Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Status
Not open for further replies.

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Excellent video here of the Russian Kuznetsov and her close in escort navigating through very rough seas.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


One day the Varyag will be at sea like this.

In one of the comments at this veideo, they quote the Captain I believe talking about the coming refit and how long it will be before she is back at sea like this.

That film needs the Victory at Sea theme!!

[video=youtube;sto3p3eozg8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sto3p3eozg8[/video]
 

Spartan95

Junior Member
Very sad, IMHO...almost criminal what they have done to the capabilities of the RN. Leaves the UK depending almost entirely on the USN and the USN will get cut as a result of these latest budgetary talks too. Hopefully that will turn around in 2012.

But to have those beautiful carriers coming out and then the 1st spend several years as an LPH is just shameful IMHO. At least you will get some use out of her...but to have that CV and part of its service life...on the front end no less...being so underutilized.

Oh well, you play with the cards you are dealt and hopefully the UK citizens will turn it around .

Well, the UK government decided to get its finances back in order first before funding all these expensive capabilities. It was certainly a painful move, but one that should benefit the UK in the long run if it helps to get its public finances in order.

With the recent drama over the US public debt limit, it remains to be seen how the Pentagon will be affected in the years ahead. Current US military expenditure is hardly sustainable in the long run given the US' growing public debt. But the Pentagon has drawn the line on how much they are willing to cut. It seems the Pentagon has not learnt the lesson that contributed partly to the disintegration of the USSR (excessive military spending without taking into account public finances).
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
...and I found some interesting picture of so called submarine air craft carrier; it looks childish, but come to think about it, it is quite possible with today’s technology to build one

Imagination is what moves the technology forward…
:rofl:
In my
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I made use of large submarines for aircraft carrier, amphibious assault, and aresenal ships. Here, from the book, is an entire task force of them:

US-SSCVN-TF.jpg
 

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
Jeff, when I first read that part in your book I instantly knew that you had hit upon a great idea. We all know that as time goes on, surface ships will be less and less survivable. I think that the combination of UAVs + submarines will be used by many navies to replace carriers in the power-projection role in the long term.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Exactly...that's why those depicted carried the F-35B in the book.

I believe it could be done...whether it will be done is a completely seperate issue.

The Japanese used them in World Wr II and on several occassions launched Sea PLanes from them with small bombs to harass the west coast of the US. They had 11 or 12 such subs, with small hangars behind the main sail, at the start of the war, and they used them Here's what they looked like.

jap-subair-01.jpg


jap-subair-02.jpg


jap-subair-03.jpg


Finn McCool said:
I instantly knew you had hit upon a great idea

Thanks, Finn.

Here's the quote in the book describing the Alaska Class SSTN and SSLHDN

Dragon's Fury - World War against America and the West said:
In addition, all four of the recently launched Alaska Class SSTN nuclear powered amphibious assault and transport submarines, which were carrying the remainder of the Task Forces supplies, were stationed offshore from the objective as well. They were being escorted by the U.S.S. Jimmy
Carter and the U.S.S. Connecticut, which were both still impervious to Killer Whale detection. Although the SSTNs were capable of self-defense and equally quiet, the two Sea Wolf class, with their larger weapons load, their proven track record regarding the LRASD devices and their remarkable speed, would provide the most capable defense possible for these new underwater behemoths in America’s growing arsenal, being dutifully stockpiled in the defense of liberty.

This first combat deployment of the SSTN class involved every ship of that class that had been built to date. Still undetected and now just off the objective, the design had achieved the intended level of stealth and quiet despite their mammoth underwater displacement of over 40,000 tons!

The four hundred foot level deck spaces topside and forward on the SSTN would lead the development of the SSLHDN, designation for the Amphibious assault version of the Alaska class SSTN boats, vessels allowing for flight operations for their eight F-35 attack aircraft, eight MV-22 VTOL air assault aircraft and up to eight more helicopters for airborne assault. They also allowed for forty-eight VLS cells for anti-aircraft or surface to surface missiles for self defense.

A tremendous advantage with these VLS tubes was that all of these cells could easily be reloaded from the vast spaces below decks were reloads were stored. In addition, all of the Alaska class and all of the variations thereof carried a full load of torpedo weapons, including the latest Mk-48 ADCAP torpedoes, Mk-77 CWS torpedoes. and the latest sub
launched Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles, not to mention six SUB CIWS systems for defense

...and the Olympus Class SSCVN

Dragon's Fury - World War against America and the West said:
The air assault force was itself being supported by the largest combined submarine force ever assembled. These forces consisted of two of the three American Sea Wolf class nuclear attack submarines, twelve Virginia class American nuclear attack submarines, two of the Ohio
class SSGN nuclear cruise missile submarines, ten Alaska Class SSTN amphibious assault and transport submarines, and four of the new Olympic Class SSCVN aircraft carrying submarines.

This was the combat debut of the Olympic class, which was a major revision of the huge Alaska class design, carrying twenty four VTOL F-35 aircraft, four E-22C VTOL AEW aircraft, six S-22C VTOL ASW aircraft and up to ten UR UAV aircraft. In addition the SSCVN submarines were fully outfitted with a full array of torpedoes, including the Mk-77 supercavitating torpedoes, along with a total of forty-eight vertical launch tubes accommodating anti-air missiles and other missiles up to and including the AGM-999 Hail Storm cruise missiles and the latest American Tomahawk SLCMs.

This fleet of submarines was in place to provide the air cover and precision air and fire support
necessary for the allied troops who were landing...
 
Last edited:

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
Submarines of the size that you envision in your book would surely be less stealthy and louder, merely due to their size. But I think that this could be compensated for by the fact that they can engage the enemy from much farther away thanks to the sorts of weapons they carry.

I disagree with you over the use of manned aircraft. I think that submarine-aircraft carriers would have maximum effectiveness with all-UCAV air wings. I've daydreamed about UCAVs being launched like missiles from the tubes of the submarines and recovered after splashing down in the water, so the sub doesn't even need to surface.
 

Scratch

Captain
I'm thinking about an evolutionary process of using dedicated SSGNs initially with intelligent cruise missiles later to be turned into UCAVs as a proof of concept.
I have in mind a new stealth tomahawk with latest avionic & engine technology. It should be able to program a sophisticated attack profile into them and have mission controll over a satellite uplink (maybe via a dedicated C2 missile in the attack swarm). I imagine a few of these missiles carriying latest gen HARMs to attack air-defenses, others with intelligent sensors and appropriate warheads like WCDM (itself featuring sensored sub-munitions) and the conventionall unitary warhead penetrators. They should be able to achieve 1000NM+ range, or a 500NM combat radius initially.
If sized to fit into an SLBM tube of a SSGN one by one, they should be able to go way further than Tomahawk sized missiles with a good payload.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Submarines of the size that you envision in your book would surely be less stealthy and louder, merely due to their size. But I think that this could be compensated for by the fact that they can engage the enemy from much farther away thanks to the sorts of weapons they carry.

I disagree with you over the use of manned aircraft. I think that submarine-aircraft carriers would have maximum effectiveness with all-UCAV air wings. I've daydreamed about UCAVs being launched like missiles from the tubes of the submarines and recovered after splashing down in the water, so the sub doesn't even need to surface.
All good points and equally something that could be accomplished. But to have two full wings of F-35Cs pop up from under the ocean on your doorstep...with full stores, full AEW capability, full ASW capability, AAW, etc....and other subs carrying that many troops and their equipment LCACs, tanks, etc...that would be very impressive too.

Anyhow, changing topics now for the Carrier thread, here are some pics I have been working on...and promising...about carrier hangar bays.

What do you think about this comparison. The info for all carriers is not easy to get a hold of, but I am working on the others (like the Brazilian, Thai, the new indegenous Indian, etc.).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Nice drawings Jeff!

Hangar size really helps to determine;

How long a CV can maintain a viable fighting force at sea. For without a large hangar a navy is limiting itself on aircraft repair capabilities. Trust me those aircraft will need repairs and periodic inspections. Arrested landings and life at sea is brutal on Naval aircraft. Space where proper repair can take place is essential.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top