Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

New Virginia class boats for the USN

Yokel

LE
So the ‘hunting’ per se was done by the vessels.

You can see what I’m getting at.

Not entirely - ships and aircraft working together were more effective than any single ship, aircraft, sensor, or weapon. Sometimes aircraft did the detection and cued ships.

Is a very static target.

The key bits are located in small areas, and as a certain S. Hussain Esq found out in 1991, even concrete structures can be destroyed at will.
 
D

Deleted 24582

Guest
I strongly suspect the carrier is the modern battleship when it comes to high intensity naval warfare and the SSN is in terms of sea control the modern capital ship. The ease with which you can find a modern carrier group compared to the difficulty of finding an SSN, the inherent weakness of a massive hull loaded with explosive and highly flammable materials, the vast difference in manpower requirements and thus operating costs allowing, I'm guessing about 4-5 SSNs for the cost of a carrier group, the fact that SSNs are single independent operating units, if you wish, while the carrier much take with it all the other vessels it needs.

The assets of a modern carrier are all about force projection to distant land areas and this only works if the distant land area is a significantly weaker power. Base the carrier's air wing on concrete runways defended by the same AA systems as the ship and you will beat the floating version every time, without even considering the other risks to the carrier.

Or all platforms could work together to defeat the threats, and a mobile airbase is going to be harder to kill then a stationary one. The Chinese airfields would be rendered useless in short order. All branches are preparing to take on China. Eventually when the B-21’s are in the inventory, it will add another platform capable of killing things in short order.

The new Virginia’s with the payload module are being procured to offset the eventual loss of the OHIO SSGN’s.

The Navy is also working on the MQ-25 to extend the air wings range and make it harder for the Chinese to kill the fleet.

The Navy is also going full on with the new generation of laser weapons to help mitigate the missile threat.

The Flight 3 Burke’s are also starting to be laid down, which will be a significant performance improvement.

So I think it is a premature to call the Carrier obsolete.
 
China has certainly upped the ante in terms of their world wide wholesale cyber-pillaging of military technology. They seem determined to become the next world superpower and their aggressive attempt to annexe the S China Sea gives us a good indication on intent.

The US as the world present superpower seems to be rising to the challenge.

AS a complete aside and knowing little of China or the Chinese have just been speaking to a friend who has been working out there now for a few years as an airline Captain. Born in Australia he has worked in many parts of the world and we flew together for some years in Saudi Arabia.

He is quiet, hard working very smart and an all round pleasant easygoing chap. Absolutely hates it out there and has a very low opinion of the country and the way it works. In his words, not a very nice people or society. God help us all should they take charge.
 
Or all platforms could work together to defeat the threats, and a mobile airbase is going to be harder to kill then a stationary one. The Chinese airfields would be rendered useless in short order. All branches are preparing to take on China. Eventually when the B-21’s are in the inventory, it will add another platform capable of killing things in short order.

The new Virginia’s with the payload module are being procured to offset the eventual loss of the OHIO SSGN’s.

The Navy is also working on the MQ-25 to extend the air wings range and make it harder for the Chinese to kill the fleet.

The Navy is also going full on with the new generation of laser weapons to help mitigate the missile threat.

The Flight 3 Burke’s are also starting to be laid down, which will be a significant performance improvement.

So I think it is a premature to call the Carrier obsolete.
And the defence against a nuclear-powered torpedo? Both the US and USSR worked on them in the 60s but dropped them (allegedly) because of the "dirtiness". That consideration may go by the wayside when attacking a nuclear-powered target which will have a dirtiness all of its own.
 
I also believe that one of the biggest contributors to our victory was the availability of the B-24/Liberator bomber, from land bases.

The steely finger of death for U boats was the ASW Hunter Killer group based around… cue drumroll, an aircraft carrier.

"Bogue joined the Atlantic Fleet in February 1943 as the nucleus of the pioneer American anti-submarine hunter-killer group. During March and April 1943 she made three North Atlantic crossings but sank no submarines. She departed on her fourth crossing on 22 April and claimed her first submarine on 22 May when her aircraft sank the German submarine U-569 at 50°40′N 35°21′W.

During her fifth North Atlantic cruise her planes sank two German submarines:
U-217 at 30°18′N 42°50′W on 5 June and U-118 at 30°49′N 33°49′W on 12 June.
On 23 July 1943, during her seventh patrol, her planes sank
U-527 at 35°25′N 27°56′W. The destroyer George E. Badger, of her screen, sank U-613 during this patrol.
Bogue's eighth patrol was her most productive with three German submarines sunk. U-86 was sunk by her planes on 29 November 1943 at 39°33′N 19°01′W. On 30 November, Grumman TBF Avengers from Bogue damaged U-238 east of the Azores.[3] On 13 December U-172 was sunk by her planes, with the aid of destroyers George E. Badger, Du Pont, Clemson and Osmond Ingram at 26°19′N 29°58′W. And on 20 December U-850 was sunk by planes at 32°54′N 37°01′W.
Bogue had a break from her anti-submarine operations during January and February 1944 when she carried a cargo of
United States Army fighter aircraft to Glasgow, Scotland. The carrier then returned to her anti-submarine role and on 13 March her aircraft teamed with British planes, Haverfield, Hobson and the RCN River-class frigate Prince Rupert to sink U-575 at 46°18′N 27°34′W.
On 5 May 1944, Bogue and her escorts departed
Hampton Roads, Virginia, for a cruise that netted two more submarines and lasted until 2 July. Francis M. Robinson, of the screen, sank the Japanese RO-501(ex-German U-1224) on 13 May and Bogue's aircraft sank the Japanese submarine I-52 at 15°16′N 39°55′W on 24 June. During the next cruise, from 24 July to 24 September 1944, Bogue's planes sank another German submarine, U-1229, on 20 August at 42°20′N 51°39′W.
Following her return in September 1944, Bogue operated on training missions out of
Bermuda and Quonset Point, Rhode Island, until February 1945 when she made a trip to Liverpool, England, with Army planes. In April 1945, she put to sea again as an anti-submarine vessel, forming part of Captain George J. Dufek's Second Barrier Force during Operation Teardrop. On 24 April, success came as Flaherty, Neunzer, Chatelain, Varian, Hubbard, Janssen, Pillsbury and Keith sank U-546. This was the last of 13 submarines sunk by Bogue or her escorts."
 
During WW2 the trick was to keep the U boats submerged. Killing them was an added bonus .But just the fact they couldn't surface in safety and keeping them out of the game was what counted. We were entering the jet age, but the stringbag bi planes flying of merchant carriers were providing a valuable service up to the last.
 
Land base, fixed. Carrier, not.
Obviously and if it's fixed around the places I need to attack to win the war I'm in trouble. Realistically you can't out manouver the PLA when fighting China, there are enough of them to go round.
 
These terrifying missiles you're so afraid of that can't be defended against - how hard do you think it would be to lob one at those facilities every hour or so, 24/7?
Very difficult as you will run out PDQ. These things are not cheap and we can't saturate strike targets, endlessly. A land force can afford to build redundancy in quite cheaply, it can also calculate the power of your missile and just dig a bit deeper, neither option is open to a carrier force.
 

Yokel

LE
Obviously and if it's fixed around the places I need to attack to win the war I'm in trouble. Realistically you can't out manouver the PLA when fighting China, there are enough of them to go round.

Try not to get into a land fight with them then.

Very difficult as you will run out PDQ. These things are not cheap and we can't saturate strike targets, endlessly. A land force can afford to build redundancy in quite cheaply, it can also calculate the power of your missile and just dig a bit deeper, neither option is open to a carrier force.

Is a land force really able to dig deep bunkers faster than a carrier can move? Shame the location of your facility is known to the missile targeters. A naval force has to be located first, and keeping the exact location from adversaries is something navies practice.
 
Without wishing to get between BP and CC in this discussion, I think both are pointing in different directions, and that land based and carrier based air should be considered complimentary rather than alternatives...?

Carriers are much more vulnerable than land bases. even though a land base may be known, taking it out completely is much harder than you suggest. You would for instance have to hit each individual bay in an ammunition store and each tank in a fuel farm to take them out as they are designed not to propagate. This is not really the case with a carrier, even though the magazines are well buried in the structure..

The big difference with a carrier is the fact that it can be parked within striking distance of wherever you want it, and that mounting a significant air strike using one is likely to be quicker and more effective even when targets are well inland. They do take longer to build than land based airfields, but only when you consider it in the longer term. Given a standing start, it will take longer to build a combat capable airfield in a hostile environment than to move a carrier into place, and often it is the speed of initial reaction that is the crucial factor...?

The ideal solution is of course to have both...
I'm with you all the way. See bold - this assumes we're both going someplace new during hostilities. The Chinese seemed to get their atoll runways up and operating without any carrier intervention as the US, sensibly, wasn't willing to start a war once they realised they missed any possible intervention window. I'm looking at the Pacific increasingly becoming a pond with Chinese airbases around it. In those circumstances a re-balancing of navy forces to include more submarines seems sensible.

I'll leave it here as I've quite clearly prodded a sore point in some peoples's world view and I can't be bothered to go round in the circles that will inevitably create.
 
Very difficult as you will run out PDQ. These things are not cheap and we can't saturate strike targets, endlessly. A land force can afford to build redundancy in quite cheaply, it can also calculate the power of your missile and just dig a bit deeper, neither option is open to a carrier force.
Quite; but it can move, and at quite a speed if necessary.
 
Very difficult as you will run out PDQ. These things are not cheap and we can't saturate strike targets, endlessly. A land force can afford to build redundancy in quite cheaply, it can also calculate the power of your missile and just dig a bit deeper, neither option is open to a carrier force.

Decent BDA and you could just lob the next one in as the repair is coming to a close, so you don't run out PDQ, you choose point of maximum annoyance. But against a mobile carrier you have enough to saturate a defence? Double standards methinks.

Power of missile vs deeper hole is the perennial armour vs projectile argument. Deeper hole equals faster missile or bigger warhead. If you can see it and target it quickly, you can always kill it.
 
D

Deleted 24582

Guest
Decent BDA and you could just lob the next one in as the repair is coming to a close, so you don't run out PDQ, you choose point of maximum annoyance. But against a mobile carrier you have enough to saturate a defence? Double standards methinks.

Power of missile vs deeper hole is the perennial armour vs projectile argument. Deeper hole equals faster missile or bigger warhead. If you can see it and target it quickly, you can always kill it.

Well the thing about those tiny islands, is that it will be much easier to kill the personal at the airbase because they are crammed onto a small confined space. IF the Chinese equivalent of RED HORSE engineers are also targeted it will make life much more difficult to get that island airstrip back up and running.
 
Very difficult as you will run out PDQ. These things are not cheap and we can't saturate strike targets, endlessly. A land force can afford to build redundancy in quite cheaply, it can also calculate the power of your missile and just dig a bit deeper, neither option is open to a carrier force.


you just have to break a link in the kill chain.

them missiles don’t find targets and target themselves.
not only does a CBG have the ability to shoot down your reconnaissance planes, it can even shoot down your satellites.
 
you just have to break a link in the kill chain.

them missiles don’t find targets and target themselves.
not only does a CBG have the ability to shoot down your reconnaissance planes, it can even shoot down your satellites.
Flip flop flip flop, first you say Russia, China uber strong, smash NATO at a glance.

Christ what medication are you on?

Astute sinks everything in the battle sphere.
 

Latest Threads

Top