StevoJHFrankly, I can’t imagine that the expenditure on munitions in Afghanistan has any significant bearing on the overall cost of the war there.
It does when you are sending 1,000 missiles each worth $100,000 over to replace expanded rounds. Actually, the most expensive part of the war in afghanistan would have to be the logistics. Everything has to be either flown in, or driven massive distances through either the Former soviet republics, or through the unstable regions of Pakistans North-West Frontier.
StevoJHHawk, umm…which of Swerve’s (and the comments made by the rest of us for that matter) comments have you refuted? Because I don’t see any…
StevoJHDamn right! When one sees guided missiles designed for killing tanks being used, in effect, as suppressive fire against dispersed, under cover, infantry, one comes near to despair. A thousand rounds of machine gun fire would probably have a better effect, & would be cheaper. The only excuse I can think of for that is using up nearly time-expired rounds.
You mean like the 1000 or so Javelin rounds that the British Army are sending to Afghanistan to replace the ones that have been fired off. How much does a mortar bomb cost? Or possibly one of the LAW’s style rocket launchers?
StevoJHno other navy has or needs the operational requirements and rediness level of the US Navy.
:diablo: Prove it :diablo:
Second hand is always second hand, no question about it, but then again, how much would it cost Brazil to buy a brand-new carrier, or even worse, develop and built it indigenously? More or less than gettin the Foch? I say more, much more.
Once you add in the cost of maintaining, refitting, crewing and running foch, plus increased service life? Long term a new carrier is going to be cheaper, short term the second hand one is cheaper, but only short term.
Cavour is not a real carrier.
According to what naval authority?
When I hear the word carrier, the first image that comes in my mind is that of USS Nimitz and the likes with at least catapult ability.
Technically an Aircraft Carrier is any vessel whose primary role is the transportation and operation of aircraft.
The Cavour is a multi role sea platform, capable of a variety of roles that would require a seperate ship for each in another larger navy. The same goes for Juan Carlos I.
Cavour is a carrier, JCI is an LHD, there is a MASSIVE difference, and i’m not talking about the dock.
Italy or Spain could never afford a real carrier.
I think they would dispute that.
The solution they picked is ideal: They get a floating hospital, a large transport, a helicopter carrier, an amfibious assault ship, a command ship, plus some *aircraft carrier* ability with a tiny air wing of a few VTOL fighters.
So basically they can do everything a Nimitz can do, just on a smaller scale. PdA carried up to 29 Aircraft, if 24 are harriers, that is half the fixed wing complement of a Nimitz. Cavour is designed to operate the large F-35B rather then the Harrier and can carry 20+ (Wiki give 24 aircraft total) which is again close to half the number of fixed wing aircraft in a USN carrier Wing (48 F/A-18A+/C and F-18E/F).
All these, but to a larger scale, can also be done by Tarawas. I still cannot see how it is better than Tarawa, again, save for age and manpower.
Yes and no, as an aircraft carrier the European designs are better ships because of fuel bunkerage and armament storage and transport issues, however as an amphibious assault ship, yes its a better ship. Oh, and don’t discount manpower as an Issue, manpower, along with fuel are the two most expensive components of operating a warship during peacetime.
I should repeat that I did not mention Italy or Spain as potential buyers of Tarawas/Wasps.
Good, because they wouldn’t buy them.
All I’m saying is that if a country of the size and ambitions of either of these countries need such a ship, used Tarawas would be not an ideal, but an at least interesting option.
Or for the cost of a SLEP and a bit more and in roughly the same timeframe they can build a new build ship with lower manning requirement, greater fuel efficiency and a 30+ year service life remaining.
I think the Foch-A-4 combo was the best value-for-money way for the brazilians.
But not the best capability for money.
[quote]As for your last question, the answer is pretty obvious: Either second hand AV-8s (obviously it would be part of the deal) or, in the future, F-35Bs, if a slightly newer but still second hand LHD was acquired, such as a Wasp.[quote]
No AV-8’s or GR’s are available, all the current users are very carefully rotating their remaining airframes to keep them operational until they can be replaced by F-35B, sale of any GR’s or AV-8’s could result in the airframes running out of life before their replacements are ready for service.
OR no air wing alltogether, and use of the ship for all the other uses but *aircraft carrier*.
An airwing does not just consist of fixed wing aircraft, but also consists of rotary winged aircraft. For an amphibious warfare ship, the helicopters are the most important part of the air wing, with fixed wing aircraft a very distant second. Take away the air group, and you may as well buy an LST or LPD.
Though your arguments make perfect sense, you cannot possibly conclude that there are no buyers, not now, nor in the future.
Yes you can…..
The Tarawa to begin with and the Wasp class later on, will end their US Navy career within the next two or three decades…
And will be completely worn out and be ready to be turned into razor blades by that time
Allright, maybe it did not, but allthesame, Austal and other local companies have secured substantial work for the next years. Which would probably not be the case if a second hand ship was bought.
Austal is not involved in the AWD or LHD programs, their only RAN project has been the armidale class patrol boats.
Agreed. You said it mate, two ships, not two aircraft carriers. 😉
Two Aircraft Carriers. With one in refit and one in service at all times.
BTW, I read at one of the other threads I cited that the UK was actually interested for two Tarawa LHAs a few years ago when they were searching for an Invincible class replacement.
Lots of things get suggested in budget talks.
This proves that they is interest, the very least.
No it doesnt, things like that can be brought up as a possibility to emphasised how bad an idea it would be to actually go that route. Its politics at its finest.
UK ended up with the CVFs, but it may not work out after all, though they are far better ships in any respect, except for amphibian abilities.
Best regards.
They are carriers, not Amphibs, compare them to the Nimitz, Cavour, JFK, Kitty Hawk, PdA, not to the Tarawa or Wasp. If you want to compare amphibs, compare the RN ARG composed of Ocean, Albion and two Bay’s, to the equivilent USN ESG.
StevoJHWhy do you need to equal the thrust of the F35? This 5th gen Saab isnt going to be STOVL is it? the current Gripen powerplant is roughly equivilent to the EJ200 in power, is there any reason for a stealthy version of the Gripen or a related development to need enough thrust to hover in place?
StevoJHCountries which used to accept old US amphibs (e.g. Spain, Turkey, Australia) are no longer interested.
We only took the two, and after the way the RAN got stung with the newports I doubt the RAN would ever consider the “cheap” route of purchasing ex-USN ships at the end of their USN service lives ever again.
StevoJHI thought the Upgrade program was complete?
Remembering of course that there were two simulaneous upgrade programs, the engine upgrade (lets call it the “A” upgrade) and the avioinics upgrade (lets call it the “9” upgrade).
StevoJHBecause they’ve had so much trouble before right? :rolleyes:
Don’t confuse the US resource wasting programs with do-more-with-less Russian industry.
They Have to build it first.:diablo:
StevoJHIt would be interesting, why the Kongo and Atago class have such high superstructures. They are probably two decks higher compared to the Arleigh Burke class.
Radars are placed higher, giving a longer detection distance and larger engagement envelope against sea skimming missiles.
StevoJHRaptorski :rolleyes:
StevoJHStan
One of the reasons (the biggest actually) why those Zumwalts are so big is that the AGS has nothing to do with a conventional 155mm gun. The entire system is simply huge in size and weight. The magazine, by itself, is the equivalent of 64 Mk41 strike lenght VLS. There´s no way that the AGS fits any variant of the Daring.
Cheers
The AGS fires barrel launched missiles, not artillery shells. Send it back to the US where it belongs. :rolleyes:
StevoJHCheaper, vls would have meant a larger displacement.
You can’t reload the VLS Cells. Astute has the same max weapons load as the Virginia, however unlike the Virginia her loadout is not limited by VLS cells that can only carry one particular type of weapon.
StevoJHAnd then you have Sea King ASaC in 1982…. :p
StevoJHWe’ll see. Let’s just say I’m not holding my breath in anticipation.
Going from your posts here and in other threads over the past week or two. Are you?
a) A Troll
b) A pessimist
c) Playing Devils Advocate
StevoJHOh so they have decided to quote the old in service date have they. Pardon me for being cynical (or realistic, depending on your point of view) there is not a hope in hell of them meeting that deadline.
There are at least two more testbed aircraft under construction to carry the testing load. If 787 can be inservice by 2012, why can’t A400M, which is probably running a much more rushed test program.
Sign In
