Atekimogus wrote:Good points, however especially with carriers and aircraft are we not approaching a point where even major world powers have trouble developing, building and keeping such things up? That is more my point. Having always the newest and most powerful stuff seems very sensible but it seems that especially with aircraft it seems we soon are reaching a point, where even major world powers have troube paying for that stuff.
For example the whole B2 stealth bomber programm of the US was incredibly expensive. It sure is a great weapon system but honestly, what did they "really" get out of it? No need to get offensive here since I am honestly asking, because to me it seems most of the heavy lifting was still done by tanks, army and more sensible craft/choppers etc. and in the end I think the question "was it really worth it" is not at all stupid.
What would you consider UKs vital national interests and would it not come cheaper ensuring and keeping airfields up in the vicinity?
Or is it more a matter of pride and flexing of military and national muscles? But what if the building and upkeep of only one major modern carrier plus fighterwings is all but bankrupting your state.....wouldn't it be time to reconsider the whole major world power pride? Germany hasn't any carriers and they are doing quite fine imho.
Captain Seafort wrote:A strategic bomber capable of deep penetration of hostile airspace. You can't take it as written that you'll always be able to suppress an air defence network quickly enough or effectively enough to be able to send in non-stealthy strike aircraft to hit high value targets.
Captain Seafort wrote:Can you guarantee, 100 per cent, that airbases will always be available?
Mikey wrote:"Could a B-2 style strategic bomber have been developed for less and cost less per unit?" not do we need that type of strategic bomber?"
Mikey wrote:Finally, I don't have the economic figures but I guarantee that there is a financial critical mass in terms of the number of ground installations you build far exceeds the cost of building and maintaining a carrier that could serve to replace that number of installations.
Mikey wrote:Even more, pressure on Germany to do so - either external, internal from public mandate, or national pride and a need to assuage its EU fellows - would either remain unfulfilled or (strange as it sounds) require an almost unprecedented military partnership with France of all people, and that would inevitably lead to an even further blurring of line between economic cooperation and political hegemony within the EU.
Atekimogus wrote:It seems to me, that the whole concept of carriers nowadays really only works on enemies which are greatly behind, since against anyone with the latest u-boats or ballistic missiles, risking a carrier, a ship which you most not loose is a terrible gamble.
Atekimogus wrote:Fair enough. Let's ask the other way round. The B2 is getting fairly old. You think they will replace it or give the job in the future just to intelligent missilles?
Atekimogus wrote:And if so is it really because the technology has just progressed to the point where it is possible to do so, or because in the end, it wasn't worth it?
Atekimogus wrote:Well shouldn't the question be "How would the US have fought the latest war without the B2. What would it have costed?"
Atekimogus wrote:To me it seems you have here two options, either you fight a highly outclassed enemy. Then it is questionable if you really need such high advanced technology like the B2.
Atekimogus wrote:Or you fight an enemy which is on a similar or equal technological level, but here you have the danger that new technology on his side (for example a new detection method) renders your multi-billion billion weapons platform obsolete in the matter of days.
Atekimogus wrote:Now please, I used the B2 only as an example, I am talking concepts here.
Atekimogus wrote:Most of the really advanced stuff nowadays is SO expensive that you only have relativly small numbers, however putting all your eggs in just a few basketts......
Atekimogus wrote:Well I guess it is more that a carrier is a rather obvious way to say that you want things your way with military power.
Atekimogus wrote:A germany which starts to force project again.....oh my, can you imagine all the misplaced histeria around that? So even if they built one they could hardly ever use it, everytime they would show up somewhere someone would scream wwIII.
Atekimogus wrote:Afaik they don't really possess any larger territories outside europe anymore....
Vic wrote:Wouldn't that also depend on potential mission areas? The three carrier idea would be good for say the N. and S. Atlantic but not so good for say Maylasia. That would stretch the whole one on station, one in port resupplying and one in refit to the breaking point. The penny pinchers are going to be apoplectic, not that that is a bad thing .
GrahamKennedy wrote:Three is generally considered necessary to have one on station at any given time.
McAvoy wrote:In a perfect world the British would have a Navy on par with the US.
Mikey wrote:What's the question? Whether it gets replaced by a more advanced aircraft or a more advanced guided munition, it's still being replaced. And either way, the question is self-limiting: it will be replaced when AND ONLY WHEN a replacement is available that performs the same role. The Buff is 60 years old, and is projected to be in service for at least 20 more years, because - even though much more advanced strategic bombers have come along - nothing's come along that does the same things significantly better than the Buff does. Further, nothing will be made to replace the B-2 until the B-2 proves itself to be incapable of performing its role at its current level of ability.
Atekimogus wrote:What have they ever done with it? Afaik they don't really possess any larger territories outside europe anymore....
Mikey wrote:I think everything we've said goes far beyond the simple needs of colonialism.
Captain Seafort wrote:To nitpick, the BUFF has already been replaced in its designed role, by the Bone and the B-2. The reason its still in service is that it's still effective in its secondary role as a bomb truck, and even there I suspect it's closer than 20 years to the end of its life based solely on airframe age. What exact the USAF is going to do about that I've no idea.
Mikey wrote:Hmmm, I'd like to see a B1 or B2 carry out linebacker raids or drop daisycutters the way the Buff can.
The 20-year-out idea isn't an hypothesis, it's taken from USAF statements. Certainly not the originals, but more recently built F's and such.
Captain Seafort wrote:Sure, but that's not what the Buff was designed for - its simply a job it's taken on and done very well. It was originally designed for deep penetration of Soviet airspace with a couple of thermonuclear weapons. These days, trying to do that with a non-stealthy aircraft would be a complete waste of time, aircraft and crew.
Captain Seafort wrote:Even the newest aircraft are fifty years old, and I simply can't see them carrying on for another couple of decades. They might make it, but I'm not putting any money on it.
Mikey wrote:Perhaps, but to say that a B-52's current role is as a strategic anti-Soviet nuke bomber is as nuts as to say that its counterpart - the Tu-95 - is still employed in that role.
GrahamKennedy wrote:Speaking of carrier utility, there's been some discussion of whether to fit the new UK carriers with the B version of the F-35, which takes off and lands like the Harriers used to, or fit the ship with catapults and arrestor gear and buy the C version that the US Navy plans to buy. Money is the deciding factor as always - getting the C would mean spending on the deck equipment, which isn't cheap, but the aircraft are longer ranged, cheaper, and simpler to maintain.
According to Jane's, the UK have ordered the new EMALS, an electromagnetic catapult, so it looks like this has moved at least towards the realm of a certainty.
GrahamKennedy wrote:According to Jane's, the UK have ordered the new EMALS, an electromagnetic catapult, so it looks like this has moved at least towards the realm of a certainty.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest