CVF and Carrier Strike thread

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
Is that not why they're investing lots in HALE aircraft? Just another factor.
HALE still require satellites for C2 and ISR reporting and are still vulnerable, and thats another part of their system of systems. Another factor another cost. They've quite an interesting jet/rocket powered ISR drone that could be an expendable target acquisition system.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
Not a major issue, I would think. In terms of the GCS, there is a mix of common and sovereign systems across T26 / Hunter class / CSC.
Well Combat Management Systems, RESM, CESM and radars aren't common, don't think the sonar, military messaging, HF, MTWAN or C2 systems are either; the internal comms system may well be, but what else is common bar the MT30s?
 
Based upon who's evidence and what testing? I don't think Sir Max has been out witnessing HAT/SATs of their kit ;-)



I disagree on cost terms. As a system of systems (you cannot compare the cost of a missile to the carrier in isolation), which for OTH targeting has to include Chinese SAR and EO/IR satellites, their R&D, development, manufacture, the launch vehicles, it's quite an expensive enterprise to TRY and acquire a carrier and target it. That's before you look at the C2 required to fuse that intelligence into the ASBM infrastructure and then the cost of the R&D, manufacture and deployment of those. That's many $Bn.

There are also lot's of counter ISR capabilities out there, so as I said before it's very much not a one side game.
I just love experts.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
I just love experts.
If you disagree provide your view, I'm more than happy with the provenance of my comments. Even better, tell me where I'm wrong!

Whilst you're doing that read up on DF21/26, YaoGan and Gaofen SAR platforms and our good friend SJ-17, or aerostats for EW on the island chains. Even open source you can get a good insight into their system of systems approach.
 
Last edited:
Well Combat Management Systems, RESM, CESM and radars aren't common, don't think the sonar, military messaging, HF, MTWAN or C2 systems are either; the internal comms system may well be, but what else is common bar the MT30s?
Without going into too much detail you are quite correct regarding weapons, sensors, combat management systems, etc being sovereign, but the lower down you go physically, the greater the commonality; not just in systems but in things like the layout and general arrangement too. This was one of the major selling points.

ETA: don't forget things like the infrastructure and hotel services too.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
Without going into too much detail you are quite correct regarding weapons, sensors, combat management systems, etc being sovereign, but the lower down you go physically, the greater the commonality; not just in systems but in things like the layout and general arrangement too. This was one of the major selling points.

ETA: don't forget things like the infrastructure and hotel services too.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
Be careful too much detail and @beardyProf will accuse you of being an expert.
 
Not a major issue, I would think. In terms of the GCS, there is a mix of common and sovereign systems across T26 / Hunter class / CSC.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
The problem isn't the concept in general, the problem is that dealing with India is particularly difficult.
 
The problem isn't the concept in general, the problem is that dealing with India is particularly difficult.
Yes, I know. My last role was in a company dealing with UK EW and Cybersecurity products; the BD team over in the EW part were always frustrated with the Indian's slow and tortuous processes. Didn't affect us on Cybersecurity as we were very much Five Eyes oriented, which was a lot easier from that point of view.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 

Yokel

LE
They would try, but they wouldn't much care if they didn't succeed if the tanks were still rolling westward. The Russian navy is a nice to have, which is why so much of it is not really in a very good state, while they're upgrading the army and airforce.
The primary mission of the Russian Navy is sea denial - to stop routine use of the sea for logistics purposes and to interdict crisis response shipping. The primary NATO naval mission is sea control. Whilst the two overlap to some extent they do lead to different force structures. Submarines and long range aircraft versus a more balanced force.

Likewise the likes of Iran have concentrated on small craft, mines, and small submarines to threaten oil shipping, and naval forces and crisis response shipping during a crisis. Not forgetting all sorts of aircraft.

Submarines and aircraft are likely to be encountered anywhere our forces need to go.
 
Last edited:
You may be right....but I am not so sure.

So let me get this right: Trump won’t allow a NATO nation which has procured a single Russian strategic SAM system to buy F-35. However, he will consider selling F-35 to India, who’s entire AD system relies heavily on Russian SAMs, sensors and technology, and military operates MiG-21 BISONs, MiG-29s, Su-30s, A-50Is, Il-38s and KAF-31.

I really hope that’s just poor journalistic license and Trump is not seriously considering this.

In terms of the threat to carriers and other surface ships, I’d make a few comments. Firstly, a naval TG presents some challenges for ISR but in my view carriers really aren’t that difficult to find if you have a half-decent Space based and/or airborne surveillance platform such as an MPA, AWACS or RPAS. That’s particularly the case if flying ops are on and, while fighters can keep you at arms length, they provide a huge indicator as to where the carrier is, particularly if you have an AWACS capable of watching sortie patterns.

Russia and especially China already enjoy a significant advantage over the West in ASuW capabilities such as hypersonics; in some respects, we’re arguably a generation behind. Similarly, Russia’s SSNs are at least a match for the best the West can offer although they lack mass (as do we with escorts). While I suspect that China’s ability to successfully target carriers using ballistic missiles remains immature, it’s equally clear that the USN and RN are concerned and are rightly sitting up and taking notice.

Terminal homing meanwhile does not require a particularly powerful radar; it can be simply achieved by relatively small and lightweight Imaging Infra Red (albeit those are very weather dependent so probably not ideal for something hurtling almost vertically down at hypersonic speeds), MMW or normal radar; the Pershing II IRBM could do it to a high degree of accuracy over 30 years ago. While that weapon was not targeting a moving target, a ship will barely move during the terminal homing phase and maritime targets are in some respects less challenging than those on land (In terms of resolution).

As @A2_Matelot states, CEMA is arguably a greater threat which the could deny key capabilities before the shooting’s started. I’d also suggest that many people ignore one of the greatest ‘hard-kill’ threats to Western critical capabilities: that of ‘false-flag’ operations using (possibly unmanned) vessels designed to resemble commercial shipping. If one of those got within 100nm of a Western CAG and Pre-emptively launched a salvo of several dozen Zircons, it’s game-over.

However, for every measure, there’s a countermeasure...that has remained unchanged for millennia.

Regards,
MM
 
So let me get this right: Trump won’t allow a NATO nation which has procured a single Russian strategic SAM system to buy F-35. However, he will consider selling F-35 to India, who’s entire AD system relies heavily on Russian SAMs, sensors and technology, and military operates MiG-21 BISONs, MiG-29s, Su-30s, A-50Is, Il-38s and KAF-31.

I really hope that’s just poor journalistic license and Trump is not seriously considering this.

In terms of the threat to carriers and other surface ships, I’d make a few comments. Firstly, a naval TG presents some challenges for ISR but in my view carriers really aren’t that difficult to find if you have a half-decent Space based and/or airborne surveillance platform such as an MPA, AWACS or RPAS. That’s particularly the case if flying ops are on and, while fighters can keep you at arms length, they provide a huge indicator as to where the carrier is, particularly if you have an AWACS capable of watching sortie patterns.

Russia and especially China already enjoy a significant advantage over the West in ASuW capabilities such as hypersonics; in some respects, we’re arguably a generation behind. Similarly, Russia’s SSNs are at least a match for the best the West can offer although they lack mass (as do we with escorts). While I suspect that China’s ability to successfully target carriers using ballistic missiles remains immature, it’s equally clear that the USN and RN are concerned and are rightly sitting up and taking notice.

Terminal homing meanwhile does not require a particularly powerful radar; it can be simply achieved by relatively small and lightweight Imaging Infra Red (albeit those are very weather dependent so probably not ideal for something hurtling almost vertically down at hypersonic speeds), MMW or normal radar; the Pershing II IRBM could do it to a high degree of accuracy over 30 years ago. While that weapon was not targeting a moving target, a ship will barely move during the terminal homing phase and maritime targets are in some respects less challenging than those on land (In terms of resolution).

As @A2_Matelot states, CEMA is arguably a greater threat which the could deny key capabilities before the shooting’s started. I’d also suggest that many people ignore one of the greatest ‘hard-kill’ threats to Western critical capabilities: that of ‘false-flag’ operations using (possibly unmanned) vessels designed to resemble commercial shipping. If one of those got within 100nm of a Western CAG and Pre-emptively launched a salvo of several dozen Zircons, it’s game-over.

However, for every measure, there’s a countermeasure...that has remained unchanged for millennia.

Regards,
MM
I agree with you.

But also think the U.S. is using India as a counter against China in its pivot to the Pacific.
Possibly the rename of PACOM to USINDOPACOM
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
The Russian navy is a nice to have, which is why so much of it is not really in a very good state, while they're upgrading the army and airforce.
It must have missed your attention all the upgrades the RU SSN and SSBN force are getting and all of the new weapons to go into those platforms. And thats not to mention the huge upgrades in their surface platform and again lots of new weapons, such as their SLCM, which they made a great show of in Syria. That they're not wholly proficient or really interested in Naval aviation doesn't detract from what is still quite a potent threat and one which is really being upgraded. The real question (in my mind) is whether they can keep all the shiny new kit operational as maintenance has always been their achilles heel and developing more complex equipments simply means you have to spend more time in maintenance.
 
I agree with you.

But also think the U.S. is using India as a counter against China in its pivot to the Pacific.
Possibly the rename of PACOM to USINDOPACOM
Undoubtedly.

Regards,
MM
 

Yokel

LE
Get better admirals then
The ones we have had recently have managed to prevent the short sighted decisions taken in 2010 from putting an end to the Royal Navy and the UK being a major player. Cameron wanted to cut another five frigates which would have put us out of the task group game - including LPD/LPH based ones.

Their Lordships also managed to correct the Ill judged political decision to go for F-35C and cats/traps instead of F-35B and STOVL, found arrangements to maintain critical skills, and provided evidence to show that roughly another 1500 personnel are needed - but Cameron wimped out.

At the same time the RN has met its operational commitments in the Gulf, as part of NATO, and elsewhere, including responding to crises.

So let me get this right: Trump won’t allow a NATO nation which has procured a single Russian strategic SAM system to buy F-35. However, he will consider selling F-35 to India, who’s entire AD system relies heavily on Russian SAMs, sensors and technology, and military operates MiG-21 BISONs, MiG-29s, Su-30s, A-50Is, Il-38s and KAF-31.

I really hope that’s just poor journalistic license and Trump is not seriously considering this.

In terms of the threat to carriers and other surface ships, I’d make a few comments. Firstly, a naval TG presents some challenges for ISR but in my view carriers really aren’t that difficult to find if you have a half-decent Space based and/or airborne surveillance platform such as an MPA, AWACS or RPAS. That’s particularly the case if flying ops are on and, while fighters can keep you at arms length, they provide a huge indicator as to where the carrier is, particularly if you have an AWACS capable of watching sortie patterns.

Russia and especially China already enjoy a significant advantage over the West in ASuW capabilities such as hypersonics; in some respects, we’re arguably a generation behind. Similarly, Russia’s SSNs are at least a match for the best the West can offer although they lack mass (as do we with escorts). While I suspect that China’s ability to successfully target carriers using ballistic missiles remains immature, it’s equally clear that the USN and RN are concerned and are rightly sitting up and taking notice.

Terminal homing meanwhile does not require a particularly powerful radar; it can be simply achieved by relatively small and lightweight Imaging Infra Red (albeit those are very weather dependent so probably not ideal for something hurtling almost vertically down at hypersonic speeds), MMW or normal radar; the Pershing II IRBM could do it to a high degree of accuracy over 30 years ago. While that weapon was not targeting a moving target, a ship will barely move during the terminal homing phase and maritime targets are in some respects less challenging than those on land (In terms of resolution).

As @A2_Matelot states, CEMA is arguably a greater threat which the could deny key capabilities before the shooting’s started. I’d also suggest that many people ignore one of the greatest ‘hard-kill’ threats to Western critical capabilities: that of ‘false-flag’ operations using (possibly unmanned) vessels designed to resemble commercial shipping. If one of those got within 100nm of a Western CAG and Pre-emptively launched a salvo of several dozen Zircons, it’s game-over.

However, for every measure, there’s a countermeasure...that has remained unchanged for millennia.

Regards,
MM
I suppose the LO nature of the F-35B and the way the radar cross section of the QEC design and other modern warships helps!
 
There is a very interesting article in today's Times (paywall) by Sir Max Hastings who is severely critical of the decision to build and commission HMS QE & PoW.

"Giant carriers are symbols of our national delusions"

<snip>
He hasn’t changed his spots, has he? I wrote this over ten years ago:

...This is the rabble-rousing, gung-ho Max Hastings at his typically blinkered, fiercely pro-Army anti-everything else, worst. Having 'liberated' Port Stanley single-handed, he has conveniently forgotten which service delivered him to the Falklands and fought and died to protect him en route. Yet, strangely, he sees no role for maritime capability, aircraft carriers, air superiority or much else the RN (or the RAF for that matter) has to offer. His eyes are firmly fixed on 'boots on the ground' to the exclusion of all else required to prepare the ground for them, deliver them, protect them, sustain them in theatre and provide them with vital intelligence...
 

Mattb

LE
The first explanation is that the superpowers are incomparably richer than ourselves. The $17 billion capital cost of the USS Gerald R Ford, commissioned in 2017, represents less than 2 per cent of America’s defence budget, while Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales cost £6.2 billion, which is 15 per cent of Britain’s budget.
Well, that's the stupidest thing I've read all week. Comparing the cost of Britain's carrier fleet to the cost of one of the US' eleven carriers.
 

Latest Threads

Top