The U.S. Navy has ordered another eight Virginia class SSNs

[geetrue]

Nice article if you wonder how many boats the USN have on order or in service:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20081230.aspx


The United States has three classes of SSN. The mainstay of the American submarine force is still the 6,100 ton Los Angeles-class SSN. Sixty-two of these submarines were built, 45 of which remain in front-line service, making it probably the largest class of nuclear submarines that will ever be built.


But they are going fast :yep:

[SteamWake]

Hrm... this is mildly disturbing :hmm:

[Kapt Z]

I'm a sub buff, but in this economy.....why?

[SteamWake]

I'm a sub buff, but in this economy.....why?

One would assume self preservation.

[Oberon]

Sad to see the old LA girls go, but they had their day I guess :cry:

[Frame57]

The 688I's will be in service for quite some time yet. A stroke of genius that was strategic and also economically feasable was the conversion of four Ohio class SSBN's to SSGN's. These will fill a niche that the 688I platform performs and you can carry far more special forces troops in the SSGN's than the 688I's could.

[SUBMAN1]

I'm a sub buff, but in this economy.....why?

You sound almost doomish on your take on the state of our future. You expect this economy to be in this state or worse come several years from now?

The point is, you prepare for the future, and live for today. What they are doing is perfectly proper.

-S

[Takeda Shingen]

I'm a sub buff, but in this economy.....why?

Because the modern SSN is, arguably, the most versatile combat platform that the navy has to offer. The only other type of ship that would challenge it is the modern supercarrier. However, the SSN can function independently, in an entirely clandestine fashion, and for a fraction of the cost of CVN, let alone it's accompianing battle group. It is disheartening not to have the aging sub fleet replaced in adequate numbers.

[Zachstar]

I'm a sub buff, but in this economy.....why?
Because the carrier is more and more useless. A serious attack using diesels is likely more than enough to bring one down in a serious war. (Look at how close they get when it is not a war)

We need more subs to replace the lost ability of the supers.

[goldorak]

I'm a sub buff, but in this economy.....why?
Because the carrier is more and more useless. A serious attack using diesels is likely more than enough to bring one down in a serious war. (Look at how close they get when it is not a war)

We need more subs to replace the lost ability of the supers.


If you loose the supercarriers, you loose much more than could ever be compensated by tens of new SSN. An attack sub has no strategic value, it cannot project force as a CVN battlegroup can. The strengh of the us navy is not in its submarine force, but in its 12 supercarriers dislocated throughout the world.

[SUBMAN1]

I'm a sub buff, but in this economy.....why?
Because the carrier is more and more useless. A serious attack using diesels is likely more than enough to bring one down in a serious war. (Look at how close they get when it is not a war)

We need more subs to replace the lost ability of the supers.

If you loose the supercarriers, you loose much more than could ever be compensated by tens of new SSN. An attack sub has no strategic value, it cannot project force as a CVN battlegroup can. The strengh of the us navy is not in its submarine force, but in its 12 supercarriers dislocated throughout the world.I thought they had 15?

-S

PS. Never mind - 3 are in process of being built. There are 12 active and 3 more that will be active.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I'm a sub buff, but in this economy.....why?
Because the carrier is more and more useless. A serious attack using diesels is likely more than enough to bring one down in a serious war. (Look at how close they get when it is not a war)

We need more subs to replace the lost ability of the supers.

If you loose the supercarriers, you loose much more than could ever be compensated by tens of new SSN. An attack sub has no strategic value, it cannot project force as a CVN battlegroup can. The strengh of the us navy is not in its submarine force, but in its 12 supercarriers dislocated throughout the world.I thought they had 15?

-S

11 actually until CVN-79 is commissioned. And it's unlikely the planned number of Gerald Ford class's will be completed IMO. 15 is the number that lots of people consider ideal, though.

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

Note that while Kitty Hawk is still on the active roster, she will be decommissioned shortly and for all intents and purposes isn't active.

PD

[Rockstar]

I'm a sub buff, but in this economy.....why?

Probably cheaper in the long run to buy new than keep older boats going any longer.

[Oberon]

Another question to ponder is whether the USN will foresee the need (pending evaluation results of the Virginias I guess) the need for an AIP SSK. I know they've borrowed a few Euro-boats to test ASW against but it wouldn't hurt to have a couple handy for brown-water ops.
That being said, if the Virginias and Seawolfs can handle brown-water ops well then there is no real need other than for ASW training, I know the Skipjacks used to do their fair share of Murmansk lurking, I guess the Seawolves do a similar task these days or earlier 688i's.

[JALU3]

The economy is not as good as before, but it will improve, it's only an amount of time. Furthermore, further construction of military hardware, only fuels the economy more by providing jobs to those hardware manufacturers, which assists those businesses around those areas of production. On top of that, even with the present Administration, the military is still using legacy systems designed in the 60s and 70s and are reaching the end of their service lives, and thus need to be replaced to maintain capability.

As for the types of vessels that make up a good battle fleet . . . that is another debate. I for one believe the greatest reason why the CVBG/CVSG is not as potent as in the past is the reduction of range of the aircraft aboard the vessels. Thus reducing the tactical reach of the group. Furthermore, there has been a deemphesis in the USN regarding ASW capability, and thus detection capabilities have been reduced due to that.

Submerged vessels do have a definite advantage regarding stealth and clandestic abilties. Furthermore, they to can strike land targets, but only for a short duration. Therefore, a navy of only subs is not advisable.

One must remember that the chief job of a Navy is to be able to secure SLOC for commercial and military purposes, and to be able to support amphibious operations, projection of force is only part of the first.

[Kapt Z]

I'm a sub buff, but in this economy.....why?

You sound almost doomish on your take on the state of our future. You expect this economy to be in this state or worse come several years from now?

-S

Thinking the economy will be back to 'normal' before the next presidential election seems more optimistic than I'm willing to buy into. Seems I don't hear many saying things will get better in less than a year or so as it is. I wouldn't consider that 'doomish' per say, but I do think we do have a long EXPENSIVE road to go. We're going to have to cut funding for a lot of things that will hurt.

Since our present and forseable future conflicts seem to be against guys running around with RPGs and little else a fancy new attack sub seems a trifle misplaced. I would think we face more 9-11s than Dec-7s and the best attack sub in the world would not have stopped those airliners.

[Frame57]

I'm a sub buff, but in this economy.....why?

You sound almost doomish on your take on the state of our future. You expect this economy to be in this state or worse come several years from now?

-S

Thinking the economy will be back to 'normal' before the next presidential election seems more optimistic than I'm willing to buy into. Seems I don't hear many saying things will get better in less than a year or so as it is. I wouldn't consider that 'doomish' per say, but I do think we do have a long EXPENSIVE road to go. We're going to have to cut funding for a lot of things that will hurt.

Since our present and forseable future conflicts seem to be against guys running around with RPGs and little else a fancy new attack sub seems a trifle misplaced. I would think we face more 9-11s than Dec-7s and the best attack sub in the world would not have stopped those airliners.A simple locked cockpit would have done the job...

[Zachstar]

I'm a sub buff, but in this economy.....why?
Because the carrier is more and more useless. A serious attack using diesels is likely more than enough to bring one down in a serious war. (Look at how close they get when it is not a war)

We need more subs to replace the lost ability of the supers.

If you loose the supercarriers, you loose much more than could ever be compensated by tens of new SSN. An attack sub has no strategic value, it cannot project force as a CVN battlegroup can. The strengh of the us navy is not in its submarine force, but in its 12 supercarriers dislocated throughout the world.

Rubbish!

All a CVN is good for is scaring the hell out of some country that can't afford modern diesels. In a world war you would see them drop like flies just like in WW2 when IJN Carrier after Carrier met torpedoes and lost.

Boast about so called sub tracking abilities they have but the days of the supercarrier are at an end. Drones launching from motherships and submarines are the force multiplier of the future.

[Aramike]

I'm a sub buff, but in this economy.....why?

Probably cheaper in the long run to buy new than keep older boats going any longer.Exactly. Do you all know how expensive it is to refuel a 688? May as well just build another, more advanced boat instead of dropping a ton of money on refueling an obsolete design.

Besides, this helps the economy as it will provide a ton of private jobs.

As for this:Rubbish!

All a CVN is good for is scaring the hell out of some country that can't afford modern diesels. In a world war you would see them drop like flies just like in WW2 when IJN Carrier after Carrier met torpedoes and lost.

Boast about so called sub tracking abilities they have but the days of the supercarrier are at an end. Drones launching from motherships and submarines are the force multiplier of the future.Actually, this is rubbish. Our ASW capability is immense, as we can not only hunt enemy subs from screening vessels but also using our own boats. A supercarrier can project FAR MORE power from sea onto land than a submarine could really ever hope for.

Both types of naval power have their uses. Every president, when faced with a crisis, has uttered the same question: "where are carriers?".

[Enigma]

Not to be ignored, is the simple fact that the repetitive diving/surfacing of a submarine causes stress to her hull. Much like the cycles of an airliner. Simply put, after a while, no amount of equipment retrofit can fix an aging sub. She is retired to avoid a hull breach at depth. Not replacing these submarines means the U.S fleet would deplete of active subs rapidly. Not a notion I prefer.

Also, fueling an L.A class costs what, $4Mil? :know:

[Aramike]

Not to be ignored, is the simple fact that the repetitive diving/surfacing of a submarine causes stress to her hull. Much like the cycles of an airliner. Simply put, after a while, no amount of equipment retrofit can fix an aging sub. She is retired to avoid a hull breach at depth. Not replacing these submarines means the U.S fleet would deplete of active subs rapidly. Not a notion I prefer.

Also, fueling an L.A class costs what, $4Mil? :know:Closer to $400 million, including the full-overhaul that comes with the refueling. Just getting to the reactor is at least $200 million. You can't just "tank up" a nuclear submarine ... you're talking 15 -24 months off the line to refuel a 688.

[Takeda Shingen]

Rubbish!

All a CVN is good for is scaring the hell out of some country that can't afford modern diesels. In a world war you would see them drop like flies just like in WW2 when IJN Carrier after Carrier met torpedoes and lost.

Boast about so called sub tracking abilities they have but the days of the supercarrier are at an end. Drones launching from motherships and submarines are the force multiplier of the future.

Perhaps in the distant future, but entire airwings of effective drones are, at best, decades away. They are good for the CAS of special operations forces, especially against unarmored targets, but lack the capabilities and payload options of the traditional fighters and bombers. In short, you cannot achieve air superiority with a Predator, nor can you effectively attack armored and large-scale strategic targets. Thus, as far as one can see, nothing will be replacing the human in the cockpit and the payload that can be carried by conventional aircraft. As such, the carrier will likely remain the centerpiece of the modern battle fleet for a long time to come.

For the record, the IJN lost most of their CVs to enemy aircraft action, not submarines. One of their biggest mistakes was the fact that they did not realize that the age of the battleship had ended. Japan would have been better served had they built more carriers, rather than the impressive yet tactically and strategically antiquated Yamoto and Musashi. I suppose that you could argue the same for the carriers of the modern USN but, again, drone technology is in it's infancy, much like early submarines.

[Tchocky]

Wasn't the Shinano a converted Yamato-class BB?

I mean, fat lot of good it did them, but they may have seen the writing on the wall. I think the Essex class was the way to go, lots of medium sized carriers working in unison instead of one big basket of eggs.

[Takeda Shingen]

Wasn't the Shinano a converted Yamato-class BB?

I mean, fat lot of good it did them, but they may have seen the writing on thwe wall. I think the Essex class was the way to go, lots of medium sized carriers working in unison instaead of one big basket of eggs.

Yes it was. They did catch on, but by that time, they were so short on building material that it was entirely impractical to continue conversion or start from scratch. So, they were left with the white elephant Musashi, and the infamous Hotel Yamoto.

[AntEater]

Shinano was a leftover, the japanese attempted to serial produce cheap carriers with the Unryu class.
The Shokakus were the non plus ultra carriers, while the Unryu was a cheap production version, based on the lighter Hiryu with off the shelf parts like cruiser propulsion.
Six Unryus were completed, but none was used as a real fleet carrier.

Re the SSNs, I think the 688s had their day.
From what I heard from our SSK sonarmen, if a 688 stumbles across a NATO SSK, it is usually dead. Question is only wether it can kill the SSK in return.
And since operations against conventional subs are much more likely now, a quieter sub is required.
Especially since the Russians and Chinese are no longer handycapped by lack of electronic computers. Getting yourself a computerized sonar and fire control system today is a matter of ordering the necessary computing power on the market, not of a major espionage action.
Funny is that the "cheap alternative" Virginia class is now more expensive than the Seawolf class!
On the other hand, compared to the LCS or the LPD-17, the Virginia class project is apparently well managed and run by competent engineers.
But I suppose the submarine force has some advantages over the surface navy:
Due to the required high quality and its high secrecy, you can't outsource that much.
So LPD-17 like shoddy workmanship won't happen on a SSN.

[geetrue]

Here's a list of the LA boats left ... I would use them to protect the homeland myself in case of a sneak attack. It would be harder to invade the USA with a wolf pack of LA class boats in and around our harbors.

SSN-688 Los Angeles (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08688.htm)

SSN-690 Philadelphia (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08690.htm)
SSN-691 Memphis

SSN-698 Bremerton (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08698.htm)
SSN-699 Jacksonville (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08699.htm)
SSN-700 Dallas (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08700.htm)
SSN-701 La Jolla (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08701.htm)

SSN-705 City of Corpus Christi (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08705.htm)
SSN-706 Albuquerque (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08706.htm)SSN-708 Minneapolis-St. Paul (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08708.htm) scheduled for decomissioning June 09
SSN-710 Augusta (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08710.htm)
SSN-711 San Francisco (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08711a.htm) still in service after accident

SSN-713 Houston (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08713.htm)
SSN-714 Norfolk (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08714.htm)
SSN-715 Buffalo (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08715.htm)

SSN-717 Olympia (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08717.htm)
SSN-718 Honolulu (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08718a.htm)
SSN-719 Providence (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08719.htm)
SSN-720 Pittsburgh (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08720.htm)
SSN-721 Chicago (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08721.htm)
SSN-722 Key West (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08722.htm)
SSN-723 Oklahoma City (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08723.htm)
SSN-724 Louisville (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08724.htm)
SSN-725 Helena (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08725.htm)

SSN-750 Newport News (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08750.htm)
SSN-751 San Juan (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08751.htm)
SSN-752 Pasadena (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08752a.htm)
SSN-753 Albany (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08753.htm)
SSN-754 Topeka (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08754.htm)
SSN-755 Miami (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08755.htm)
SSN-756 Scranton (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08756.htm)
SSN-757 Alexandria (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08757.htm)
SSN-758 Asheville (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08758.htm)
SSN-759 Jefferson City (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08759.htm)
SSN-760 Annapolis (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08760.htm)
SSN-761 Springfield (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08761.htm)
SSN-762 Columbus (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08762.htm)
SSN-763 Santa Fe (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08763.htm)
SSN-764 Boise (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08764.htm)
SSN-765 Montpelier (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08765.htm)
SSN-766 Charlotte (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08766.htm)
SSN-767 Hampton (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08767.htm)
SSN-768 Hartford (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08768.htm)
SSN-769 Toledo (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08769.htm)
SSN-770 Tucson (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08770a.htm)
SSN-771 Columbia (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08771.htm)
SSN-772 Greeneville (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08772a.htm)
SSN-773 Cheyenne (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08773a.htm) Comissioned Sept 97

[August]

One of my best buddies is a plank owner for the Norfolk. I'll have to let him know his boat is still patrolling the seas.

[PeriscopeDepth]

All a CVN is good for is scaring the hell out of some country that can't afford modern diesels. In a world war you would see them drop like flies just like in WW2 when IJN Carrier after Carrier met torpedoes and lost.

Boast about so called sub tracking abilities they have but the days of the supercarrier are at an end. Drones launching from motherships and submarines are the force multiplier of the future.
Not true. While diesels are worthy opponents, they'd have to get lucky or be stuck in a choke point to catch a CVN. They are intelligent minefields, not invincible carrier assassins.

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

They are good for the CAS of special operations forces, especially against unarmored targets, but lack the capabilities and payload options of the traditional fighters and bombers. In short, you cannot achieve air superiority with a Predator, nor can you effectively attack armored and large-scale strategic targets. Thus, as far as one can see, nothing will be replacing the human in the cockpit and the payload that can be carried by conventional aircraft. .
No. X-47B carries the same A2G payload of a VLO'd F-35. With more than double the radius. At approximately 1/4 of the purchase cost, and MUCH reduced operational upkeep costs (no burning jet fuel to train "the man in the loop" for basic flight competency, night flight competency, tactical competency etc.).

And why are drones so far away? What do you think the Tomahawk missile is? The only difference is the drone has to come back and land. And can then be reused. Tomahawks have been used for precision strike Day 1/Raid 1 targets for ~20 years now. I wonder what would happen if they gave a UCAV program a budget 1/20th the size of F-35's.

PD

[Takeda Shingen]

No. X-47B carries the same A2G payload of a VLO'd F-35. With more than double the radius. At approximately 1/4 of the purchase cost, and MUCH reduced operational upkeep costs (no burning jet fuel to train "the man in the loop" for basic flight competency, night flight competency, tactical competency etc.).

Acutally, the X-47B currently carries nothing. It rolled out a few weeks ago, so there is a long way to go before we see it in action. Aside from the radius, the performance of the X-47 is inferior to any manned fighter or strike aircraft. Once again, we see that you cannot achieve air superiority with a drone at this time. Also, yes, it is expensive to train a human to fly, but there is currently no real replacement for having a brain in the cockpit.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

For the record, the IJN lost most of their CVs to enemy aircraft action, not submarines. One of their biggest mistakes was the fact that they did not realize that the age of the battleship had ended. Japan would have been better served had they built more carriers, rather than the impressive yet tactically and strategically antiquated Yamoto and Musashi. I suppose that you could argue the same for the carriers of the modern USN but, again, drone technology is in it's infancy, much like early submarines.

To be fair, pretty much everyone failed to make the change. Japanese, British, and Americans - note the American South Dakota, Iowa, Montana and Alaska projects and the British KGV and planned ships. The Americans only look good because they have sheer industrial capacity, so when the writing went on the wall, everyone tried to make the turn, but America had the turning power to make a fast turn.

[Takeda Shingen]

To be fair, pretty much everyone failed to make the change. Japanese, British, and Americans - note the American South Dakota, Iowa, Montana and Alaska projects and the British KGV and planned ships. The Americans only look good because they have sheer industrial capacity, so when the writing went on the wall, everyone tried to make the turn, but America had the turning power to make a fast turn.

This is also true. I would add that the USN had the 'advantage', if you could call it one, of not having a viable option outside of carrier operations for a good portion of the war. America was forced to adopt the carrier-based strategy, as they were, for a time, just about the only major combat platforms remaining.

[PeriscopeDepth]

No. X-47B carries the same A2G payload of a VLO'd F-35. With more than double the radius. At approximately 1/4 of the purchase cost, and MUCH reduced operational upkeep costs (no burning jet fuel to train "the man in the loop" for basic flight competency, night flight competency, tactical competency etc.).
Acutally, the X-47B currently carries nothing. It rolled out a few weeks ago, so there is a long way to go before we see it in action. Aside from the radius, the performance of the X-47 is inferior to any manned fighter or strike aircraft. Once again, we see that you cannot achieve air superiority with a drone at this time. Also, yes, it is expensive to train a human to fly, but there is currently no real replacement for having a brain in the cockpit.
I am not an advocate of a completely drone carrier wing. I believe a mixed wing would be ideal, drones should be kept as stupid cowbombers and leave the A2A to manned fighters. But drones are clearly superior for bomb trucking to fixed targets and loiter/CAS missions. And while we're on the subject of air superiority, how many potential enemies do we really need to worry about this. Bombing barbarians is 99% of the mission set, no white knight air battles there. F-35 being completed in its entirety as a $300 billion "spectrum domination" program is a bad joke unless you own LockMart stock.

And how many bombs has F-35C dropped? At the current pace of the program, an X-47B will trap on a carrier before an F-35 does. Not to mention the B model. And these F-35s will come ~$80 million a piece and haul the same A2G payload as the drone.

PD

[Takeda Shingen]

I am not an advocate of a completely drone carrier wing. I believe a mixed wing would be ideal, drones should be kept as stupid cowbombers and leave the A2A to manned fighters. But drones are clearly superior for bomb trucking to fixed targets and loiter/CAS missions. And while we're on the subject of air superiority, how many potential enemies do we really need to worry about this. Bombing barbarians is 99% of the mission set, no white knight air battles there. F-35 being completed in its entirety as a $300 billion "spectrum domination" program is a bad joke unless you own LockMart stock.

And how many bombs has F-35C dropped? At the current pace of the program, an X-47B will trap on a carrier before an F-35 does. Not to mention the B model. And these F-35s will come ~$80 million a piece and haul the same A2G payload as the drone.

PD

Nor do I dispute that drones will be of value, or may someday completely replace manned combat aircraft. However, that day is a long way off, and the technology has a long way to go. Still, the United States will, one day, have to face off against a world power with a legitimate air force and naval air power. This is a certainty. Throwing the development of air-to-air combat under the bus is not particularly wise, even in the light that our current enemy consist of a collection of RPG-toting thugs.

Also, I am no F-35 fanboy. I think that the program will end up producing another white elephant, but only after wasting billions of taxpayer dollars first. I have never been taken with the idea of a Joint Strike Fighter. Giving the Navy what they want, the Air Force what they want, and the Marines what they want would, ultimately, prove cheaper in the long run, put more Americans to work, and most importantly, put the planes on the runways and decks a whole lot sooner.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Nor do I dispute that drones will be of value, or may someday completely replace manned combat aircraft. However, that day is a long way off, and the technology has a long way to go. Still, the United States will, one day, have to face off against a world power with a legitimate air force and naval air power. This is a certainty. Throwing the development of air-to-air combat under the bus is not particularly wise, even in the light that our current enemy consist of a collection of RPG-toting thugs.
Once again, I DO NOT ADVOCATE the complete replacement of manned aircraft with drone.

We certainly will go against a modern power again. Which is exactly why we should pursue the drone. Because when we go up against that power, we will lose ships, aircraft, and men. War isn't some gallant game of mano y mano, mind against mind. War AT IT'S BEST is murdering the other guy with him not being able to touch you. Unmanned cow bombers do that. They are the biggest potential gain in conventional carrier striking power seen EVER. We can buy lots of them and afford to throw them away. All they have to be able to do is fly to point A, drop bombs, and return to land. We can build hordes of them much more cheaply than any manned strike fighter. There is NO reason to put manned assets up front on a Day 1/Raid 1 scenario. It offers ABSOLUTELY NO ADVANTAGE over unmanned. Man makes war best by building the better gun that fires the better bullet. It is about time we learned this and stopped playing 8th Air Force. The best gun is the kind you can fire without giving a damn if someone kills the platform utilizing it, because there is no man in it to be killed.

Imagine waves of these things attacking our future enemy. The enemy fighters have to hunt a large number of fully VLO'd drones that are coming to bomb their homeland, all the while avoiding getting sniped at by the manned fighters behind the drones lobbing AIM-120D/FMRAAM at them.

We haven't "thrown air to air under the bus" (at least not yet). We currently have to most capable air to air machine ever built, and it will remain superior for the foreseeable future.

PD

[JALU3]

Although I understand why everyone has hesitations regarding the F-35 program, and ALL the aircraft it is ment to replace being placed in Tuscon, thus shortening the already shortenned reach of the CVW, I caution against the use of drones. Presently they seem like a good idea because they are used against an enemy with little to no EW capability. And of course, as stated be others in this thread, it is not a matter of if a conflict with a regular military force, but a matter of when. Therefore, seeing how much forces have become dependent on these new forms of communication, potential adversaries have poored resources into countering our forces ability to use these new forms of communication, forms of communication which are vital to remotely controlled craft, whether ground, air, sea, or under the sea. One can of course pre-program a mission profile and allow it to go silent, however, there are risks with that. As missions are often very time sensetive, and geopolitical realities are very fluid, a pre-programmed drone, would be unable to be recalled, if it was set not to receive any communications. Furthermore, if it were possible to overide our control of those automated, or remotely operated, drones than they can surely be used against us.
Therefore, I caution against an all drone force.
I admit they do have an important roll to fill, and can decrease casualties in a conflict, however, there are realities that need to be seriously considered before our defense forces/militarys become dependent on them, least we be put in a position where we no longer have the capability to adequatly defend ourselves with non-automated or drone platforms.

One of the greatests problems of the CVW has been the decreased area of operation capability. AF provided Air Refueling capability has been taken for granted, as has been friendly air fields which to divert to. This is not always the case. Furthermore, by decreasing the radius which the CVW can strike from, it endangers the entire CVBG by bringing it closer to the target/threat.

But back to the Virginias. Although they have increased in cost, compared to other programs they have been built on budget, and without the problems that other newer programs have had. I wonder, if like the USS Jimmy Carter (what an awful name :nope: ), if they can add a "plug" to the vessel to increase its VLS capacity, thus increasing its first day strike capability, without seriously effecting its ASuW/ASW capability.

Furthermore, the USN no longer has an Air Superiority Fighter, since the F-14Ds have been decommissioned and chopped up in the desert. -cries at the thought- Instead the F/A-18E/Fs have taken up the roll, however I don't know them to be adequate to create an air superiority setting against a strongly willed opponent with Air to Air Capability of a nation-state of means.

[geetrue]

Furthermore, the USN no longer has an Air Superiority Fighter, since the F-14Ds have been decommissioned and chopped up in the desert. -cries at the thought- Instead the F/A-18E/Fs have taken up the roll, however I don't know them to.

All old things pass away ... the F-5 Tiger was my favorite jet ... probably still in service overseas in someones Airforce. Iran I bet :lol:

[GOZO]

Enigma wrote.

Not to be ignored, is the simple fact that the repetitive diving/surfacing of a submarine causes stress to her hull. Much like the cycles of an airliner. Simply put, after a while, no amount of equipment retrofit can fix an aging sub. She is retired to avoid a hull breach at depth. Not replacing these submarines means the U.S fleet would deplete of active subs rapidly. Not a notion I prefer.


Thats it. How much you still love the old 688, they are in fact old, like it or not. Old design, old propulsion systems, old maintenace principles, old logistics thinking and most of all old hulls. They will be consuming enourmous amounts of money for less usability. Time to retire with honor. <salute>:cry:

The decsision to replace them with new technology (not at least the logistics bit) in the shape of the "Virginia" cl sounds logical to me.

/OB

Old 688-buff.

[JALU3]

Well, why don't they revamp, and modernize, those old designs? Or create newer designs that don't reduce capability. If I remember wasn't there a A-6G program proposed, and several F-14 variants proposed? I mean the Super Hornet isn't bad, but she also has a lot to be wanted.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Well, why don't they revamp, and modernize, those old designs? Or create newer designs that don't reduce capability. If I remember wasn't there a A-6G program proposed, and several F-14 variants proposed? I mean the Super Hornet isn't bad, but she also has a lot to be wanted.
The SH is also relatively cheap and can employ nearly every weapon in the USN fighter arsenal and has the advantage of a two seat crew. And she can pass gas. I don't know if you've noticed or not, but the Cold War ended in the early '90s. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. We are stuck with the Super Hornet until the "next step". And it really isn't that bad for what we're paying for it.

It is about time we stopped spec'ing platforms with WWIII in Europe on our mind.

PD

[JALU3]

It is about time we stopped spec'ing platforms with WWIII in Europe on our mind.

PD

True enough, there is Communist China, Islamofascist Terrorist, Pirates, a resurgent Russia, Venezuela. Oh wait, the old adversaries are the ones who are building the systems that could counter our own . . . so "WWIII in Europe" is not what they are being designed against, but those foreign produced systems built to counter our own. -looks at Russian designs-

[PeriscopeDepth]

It is about time we stopped spec'ing platforms with WWIII in Europe on our mind.

PD
True enough, there is Communist China, Islamofascist Terrorist, Pirates, a resurgent Russia, Venezuela. Oh wait, the old adversaries are the ones who are building the systems that could counter our own . . . so "WWIII in Europe" is not what they are being designed against, but those foreign produced systems built to counter our own. -looks at Russian designs- Look at the specs. Particularly radius. They are designed with European battlefield transit ranges in mind, ~600nm. How close do you honestly believe we can get our carriers to any Chinese target in 2020? What will the sortie rate of these things be? There will not be more than two squadrons on a USN carrier deck. How many can we afford to lose in this scenario, because we will lose men and equipment to China in 2020.

Look at what bombing barbarians in Central Asia required. ~1300-1800nm transit PLUS CAS loiter time.

Don't even bother to explain to me how 1,763 ~80 million dollar VLO attack jets are needed for "Islamofascist Terrorist, Pirates, a resurgent Russia, Venezuela." Using a banana republic with a few dozen retooled Flankers, RPG toting barbarians, and PKM toting fishermen to justify these things is absolutely silly. And the RuAF had a tough enough time dealing with Georgian SAMs that were RUSSIAN built. Not to mention: how many new jets have they received in the past 10 years?

Why not just tank more and let the F-35 win the day? Because your tanker IS the Superhornet, the REAL force multiplier in the equation. And if the Superhornet can get close enough to tank and live, what's the point of 1,763 manned ~$80 mil VLO bomb trucks? Supers will be needed to fly support for its "superior VLO replacement" on Day 1/Raid 1 ANYWAYS because big motor missiles simply won't fit in the weapons bay. And modern wars are started with shooting volleys of big motor missiles. And "we'll just hang it on the wing after day 2" is absolutely ridiculous. Because it completely defeats the rhetoric that we NEED an overpriced F-16 anyways.

VLO wins the day! No, VLO and supercruise win the day. Because you are stealthly, not invisible to air defences ~2020. And you don't have the thrust to "Run away!" OR the amount of ordinance to make the other guy think twice about running you down.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/report-joint-st.html

What's another $300+ billion between friends?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/010609dnbusjsf.3b6036a.html

PD

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

And the RuAF had a tough enough time dealing with Georgian SAMs that were RUSSIAN built.
I must say I never really understood this anti-Russian criticism for the Georgian war. If the Falklands, Lebanon 1982 and Gulf War showed us anything, it is that since around 1980 (+/- 5 years or so), antiair missiles have improved to the point where correctly employed, they are actually worth making (compare that with 60s-70s weapons from the AIM-9H to the SA-6, even in their prime). If this is true of the West, this is true for Russian weapons as well. So how does their 1980s missiles actually being effective become a denigration for the RuAF?

[PeriscopeDepth]

And the RuAF had a tough enough time dealing with Georgian SAMs that were RUSSIAN built. I must say I never really understood this anti-Russian criticism for the Georgian war. If the Falklands, Lebanon 1982 and Gulf War showed us anything, it is that since around 1980 (+/- 5 years or so), antiair missiles have improved to the point where correctly employed, they are actually worth making (compare that with 60s-70s weapons from the AIM-9H to the SA-6, even in their prime). If this is true of the West, this is true for Russian weapons as well. So how does their 1980s missiles actually being effective become a denigration for the RuAF?
I'm sorry, I worded this poorly. Russian SAMs are probably the best weapons the Russians make, far more capable than their fighters for anti air IMO. What I was saying was, they should have known better. They themselves built the system. As close as it was to their border they should have known where these things were approximately through ELINT, sat recon, and perhaps even HUMINT. They made the system. If not capable of knowing how to outright defeat it, they should have known EXACTLY how to avoid it.

The RuAF did OK with CAS in Georgia, but if they were ever to come up against a modern air force I have my doubts about them. Keep in mind the vast majority of their Air Force is the same stuff they were using in the 1980's. Ours is too (and earlier), but has seen A LOT of upgrading. The majority of Russian equipment hasn't. And the performance of their radar guided AAMs (as recently as mid 1990s) has been absolutely terrible, even compared to Vietnam era Sparrows.

PD

[JALU3]

What the heck was that Periscope? Who said I was rallying for the F-35C or the X-47? :o Before you go out and try to deride my statements first understand what I am trying to say! :stare:

What I am saying is that the CVWs, with their F/A-18E/Fs and F-35 primary build out as planned, compared to its old Cold War Build out of longer ranged aircraft including the F-14s, A-6s, and A-7s, had a superior strike radius, thus giving them a larger area of control, the ability to strike deeper into a target country independent of refueling if need be, and was able to keep the CVBG/CVSG further away from the potential threats that could be launched ashore.

What you have shown is you are a lobbyist for the Super Hornet, and believe it a superior naval aircraft over any other possible alternative, specifically the F-35. Great, good for you. :up:

However, that doesn't solve the problem that, although the F/A-18E/Fs have replaced the KA-6Ds, it was my understanding, that the F/A-18E/Fs that had been loaded out for the tanker mission, did not carry the same (or greater) amount of fuel as the aircraft that they replaced, and had the same limitations of a shorter operational radius that is inherent to the F/A-18E/Fs in the first place remain.

Therefore, since both the F/A-18E/Fs and the planned F-35C have an inherently shorter operational raduis, then its predecessors, this reduces that capability of the CVW as a whole, and thus increases the threat to the CVBG/CVSG. Thus, if they could do it before, and have larger combat radii, then the should be able to engineer new aicraft with superior capability than the present and past aircraft, that can go equal distance to the longer legged cold-war era aircraft, or longer.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I'm sorry, I worded this poorly. Russian SAMs are probably the best weapons the Russians make, far more capable than their fighters for anti air IMO. What I was saying was, they should have known better. They themselves built the system. As close as it was to their border they should have known where these things were approximately through ELINT, sat recon, and perhaps even HUMINT.

The very point of the very high mobility of the latest generation of Russian antiaircraft weapons is to defeat or degrade the Recce-Strike Complex of NATO, even as the weapons are relatively close to the borderline (say as the Soviets advance through West Germany). If the weapons live up to half the hopes, it is hardly surprising they can evade destruction long enough to bag a few aircraft.

They made the system. If not capable of knowing how to outright defeat it, they should have known EXACTLY how to avoid it.

SAM systems are so sited that enemies have to fly through their kill zones to reach their target. If they were able to "avoid" it, it'll likely be because of a Georgian deployment error.

The RuAF did OK with CAS in Georgia, but if they were ever to come up against a modern air force I have my doubts about them. Keep in mind the vast majority of their Air Force is the same stuff they were using in the 1980's. Ours is too (and earlier), but has seen A LOT of upgrading. The majority of Russian equipment hasn't. And the performance of their radar guided AAMs (as recently as mid 1990s) has been absolutely terrible, even compared to Vietnam era Sparrows.

While I don't think they are quite up to modernity yet, Do you mean Ethiopia and Etritea? What happened to warm thoughts of the Russians and Ukies knowing how to defeat their own systems in this one? :)

Anyway, the murky statistics suggest out of 16-24 firing attempts, there was 4-5 hits (1 direct, 3-4 proximity), 2 unknowns, and 10-16 misses or failures to launch (according to Yefim Gordon). That's about a 17-44% hit rate, which is actually better than the Vietnam Sparrow pK of 0.08 (according to RAND).

Which is not too bad when you consider the actual pK of AMRAAM in the 90s wound up to be .59, and of BVR shots .46 (again according to RAND). The Sparrows in GW1 were IIRC about 24/71 fired or so.

Besides, the R-27 labored under several disadvantages in the battle. Never mind the maintenance, which is likely to be far inferior in a merc-hiring African country (and is the official reason for the relatively poor performance), but being in Africa, one can see little hope of competent vectoring. Positioning is a big factor in whether you can get hits or not BVR

[PeriscopeDepth]

What the heck was that Periscope? Who said I was rallying for the F-35C or the X-47? :o Before you go out and try to deride my statements first understand what I am trying to say! :stare:

What I am saying is that the CVWs, with their F/A-18E/Fs and F-35 primary build out as planned, compared to its old Cold War Build out of longer ranged aircraft including the F-14s, A-6s, and A-7s, had a superior strike radius, thus giving them a larger area of control, the ability to strike deeper into a target country independent of refueling if need be, and was able to keep the CVBG/CVSG further away from the potential threats that could be launched ashore.

What you have shown is you are a lobbyist for the Super Hornet, and believe it a superior naval aircraft over any other possible alternative, specifically the F-35. Great, good for you. :up:

However, that doesn't solve the problem that, although the F/A-18E/Fs have replaced the KA-6Ds, it was my understanding, that the F/A-18E/Fs that had been loaded out for the tanker mission, did not carry the same (or greater) amount of fuel as the aircraft that they replaced, and had the same limitations of a shorter operational radius that is inherent to the F/A-18E/Fs in the first place remain.

Therefore, since both the F/A-18E/Fs and the planned F-35C have an inherently shorter operational raduis, then its predecessors, this reduces that capability of the CVW as a whole, and thus increases the threat to the CVBG/CVSG. Thus, if they could do it before, and have larger combat radii, then the should be able to engineer new aicraft with superior capability than the present and past aircraft, that can go equal distance to the longer legged cold-war era aircraft, or longer. I hear ya' Jalu. I know we're going to getting much less of a radius than Cold War Era. Those Cold War era platforms are not coming back though, what I'm saying is that we have three choices (or a mixture thereof): F-35C, F/A-18E/F, X-47.

I think I've made it clear I prefer a X-47 (would bring back our radius advantage during the Cold War, in fact surpassing Cold War radii if it doesn't suffer from mission creep and they keep it as a dumb bombtruck) and Superhornet for the reasons I have already mentioned.

I definitely believe the Superhornet and X-47 combo would be a superior investment to $300+ billion on a manned bombtruck. Calling me a lobbyist makes it sound like some Washington fatcat is paying me to post this here. If only that were my dayjob. :)

While I don't think they are quite up to modernity yet, Do you mean Ethiopia and Etritea? What happened to warm thoughts of the Russians and Ukies knowing how to defeat their own systems in this one? :) KS, you have a little bit more faith in Russian radar guided AAMs than I do. They've never had a Vietnam that caused them to say, "Yep, they really do suck!" They've always had third world country showing poor results (with more than likely inferior export equipment, and maintenace as you mentioned anyways). Which allowed the Soviets to say, "Not our fault, it was those savages improperly employing downgraded technology." We've yet to see K-77s being used in combat, and maybe they will be significantly improved over their predecessors.

As for those Georgian SA-11s, maybe I'm being too harsh by not being able to believe the Russians hadn't a clue where they could be found when they were so close to their own border. While certainly a capable Air Force, the Russian Air Force would get torn up by an encounter with a Western Air Force IMO. If the Georgian conflict is any indication, they still aren't flying night bombing sorties and it's 2008 now (unless you've seen stuff I haven't). Granted, the Soviet Air Force was created with different things in mind . But the advantages of operating at night are pretty well known now.

And which Gordon book is it that you're referencing? Is it one of his Flanker titles? I've been wondering if there is anything worth buying out there about the African Sukhoi and MiG clashes.

PD