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
|
|||
|
|||
Where will the money come from...
To pay for the envisioned force structure below? Well the seemingly
inviolate 12 carrier hull money is most likely one place. With what is being proposed why would you need 12 carriers anyway? Maybe its time to begin to transform Naval Aviation away from being so completely centered around a weapons system that hasn't fundamentally changed in 60 years-the Aircraft Carrier-before it becomes completely irrelevant... Julian Borger in Washington Tuesday July 1, 2003 The Guardian The Pentagon is planning a new generation of weapons, including huge hypersonic drones and bombs dropped from space, that will allow the US to strike its enemies at lightning speed from its own territory. Over the next 25 years, the new technology would free the US from dependence on forward bases and the cooperation of regional allies, part of the drive towards self-suffi ciency spurred by the difficulties of gaining international cooperation for the invasion of Iraq. The new weapons are being developed under a programme codenamed Falcon (Force Application and Launch from the Continental US). A US defence website has invited bids from contractors to develop the technology and the current edition of Jane's Defence Weekly reports that the first flight tests are scheduled to take place within three years. According to the website run by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) the programme is aimed at fulfilling "the government's vision of an ultimate prompt global reach capability (circa 2025 and beyond)". The Falcon technology would "free the US military from reliance on forward basing to enable it to react promptly and decisively to destabilising or threatening actions by hostile countries and terrorist organisations", according to the Darpa invitation for bids. The ultimate goal would be a "reusable hypersonic cruise vehicle (HCV) .... capable of taking off from a conventional military runway and striking targets 9,000 nautical miles distant in less than two hours". The unmanned HCV would carry a payload of up to 12,000 lbs and could ultimately fly at speeds of up to 10 times the speed of sound, according to Daniel Goure, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute in Washington. Propelling a warhead of that size at those speeds poses serious technological challenges and Darpa estimates it will take more than 20 years to develop. Over the next seven years, meanwhile, the US air force and Darpa will develop a cheaper "global reach" weapons system relying on expendable rocket boosters, known as small launch vehicles (SLV) that would take a warhead into space and drop it over its target. In US defence jargon, the warhead is known as a Com mon Aero Vehicle (Cav), an unpowered bomb which would be guided on to its target as it plummeted to earth at high and accelerating velocity. The Cav could carry 1,000 lbs of explosives but at those speeds explosives may not be necessary. A simple titanium rod would be able to penetrate 70 feet of solid rock and the shock wave would have enormous destructive force. It could be used against deeply buried bunkers, the sort of target the air force is looking for new ways to attack. Jane's Defence Weekly reported that the first Cav flight demonstration is provisionally scheduled by mid-2006, and the first SLV flight exercise would take place the next year. A test of the two systems combined would be carried out by late 2007. A prototype demonstrating HCV technology would be tested in 2009. SLV rockets will also give the air force a cheap and flexible means to launch military satellites at short notice, within weeks, days or even hours of a crisis developing. The SLV-Cav combination, according to the Darpa document, "will provide a near-term (approximately 2010) operational capability for prompt global strike from Consus (the continental US) while also enabling future development of a reusable HCV for the far-term (approximately 2025)". The range of this weapon is unclear. This is what I wrote in April and so far I'm half right... "And I'll bet a paycheck the Air Force will argue just that Real Soon Now. Also the Space folks will likely chime in about the operational usefulness of the Common Aero Vehicle as well. I wouldn't be surprised if there were only a six carrier force by 2015." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Pechs1" wrote in message ... As long as the US isn't looking to attack Mexico or Canada and as long as it has 'interests' abroad, it will need CV aviation. Why? Who is searching for a mission is the USAF...B-2s and lots of tough to move TacAir wings are largely irrelevent, designed for countering the 'Red Horde' marching across the central plains of Europe. Carrier aviation has no advantage over land-based aviation. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message rthlink.net...
"Pechs1" wrote in message ... As long as the US isn't looking to attack Mexico or Canada and as long as it has 'interests' abroad, it will need CV aviation. Why? Who is searching for a mission is the USAF...B-2s and lots of tough to move TacAir wings are largely irrelevent, designed for countering the 'Red Horde' marching across the central plains of Europe. Carrier aviation has no advantage over land-based aviation. Thucydes is a great read but of course he didn't know abou the militarization of Space... I'm not saying carrier aviation has *no* advantage over land-based aviation. In the near term there are some real advantages in fact..sadly mitigated by the Bug-Centric problems of effective combat radius however. Carrier aviation has given up some important advantages it once had though to the point that any pretense it can operate without significant land-based assests, and for that matter land bases themselves, is a real joke nowadays. Where is the ELINT based? Most of the other recce assets as well? The majority of the gas that is passed to the woefully shortlegged airgroup comes from where? If those assests do in fact have a sucessful rendezvous with the tanker-as was seen recently that could be a big if-and they don't drop their load where do they go to deposit this ordnance so they can get back aboard? Don't have enough to commit these "delicate instruments" to the briny deep. No true stealth is really palnned for the airgroup so the B-2s have job security. The navy can't drop anything bigger than 5000 lbs so those TAC Air wings will still be needed as well. Sure the Common Aero Vehicle is not a highly visible instrument of state, but in the post Cole world the whole concept of Showing The Flag is now a draconian intrusive episode for the host countries because of our security demands anyway. Bottom line is the touted reasons for a carrier are becoming less than truly real. And the military space assests are becoming more viable and compelling. The choice for NAVAIR is to rest on its laurels and stay enamored with the "intrepid skygod getting back on the boat in the single seat skychariot" mentality as it mostly has since WWII. Or it can join the new century and stay a viable military arm. It will be an intersting five or so years. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"s.p.i." wrote in message om... I'm not saying carrier aviation has *no* advantage over land-based aviation. In the near term there are some real advantages in fact.. Such as? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"s.p.i." wrote in message om... SNIP! With what is being proposed why would you need 12 carriers anyway? Because it is hard to park a B-2 just off some ones coast 24/7 as a reminder that you may not approve of their actions. (Besides the AF and satellites just isn't that visible). A Carrier Battle Group in someone's bathtub shows them you are very concerned. Two Carrier Battle Groups, plus a couple of MAU's tells them you are really PO'd. Three or more means the S**t is about to hit the fan. Its human nature, if they can't see it, they don't think about it. Now if you could park a space station that was visible from the ground over them it would be different. But we can't, and we probably can't do it in the foreseeable future either. So we will have to make do with the Carrier Battle Group, and once or twice a day have one of the escorts pop up above the horizon, have a few aircraft making contrails in the sky, and of course plenty of radio chatter, just to remind everyone who is watching. In the last 50 years or so the Carrier Battle Group, has become more of a diplomatic tool than an instrument of war. But war is really extreme diplomacy anyway. Red |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message thlink.net... "s.p.i." wrote in message om... I'm not saying carrier aviation has *no* advantage over land-based aviation. In the near term there are some real advantages in fact.. Such as? Mobility. Concrete independent ... no basing agreements required with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Italy, you-name-it.. The fact that a CVBG offshore makes a political statement that a wing of B-2's sitting in Whiteman cannot make. R / John |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"John Carrier" wrote in message ... Mobility. Carrier aircraft are more mobile than land-based aircraft? Concrete independent ... no basing agreements required with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Italy, you-name-it.. The fact that a CVBG offshore makes a political statement that a wing of B-2's sitting in Whiteman cannot make. How are any of those advantages? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message thlink.net... "Pechs1" wrote in message ... As long as the US isn't looking to attack Mexico or Canada and as long as it has 'interests' abroad, it will need CV aviation. Why? Who is searching for a mission is the USAF...B-2s and lots of tough to move TacAir wings are largely irrelevent, designed for countering the 'Red Horde' marching across the central plains of Europe. Carrier aviation has no advantage over land-based aviation. It takes a B-2 a loooonng time to fly from the US to a target in the Middle East. Not exactly an on demand platform. To fly that same aircraft from somewhere near the fight requires host country approval. Remember how difficult it was for the Air Force to get in the fight against Libya? Just think, that was with host country approval. CV aviation will always have that advantage over shore based. 4.5 acres of sovereign territory that can go to the fight. Giz |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message rthlink.net... "John Carrier" wrote in message ... Mobility. Carrier aircraft are more mobile than land-based aircraft? Where is Edwards AFB? Where is the USS John C. Stennis? Where will both be 6 months from now? Concrete independent ... no basing agreements required with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Italy, you-name-it.. The fact that a CVBG offshore makes a political statement that a wing of B-2's sitting in Whiteman cannot make. How are any of those advantages? Aircraft that you cannot use for political reasons are worse than useless. They have cost you, but are not returning on the investment. You honestly can't see the advantage of a CVBG off a hostile coast over a wing of B-2's in middle America? Open your eyes. Even the Air Force doesn't try to make the argument you are. They did before, but have come to their senses. CV aviation will not replace shore based aviation, but it will not succumb to it either. Giz |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
steven- Why? BRBR
After I wrote- As long as the US isn't looking to attack Mexico or Canada and as long as it has 'interests' abroad, it will need CV aviation. BRBR "Sea lines of 'communication'"..supply, We aren't going to get all the oil we need from Canada...overland. Who ya gonna call when some country in some ocean or sea sinks a US owned oil tanker or a cruise ship? Ya deploy a USAF TacAir wing? And put a load of Army guys on ships? Nope-you are going to call Naval Aviation with their ugly, ****ed off little sister, the USMC onboard Anphibs. P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
how much money have you lost on the lottery? NOW GET THAT MONEY BACK! | shane | Home Built | 0 | February 5th 05 07:54 AM |
Start receiving MONEY with this simple system. Guaranteed. | Mr Anderson | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | February 2nd 04 11:55 PM |