SUBSIM Radio Room Forums



SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > General > General Topics
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-11-11, 02:24 PM   #1
flatsixes
Weps
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 362
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0
Default The Next Navy?

The linked article, "Twilight of the $UPERfluous Carrier" appears in the May 2011 issue of the Naval Institute's Proceedings magazine.

I think the authors provide a provocative and insightful analysis of the direction the US Navy should be taking as era of the super carrier draws to a close.

If I'm lucky, some of you will disagree, and then we can have a big fight about it.

And yes, Mr. Moderator, its got stuff about submarines in it, too.

Enjoy.

Last edited by flatsixes; 05-11-11 at 02:25 PM. Reason: @$%#^&%@ typos!
flatsixes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-11, 02:39 AM   #2
Fish In The Water
Prince of
the Sea


SUBSIM
Welcome
Committee

 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Watching over U-253
Posts: 3,527
Downloads: 98
Uploads: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flatsixes View Post
If I'm lucky, some of you will disagree, and then we can have a big fight about it.
Positive thinking that.
Fish In The Water is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-11, 07:30 AM   #3
August
Wayfaring Stranger
 
August's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 23,197
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flatsixes View Post
If I'm lucky, some of you will disagree, and then we can have a big fight about it.
You're not going to get much of an argument in a forum where surface ships are considered targets.
__________________


Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.
August is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-11, 07:34 AM   #4
TLAM Strike
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Rochester, New York
Posts: 8,633
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 6


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaddogK View Post
Again we dream of the day when F-35's get off the drawingboards, get into production, and prove they work as designed, at a reasonable price.

The F-35's price might be more reasonable than has been reported around the web.
__________________


TLAM Strike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-11, 10:16 AM   #5
Herr-Berbunch
Kaiser Bill's batman
 
Herr-Berbunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: AN72
Posts: 13,203
Downloads: 76
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaddogK View Post
What good is an airplane that get grounded after the first 10 hours of flight because maintenance can't be done because it isn't paid for ?
IIRC the RAF's C17s and Apaches all started off very similar! C17s didn't allow for maintenance and the Apaches didn't come with any avionics.

Our new (future) Voyager aircraft will probably have strict luggage restrictions for passengers, and will only be allowed to pass 10,000lbs of fuel to other aircraft per day, up to a maximum of 100,000 per calendar month or the penalty clause kicks in. I hate to think what the non-refundable deposit is for leasing this!
__________________
Herr-Berbunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-11, 10:43 AM   #6
Matador.es
Chief
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 327
Downloads: 30
Uploads: 0
Default

I have always been in favor of the JSF. Though I recently started to realize it will be outdated before it will c service (here in holland). It will be taken over by the unmanned aircrafts.

I really like one remark of this writer. The carrier will not be domed. But like at the end of the battleship will perform a support role. Like they did in Vietnam, as artillery. I do think hey has a good point there!

Everything can be divided in platforms and tools. If the carrier is the platform, the plane is the tool. When your talking about the plane (platform) the weapons will be the tools. So if the plane is removed and the UMAV will be used instead the tool of the platform (carrier) is gone. Euhm, yea, had to read it twice myself....
Matador.es is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-11, 11:55 AM   #7
TLAM Strike
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Rochester, New York
Posts: 8,633
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 6


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaddogK View Post
'might be' ?

Are you saying it's fair to strip all r&d costs, testing, updates, and other ownership costs from the price and claim the production only costs are all that matters ?
When you do that for a 4th gen aircraft and not or the F-35 and compare the two (which many have done) then yes it is.
__________________


TLAM Strike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-11, 02:26 PM   #8
TLAM Strike
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Rochester, New York
Posts: 8,633
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 6


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaddogK View Post
Well, the V-22 osprey has a fly-away cost thats almost identical to what you're article states for the F-35, and you know what that program has cost, right ?
I wonder what having a F-36 for the USAF, an F/A-37 for the Navy and a AV-38 for the USMC would cost in R & D and production? A heck of a lot more than just the F-35 A/B/C

Quote:
Just for grins- according to the USAF 2009 budget, the F-22 fly away cost is 137.4 million (2008 cost) BUT weapons and avionics cost an additional 177.58 million MORE per copy. - NO spares, no training, no anything additional.

BTW- the AF doc shows a fly-away cost for the F-35 @ 215 MIL each + 235 Million EACH for avionics and weapons.
Really? A yet to be produced Multi-Role figher costs more than a Single Role air superiority fighter that has finished production? Amazing you pay more for a plane that flys farther and does more?

__________________


TLAM Strike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-11, 02:45 PM   #9
claybirdd
Frogman
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pulaski Tennessee
Posts: 290
Downloads: 32
Uploads: 0
Default

At least we picked the F-35 instead of the X-32.
__________________
If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, you did very poor planning.
claybirdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-11, 09:35 AM   #10
flatsixes
Weps
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 362
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0
Default

Ouch! Having read that comparison of the F-22 v. F-35, it really does seem to be a no-brainer: The F-22 is clearly the superior aircraft. But there's no way that you're gonna get a fully loaded pig like that off the deck of an aircraft carrier. For my money, leave the F-22 to the USAF and give me two F-35's manned by Naval Aviators.
flatsixes is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.