Al.Gah my post was pretty much pointless as the links say all that I had to say. Sorry ’bout that 😮
The Flight Global Article link takes me to an index page and I’m too lazy to trawl through it all.
Aviation week link includes a story on a stealthier F15E derivative which looks interesting (if off topic)
Al
Al.Much less, I assume, because there would be no need to make changes (upgrades) of the firecontrol system as RAM is fire and forget. > no need to reinstall the STIR, no need to modify the WM25 etc to get a suficient number of guidance channels.
If those helicopters are properly armed (Penguin missile e.g.), they have fair anti shipping capability as well.
Yes I was thinking of ships which hadn’t already been castrated. However since largest user has already done this you are probably right in thinking of where US ships are NOW rather than other users or US ships before!
Al
Al.Just a thought Phalanx and SeaRAM are both minimal penetration. So could the new A position (AO?) have one of these if Mk13 is replaced by Mk41 (or Mk48)? Bit of a costly reworking for the Aussies but would give other users 2 corner CIWS coverage.
Al
Al.Really, the F-35B’s and F-35C’s combined will provide a layered defense with a great deal of flexibility!:D With F-35B’s operating with in the Littorals and F-35C’s out in open Ocean.
Remember, LPH/LHA are not designed for large scale sustained operations of STOVL Fighters like the Harrier II or F-35B. Even large Amphibious Ships like the USS Wasp Class. Normally, operate just a half dozen aircraft. Which, often follow the troops as they move ashore………..That said, in the future F-35B’s could be provide by the RN’s forthcoming CVF’s. Which, in turn would be further supported by F-35C’s from USN Carrriers.
So, while Large Amphibious Carriers could augment more tradition Aircraft Carriers. They would make a very poor substitute…………..Regardless, on how impressive they look!
Again all that you say is truth. Just saying. Well I’ve said it before really
Al
Al.There is a plan for the Osprey to carry an AEW radar… the program is called TOSS.
Is that a spoof or just an unfortunate choice of acronym?
Either way commercially that may be a very bright project. I cannot see Ospreys adding anything to supercarriers (will ANYONE ever come up with something better than E2?!) but certainly USMC ships and allied nations may see this as attractive.
Al
Al.As for a torpedo-launched AShM,
I thought, although I’ve been wrong before, that Russian (and Indian ships equipped with Russian torpedoes) have a capability for deploying cruise missiles and AShMs from their heavyweight torpedo tubes (essentially replicating the systems developed for their boats which cannot have dedicated AShM launchers bolted on the outside of their pressure hulls.
Al
Al.I went aboard the PNS Tipu Sultan a few years back, it was interesting standing on an ex RN frigate fitted out with Chinese weapon systems.
Okay, so GWS in B position is Chinese. Anyone know what it actually is?
Al
Al.The F-35B while much more capable than the current Harrier. Cannot project power nearly the same distance or scale as CTOL Naval Aircraft. Like its sister the F-35C for example………..Let’s not forget the F-35B’s operating from Amphibious Ships and CVF’s. Will be much closer to shore……:eek:
I do not disagree with any of those points for a minute (and I wish that the RN was going big wing CTOL if it really HAS to stick with JSF in fact I wish that big wing CTOL had an internal gun whilst we are at it)
However the point I was (trying) to make was that the US flat tops do NOT only consist of supercarriers.
They have LPHs which are better than anyone* else’s flat tops AND Supercarriers which are orders of magnitude more capable. Comparing USN flat tops with those another nation is not an accurate comparison as things stand. Its like moaning ‘we have only 10 Battle Rifles and 100 Assault Carbines our enemies (between them) have 12 Assault Rifles, we have lost the arms race‘.
Al
* possible exceptions for
Charles de Gaulle if she can stay mission worthy for more than 5 minutes
IN next gen flat tops if they are built
PLAN flat tops if they ever launch
Russian flat tops if they are ever built
Al.Ahh, this never-ending “let’s make a cruiser out of a corvette” quest… 😀
Indeed.
But the Dutch have been pretty successful at this for a while. And others are following suit.
There is a constant tension between
maximum mission equipment
endurance
battle resilience
And no one has actually come up with the ideal.
US warships have been constantly criticised for carrying less weapons than their Soviet counterparts. With the counter argument that they have living space, reloads, fuel and the ability to take damage. FORTUNATELY we do not know which philosophy is correct. Yes Cole was damaged by an IEB but we do not KNOW how much worse off a Sovremenny would have been if subjected to the same attack. Sov’s have more small calibre weapons but if they were switched off/unmanned they would have been similarly ineffectual. And I cannot see as large an expanse of ship without any vital systems on it.
Al
Al.Stoopid question but whats the GWS in B Position?
Al
Al.I’ve assumed you’ld want a launcher with sufficient length for Standard SM2 i.e. a longer MK41 version than is used in the Aussie conversion,
Good point I missed that bit
which therefor cannot be mounted too close to the bow.
Indeed, we can see how constrained they must have been by the bizarre shape and size of the silo.
You can be sure to have sufficient below deck depth at the spot of the Mk13. Using only the space left vacant by the removed launcher, and minimizing the amount of surgery needed, you can fit at least 2 and possibly 3 Mk41 units.
Looking at the Noggies’ mini-Aegis ships. I think that you are probably right.
would leave some deckspace for a fit of 2×2 or 2×4 Harpoon above deck (removal of Mk13 eliminates OHP Harpoon capability).
Another good point. I have a peculiar blindspot with Mk41 no matter how many times I look at it dispassionatelt and intellectually. The first i saw of Mk41 was a drawing in a Salamander book on Warships and the cutaway showed Harpoons packaged for VLS (alongside Standard and AsRoc) so subconsciously I assume that Harpoon can be deployed from Mk41 when in fact it cannot.
So the unusable space on deck due to lack of volume beneath may not be a bad thing after all. Room to stick some AShMs!
Quickest way to mod a OHP left without Mk13 would be to add a 21-cell RAM launcher were the Mk13 used to be, add 2×2 Harpoon forward of the bridge, replace the Phalanx with another 21-cell RAM launcher and bolt on 4 remote control 25mm cannons around the ship.
That’s tempting isn’t it? She would be capable of at least defending herself against assymetric attacks and engaging surface targets (I’d want 2 x 4 Harpoon but have no idea as to space, weight, topweight and arc of fire restrictions which may well prevent that)
Out of nowhere I wonder how much that would cost in comparison with providing Perrys with usable Standards?
As it stands the Perrys are able to deploy Helos and get between torpedoes and big surface units but little else.
Al
Al.Well, the Perry Class is getting on in age. Yet, they were extremely capable Frigates in the day………..3in Gun, Standard SAM, CIWS, and Two Seahawks. All in a economical package to boot!
OHPs were a good method of deploying 2 ASW helos. And an economical use of existing kit (the propulsion used one of the units previously developed for the high end Spruances)
They also have some capability to defend themselves against most threats whilst deploying those helos
However they do have flaws (especially considering just how large they actually are)
CIWS coverage is very limited (at a time when some authorities were insisting that 3 corner CIWS was the absolute minium for any surface unit)
SAMs and AShM (and possibly ASROC?) using the same laucnher with by definition restricts what is able to launched at any one time)
NGS is poor
Single propulsion module, single shaft, no redundancy (althought they pretty much piloted the concept of podded propulsion by using those thrusters which gave them some limp home capability)
No last-ditch torpedo defence (but then which western ships do have?!)
I’m guessing that their radar signature is huge
Al
(No apologies for not melding these two posts into one I think that they address to different different points. Although I am guilty of post escalation at other times and the point is well made)
Al.Excuse my ignorance. Is Mk48 the single-pack VLS for ESSM only?
As others have said OHPs have been fitted with Mk41 (presumably quad-packed with ESSM?) AS WELL AS Mk13; so presumably they could lose Mk13 and have a larger Mk41.
Looking at the size of the Mk41 on Adelaide and her sisters and the size of the Mk13 and footprint I’d have though that at least 4x 8 cell VLS could be mounted in a raised silo on the foredeck
Al
Al.No more CVNs are needed as long as the USMC gets an all-F-35B force.
Personally I think that this is a very valid point.
US Super Carriers outclass any other flat tops afloat (and each has a better balanced air arm than many national terrestial air arms)
The AV8B+ LPH combos ALREADY outclass MOST other Navies main flat tops (in fact more than outclass ‘most’ – as most navies have nothing). At sea only the French have anything more capable (and they have only the 1)
The F35 + America class will out-class most other existing navies (again as it stands only the French have anything currently extant which might beat them)
As far as the US goes SuperCarriers are not the whole story. It looks like the USMC have given the US its Sea Control ships by another route. Shame that there’s no AEW though. Maybe there are plans afoot to mod the Osprey or deploy UAVs in that role?
I am not convinced that F35 will live up to its billing but even so USMC will have a better strike package (and more of them) than any other National Naval Air Arm
Al
Al.IS there some kind of compettition here to make the longest post possible? 😉
Al
Sign In
