CVF and Carrier Strike thread

Couple of nice US rotary competitions ongoing could free up some Merlin Cabs.

V280 Valor with some form of Crowsnest seems like it would wipe the floor with E2 and still have space for extended range fuel tanks and maybe even torpedoes to help the Merlin.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Couple of nice US rotary competitions ongoing could free up some Merlin Cabs.

V280 Valor with some form of Crowsnest seems like it would wipe the floor with E2 and still have space for extended range fuel tanks and maybe even torpedoes to help the Merlin.
Christ, will it deliver pain-free childbirth and immortality as well?!
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
US picked its carrier armament (Sea Sparrow and Phalanx, sometimes with RAM as a mid layer for more shots) when they had Standard SM-1/2 on the CBG escorts and... er... that's it. Excellent long-range performance, long minimum range, not great acceleration - superb for knocking threats down at range, poor in a close-up knife fight.

You wouldn't rely on a Spruance-class (one eight-shot Sea Sparrow launcher with one channel of fire) as a goalkeeper, so the US carriers had to do their own point defence and backstop.

We worked on the basis that we'd have Sea Dart slapping stuff in the MR-SAM Missile Engagement Zone, and an escort with Sea Wolf (two channels of fire, much faster reactions and much higher SSPk than Sea Sparrow) goalkeeping, and anything that got past that was too close for anything except CIWS (and Sea Wolf was a heavy beast not easily fitted to give 360° coverage on a carrier, let alone with multiple channels of fire).

Since then we've gained Sea Ceptor (which wasn't even a glint in the eyes of MBDA's design team when the QECV's detailed design was drawn up) which means the T23/T26 can engage even more targets, faster, further out, than it could with Wolf. But, if anything gets past that frigate's firepower... it's now still a last-minute whites-of-the-eyes shot, where Phalanx is about all that will help and more Ceptor on the carrier isn't adding anything useful.

Once you start modelling the engagements in detail, you hit the issue that by the time the carrier's using its own weapons for more than the "bollocks, one of that salvo got through all the layers, Phalanx to air mode auto!" leakers, you're into ruinously heavy weights of attack that beg the question "so what idiot sailed the carrier into this maritime Valley of Death?"

You also run into the issue of overkill and wastage: at what point does the carrier decide "yep, serious threat, take with Ceptor" and are you preparing, firing and guiding missiles at targets that other assets are about to delete (i.e. wasting rounds)? By the time the escorting frigate has finished a SYSTEM2 or SYSTEM3 engagement... the threat's in close and again, it's very late.

Sea Ceptor was also designed with a very short minimum engagement range <1000m, for snap shots at leakers inside Sea Vipers rather further out limits.
Adding it to QE & POW is an aspiration once their entry into service dust has settled.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Sea Ceptor was also designed with a very short minimum engagement range <1000m, for snap shots at leakers inside Sea Vipers rather further out limits.
That's the intercept range: now work back along the timeline to see where you need to have committed to an engagement, how far out that is, and then explain how you deconflict that (force ASMD having been a goal aspired to for, to my sure and certain knowledge, at least twenty years)

Adding it to QE & POW is an aspiration once their entry into service dust has settled.

Of course it is. Right next to the EV-22 Ospreys and M1 Abrams tanks that the US will be gifting us free of charge.
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
That's the intercept range: now work back along the timeline to see where you need to have committed to an engagement, how far out that is, and then explain how you deconflict that (force ASMD having been a goal aspired to for, to my sure and certain knowledge, at least twenty years)



Of course it is. Right next to the EV-22 Ospreys and M1 Abrams tanks that the US will be gifting us free of charge.

I suggest you take it up with Z.
He very clearly stated to the room a point defence missile system is on the ‘too do’ list when the dusts settled.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
I suggest you take it up with Z.
He very clearly stated to the room a point defence missile system is on the ‘too do’ list when the dusts settled.

He can say what he likes, until the engineers point out "so where's the IPMD provision for it?"
 

riksavage

Old-Salt
Ask the USN why they prefer the T45 to escort in very high risk areas.

We have a layered approach, if as a carrier you are relying on short range anti air missiles to protect you then something has gone very wrong.
T23 with Sea Ceptor on top of T45, plus embarked F35 with meteor?
To act as a missile magnet and to bring the beer?
 

Yokel

LE
But the point of a carrier is to achieve local air superiority...

I suggest you take it up with Z.
He very clearly stated to the room a point defence missile system is on the ‘too do’ list when the dusts settled.

"A big boy wrote it on the blackboard and ran away.........."

When I was a small child, I asked my ex matelot father why a carrier did not have weapons in the same way as other warships. He replied that it was because the carrier had long range weapons - aircraft.

AAW Zones.jpg


You get the idea? The distances seem to be based on 1982 weapons, but the principle is the same.

Unfortunately I have no equivalent for ASW but I suppose the principle is similar, with different zones being represented by a hull mounted sonar with no dipping helicopter, towed array sonar with helicopter with dipping sonar/sonobouys, and finally multiple towed arrays with constant dipping etc.

FFS I have let myself be provoked into breaking my break from this thread, yet again...
 

Yokel

LE
Other things to mention before going back to my break:

1. F-35B Lightning numbers to increase beyond 48:



2. The Dutch frigate HNLMS Evertsen will join the CSG21 deployment.

3. On another thread, someone posted an article about US Navy attempts to find a way to use the carrier's jets for ASW.

The article is by a former S-3 Viking guy and discusses a number of attempts to find a way for fast jets to contribute to ASW. He then goes on to discuss the role of the SH-3 Sea King, including the questionable use of the limited number of ASW helicopters.

During my time aboard the USS Nimitz and Theodore Roosevelt, the Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Nine (HS-9) aviators would express their frustration at having to haul cargo, VIPs, and chaplains around while their ASW skills atrophied. In his article, Lieutenant Coogan recommended that utility helicopters (SH-3G models) be utilized to handle all logistics and SAR/plane guard duties. Obviously, as history shows, the common sense of such a smart idea was lost on the Pentagon and Capitol Hill.

Our carriers will usually have Junglies on board for things such as HDS, VERTEP, and some SAR. That will free up the Pingers for ASW (and ASuW surveillance). Going to sea routinely might improve some of the attitudes that started to be present in non seagoing WAFUs.
 
Last edited:

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
But the point of a carrier is to achieve local air superiority...



"A big boy wrote it on the blackboard and ran away.........."

When I was a small child, I asked my ex matelot father why a carrier did not have weapons in the same way as other warships. He replied that it was because the carrier had long range weapons - aircraft.

View attachment 561327

You get the idea? The distances seem to be based on 1982 weapons, but the principle is the same.

Unfortunately I have no equivalent for ASW but I suppose the principle is similar, with different zones being represented by a hull mounted sonar with no dipping helicopter, towed array sonar with helicopter with dipping sonar/sonobouys, and finally multiple towed arrays with constant dipping etc.

FFS I have let myself be provoked into breaking my break from this thread, yet again...

the current lack of a short range point defence missile system is entirely due to the decision to get the ships into service at the lowest possible cost, not grow the build cost and risk them getting cut.

Phalanx is the cheapest basic self defence option, but has almost zero ability to defend a ship against modern high Mach, manoeuvring anti ship missiles, the leakers got much more dangerous.

everyone with carriers, even the Chinese, fits a PDMS, we identified the need to move to a missile based PD system well over a decade ago to deal with armoured highly agile supersonic ASM’s that can only be effectively killed by blowing them up with a warhead.

the current lack of a missile based system is 100% financial, not tactical or doctrinal.
once both carriers are fully into service, a PDMS will be fitted.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
the current lack of a short range point defence missile system is entirely due to the decision to get the ships into service at the lowest possible cost, not grow the build cost and risk them getting cut.
Wrong, but when has that stopped you?

Phalanx is the cheapest basic self defence option, but has almost zero ability to defend a ship against modern high Mach, manoeuvring anti ship missiles, the leakers got much more dangerous.
Wrong, but when has that stopped you?

everyone with carriers, even the Chinese, fits a PDMS, we identified the need to move to a missile based PD system well over a decade ago to deal with armoured highly agile supersonic ASM’s that can only be effectively killed by blowing them up with a warhead.
Wrong, but when has that stopped you?

“Occasionally he stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.”
― Winston Churchill
 
Is that actually Photex above at 13834? The writing style is completely different from his usual semi-coherent word salad approach. Either he copy-pasted that post from somewhere else or someone else is using his account.
 
[DRIFT]

Published by: Xavier Vavasseur, NAVALNEWS, 11 Mar 2019.

15 Destroyers & 1 Aircraft Carrier Under Construction at China’s Jiangnan Shipyard.

Recent aerial pictures of Jiangnan shipyard are doing the rounds on social media: They show no less than 15 destroyers and 1 aircraft carrier at various stage of construction.


The Jiangnan Changxing Shipbuilding and Heavy Industry Corporation (Jiangnan-Changxing) shipyard is located North East of Shanghai, on Changsing island. The shipyard is a member of China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC).

The 15 destroyers are a mix of Type 052Ds and Type 055s, the two largest and most capable classes of surface combatants currently being built for the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN or Chinese Navy).

23 Type 052 Destroyers are already operational with the PLAN or under construction. They are still under production by two shipyards: Jiangnan-Changxing shipyard and Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Company. The first vessel of the class, ‘Kunming’ (hull number 172), was commissioned in March 2014. The last one to be commissioned was “Hohhot” (hull number 161) in January this year.

The Type 052D Destroyer displaces 7,500 tons, has a length of 157 meters, a beam of 17 meters and a crew complement of 280 sailors.

15-Destroyers-1-Aircraft-Carrier-Under-Construction-at-Chinas-Jiangnan-Shipyard-2.jpg


At least eight Type 055 destroyers are under construction or fitting out. As for the Type 052D they are being built at the two shipyards: Jiangnan-Changxing and Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Company. First ship of the class, ‘Nanchang’ was launched in June 2017 in Shanghai and the second one was launched in April 2018 at the same shipyard.

The Type 055 Destroyer has a length of 180 meters, a beam of 20 meters and a draft of 6.6 meters for a full load displacement of 13,000t. These destroyers are the largest surface combatant currently being built in the world: They are larger than the US Navy’s Ticonderoga-class cruiser and the Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (9,800 tons) or the Royal Navy Type 45 (about 8,500 tons). Their official PLAN designation is “10,000-ton class destroyer” while the US Department of Defense have been calling them “cruisers” since 2017.

Last but not least, the area at the top right of the picture (where the large red cranes are located) reportedly shows the area where the PLAN’s third aircraft carrier (known as Type 003) is being constructed, with fairly large modules already in place.

15 Destroyers & 1 Aircraft Carrier Under Construction at China's Jiangnan Shipyard - Naval News

[/DRIFT]

And at least the first one is out.

'This week, both China and the United States sailed aircraft carriers into troubled waters in the East and South China seas. But quietly tagging along is a new warship that puts America’s best to shame and could redefine war at sea.

'China’s training aircraft carrier Liaoning and five escort vessels were observed passing through a critical maritime “choke point” south of Japan at the weekend. About the same time, the USS Theodore Roosevelt and two escorts were making their way through the narrow Malacca Strait, past Singapore and into the South China Sea.

'A new Type 055 “Destroyer” is sailing alongside the Liaoning. The PLAN Nanchang carries 112 Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells. Eight ships of this class have been launched. Another six are at various points of assembly.

'Meanwhile, a 38-year-old Ticonderoga class “Cruiser” is protecting the USS Theodore Roosevelt. The USS Bunker Hill also carries 112 VLS cells. But the US navy is struggling to keep these ships functional as more and more are retired. No comparable replacements are being built.

'Japan responded to the PLAN Liaoning battle group’s passage through the Miyako Strait between Okinawa Island and Miyako Island by sending one of its own destroyers and a surveillance aircraft to “shadow” the force.

'The Type 055 Nanchang will have been the centre of attention.

'It is about 180m long and 22m wide. Its smooth sides deflect radar, and the large square panels betray the advanced nature of its sensor systems.

'Liaoning’s two other heavy escorts, Type 052D “Luyang III” class destroyers, are only a little less modern. And they carry 64 VLS cells, giving them less potential firepower to their 33-year-old US “Arleigh Burke” class counterparts which hold between 90 and 96.'


 
Top