Aircraft Carriers III

Friday at 6:02 PM
interestingly The Navy Is Quietly Arming Super Carriers With Anti-Torpedo Torpedoes
The growing threat of submarine attacks on US carriers is being partially addressed by a close-in weapons system that shoots back at incoming torpedoes.

source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
related:
USS Nimitz Fifth Carrier Armed with Anti-Torpedo Weapon
When the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz emerged from an extended period in a shipyard last week, it featured a new installation of an anti-torpedo system.

Nimitz is the Navy’s fifth carrier to have the Anti-Torpedo-Defense System installed. The system includes the Torpedo Warning System, an acoustic sensor that detects an incoming torpedo; a tactical control station; and the Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo (CAT). The CAT, a small torpedo designed to intercept an incoming torpedo, was developed by Pennsylvania State University’s Applied Research Lab.

Compared with air- or ship-launched cruise missiles, anti-ship torpedoes are much more difficult for a ship to defend against because the medium of water is more opaque and distorted to sensors.

The anti-torpedo defense system was one of several improvements added to the ship, including two Mk38 25mm guns and the Consolidated Afloat Network Enterprise Services system, according to an Oct. 5 Navy release announcing the Nimitz’s commencement of sea trials following a 20-month Extended Planned Incremental Availability at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Wash.

An engineering and development model (EDM) of the anti-torpedo system was tested in May 2013 from USS George H.W. Bush and deployed in 2014. A roll-on/roll-off model was deployed on USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. A second EDM was installed on USS Harry S. Truman. The Navy plans to equip all aircraft carriers and other high-value ships with the system by 2035.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
... Ospreys are certainly on the Navy's Christmas list but nobody is holding their breaths about that. ...
thought you would give me something like this:
Why-your-CVF-should-not-moonlight-as-your-LPH.jpg

(this "picture" comes from the most recent blog post which happens to discuss pretty much the same stuff as we did here recently :) it's
Why your CVF should not moonlight as your LPH
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Almost 100 % of readiness for Rafale deployed, amazing !

On the night of October 15 to 16, 2016, three Rafale air force and four Rafale of the French Navy, conducted a planned strike several SCALP missiles at a warehouse of manufacturing FDI (improvised explosive devices - IEDs) in the region of Mosul
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Charles De Gaulle can hosted up to 1500 troops but as for QE without or almost aircrafts.
Clemenceau was used in 08/1991 for transport helos and some troops in the Gulf, in an LHD configuration a second possible configuration not improvised.

When i say, i have read 500 troops for QE i mean with an inferior but decent CAW saying 20 - 30 aircrafts after with a small CAW as you say make sense at less as the Ocean 800 or 1000+ troops.

Again me :)

The QE carriers have been designed from the outset with fairly generous accommodation for up to 1,600 people. With her very lean complement of 733 there is a lot of space left for aircrew and an embarked military force (EMF) of least 250 which can live aboard for long periods in relative comfort. It is interesting that as the disposal of HMS Ocean gets closer, government is now saying
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in extremis.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
thought you would give me something like this:
Why-your-CVF-should-not-moonlight-as-your-LPH.jpg

(this "picture" comes from the most recent blog post which happens to discuss pretty much the same stuff as we did here recently :) it's
Why your CVF should not moonlight as your LPH
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
An interesting read overall, factually generally correct but with a noticeable bias and a negative spin to the article. I could quote all the facts they did and give it a completely different spin. I won't, I trust those here to draw their own conclusions once the facts have been presented. And myself and the author are in fact singing from the same hymn sheet for the most part. I do want HMS Ocean to be retained in service for a few more years and eventually have a like for like replacement. Highly unlikely in the current and foreseeable political climate. In that light what matters more is that the capability is preserved, even if it is amalgamated into the QECs.

We did this before, when the Invincibles were built they were designed to be both ASW carriers and Commando carriers as and when required, replacing both the fixed wing carriers like Ark Royal and Commando Carriers like Bulwark and Hermes.. The capability was preserved and the RN played the long game, eventually proving the value of a ship like Ocean separately from the existing carriers. We're going down that road again but politicians are very short sighted about important matters.

Something in the Article that did Irk me somewhat, with regard to the America class LHAs was a passage that read "It is planned that the LHA will typically operate six F35-Bs (together with its Ospreys and helicopters) that would provide close-support for the troops. They also have the capacity to operate as emergency aircraft carriers embarking up to 20 F-35Bs. It may lack the ski-ramp to help launch F-35Bs but the LHA may well moonlight as CVF better than QEC can moonlight as an LPH." (my bold). No they can't.

It feels like an attempt to add fuel to those who continually sneer that we should have bought something like an America class LHA or an Italian 'Cavour' instead of the QECs. Well the USMC Lightning pilots are looking forward to deploying on a QEC more than on their own LHA/LHDs given past comments from the pilots. The loss of capability that would come with substituting one of the smaller and inferior designs would be immense and completely disproportionate to any meagre savings that might have been made.

With carriers, bigger is always better, something not always apparent when they are new but twenty years down the line (and these ships are intended to last fifty years) it comes in very handy. The US Forrestal class and all following USN carriers were regarded as oversized when built but over the course of their lifetimes none of them had to be structurally rebuilt to any degree, and if they were still in commission they could operate any frontline aircraft currently in service with the USN today, more than sixty years after they were built. Building your warships to fit just todays requirements with no room to accommodate tomorrows needs has been shown to be a false economy.

Rant mode off, spleen vented, calm is returning...
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Hear Hear!!
applause.gif


Greatest Post in the history of the aircraft carrier threads in this forum! I wholeheartedly agree with every word. And the USMC pilots are looking very much forward to flying off the QE! I remember all the praise they gave Invincible during their short stay aboard her in 2007.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top