The CVNs have been worked hard in recent years, this could just be about catching up on missed maintenance work from the last ten or more years... or there are indeed some serious upgrades in the pipeline. Or both.
Aircraft Carriers III
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Marines with Charlie Company, Battalion Landing Team, 1st Battalion, 4th Marines load onto an MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor aircraft aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1), Philippine Sea, Feb. 4, 2019. BLT 1/4 is the Ground Combat Element for the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit. The 31st MEU, the Marine Corps’ only continuously forward-deployed MEU partnering with the Wasp Amphibious Ready Group, provides a flexible and lethal force ready to perform a wide range of military operations as the premier crisis response force in the Indo-Pacific region. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Kyle P. Bunyi/ Released)
An MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor aircraft belonging to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 262 (Reinforced) ascends from the flight-deck atop the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1), Philippine Sea, Feb. 4, 2019. VMM-262 (Rein.) is the Aviation Combat Element for the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit. Its naval aviators fly the MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, as well as a variety of other rotary and fixed-wing aircraft. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Kyle P. Bunyi/ Released)
Marines with the F-35B Lightning II detachment of Medium Marine Tiltrotor Squadron 262 (Reinforced) conduct preflight checks before a launch atop the flight deck aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1), Philippine Sea, Feb. 4, 2019. Naval aviators with the detachment fly the Marine Corps' newest, most advanced multi-role fighter, the F-35B. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Kyle P. Bunyi/ Released)
An F-35B Lightning II with the F-35B detachment of Medium Marine Tiltrotor Squadron 262 (Reinforced) launches from the flight-deck atop the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1), Philippine Sea, Feb. 4, 2019. Naval aviators with the detachment fly the Marine Corps' newest, most advanced multi-role fighter, the F-35B. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Kyle P. Bunyi/ Released)
Jura The idiot
General
Apr 23, 2018
Extraordinary Only 2 Phalax CIWS mounts are being fitted to during her current capability insertion period with the third (Port forward mount) to be fitted towards the end of 2020 via Photo: S.Wenham
now noticed one would arrive later(?)noticed the tweet
Can the QEC aircraft carriers three Phalanx CIWS mounts provide 360º coverage of the ship? Simple diagram show the answer is yes.
^^^
yeah but:
Extraordinary Only 2 Phalax CIWS mounts are being fitted to during her current capability insertion period with the third (Port forward mount) to be fitted towards the end of 2020 via Photo: S.Wenham
Brumby
Major
I think if you have to resort to the Phalanx you are in serious trouble. Does anybody know whether the new carriers have the Nulka type decoy system installed? They worked well during last year's Yemeni ASCM attack.Apr 23, 2018
now noticed one would arrive later(?)
Extraordinary Only 2 Phalax CIWS mounts are being fitted to during her current capability insertion period with the third (Port forward mount) to be fitted towards the end of 2020 via Photo: S.Wenham
Jura The idiot
General
since the RN can't afford new CIWS, and can afford only converted CIWS (), ... should I go on?
Dec 24, 2017
Jura The idiot
General
related to
Yesterday at 8:28 AM
for just two CIWS (at "A" and "C" below) I'm getting about thirty degrees uncovered ("if the two green lines are stretched", of course if this particular orientation is kept):
Yesterday at 8:28 AM
Apr 23, 2018
now noticed one would arrive later(?)
Extraordinary Only 2 Phalax CIWS mounts are being fitted to during her current capability insertion period with the third (Port forward mount) to be fitted towards the end of 2020 via Photo: S.Wenham
LOL it's going to be an exercise for my kid at some point, so I don't show the calculation;noticed the tweet
Can the QEC aircraft carriers three Phalanx CIWS mounts provide 360º coverage of the ship? Simple diagram show the answer is yes.
^^^
yeah but:
for just two CIWS (at "A" and "C" below) I'm getting about thirty degrees uncovered ("if the two green lines are stretched", of course if this particular orientation is kept):
The detractors ill take known issues and just rehash them ver and over again.
Its a NEW CLASS of carrier.
The new lelevators and lifts, the new nuclear reactrs, the new cats, the new trapping system, the new electicla system...and on and on.
All of them ahve to be broken in and tested out the yang yang and with ew development escpecially your are going to find problems.
They used to say all the same things about the F-35...and the F-22 before it. Same with the B-2 and every other new develpment.
But now motts of those systems are things we are going to depend on and are going to allow us to maintain a lead over ur potential enemies for decades to come.
The Ford cass will be the same.
The new developmets it has are going to allow the US Navy to continue tomiantain the cutting edge in terms of sortie rate, numbers of aircraft launched and landed...the amount of unitions available and how quickly, the speed of th carrier, the ability for it to power new systems...particularly the coming lasers and rail guns for CIWS, the new airraft it will see and support, and the list will go on and on.
I predict the day will come when people marvel at what those vessels are able to accomplish.
But it takes tme to get there...as you well know y friend..
I am going to post something pver on the US NEw thread that I think you and a bunch of people will find of interest and it deals woth how four countries...all who said they would not do it...all of them within a fw weeks of each othermade a decision regarding the F-35B and perhaps why they did.
Listen for it.
Gdd's speed my friends.
related to
Yesterday at 8:28 AM
LOL it's going to be an exercise for my kid at some point, so I don't show the calculation;
for just two CIWS (at "A" and "C" below) I'm getting about thirty degrees uncovered ("if the two green lines are stretched", of course if this particular orientation is kept):
I do not know why the Royal NAvy only chose to put very limited self defense on these carriers.
I wonder what the total electrical output of their electrical system is?
These vessels at a minimu, IMHO, should have 3 x Phalanx, 3 x RAM launchers, and 3 x ESSM launchers.
They could easily have put a couple of eigh cell Km-41 luanchers in and had 64 ESSMs ready to protect the carrier. Add 3 RAM launchers to that and you have another 61 RAM missiles, then the PHlanx or 3 x Goal keepers t back up thoe missiles.
These vessels are just too crtical to short them n defense.
I know the Daring class are GREAT ships, but they only have 48 VLS missile tubes each so even of each carrier has two of them, that's ony 96 VLS there, and if they add 2 x Type 23, that's anothjer 32 x 2 or 64, for a total og 130 VLS tubes. That's good for maybe one saturation attack defense of 40-50 missiles coming at them.
What if an enemy launches three?
That's why the US Navy has at least one Tico (sometimes two) and three Bukes defending the carriers. 96 x 2 is 288 missile tubes from the Bukes, plus another 128 from the Tico. Thats over 400 tubes available, plus the 100 missiles each carrier has on its own and then the 3 x Phallanx on the carrier, 2 x Phalanx on the Tico, and one to two Phalnx on each BUrke.HAving four hundred tubes, with perahps 50 of them filled with 4 x ESSM makes for the ability to take on 2-3 full saturation attacks.
ANd for these very expensive carrier with thousands of personnel and ful air wngs of very expensive and very critical aircraft...well, once aain, you simply cannot afford to short them on defense.
\
In world War II, early in the War, by 1942, the Royal Navy had lost 6 carriers to u-Boat and naval aircraft, They had lost three nattleships and two battlecruisers before 1942 ever got there to submarines, naval gunfire and naval aircraft attacks. They learned the hard way that you simply had to defend these major vessels and defend them with as much as you could possibly put together. Seems to me they are setting themselves up to learn the hard way again...at a time when building such advanced, large, capitol sips is not easy to come by in todays world.
I just wish they had more defenses...both on the carriers and with the escorts around her.
With the lack of strong defenses on the carrier itself, it seems like they need at least 3 x Darings and 3-4 x Type 23s (or the new Type 26 vessels when they come along) if they ever face any high threat scenarios.
@Obi Wan Russell @bd popeye @Air Force Brat ...what do you guys think?
That is a problem with western carriers. They typically dedicate as little deckspace on ship defense as possible. Even the Chinese seem to be headed the same way. I think one of the concerns is likely about expense in integrating those sorts of complex air defense systems. In the case of the UK they would likely have to add SYLVER launchers for the Aster or something like that. I would not be surprised if the Royal Navy expected to have two Type 45 destroyers guarding each carrier together with an Astute-class attack submarine.
I think the Type 26 is really weak in terms of air defense capabilities compared with the FREMM frigates however. The air defense missiles have really lousy range and velocity for example. Worse than the ESSM. The Aster 30 is a lot better. Heck, even the current Chinese air defense missiles are better, let alone the ones they'll develop once the S-400 missiles are cloned.
I think the Type 26 is really weak in terms of air defense capabilities compared with the FREMM frigates however. The air defense missiles have really lousy range and velocity for example. Worse than the ESSM. The Aster 30 is a lot better. Heck, even the current Chinese air defense missiles are better, let alone the ones they'll develop once the S-400 missiles are cloned.
Last edited: