944 and especially in 1945 , majority of sorties from carriers were in fact directed at targets on land . That pattern continued in Korea and Vietnam and after that, owning to the lack of naval opposition . Even Soviet Navy could not seriously challenge USN at open sea, therefore role of power projector was cemented to this day .

Unfortunately for USN , in last 20-30 years, anti-ship missile technology has advanced tremendously . Modern missiles , employed by countries like China, Russia, India and to a lesser extent even Iran , have tremendous range, comparable even to operational range of current naval aircraft like Super Hornet . Coupled with missile-carrying aircraft and/or coastal ships and subs , this means that in realistic war scenario with USN attempting to project power on land, it is almost certain that USN carriers would be targeted by salvos of sophisticated missiles .

Current USN answer to this problem is twofold : to improve anti-missile defense and to field aircraft with longer range . But strategically, both of them could be a loosing game . Anti-missile defense is purely defensive , requiring increasingly sophisticated intercepting systems to tackle incoming threats with minimal margin for error . For example , even if 1 out of 20 missiles gets trough it could destroy dozens of aircraft worth of billions on carrier deck . As for longer range , USN has two options - F-35C without external load flying into the teeth of enemy air defense , or the same thing with even less capable unmanned subsonic drones like X-47B. In both cases these aircraft would be required to fly deep into enemy territory without much support from other US forces , relaying mostly on stealth for success . With current proliferation of long-wavelength observation radars , and limited air-to-air capabilities (this goes especially for X-47B ) this could be a huge gamble .

What is an alternative then ? Well, instead of focusing on power projection, USN carriers could return to their pre-WW2 role of sea-control ships . No country in the world , not even China, could realistically build enough carriers in near future to challenge US air supremacy over open sea . What would that mean in case of war ? Any Chinese, Russian, Indian etc ... ship venturing far from its shores into ocean could expect to be tracked and attacked by US naval aircraft from USN carriers . As a result, those countries would be effectively blockaded . But carriers enforcing those blockades would not need to be super-carriers . In fact, it could be argued that even carriers of similar size to Charles de Gaulle, with around 40 aircraft, could fulfill that role . In any case, with modern technology, they would not need to exceed the size of Kitty Hawk-class . Against usual Third World opponents (groups like ISIS etc ) they could be used as power projection tools like today . In case of world war they would steam far from enemy shores, but close enough to close sea lanes for him . And most importantly their cost would not break the bank , leaving enough money for other projects .
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Guys...my advise is to stick to actual news. We can note such debates as this "study," about carriers...as they have been noted before......but the calculus for carries in the US Navy is not changing any time soon.

It is also clear that any other country that can build one...is trying to do so...and those that can build more than one are also doing so (ie. China, India, the UK, etc.). Those who cannot do so (ie. Russia) nonetheless would like to do so.

As I said earlier, perhaps a day will come when this changes. I do not expect it will be in the next 20-30 years and therefore I will not live to see it.

Perhaps my grandkids...but as of now, the investment, the strategies, and the capabilities are simply too great and too engrained. And nations are voting with their pocket books right now...and those investmeents are 50 years (pretty much) each time they build a new one.

They are not blind to this...it is not a surprise that such an investment is planned to be that long lived. And they are doing it anyway.

We would debate and argue until we were blue in the face on either side of it...and it would still not change anything.

So let's just move on here on the US Military News Thread.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top