On the utility of carriers

In the real world

Re: On the utility of carriers

Postby Graham Kennedy » Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:28 pm

Ah, the treasury strikes again. "Yes, we've spent five billion quid on it, but if we fuck the whole thing up massively now we could save a couple of million!" :roll:
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8109
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: On the utility of carriers

Postby Captain Seafort » Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:42 pm

Aye. See my comment at the bottom of the first page. :P
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14966
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: On the utility of carriers

Postby Mikey » Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:44 am

Really? They're really going to let the (relatively) small difference in cost between the Baker and Charlie dictate their purchasing over capability?
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33074
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: On the utility of carriers

Postby Captain Seafort » Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:57 am

Mikey wrote:Really? They're really going to let the (relatively) small difference in cost between the Baker and Charlie dictate their purchasing over capability?


It's not just that - the original switch was made when Lockheed Martin was having serious problems with the B. These days those problems have been solved, but the C has hit a sticky patch, and questions have been raised about the wisdom of using the magnetic catapults, given that they're unproven technology.

In any event, you've done much the same on many occasions - cancelling the B70 and cutting back drastically on the numbers of Seawolfs, B2s and F22s springs to mind. The greatest enemy any military will ever face will always be the characters holding the purse strings.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14966
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: On the utility of carriers

Postby Mikey » Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:58 pm

Well, the B-70 needed to be cancelled. It was incapable of fulfilling its niche before it was even in production. The rest is a fair cop, but not entirely analogous - your carrier is going to be extant, and needs a CAG. Otherwise, it's a really big and flat (and expensive) tender. The difference is that in the UKoGBaNI, cost over performance tends to be an issue that injects itself into policy - in the U.S., it isn't a consideration until the procurement phase, when a fair bit's already been spent.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33074
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: On the utility of carriers

Postby Captain Seafort » Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:53 pm

Mikey wrote:Well, the B-70 needed to be cancelled. It was incapable of fulfilling its niche before it was even in production.


It's niche was that it was too high and too fast to be intercepted by aircraft or missile - it would have fulfilled that role excellently, given that the Russians were never able to kill a Blackbird, despite them being lower and slower than the Valkyrie.

The rest is a fair cop, but not entirely analogous - your carrier is going to be extant, and needs a CAG. Otherwise, it's a really big and flat (and expensive) tender.


It'll get a CAG. What that CAG will consist of is what's up in the air.

The difference is that in the UKoGBaNI, cost over performance tends to be an issue that injects itself into policy - in the U.S., it isn't a consideration until the procurement phase, when a fair bit's already been spent.


We're talking about the procurement phase - whether to buy the B or the C, along with the associated costs of CATOBAR.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14966
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: On the utility of carriers

Postby McAvoy » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:55 pm

I have to check but the last time the British had a conventional aircraft carrier was well over 20+ years ago. Wouldn't the lack of experience in working on such types of carriers would require a large amount of training for the flightdeck and related crew?

I mean when I was in the Navy, there was 80+ years of uninterupted experience on working that type of carrier. The British have a severe lack of experience since anyone who has worked are probably in their 40's or older by now.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 3907
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: On the utility of carriers

Postby Captain Seafort » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:24 pm

McAvoy wrote:I have to check but the last time the British had a conventional aircraft carrier was well over 20+ years ago. Wouldn't the lack of experience in working on such types of carriers would require a large amount of training for the flightdeck and related crew?


30+ years, much to the relief of the USN I expect, given the mess we used to make of your flight decks. :P It will probably be past 40 by the time PoW gets her air group.

Regarding the lack of experience, I'd be more concerned about the rather long gap between decommissioning the Harriers and getting the new carriers into service - we've at least been able to maintain the experience of fixed-wing operations, even if it hasn't involved CATOBAR ops. I expect there will be a lot of cross-decking and exchange postings to get people up to speed on fleet carrier operations, and it's been stated outright that the period between QE and PoW commissioning will be spent purely training the crew on the new ship class. Don't forget that these ships won't just be the RN's first fleet carriers since the old Ark, but the largest ships the navy's ever operated.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14966
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: On the utility of carriers

Postby Graham Kennedy » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:28 pm

McAvoy wrote:I have to check but the last time the British had a conventional aircraft carrier was well over 20+ years ago. Wouldn't the lack of experience in working on such types of carriers would require a large amount of training for the flightdeck and related crew?

I mean when I was in the Navy, there was 80+ years of uninterupted experience on working that type of carrier. The British have a severe lack of experience since anyone who has worked are probably in their 40's or older by now.

The RN have always taken part in exchange programs with friendly countries, especially the Americans. Recently they've been sending more people to qualify on carriers, for obvious reasons. They're also sending people to cross train with the French now. There were some quite amusing grumblings in the press about the Royal Navy having to take lessons from the French, of all people, especially given that the pilots who went were required to learn to speak french fluently first. No doubt there will still be a learning curve, as there is for any new system.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8109
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: On the utility of carriers

Postby McAvoy » Sun Apr 29, 2012 6:45 pm

Yeah. Back in 2007 onboard the Eisenhower we hosted the French so they could cross train with us on the flightdeck. Huge contrast between the US Navy and the French Navy.

But I never took part with the British though.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 3907
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: On the utility of carriers

Postby Captain Seafort » Sun Apr 29, 2012 6:48 pm

McAvoy wrote:Huge contrast between the US Navy and the French Navy.


Oh aye? :lol: Anything you can tell us?

But I never took part with the British though.


I can't imagine your ships would be particularly suited for Harrier ops, given the lack of a ski jump.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14966
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: On the utility of carriers

Postby McAvoy » Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:24 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:
McAvoy wrote:Huge contrast between the US Navy and the French Navy.


Oh aye? :lol: Anything you can tell us?


Yes severe lack of safety. They don't wear cranials (helmets) when they go on top of their planes. I know for a fact that cranials are very useful when working around aircraft. They are 30+ ton aircraft that will not budge if you hit your head. I once walked into a aircraft while not looking and I have never been hit so hard in my life.

They run around the flight deck like a madmen and as if they own the flightdeck. Dicks.

We were beneath them too. None of them were willing to talk to us even the ones who could talk English.

Also, there were a few of them of them supported at least four or five inch long beards.

But I never took part with the British though.


I can't imagine your ships would be particularly suited for Harrier ops, given the lack of a ski jump.


Isn't the ski jump another way of giving some air and distance for the Harrier? I only say this because the LHDs don't have ski jumps. I would imagine the large flight deck would have enough room for a British Harrier to fly.

Oh and lastly, the French were given alot of leeway on our ship. However, they were a bunch of dicks when we toured their ship. Which is why I still don't like the French. Dicks. We should have let the Germans keep France after the war...
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 3907
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: On the utility of carriers

Postby Captain Seafort » Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:33 pm

McAvoy wrote:Isn't the ski jump another way of giving some air and distance for the Harrier? I only say this because the LHDs don't have ski jumps. I would imagine the large flight deck would have enough room for a British Harrier to fly.


It's mainly to allow them to take off with a decent warload - without it they wouldn't have the range or payload to be nearly as effective as they are. Eyeballing from the size comparison on the first page of the thread, the takeoff run seems to be about the same, assuming they'd start from the same spots as yours, so they'd be seriously handicapped compared to flying from the Invincibles. As for the LHD comparison, they've got different missions - yours are simply CAS for the marines, ours have to do everything your Tomcats and Hornets do, so they need to have a much greater radius of action.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14966
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: On the utility of carriers

Postby Mikey » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:22 am

Captain Seafort wrote:t's niche was that it was too high and too fast to be intercepted by aircraft or missile - it would have fulfilled that role excellently, given that the Russians were never able to kill a Blackbird, despite them being lower and slower than the Valkyrie.


I'm not so sure that it was ever faster than an SR-71 or had a higher ceiling. In fact, one of the reasons it was cancelled was the advent of SAM's that were capable of intercepting the B-70.

Captain Seafort wrote:It'll get a CAG. What that CAG will consist of is what's up in the air.


Yeah, you're sort of speaking to my point here.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33074
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: On the utility of carriers

Postby Deepcrush » Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:02 pm

McAvoy, they're french... aka the trash of Europe. The problem they have to constantly live with is that they know it, so they try to pretend that everyone's attitude towards them is jelousy rather then pity or discust. Been in more then one ''phyiscal disagreement'' with our french allies for much the same issue.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests