Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 5 of 13  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page « 13 4 5 6 713 »
Author Message
Demon Lord Razgriz
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: September 27th, 2010, 4:27 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 446
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 1:18 am
Location: Eastern North Carolina
TimothyC wrote:
C-RAM (Counter Artillery Rocket and Mortar) systems are expensive and offer a limited footprint. The original statement I was tearing apart is the fact that one of you wanted to co-locate the new FAA (that had eaten the RAF) on civilian air fields, without making any improvements in security of said facilities. And just because you don't see something happening, doesn't mean it can't, or that people who are smarter and more well informed than you don't see it happening either.
Please reread my posts, the bases would be sold to be used as civilian airports, while hangers would be used by the FAA. They'd still have the security measures from the time as a military base.

TimothyC wrote:
:lol: No. Read Norman Friedman's U.S. Aircraft Carriers An Illustrated Design History then get back to me you little child.
First off, don't insult me. I'm not a little child. As for the book, I'd read it if I had a copy. And unlike others, I don't have a couple hundred dollars to drop on a book.
TimothyC wrote:
Sentry AEW.1. And, yes the Super Hornet is an excellent aircraft, but it is a 4.5 gen plane, and will killed in the face of 5th gen opponents.

The Typhoon was designed as a land based fighter. It's not easy to take a land based fighter and turn it into a naval fighter. The only reason the Soviets were able to do so as easily as they did was that most of their aircraft were built for rougher (and thus structurally more stressful) field conditions than western fighters were built for. Corrosion is also an issue that comes up.
The Sentry is a support craft, not combat.

I give you that navalizing the Typhoon would be hard, but not impossible.
TimothyC wrote:
Look at the front view of the T-50. You can see the freaking compressor face.
T-50 isn't the finished model, and from what I've seen, the Russian have taken measures to shield the compressor face from dead on.

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Gollevainen
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: September 27th, 2010, 4:43 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4714
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:10 am
Location: Finland
Contact: Website
You guys are planning to start a personal hate-fest flamefigth here?
Rigth now?
When Im supposedly needed to stay calm and relaxed, and non-confontrative facist-pig by the anger-managment trainers?
So a please? The magic count to ten in future postings over these matters, shall we...?

Thanks for your co-operation in advance

Gollevainen
Adm.

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: September 27th, 2010, 5:18 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
Gollevainen wrote:
You guys are planning to start a personal hate-fest flamefigth here?
Rigth now?
When Im supposedly needed to stay calm and relaxed, and non-confontrative facist-pig by the anger-managment trainers?
So a please? The magic count to ten in future postings over these matters, shall we...?

Thanks for your co-operation in advance

Gollevainen
Adm.

I apologize for calling him a Child, that was over the line. Everything else I stand behind.

And I've never called you fascist.
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote:
TimothyC wrote:
C-RAM (Counter Artillery Rocket and Mortar) systems are expensive and offer a limited footprint. The original statement I was tearing apart is the fact that one of you wanted to co-locate the new FAA (that had eaten the RAF) on civilian air fields, without making any improvements in security of said facilities. And just because you don't see something happening, doesn't mean it can't, or that people who are smarter and more well informed than you don't see it happening either.
Please reread my posts, the bases would be sold to be used as civilian airports, while hangers would be used by the FAA. They'd still have the security measures from the time as a military base.
That's called Co-location, and yes, it does represent a security risk.

Quote:
TimothyC wrote:
:lol: No. Read Norman Friedman's U.S. Aircraft Carriers An Illustrated Design History then get back to me you little child.
First off, don't insult me. I'm not a little child. As for the book, I'd read it if I had a copy. And unlike others, I don't have a couple hundred dollars to drop on a book.
Try a local library. I don't know what it is like in North Carolina, but most places have an inter-library loan system. That's how I got my hands on a copy of Norman Friedman's U.S. Destroyers.

The point is that with 8 carriers you are look at 3 deployed at most. This means that you are limited to what three carriers can carry for both ordinance and fuel. yes, underway replenishment is possible, but it's a whole lot harder than shipping the bombs on regular cargo ships and trucks. Land based planes are also not as limited on takeoff and landing weights, which limit range and payload.
Quote:
TimothyC wrote:
Sentry AEW.1. And, yes the Super Hornet is an excellent aircraft, but it is a 4.5 gen plane, and will killed in the face of 5th gen opponents.

The Typhoon was designed as a land based fighter. It's not easy to take a land based fighter and turn it into a naval fighter. The only reason the Soviets were able to do so as easily as they did was that most of their aircraft were built for rougher (and thus structurally more stressful) field conditions than western fighters were built for. Corrosion is also an issue that comes up.
The Sentry is a support craft, not combat.
Ok then, The Predator drones. The fact that the RAF has fallen to such shell of it's former self isn't what I'm debating, The effectiveness of eliminating the RAF is.
Quote:
I give you that navalizing the Typhoon would be hard, but not impossible.
Would it be more expensive than buying Super Hornets and F-35s? Fun fact - It would be much more expensive, and thus the new FAA would have fewer Fast Jets
Quote:
TimothyC wrote:
Look at the front view of the T-50. You can see the freaking compressor face.
T-50 isn't the finished model, and from what I've seen, the Russian have taken measures to shield the compressor face from dead on.
It's still rather telling that they started showing it off in it's current configuration.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Gollevainen
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: September 27th, 2010, 5:35 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4714
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:10 am
Location: Finland
Contact: Website
Quote:
And I've never called you fascist.
Nah, self-irony is good way of me dealing with my own monsters, so you guys shouldn't always take me sooo serious.
...remember to obey thougth :roll:

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Demon Lord Razgriz
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: September 27th, 2010, 6:46 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 446
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 1:18 am
Location: Eastern North Carolina
TimothyC wrote:
That's called Co-location, and yes, it does represent a security risk.
Mind explaining further as to why it would be such a threat? Cause I seriously don't see it given that it's a common thing, at least here in America.
TimothyC wrote:
Try a local library. I don't know what it is like in North Carolina, but most places have an inter-library loan system. That's how I got my hands on a copy of Norman Friedman's U.S. Destroyers.

The point is that with 8 carriers you are look at 3 deployed at most. This means that you are limited to what three carriers can carry for both ordinance and fuel. yes, underway replenishment is possible, but it's a whole lot harder than shipping the bombs on regular cargo ships and trucks. Land based planes are also not as limited on takeoff and landing weights, which limit range and payload.
Despite NC being a major military supporting state, the library system here seems to be very anti-military. Very few books other than stuff on the Revoltionary & Civil War era.

As for 3 carriers being deployed at most at any one time, I can see that at worst, 4-5 at best. But even with 3, that's still 120 aircraft; 108 JSFs & 12 AEWs. Or if one replaces the JSFs with Super Hornets, that would be roughly 30 SHs per CVFs, so 90 SH deployable. And if that saying is right about the Nimitz's 90 max aircraft being more aircraft than entire AFs for most nations, those 3 carriers can do the job. But I doubt that's really the case, and the potential enemies will have more than 90 aircrafts.

What the question really is is what sort of aircraft does the enemy have? And in all likelyhood, MiG-21s/23s/29s & Su-15s/27s. Now the higher end MiG-29s & Su-27s would be a deadly challenge, but those would be rare and likely foreseeable foes in battle.

As for payload & range, those limits seem to be becoming smaller & smaller. More powerful engines allow for greater flyback capacity and range is easily solvable with midair refueling, which the SH can do with a buddy pack.

TimothyC wrote:
Ok then, The Predator drones. The fact that the RAF has fallen to such shell of it's former self isn't what I'm debating, The effectiveness of eliminating the RAF is.
Doesn't the USN fly Predators off the Nimitz CVNs?
TimothyC wrote:
Would it be more expensive than buying Super Hornets and F-35s? Fun fact - It would be much more expensive, and thus the new FAA would have fewer Fast Jets
More expensive than buying SH, yes. More expensive than buying F-35s... doubtful.
TimothyC wrote:
It's still rather telling that they started showing it off in it's current configuration.
Eh, that's all part of the propaganda. Plus it gives potential buyers of the PAK-FA a taste of what it has and what's to come.

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: September 27th, 2010, 7:08 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote:
Mind explaining further as to why it would be such a threat? Cause I seriously don't see it given that it's a common thing, at least here in America.
We're not talking about the US, we're talking about the UK. A nation with a long history of Paramilitary attacks.
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote:
Despite NC being a major military supporting state, the library system here seems to be very anti-military. Very few books other than stuff on the Revolutionary & Civil War era.
Could you look again, and include College and University Libraries?
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote:
As for 3 carriers being deployed at most at any one time, I can see that at worst, 4-5 at best. But even with 3, that's still 120 aircraft; 108 JSFs & 12 AEWs. Or if one replaces the JSFs with Super Hornets, that would be roughly 30 SHs per CVFs, so 90 SH deployable. And if that saying is right about the Nimitz's 90 max aircraft being more aircraft than entire AFs for most nations, those 3 carriers can do the job. But I doubt that's really the case, and the potential enemies will have more than 90 aircrafts.
No, that figure of 3 carriers is the Max. For every three dinosaur burners you have, you can keep one on station (the other two are either in transit or in port for refits/overhauls/training). You also now have to keep six of the T45s on station with them. This is going to put a massive strain on the RN.
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote:
What the question really is is what sort of aircraft does the enemy have? And in all likelyhood, MiG-21s/23s/29s & Su-15s/27s. Now the higher end MiG-29s & Su-27s would be a deadly challenge, but those would be rare and likely foreseeable foes in battle.
Except the Flanker variants are proliferating and you can't bet the farm on not going up against them. They will have proliferated even further in the 10+ years it takes to get the CVF to IoC, much less a fleet of them.
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote:
As for payload & range, those limits seem to be becoming smaller & smaller. More powerful engines allow for greater flyback capacity and range is easily solvable with midair refueling, which the SH can do with a buddy pack.
The aircraft inherently gets a longer range and payload when not limited by carrier takeoffs and landings. If the limits of the plane are below the limits of the carrier, land basing doesn't effect it, but then the carrier isn't the limiting factor anymore.
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote:
Doesn't the USN fly Predators off the Nimitz CVNs?
No. The catapults can't take them at the moment EMALS might, but EMALS isn't ready for deployment yet.
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote:
More expensive than buying SH, yes. More expensive than buying F-35s... doubtful.
I disagree, the F-35 is going to be built at this point. Buying it allows for greater commonality with NATO and Non-NATO allies. The only other nation that would buy Navalized Typhoons is India, who is working with the Russians on their planes so you can kiss any cost sharing goodbye. The Typhoon right now is going to cost about 80-100 million USD per plane (and a navalized one even more). The F-35 is probably going to clock in at about 120-150 million USD per plane (adjusted for inflation). Trust me, 6 F-35s are worth 9 Typhoons. and we haven't even started in on the development costs of a Navalized Typhoon
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote:
Eh, that's all part of the propaganda. Plus it gives potential buyers of the PAK-FA a taste of what it has and what's to come.
It shows that the PAK-FA is a good 10 years behind the F-35.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Demon Lord Razgriz
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: September 27th, 2010, 7:41 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 446
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 1:18 am
Location: Eastern North Carolina
TimothyC wrote:
We're not talking about the US, we're talking about the UK. A nation with a long history of Paramilitary attacks.
Oh yeah... Forgot about that, guess that's what happens when the people can't defend themselves. :/
TimothyC wrote:
Could you look again, and include College and University Libraries?
That's what I used, which is also connected to the Public library system.
TimothyC wrote:
No, that figure of 3 carriers is the Max. For every three dinosaur burners you have, you can keep one on station (the other two are either in transit or in port for refits/overhauls/training). You also now have to keep six of the T45s on station with them. This is going to put a massive strain on the RN.
Does carriers undergo refits/overhauls every time it goes home? And why 6 T45s?
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote:
What the question really is is what sort of aircraft does the enemy have? And in all likelyhood, MiG-21s/23s/29s & Su-15s/27s. Now the higher end MiG-29s & Su-27s would be a deadly challenge, but those would be rare and likely foreseeable foes in battle.
TimothyC wrote:
Except the Flanker variants are proliferating and you can't bet the farm on not going up against them. They will have proliferated even further in the 10+ years it takes to get the CVF to IoC, much less a fleet of them.
Good point, forgot that the Flanker is the new AK. :P
TimothyC wrote:
The aircraft inherently gets a longer range and payload when not limited by carrier takeoffs and landings. If the limits of the plane are below the limits of the carrier, land basing doesn't effect it, but then the carrier isn't the limiting factor anymore.
Not sure what your point here is. :/
TimothyC wrote:
No. The catapults can't take them at the moment EMALS might, but EMALS isn't ready for deployment yet.
Hmm... I thought I read a thing about it being operated off a Nimitz a few weeks back. :/
TimothyC wrote:
I disagree, the F-35 is going to be built at this point. Buying it allows for greater commonality with NATO and Non-NATO allies. The only other nation that would buy Navalized Typhoons is India, who is working with the Russians on their planes so you can kiss any cost sharing goodbye. The Typhoon right now is going to cost about 80-100 million USD per plane (and a navalized one even more). The F-35 is probably going to clock in at about 120-150 million USD per plane (adjusted for inflation). Trust me, 6 F-35s are worth 9 Typhoons. and we haven't even started in on the development costs of a Navalized Typhoon.
Oh, I agree the F-35 will get built, too damn big to fail. But I doubt it'll receive much support from other nations due to the pricetag, which I believe would likely average out to 140-160 million. And I seriously, seriously doubt 6 F-35s would be worth 9 Typhoons.
TimothyC wrote:
It shows that the PAK-FA is a good 10 years behind the F-35.
In what way? F-35 is a turkey, shit stealth and heavy as an F-15. PAK-FA doesn't try to be something it's not, unlike the F-35 that tries to do everything under the sun. Save for the avionics, PAK-FA trumps F-35.

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Praetonia
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: September 27th, 2010, 10:27 pm
Offline
Posts: 35
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 12:56 am
TimothyC wrote:
Praetonia wrote:
I rate this scenario lolwat out of 10 on the reasonable threat scale.

But how would cutting airbases entirely make this more likely?
Fewer and less secured facilities = Less effort needed to attack said facilities = Higher likelihood of attack
The whole scenario is ridiculous.
Quote:
Quote:
Yes. I choose to base out of carriers. Guaranteed friendly, can move anywhere.
And inherently limited in what they can take along, in both aircraft, munitions, and other stores.
nrly. You're guaranteed to have 30 (or more) F35. With friendly bases you may have nothing at all.
Quote:
Quote:
So it seems political capital buys nothing. I'm not sure what Britain has ever received from its relationship with the US. Extortionate loan terms, etc. are available even to third world, so that's hardly anything special.
Trident, Polaris, Sidewinders (during the Falklands), and a place under our strategic umbrella just to start with.
Arms are available to everyone. US sold arms to the third world, communist nations, even countries that it later went to war with. And it's hardly the only source, aside from the domestic industry. A lot of the time US sells arms to countries buying them with US government loans. Countries want to sell one another stuff more than the buyers want to buy, because they're all closet mercantilists, and guns are cool.
Quote:
Quote:
Most of what I've read doesn't take ABM seriously. All of the trials have pretty well failed. Yet you seem to think it will become near 100% effective in 20 years.
  1. You are reading the wrong stuff.
  2. Most of the trials haven't failed, and the few that have teach us how to make the system better. I would like to see your source - and if it's Ted Postol I'm going to laugh (the man is a known liar)
  3. It doesn't have to be 100% effective to be worth it. Even a 25% chance of an ICBM shootdown makes the prospect of an ICBM attack untenable.
  4. NIKE-ZEUS, a product of the 1960's and armed with a nuclear warhead was doing Skin-skin kill shots in in the test phase: 59 Kills out of 63 test shots, with an estimated 10-16 of the 59 being kinetic kills (IE what we are doing now with GBI and the SM-3.
Not a specific source, just that every BMD project ever failed and then was canceled. 25% chance of losing a re-entry vehicle does nothing to change MAD.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: September 28th, 2010, 12:49 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
Praetonia wrote:
The whole scenario is ridiculous.
More ridiculous than Terrorists using planes as cruise missiles?
Praetonia wrote:
nrly. You're guaranteed to have 30 (or more) F35. With friendly bases you may have nothing at all.
All you've got is 30-35 JSFs per carrier. No more. That nice big land base is looking attractive now isn't it?

Carriers are part of the equation, but only part of it.
Praetonia wrote:
Arms are available to everyone. US sold arms to the third world, communist nations, even countries that it later went to war with. And it's hardly the only source, aside from the domestic industry. A lot of the time US sells arms to countries buying them with US government loans. Countries want to sell one another stuff more than the buyers want to buy, because they're all closet mercantilists, and guns are cool.
Nice way to dodge the truth, the US never sold Trident to anyone else, and the only other deployment of Polaris would have been to Italy.
Praetonia wrote:
Not a specific source, just that every BMD project ever failed and then was canceled. 25% chance of losing a re-entry vehicle does nothing to change MAD.
  • Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report: February 2010. Department of Defense, 26 Jan 2010.
    Web. 26 April 2010. <http://www.defense.gov/bmdr/docs/BMDR%2 ... %20web.pdf>
  • Bruce-Briggs, B. The Shield of Faith: A Chronicle of Strategic Defense from Zeppelins to Star
    Wars
    . New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1988. Print.
  • Friedman, Norman. The Fifty-Year War: Conflict and Strategy in the Cold War. Annapolis: Naval
    Institute Press, 2000. Print.
  • Mantle, Peter J. The Missile Defense Equation: Factors for Decision Making. Reston, Virginia:
    American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2004. Print.
  • NIKE Zeus: The U.S. Army's First Antiballistic Missile. Missile Defense Agency, 20 Oct 2009.
    Web. 26 April 2010. <http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/zeus.pdf>.
  • The Missile Defense Program. Missile Defense Agency, 3 Aug 2009. Web 26 April 2010.
    <http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf ... rogram.pdf>
Put up or shut up.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Demon Lord Razgriz
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: October 9th, 2010, 10:25 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 446
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 1:18 am
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Well, looks like the Carriers will be built according to AvaitionWeek. :)

One being commissioned and the other in Reserve.

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 5 of 13  [ 124 posts ]  Return to “Off Topic” | Go to page « 13 4 5 6 713 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]