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."

"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

...."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"....


And how long can this "HCV" loiter in the target area while
the White House makes it's go-to-war decision? Those
"ancient" aircraft carriers have been continuously
on-station all day, every day at multiple hot spots all over
the world for over HALF A CENTURY [almost half a million
hours at EACH hot spot]!

No, this latest engineering solution-in-search-of-a-problem
does not preclude the continuing need for aircraft carriers
and what only they can do!!! Incidentally such HCV concepts
have been repeatedly considered over many decades. About
every twenty years we revisit these old "new ideas".

By the way, just calculate the pay load fraction needed for
fuel to move that 12,000 pound HCV hypersonically over 9,000
miles.

"Get it right or just forget it!"

WDA

end


"s.p.i." wrote in message
om...
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."

"W. D. Allen Sr." wrote in message et...

All the arguments posited here about why DARPA's FALCON project will
never supplant aircraft carriers remind me so much of the "Gun Club"
arguments AGAINST carriers 70+ years ago.

Some facts have been studiously avoided:

1. Carriers CANNOT operate without landbased support IN THEATER today.
Sad but True. That ability, which never really existed fully but was
better 40 years ago than today, has been squandered to pay for a
series of obsolescent short legged fighters. Those big wing tankers
that made carrier strikes possible in recent times didn't come from
the ether. Niether did the essential ELINT/SIGINT support. They didn't
come from CONUS either. Nobody seems to want to talk about how carrier
air was forced to hot pit on ingress and stash their ordnance ashore
to get back to the boat in this last conflict.
That AOE gets its fuel(and FFV and various other sundries as well)
from where? A CVBGs enourmously expensive-and vulnerable-logistics
train is a dirty little secret.
Bottom line is a carrier is now just about as beholden to host nation
basing rights in order to remain viable as any AEF is.


2. Carriers are exceptionally vulnerable in littoral regions and will
become increasingly so. Thats a lesson from WWII-whenever carriers
ventured close to land they took significant losses;good thing they
had alot of decks to lose in those days- that was reinforced again in
last year's Millenium Challenge. Yet we are expecting them to be able
to ModLoc (or whatever its called nowadays) with impunity off hostile
shores for the next century...Yeah right. That notion is as full of
hubris as the notion that BBs were impervious to air attack.
In order to survive carriers will be forced back into blue water where
their shortlegged[non stealthy] airwings will not be capable of
projecting power ashore except in brief raids using expensive scarce
standoff weapons(assuming of course they have the tanker assets *IN
THEATER* available). So much for presence and persistence.

3. I'm not saying that carriers need to be scrapped today. I am saying
that carriers are not any more immune to evolution in warfare than any
other weapons system has been. Its evolve or die boys.
I'm not expecting you Learned Denizens of R.A.M.N. to give me any
credence but you should give these folks some of your consideration:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/acof.pdf

Space based quick reaction weapons systems are on their way like it or
not. Call me a troll if you wish but DARPA is offering to spend some
big money on this FALCON project for a reason and the resulting
progeny of the effort will inevitably encroach on the carrier's
mission....and budget.
Time marches on.

roncachamp- Sea lines of communication and supply cannot be maintained
without carrier
aviation? Other countries without carriers seem to manage. BRBR

ya mean third or fourth world nations who's economy is a fraction of
California's??

See confliuct, worlkd war, etc...If it weren't for the 'sea lines of
communication', the UK would be speaking German.

Well, if the response requires carrier aviation, then we'd have to call the
US Navy. But why would any response necessarily require carrier aviation?
BRBR

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.


Please explain why. BRBR

Faster, more versatile, more effective, cheaper...

How would a TacAir wing be any more anything, please explain..Your
clue-lessness is fast approaching 'troll' status...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

"Pechs1" wrote in message
...

ya mean third or fourth world nations who's economy is a fraction of
California's??


I mean the nations that don't have carriers yet still manage to engage in
international trade.



See confliuct, worlkd war, etc...If it weren't for the 'sea lines of
communication', the UK would be speaking German.


I'm speaking of the present.



Faster, more versatile, more effective, cheaper...


Carrier aircraft are faster than land-based aircraft? Why would operating
from a carrier deck give an aircraft a speed advantage?

How are carrier aircraft more versatile than land-based aircraft? It would
seem that freed of the constraints imposed by having to be operable from a
carrier could only result in greater versatility.

Why does operating from a carrier render an aircraft more effective than a
land-based aircraft? It would seem that the same would hold true for
effectiveness as for versatility, freed of the design constraints imposed by
having to be operable from a carrier could only result in greater
effectiveness.

Cheaper? Perhaps so, many land-based aircraft are considerably larger than
carrier aircraft so undoubtedly cost more to operate. But if you include
the costs of operating the carrier itself and the operations costs of the
various support ships one would think the advantage would swing towards
land-based aviation.



How would a TacAir wing be any more anything, please explain..Your
clue-lessness is fast approaching 'troll' status...


So why don't you clue me in, then? I'm asking a lot of questions, but not
getting many answers.

ronca- But if you include
the costs of operating the carrier itself and the operations costs of the
various support ships one would think the advantage would swing towards
land-based aviation. BRBR

Not so, look at the costs of maintaining a sprawling USAF base...I know you
have correct??

Add the costs of transporting the whole mess to a forward base, and the costs
involved of the move and the new base...let's not even mention the time
involved. The USN had CVs on station for years before Desert Storm Two.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

roncachamp- How much of the Earth's surface is out of range of land-based
aviation? How
much of the Earth's surface is out of range of carrier aviation? BRBR


Lots...center of Russia, lots of China...you aren't going to just wander around
in their airspace w/o their permision. BUT how many seaports can be threatened
by a CV that is already w/i 1000 NM of the country?? Compared to being
theatened by land based aviation of the US...

Has a runway ever been sunk? I seem to recall a few carriers have, that
would seem to indicate a 1000 ft runway that moves at 25 knots is indeed
more vulnerable than a 10,000 ft one that does not. BRBR


you are out to lunch...I seem to think of a runway and some aircraft in Hawaii
that were put out of action by some CVA based aircraft...I think they were
Japanese..


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

"Pechs1" wrote in message
...

Lots...center of Russia, lots of China...you aren't going to just wander
around
in their airspace w/o their permision.


You mean to say a B-2 couldn't refuel in non-hostile airspace and reach any
point in Russia or China? I know they're big, but are they that big?
You'll have to show your math.



BUT how many seaports can be threatened
by a CV that is already w/i 1000 NM of the country??


I don't know, that seems like a long distance to launch a carrier strike.
What kind of ordnance can they deliver at that range?



Compared to being theatened by land based aviation of the US...


I'd have to say all of them.



you are out to lunch...I seem to think of a runway and some aircraft in
Hawaii
that were put out of action by some CVA based aircraft...I think they were
Japanese..


Many aircraft were put out of action, that's true, but I don't recall any
runway being put out of action. Do you have anything to support your
assertion?

ronca- You mean to say a B-2 couldn't refuel in non-hostile airspace and
reach any
point in Russia or China? I know they're big, but are they that big?
You'll have to show your math. BRBR

The 'math' is that a squadron of them, 6 aircarft, cost the same as a CV and
the airwing. They are assets not normally included in any strike scenario. Too
valuable and night time only. They were invited to show recently because they
needed to be showcased...they really meant little unless they are delivering
the 'big heat'..

I don't know, that seems like a long distance to launch a carrier strike.
What kind of ordnance can they deliver at that range? BRBR

The CV can close to w/i 500 miles in 20 hours...it takes 20 days just to decide
to forward deploy a USAF wing...

Many aircraft were put out of action, that's true, but I don't recall any
runway being put out of action. Do you have anything to support your
assertion? BRBR


Ya think all those bombs hit just aircarft and not the runway at Hickam???

ya need to watch the mooovie again...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer