sealordlawrenceThis whole concept crossed the line of absurdity at its moment of conception. The intention of the original posts seemed to be to turn the T45 into a bad ass Arleigh Burke design, fortunately the excellent posters on this forum soon pointed out how ridiculous that idea was.
However the worst is the premise of this thread. Firstly I have to point out that the T42 of the 21st century is not and would not be the T45, it would be a FREMM variant, an awkward, cramped design short on missiles and with a mediocre radar. T45 is what the T82 would have been if it had have gotten the Type-988 radar, in effect T45 is better than a Bristol.
Other than that this particular thread seems to have been concieved with the same purpose as the previous collection, to pointlessly list each others favorite naval weapon systems and then put them on a fantasy ship design. I am just glad that people like Jonesey and swerve have been able to keep some sort of sanity present.
sealordlawrenceNavy May Need Bigger Aegis BMD Fleet
The U.S. Navy may eventually need as many as 90 Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense ships – far more than the 18 planned by the end of this year – especially if worldwide missile defense requirements help drive shipbuilding needs, a key three-star admiral said July 30.
Vice Adm. Barry McCullough, deputy chief of naval operations for integration of capabilities and resources, said combatant commanders (COCOMS) in areas like Europe and the Pacific would need far more Aegis BMD ships to meet continuous coverage needs. Officials in those locations, which watch Iran and North Korea among other countries, increasingly eye the naval system’s regional missile defense capabilities.
“The combatant commanders, the fleet commanders, want more of it; they want it all the time,” McCullough told a National Defense University Foundation breakfast audience. “That will drive our force structure requirements even higher.”
Currently, there are 15 Aegis ships that are capable of launching Standard Missile-3 interceptors, of which 30 have been delivered. Three Aegis BMD ships remain to be finished by the end of 2008 (three Aegis cruisers and 15 destroyers) while the Missile Defense Agency expects four additional interceptors too, MDA’s director said in mid-July. Some Japanese ships also feature the system and other nations are interested as well, Air Force Lt. Gen Trey Obering further said.
Already, MDA plans to double the missile production rate for the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Aegis BMD systems between 2010 and 2015 (Aerospace DAILY, April 18). Obering demurred when briefing Pentagon reporters July 15 on how the Defense Department would budget for the increased demands under the next program objective memorandum (POM), but he noted that MDA was working with COCOMS.
“We work closely with StratCom,” Obering said of the Strategic Command. “They work closely with the other combatant commanders to gather together their desired capabilities that we can fulfill. And so we are taking that into the POM deliberations and we’re working that up through the building, through the department here, in terms of, OK, we prioritize this, and then where can we take additional risk is what it boils down to, to be able to satisfy that.”
Nevertheless, McCullough echoed longstanding concerns within the Navy of ceding command and control of its ships to the missile defense mission – although he stressed that the Navy will follow orders and meet national security needs. Asked about deploying Aegis BMD ships for homeland missile defense, such as against an airborne electromagnetic pulse attack, the vice admiral said the Navy is best used defending the United States around the globe – not 50 miles offshore. Still, he acknowledged, missile defense like Aegis BMD will only grow more popular and demanding.
“Right now, this is a growth industry and we see it as a growth industry for years to come,” he said. “Congress has been generous in the money they’ve given us – but things are expensive.”
And that is why the DDG-1000 was cancelled, so they want the entire Aegis fleet SM-3 capable, nice.
sealordlawrenceI agree in principle, though Sealord’s phrasing is perhaps not as clear as it could be. In effect, the USN is built less on specific naval requirements, and more on the desire to have the most capable fleet possible with the money allowed. As such, if the amount of money available increased, the Navy would increase in size, and the same in reverse should funding levels drop. Many navies are built to achieve the necessary force level to accomplish their mission, i.e. first and foremost, national defence, and secondly power projection. The US Navy, on the other hand, is primarily built for power projection, and not national defence.
This wasn’t always strictly true, and is more a result of the disappearance of the Soviets as a threat. During the Cold War, the Navy had many missions, mostly crucial to national defence – frigates for trade protection; destroyers, frigates, carriers and MPAs for ASW, hunting for Soviet SSBNs and SSNs; and carriers to help intercept Soviet bombers. In essence, the fleet was built heavily around protection of the nation and economy (the trade protection role especially), and power projection as a secondary mission, e.g. putting carriers off Korea, Vietnam, etc… Once the Cold War ended, the Navy shrank, and re-roled itself as primarily a power projection force, with other missions almost being an afterthought.
It’s not a criticism though, it just sums up the fact that the USN is primarily for missions other than strict national defence!
Thanks Ed, thats the perfect expansion of my point.;)
sealordlawrenceI think it´s very hard for a light carrier to survive in a real hostile environment. There are multiple threats, like long range or sub launched missiles, saturation attack from different angles…
No doubt F-35 will help, specially with AEW support but the sub menace will remain as a major concern.
In most cases (The Cavour being the exception, and maybe the Japanese CVH) most of the new generation flat tops are simply not intended to go into such an environment.
sealordlawrenceHi Scooter
I hear what you are saying
But owning a carrier (be it small/light!) is one thing.
But running and operating one as an operational carrier is another.
There is much more too operating a carrier and an air-wing than many would think.
An example of this is the Russian Navy – for although they have 1 (one) very effective carrier and carrier-based fighter-bomber (naval ‘Flanker’s’), they have found it very expensive to operate at sea in its true role and capability!
It spends more time in port, than at sea.
Like wise – the Royal Thai Navy had built a modified variant of the Spanish light carrier (which in turn was a modification of the US Navy’s SCS design concept!).
This has been equipped with ex-Spanish AV-8S’s.
But the Thai Navy has not had the experience or expertise to use this potential design to anywhere near its full potential.Yes many nations in the future may elect to purchase aircraft carriers or LHD style amphibious ships, as a step in military trend, but as with many examples in post WWII history, these expensive military toys have been purchased for prestige and national pride – often to flaunt in the face of its neighbors.
But it has proven very difficult to operate this kind of hardware, let alone maintain them.
An example of this has been the past purchase of the diesel-electric submarine by many countries during the Cold War!I have always thought it very sad and degrading to the likes of the Netherlands, Canada and Australia, who had taken years and decades to go through the arduous pains of learning the art of carrier operations, only to discard the lessons, training, infrastructure, maintenance, crew/personal expertise at the stoke of a politicians pen, as cost saving measure.
It was once stated (I can not remember were?) that the Royal Australian Navy would require 10-years to regain the experience and knowledge of operating aircraft carriers, if it chose to return the aircraft carrier to its order of battle.
Sad really!!
Regards
Pioneer
Kuznetzov is a bad example, she is a 50,000tonne+ lump of insanely complex and over equipped lump of Soviet engineering designed to launch twelve huge AShM’s whilst being swarmed over by US carrier aircraft. Her aircraft compliment was designed to extend the range of such an engagement and not allot else. A very different and far more expensive option than a modern western 20,000tonne LPH built to the latest western standards and equipped for very little other than COIN/Peace support.
sealordlawrenceWould you like to elaborate……:confused:
Absolutely, the United States Navy is in no way a necessity for the defence of the US homeland, indeed it is seriously excessive even for basic power projection in support of the usual economic objectives. If the USN was to be halved the US would remain safe and economically it would still flourish. What the USN does is enable the USA to impose its will upon the world.
sealordlawrenceJa,
you clearly haven’t actually looked at the figures. The RN (including RFA) has about the same tonnage of amphibious shipping as those three combined, & a fleet train more like all three combined than any single one. The current & expected future lead in warships is less, but still significant. At present, France has one asset the RN can’t match, i.e. Charles de Gaulle (or would have, if she wasn’t in refit 😀 ), but current orders will change that balance. France has built just two Horizons, while the RN is building 6 Type 45s. Etc., etc.
Exactly in terms of ability to project power around the world the RN is currently second only to the USN.
sealordlawrenceEd: Mate you raise some interesting points, most disturbing of these being the fact that my words seemed to have been a tad on the sharp side- Super, mate you didn’t take offence at all did you? Sorry if I came across as such, I did not mean to be.
As well as interesting Eds points were correct.
Ed, mate I still stand by my thoughts on the “SHRINKING FORCES OF THE UK”, not long ago AFM published a story about the problems with the RAF with the main points coming from the Air Marshall himself and he made references to similar problems in the other services. The T-45 order was cut how many times? 14 down to 12, 12 down to 8, 8 down to 6. It’s the same with just about every other vessel in the service. The latest OPV’s are testimony to the UK Government wishing to cut back on spending by leasing rather than buying. this is leading me to ask a question in a separate thread (stay tuned).
Again the defence budget has actually increased in real terms, the money has just been redirected towards Afghanistan and Iraq, you know wars that are actually being fought rather than ones that people dream about. As for OPV’s, they make perfect sense to me given that allot of the RN’s work is ocean patrolling in low/no threat environments.
As for the RN being the most capable in Europe, I am thinking that there are a few other navies starting to challenge that title: France most certainly would, Italy not being too far behind and Spain still in the equation! Now if you wish to take into account Russia, that opens up a heap of other issues too even today!
Italy and Spain do not even come close and France is still behind in a number of significant areas, in fact the ratio between the two has not really shifted since the late seventies. If you wish to take Russia into account you are being silly, Russia is a European and not British problem and its unique geographical situation will always fundamentally weaken its fleet.
Regardless guys, the main focus here seems to be the fact that a multi-rolled vessels are the key these days. Vessels are being tasked with everything from patrol duties, the expat evac and disaster relief. Indigenous air components are being seen as an essential now rather than an after thought or add on. Soon a UAV/UCAV asset will also be seen as a primary need.
True enough.
sealordlawrenceJust to make a point, the same could be said for the USN even more easily. 😉
They only have like 17 times the total ship tonnage of the RN. :diablo:
Absolutely true, the USN is a luxury navy, built entirely to make America great and not to provide defence.
sealordlawrenceIf China flew spy planes off the coast of the US over international waters, it woud be considered an act of war.
No it would not, it would be regarded as annoying but nothing would be done about, just as the Russians get away with it.
sealordlawrenceChinese had full rights to bring down that spy plane..
Nope none, spying is perfectly legal if it is done from international airspace, or space for that matter to.
sealordlawrenceAs much as it is a case that that the RN is short of GP escorts it is also a case of finding roles for the Amphibious fleet, with most of the British Army (and Marines) now employed in Afghanistan the very substantial amphibious fleet needs something to do to justify its existence and counter narcotics in a low threat environment seems just the ticket.
As for Britain having no navy, well it is still the most capable in Europe which is impressive given the lack of sea based threats that the UK currently faces. I have said it before and I will say it again, the UK’s armed forces in the current state are the product f choice and not necessity, they have far exceeded what necessity requires. Also remember that the defence budget has not been cut for years now, resources have just been appallingly managed and re-orientated.
sealordlawrencebut the thing is… what was US doing half way across the globe around china? spying?? :diablo:
Yes.
sealordlawrenceBulava tests are to be restarted,
http://russianforces.org/blog/2008/07/bulava_to_resume_flight_tests.shtml
sealordlawrenceSo why don’t they call it a NPAS?
Good question, to which I confess I do not know the answers.
Sign In
