![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Actually the idea, similar to bringing back a battleship and using more
LHA's then LHA(R)'s is a cost saving approach that tied to killing the LCS (done for all the good reasons) moving to the DD(X) even more good reasons and carefully looking again at the CVN-21 would save some 15 to 20 billion dollars almost instantly The original argument for the JFK was a political one to save Mayport and the Florida jobs but the Navy was very serious about killing it knowing full well that it would produce results they did not want - the new nuclear Navy was the plan and the CVA would not fit and they were right about this. So the nuclear carrier force developed into a high speed open ocean race club where Hornet maintainability could be exploited to the full and two carriers with additional crew could do the work of the traditional three - not bad and should be continued - but what about the littorals and COIN However the argument against the JFK was that it had to be modernized to keep up with the nuclear CVN's and of course that would reach a brick wall in sustainability and flat out speed - the trumped deck was said to cost $600 million and four years ago that was an enormous cost that made the Navy happy they could put the conventional aberration to bed. Well as it would, CVN21 costs went from 3 to 5 to 7 and now heading for $10 billion and suddenly the $600 million for the JFK looks real cheap. The enter the LHA(R) and the Marines looking at it as their trump card out of Naval aviation with an all STOVL force their own ships and a new small carrier with a tactical fighter complement - ooops - did I say "small carrier" - holy **** says the Navy this is not what we want so they went pushing to get the Marines into the F/A-18E/F business so a common Marine and Navy aviation would service all 10 big carriers - Marine said no, dug in their heals and it all went to rest on the JSF program. Had the F-35B been on schedule and working (you can bet the Navy test and evaluation people really are doing a good job with this one) and the LHA(R) not turned into greed-city things might have gone nice for the Marines and the Navy would enter the new world with a death fight over large nuclear or small conventional carriers - which in short is a loose lose situation because sooner if not real soon the submarines will replace carriers as the most dominate capital ship as the carriers did the battleships in 1941. So you ask - how can the Marines save themselves from themselves - because you see the group of Marine generals who fathers the JSF and the LHA(R) idea are determined to end Marine tactical aviation then acquiesce to the Navy's insistence of merging the aviation branches and right now Marine F-18 squadrons fly at reduced G and about one a year will retire with no replacement and the Harriers are a toss up for anyone. On the training side more and more Marines lose currency or even familiarization with the carrier. So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible and may be done in the next administration. The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to look to the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal with COIN which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural sparring - if the JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is always a chance and the Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet. This also doubles MV-22 production and you can see the vulnerability still exists low to the ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but ended the helicopter as a combat attack platform - we need a new platform a cross between the A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it - and guess what - the simple fact that nothing could directly escort the MV-22 right now is paramount to the fact that the planning was selectively biased against doing what is needed for COIN. In short - the whole shipbuilding world is a mess but it may be more from the fact that we do not know where our Naval forces are going while they seem to be on Pluto looking for a mission - the war is right in front of them ready to make toast of the thin-skinned and under protected ships "Mark Andrew Spence" wrote in message ... "Flashnews" wrote in message et... You have to look at this in a slightly different way . . . - A refurbished JFK could be cut down in boilers and screws, gutted of at least two cats, a full hospital added (remember the new hospital ship was killed) to where a less than 2000 people crew would run the vessel and much of the engineering and supply could be contractor. Marines, SOF, FBI, CIA, DEA, Allied SOF, etc. could all be provided C4ISR planning areas with build-up/tear-down living areas in bays and rooms created by gutting. The O-3 level would become for instance a farm of briefing and planning rooms being fed by the IOIC turned COAC This is the first time I have heard this proposal re the JFK. Is it your own idea, or are other groups advocating it as well? M.S. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Flashnews wrote:
So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible and may be done in the next administration. The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to look to the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal with COIN which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural sparring - if the JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is always a chance and the Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet. This also doubles MV-22 production and you can see the vulnerability still exists low to the ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but ended the helicopter as a combat attack platform - we need a new platform a cross between the A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it - and guess what - the simple fact that nothing could directly escort the MV-22 right now is paramount to the fact that the planning was selectively biased against doing what is needed for COIN. Like this? http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/0...fleet_070422w/ Among ideas it proposes are converting the aging aircraft carrier Enterprise into an “afloat forward staging base” for special operations forces with embarked joint air wings. He also proposed converting four more Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into multimission guided missile subs, for a force of eight SSGNs. -HJC |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Exactly - but notice in the offical world of Navy Ops Analysis they used
the Enterprise - (1) still trying not to go head on with the "law" that all big carriers will be nuclear even when any such littoral ship would be banned from most allied harbors and sea ports because it is a nuclear ship and (2) trying to find budget and a home for the Enterprise so there can be another CVN-21 put into production. Hence an argument could be made about that option also. You see the Navy concept as explained still has the Navy leading the show, the Marine LHA(R) scenario is a Marine one with the Navy driving the buses and making chow. Can you see the infighting in the literature just by who is writing it. Now go to the Marine Corps Gazette and you would wonder if there was even a Navy. "Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... Flashnews wrote: So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible and may be done in the next administration. The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to look to the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal with COIN which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural sparring - if the JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is always a chance and the Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet. This also doubles MV-22 production and you can see the vulnerability still exists low to the ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but ended the helicopter as a combat attack platform - we need a new platform a cross between the A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it - and guess what - the simple fact that nothing could directly escort the MV-22 right now is paramount to the fact that the planning was selectively biased against doing what is needed for COIN. Like this? http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/0...fleet_070422w/ Among ideas it proposes are converting the aging aircraft carrier Enterprise into an “afloat forward staging base” for special operations forces with embarked joint air wings. He also proposed converting four more Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into multimission guided missile subs, for a force of eight SSGNs. -HJC |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 22, 7:46 pm, "Flashnews" wrote:
Exactly - but notice in the offical world of Navy Ops Analysis they used the Enterprise - (1) still trying not to go head on with the "law" that all big carriers will be nuclear even when any such littoral ship would be banned from most allied harbors and sea ports because it is a nuclear ship and (2) trying to find budget and a home for the Enterprise so there can be another CVN-21 put into production. Hence an argument could be made about that option also. You see the Navy concept as explained still has the Navy leading the show, the Marine LHA(R) scenario is a Marine one with the Navy driving the buses and making chow. Can you see the infighting in the literature just by who is writing it. Now go to the Marine Corps Gazette and you would wonder if there was even a Navy. But, that's always been true with the idiot marines, which is why they're still the ONLY military service that publishes Gazettes rather than robots. "Henry J Cobb" wrote in m... Flashnews wrote: So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible and may be done in the next administration. The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to look to the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal with COIN which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural sparring - if the JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is always a chance and the Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet. This also doubles MV-22 production and you can see the vulnerability still exists low to the ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but ended the helicopter as a combat attack platform - we need a new platform a cross between the A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it - and guess what - the simple fact that nothing could directly escort the MV-22 right now is paramount to the fact that the planning was selectively biased against doing what is needed for COIN. Like this? http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/0...fleet_070422w/ Among ideas it proposes are converting the aging aircraft carrier Enterprise into an "afloat forward staging base" for special operations forces with embarked joint air wings. He also proposed converting four more Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into multimission guided missile subs, for a force of eight SSGNs. -HJC- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hey I be one of those guys - be nice
wrote in message ups.com... On Apr 22, 7:46 pm, "Flashnews" wrote: Exactly - but notice in the offical world of Navy Ops Analysis they used the Enterprise - (1) still trying not to go head on with the "law" that all big carriers will be nuclear even when any such littoral ship would be banned from most allied harbors and sea ports because it is a nuclear ship and (2) trying to find budget and a home for the Enterprise so there can be another CVN-21 put into production. Hence an argument could be made about that option also. You see the Navy concept as explained still has the Navy leading the show, the Marine LHA(R) scenario is a Marine one with the Navy driving the buses and making chow. Can you see the infighting in the literature just by who is writing it. Now go to the Marine Corps Gazette and you would wonder if there was even a Navy. But, that's always been true with the idiot marines, which is why they're still the ONLY military service that publishes Gazettes rather than robots. "Henry J Cobb" wrote in m... Flashnews wrote: So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible and may be done in the next administration. The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to look to the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal with COIN which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural sparring - if the JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is always a chance and the Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet. This also doubles MV-22 production and you can see the vulnerability still exists low to the ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but ended the helicopter as a combat attack platform - we need a new platform a cross between the A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it - and guess what - the simple fact that nothing could directly escort the MV-22 right now is paramount to the fact that the planning was selectively biased against doing what is needed for COIN. Like this? http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/0...fleet_070422w/ Among ideas it proposes are converting the aging aircraft carrier Enterprise into an "afloat forward staging base" for special operations forces with embarked joint air wings. He also proposed converting four more Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into multimission guided missile subs, for a force of eight SSGNs. -HJC- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:24:25 UTC, "Flashnews"
wrote: However the argument against the JFK was that it had to be modernized to keep up with the nuclear CVN's and of course that would reach a brick wall in sustainability and flat out speed I don't know where you got that. The reason for dumping the JFK was primarily that her arresting gear had degraded into uselessness and would cost a huge wad to replace. Secondarily, ships with high pressure oil-fired boilers and steam turbines are virtually extinct. The boiler tech (BT) rating is defunct with propulsion machinery either going gas turbine, nuclear, or (in the future) electric. It's not just the number of boilers that counts, it's the fact that there ARE boilers that counts. This proposal is just about as sensible as the local yokel who wanted to anchor the JFK off the coast instead of building a new outlying landing field (OLF). Let cleaning fire-sides die a praiseworthy death--- Jerry -- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jerry the JFK hull would last decades, what you are saying that costs "a
huge wad" turns out to be quite affordable once you consider the $7-10 billion for a new CVN and the $3-4 billion for the LHA(R). I am just so facinated at how smart you are on these things. Would it be possible that oil-fired boilers would be just what an assault ship would want, especially one that is anchored for weeks off of someone's coastline - maybe even Virginia so carquals could occur. And steam turbines are not extinct by a long shot and the arresting gear issue is one thast is refurbished on every carrier SLEP but in the case I suggested much of the normal deck work will go away as will much of the available interior. Now if you going to tell me that this new Navy we are seeing with just about every major new design type falling into enormous cost overruns, engineering difficulties, and flat out bad construction from bad design - well shucks cusion let's just keep pouring money on this fire cuz that's the way we do it here. GMAFB "Jerry" wrote in message news:EsFkI7LVLls8-pn2-Xx4Uz71obNbi@localhost... On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:24:25 UTC, "Flashnews" wrote: However the argument against the JFK was that it had to be modernized to keep up with the nuclear CVN's and of course that would reach a brick wall in sustainability and flat out speed I don't know where you got that. The reason for dumping the JFK was primarily that her arresting gear had degraded into uselessness and would cost a huge wad to replace. Secondarily, ships with high pressure oil-fired boilers and steam turbines are virtually extinct. The boiler tech (BT) rating is defunct with propulsion machinery either going gas turbine, nuclear, or (in the future) electric. It's not just the number of boilers that counts, it's the fact that there ARE boilers that counts. This proposal is just about as sensible as the local yokel who wanted to anchor the JFK off the coast instead of building a new outlying landing field (OLF). Let cleaning fire-sides die a praiseworthy death--- Jerry -- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , Flashnews
writes we need a new platform a cross between the A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it - Ah, yes. The concept that would darken the skies with its wings on the morning of Day 1 of the war... and blot out the sun with parachutes by the afternoon of Day 1. Getting down low into the AAA and IR-SAM envelope in a slow airframe without _lots_ of expensive electronics is called "Operation Hasty Suicide", which is why even the A-10 keeps getting more DAS and more standoff weapons and why AH-64s rapidly amended their tactics. In short - the whole shipbuilding world is a mess but it may be more from the fact that we do not know where our Naval forces are going while they seem to be on Pluto looking for a mission - the war is right in front of them ready to make toast of the thin-skinned and under protected ships I'd advise a quick review of 1940s and 1950s naval weapon testing. The reason ships lost their armour plate, was because the threat moved from gun-armed Sverdlov-class cruisers (lobbing ninety-pound shells to a dozen miles, with maybe one shot in fifty hitting) to Kynda-class cruisers (lobbing five-ton missiles to three hundred miles, with most of them hitting). You can't wear enough armour to ignore hits from post-WW2 weapons: to be confident of remaining capable, you have to "not be hit" for long enough to take out the enemy's ability to fight. WW2-style armour plate can actually make things _worse_ on weapon impact... -- The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. -Thucydides Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)codotuk |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , "Paul J. Adam"
wrote: I'd advise a quick review of 1940s and 1950s naval weapon testing. The reason ships lost their armour plate, was because the threat moved from gun-armed Sverdlov-class cruisers (lobbing ninety-pound shells to a dozen miles, with maybe one shot in fifty hitting) to Kynda-class cruisers (lobbing five-ton missiles to three hundred miles, with most of them hitting). You can't wear enough armour to ignore hits from post-WW2 weapons: to be confident of remaining capable, you have to "not be hit" for long enough to take out the enemy's ability to fight. WW2-style armour plate can actually make things _worse_ on weapon impact... Paul, armour capabilities is not one of my strong points. Can you elucidate on why WWII armour might make things worse? thx -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , Harry Andreas
writes In article , "Paul J. Adam" wrote: WW2-style armour plate can actually make things _worse_ on weapon impact... Paul, armour capabilities is not one of my strong points. Can you elucidate on why WWII armour might make things worse? In an underkeel detonation (influence-fuzed mine or torpedo) armouring the hull stiffens it. So, instead of fairly vigorous movements, flexing, and whipping - like the USS PRINCETON in 1991 - you get more transmitted shock, which tends to do more damage to systems mounted to the hull. PRINCETON set off two mines, was significantly damaged, but was able to get key systems back up, resume her duties as AAWC and await relief and a tug back to Bahrain: two months after that she returned to the US under her own power (though she did need a fair bit of repair) HMS Belfast ran over a mine in late 1939, was similarly sized to PRINCETON, suffered nineteen casualties, mostly broken legs and ankles from the shock, and had such serious shock effects that her torpedo tubes were thrown off their mounts. (She also had major problems from cast-iron pipes and machinery bases shattering, but that was an issue quickly designed out of ships). It was the end of 1942 before she returned to service. -- The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. -Thucydides Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)codotuk |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bush Orders Nuclear Aircraft Carrier Eisenhower and Additional Navy Ships To Iran's Western Coast | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 15th 06 06:39 AM |
Navy Performs Maximum Range Test of Boeing SLAM-ER | KDR | Naval Aviation | 7 | June 13th 05 07:56 AM |
Boeing contract with Navy could help with Air Force tanker deal | Henry J Cobb | Military Aviation | 0 | June 20th 04 10:32 PM |
"Boeing sale to China skirts ban on technology transfer" | Mike | Military Aviation | 1 | February 6th 04 04:57 AM |
U.S. Navy ordered 210 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet attack jets | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 3 | December 31st 03 08:59 PM |