It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Navy ready to cut carrier/air wing

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
Makes total sense Obama wants to pare down the official military, to make room for his own private military which will be just as powerful, strong, and well funded as the official military but have total allegiance to Obama:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."


He meant expanding American soft power.
mediamatters.org...




posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Schaden
 


You're using Media Matters as a source? Are you serious?



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Are you serious?


Apparently more than you.


Today, AmeriCorps -- our nation's network of local, state, and national service programs -- has 75,000 slots. And I know firsthand the quality of these programs. My wife, Michelle, once left her job at a law firm and at City Hall to be a founding director of an AmeriCorps program in Chicago that trains young people for careers in public service. And these programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America's greatest resource -- our citizens.

And that's why as president, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem -- they are the answer.

So we are going to send -- we're going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where Americans can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment, and skill sets; you'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities. This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda, and make their own change from the bottom up.


So reading that again, in the context of the whole speech, which is more plausible ? That Obama was talking about the expansion of American soft power ? Or a nutty tinfoil hat conspiracy theory about raising a private mercenary military to do his bidding?

DENY IGNORANCE



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Schaden
 


Yup, deny ignorance and learn from the past. Communist regimes rely on a network of civilians allied strictly to the supreme leader to watch the rest of the population and report any transgressions against the supreme leader or his regime, aka Civilian National Security Force. Then arming them and making them a pseudo national police force answering straight to Obama will only be the icing on the cupcake.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Maybe they could still use the reactors as energy sources for coastal cities.Not a bad idea to use these as offshore powerplants .Also i think my navy should buy one of these again .Karel Doorman III. keep it in good hands



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Smart move on the part of the Navy. They are offering up something that they probally had intentions of retiring anyways - they just do it sooner than planned.

By doing this the moneymen put a check mark next to the Navy and move on to other branches and their pet projects.

Like mentioned, we have more carriers on the way.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
May i remind you that most US ships that havent been upgraded to latest standards still cant defend themselves from the infamous SS-22 "Sunburn".


That right there is a fine example of the different strategies the US and Russia had while building up their forces... Maybe it's mostly to do with how much money was available to throw around, but the yanks seem to have gone with the uber expensive complex systems while the ruskies seemed to lean towards the cheeper options such as the sunburn, which of course is far easier to produce in large numbers and easier to sell to your favourite nations!

Now the US is coming into an age where it's beginning to take pilots out of the aircraft then why not loose a carrier?

Maybe they could sell it to Iran, or maybe China



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by IblisThis is too absurd to ignore. Aside that this "flagship of the Russian navy" continually runs into financial and technical difficulties, let's discuss your "CBG all in one" commentary.


It is true that the Kuz has problems but then again, it is planned to be replaced a couple years later by the new vessels i was talking about.

And half of the US carrier fleet is also at the docks being refueled or doing repairs/maintance which is an indication that running ships like those is a major undertaking.




.
.
.
And all that is spread out between multiple targets, and all with multiple defense systems which can work with one-another.


Ok, ok i was wrong about the Kuz being just as strong as a complete CBG but still it packs a mighty punch.


It'd have been better to say the russian ship is a typical carrier plus an AAM system. And an extra few tidbits.


And those extra "few" tidbits and its AAM systems makes it a Cruiser not a Carrier. Reason? Because the Kuz has ASW weapons on its own which realy makes it more then just a carrier.


Given, the U.S. system costs an exhorbitant amount more, but to claim one ship somehow fulfills the role of four or five is absurd and ignorant at best.


Yes, you are right in this matter. I must have overshooted and overreacted in my response towards the post i was replying to.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by finemanmI am soooooo not a hippie, that its not even funny.


Sorry if it offended you but it was the easiest way to express myself since English isnt my number one language but still sorry for feeling offended but i putted "" those things for a reason you know.


The US currently spends $651,163,000,000 on defense annually. The real number is actually closer to a trillion when you factor in the two wars and defense research. I read that in an article that I can't find right now.


That is indeed much but a huge part of that big number goes to maintanance of vehicles and planes. And then you have the massive corruption that is litteraly plaging the US Army.


But if you take just the $651 Billion, that is 56% of global defense spending. Thats nuts. The next highest budget is China with $70,242,645,000 in annual spending. That is slightly more than 10% of the US defense budget.


The Chinese are just spending incredibly more efficient then the US are doing plust that the prices for induvidual equipment is far cheaper in China. Couple that to the fact that China has less maintance costs due to having newer equipment.

Also China is lacking a big R&D complex if you catch my drift



It is rediculous that we spend that much on "defense" when kids in school don't have books, teachers can barely afford to live, and millions of middle and working class americans have no health coverage.


Get rid of the corruption and stuf like that, then you could cut the expendirue of the Army in half. Which happens according to your numbers be ~325 Billion US dollars. More then 1 Billion dollars per head to spend stuf uppon. Aint that nice?



If we cut our defense budget by one third, we would still outspend the next nine countries COMBINED.
[edit on 28-3-2009 by finemanm]


That is the price to pay when you want to be the "most powerfull" country in the world. And dont you love a western hemisphere that has known relatively long strech of peace due to the effects of Pax "Americana"?



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by James R. Hawkwood
 



James R. Hawkwood,


Ok, ok i was wrong about the Kuz being just as strong as a complete CBG but still it packs a mighty punch.

And those extra "few" tidbits and its AAM systems makes it a Cruiser not a Carrier. Reason? Because the Kuz has ASW weapons on its own which realy makes it more then just a carrier.


Is this the ship to which you refer as the Kuz?? If so ..I am wondering if you see what I see in these photos at this site.

acecombatskies.com...

Interesting photos but telling in some of them.

Ive spent a number of years in the construction of 688 class submarines and also the Virginia class boats.

Also I have spent years in the construction and overhaul of Nimitz class carriers..including the nuclear refueling of them. I know their engine rooms, pump rooms, catapults, Reactor compartments, as well as arresting gear systems.

The Russians have to use the jump ramp. They have been unable to construct or maintain a catapult system. This is known in the trades. It is just not widely told in this PC type world. The lack of this knowledge makes us more easily afrighted by such photos.

Yes...the Russians will be improving their carrier and other fleet ships in the future. So too will the Chinese.

Just wondering if you see what I see in the photos of the carrier in the page I linked??

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
It's important to remember Kuznetzov was designed for an entirely different mission than a US carrier.

US carriers are designed for global power projection.

Kuznetzov was designed primarily to anchor defense of the Russian "boomer bastions" - the areas where their ballistic missile subs patrolled.

So it has a lot less long range striking power, it's strongly biased towards defensive AAW and ASW missions instead.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


orange the brits have ski-jump carriers , and they invented steam catapult * Commander Colin C. Mitchell RNVR 1950 ,HMS Perseus*

wtb some real carriers for the uk though



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Harlequin,

Yes I know that the Brits invented the steam catapult. I learned of this when I was transfered to the Enterprise to work these catapult systems to rip them out and send the steam cylilnders to the shops.

Nonetheless the Russians have not been able to fabricate one on their own and maintain it working.

Steam catapult systems ..though very powerful and adjustable for different loads and aircraft...are very complex systems...also very very expensive to build and maintain. They add considerable costs and difficulties to the running of a ship. Crew training and proficiency...etc etc.

What I do not know and have often wondered about ..is...do the jump ramps have limitations on how much weight/'ordinance/fuel an aircraft can carry on take off...verses a steam catapult system.

How about airborne tankers...taking off from the jump ramp...are they too limited in thier weight??

This is not such an issue with the steam catapult system ..particularly on a ship with a nuclear reactor as steam volumes is not an issue.

There is a special compartment with equipment dedicated to the steam firing valve in which the steam can be adjusted to the aircraft/load. It is also a fairly fortified compartment in case of a massive accident or steam blow out. One of these compartment for all four catapults.

None the less...the steam catapult system is very complex and expensive to build..and also to keep and maintain..including crew proficiency/training.

This is why the Brits have gone to the jump ramp..not because they dont know how to build a steam catapult system..but because of expenses/costs.
This is also why the new carriers are not planned to be nuclear reactors...costs.
At the rate of spending our government is heading into ...we too will be weighing these decisions in costs as has the Royal Navy.

When a nuclear carrier is overhauled here...this is also one of the systems which takes the longest to rip out ...repair and then reinstall...work goes on on these systems like..12 hour days...forever...from before the time the ships enters the yard..to long after the ship is returned to the navy...work still goes on on these steam catapult systems...very complex and difficult to maintain and overhaul.

Thanks,
Orangetom



[edit on 31-3-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999Is this the ship to which you refer as the Kuz?? If so ..I am wondering if you see what I see in these photos at this site.

Interesting photos but telling in some of them.


Yes orange that is the Kuz i was talking about. (Full name is: The Admiral Kuznetsov.) Its just typing easier and faster you see?



Ive spent a number of years in the construction of 688 class submarines and also the Virginia class boats.

Also I have spent years in the construction and overhaul of Nimitz class carriers..including the nuclear refueling of them. I know their engine rooms, pump rooms, catapults, Reactor compartments, as well as arresting gear systems.


Cool!



The Russians have to use the jump ramp. They have been unable to construct or maintain a catapult system. This is known in the trades. It is just not widely told in this PC type world. The lack of this knowledge makes us more easily afrighted by such photos.


Yeah, it is the fear off the unknown that scares most people. That aside i find the Kuz a job well done since the SU didnt even had the knowledge of building large vessels like the Kuz and with those kinds of capabillities.


Yes...the Russians will be improving their carrier and other fleet ships in the future. So too will the Chinese.

Just wondering if you see what I see in the photos of the carrier in the page I linked??


I dont know about the Chinese but the Russians will create a relativly large Aviation Cruiser force in the next decades. Realy challenging the US for sea domination in that aspect.

What do i need to see then? I see a proud vessel steaming full speed ahead serving its country well.



Thanks,
Orangetom


Your welcome mate!

Thanks
James R. Hawkwood



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I believe the US is also moving toward electromagnetic catapults, which should be AWESOME!! Im definitely curious as to how the Ford will look. Cant wait, but again I dont see the US losing control of the seas anytime soon.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
James R. Hawkwood,

Putting any kind of sonar or such listening device on an aircraft carrier is a waste of time. Carriers are anything but quiet. When you look at the aircraft on that deck...what you see is two very huge,powerful and almost oversized jet engines stuck on a aerodynamic frame. Just like many of the US Navy's aircraft you have more engine than you have airplane.
Having been around numerous aircraft, even some Russian types I can pretty much tell you that these engines are anything but quiet and particularly at take off power.

If you are using this ship as an ASW platform ..you wont be launching any aircraft if it is going to be effective. Now helicopters can be effective...I just don't see this ship as being so.

On a Nimitz class carrier or even the Enterprise...there is a very large waterbrake at the end of all four catapults. These catapults themselves are quite noisy when launched ..only to be eclipsed by the noise of the pistons hitting the waterbrake at the end of the catapults.

Carriers themselves are very unsuited as ASW platforms.

By the way..this applies also to Nimitz class carriers as well.

The other concept you need to know about well groomed/trained Navy's..is that there are ..Submarines....and then there are ....Targets.

Not much in between.

This ship is a sitting duck..and so too with anything around it.
I came to understand this when working on 688 class boats...but it is even more so with the Sea Wolf and now the Virginia class boats.

With the state of the art... in Submarines ..so to speak....this is more true today than say....10/15 years ago.
The art has moved that rapidly.

When the fleet returns ..you have the women, reporters and pep rallies at the Carrier/destroyer piers. You don't see them at the submarine piers.
You show your kings in a hand of cards...you don't show your aces.

Truthseeker,

The electric catapults to my limited knowledge are not working out. The new Ford class will be getting steam catapults. To many problems not satisfactorily ironed out. Perhaps in the future with more advances in the state of the art.

While no one has told me specifics...I have wondered what a large electrical spike from a electrical catapult launching will do to all the sensitive electronic equipment on board..from radars to radios to computers and inertial navigation equipment..not only on the ship but in the aircraft as well.

A Nimitz class carrier is truly a bird nest of antennas and electronics on the flight deck as well as the Island house. Very very sensitive equipment.

As a licensed Ham radio operator, I quickly take notice of any kind of antenna farm or set up..which is exactly what a Nimitz class carrier is on the flight deck and Island House. An Antenna Farm!!

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom

[edit on 31-3-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Orangetom,

I like your enthusiasm to share info but i was talking about Anti-SHIP-Warfare in general and not Anti-SUBMARINE-Warfare.

Hidden under the flightdeck are launchers that contain anti ship cruise missiles.

And those helicopters are more then enough to wage basic anti submarine warfare and the special job is done by destroyers and the likes like that. But that is old news for you



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
hmmm hows the Thales EMCAT going?

[edit on 31/3/09 by Harlequin]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
The electric catapults to my limited knowledge are not working out. The new Ford class will be getting steam catapults. To many problems not satisfactorily ironed out. Perhaps in the future with more advances in the state of the art.

While no one has told me specifics...I have wondered what a large electrical spike from a electrical catapult launching will do to all the sensitive electronic equipment on board..from radars to radios to computers and inertial navigation equipment..not only on the ship but in the aircraft as well.

A Nimitz class carrier is truly a bird nest of antennas and electronics on the flight deck as well as the Island house. Very very sensitive equipment.

As a licensed Ham radio operator, I quickly take notice of any kind of antenna farm or set up..which is exactly what a Nimitz class carrier is on the flight deck and Island House. An Antenna Farm!!

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom

[edit on 31-3-2009 by orangetom1999]


According to the project websites, the EMALS testing is going well. They've tested a full scale, reduced length model of it, and everything has worked to date. Their big problem is if they have enough room on the carrier. The PDRR phase is complete.


GA and its Team have completed the Program Definition and Risk Reduction (PDRR) phase of the Navy's electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) program and have been selected to perform the System Development and Demonstration phase. The goal of the EMALS SDD phase is to develop the existing design chosen during PDRR into an integrated shipboard system that is both operationally suitable and effective, thus replacing steam catapults with an electric system that will reduce maintenance and provide flexibility and growth potential for carrier aviation throughout the 21st century.The GA Team EMALS design is a robust, highly reliable launch system that will meet or exceed all Navy performance goals. This design will provide significant reductions in installed weight, volume, and workload compared to the existing steam catapult. The design uses state-of-the-art technologies that we believe will demonstrate our system is affordable and producible.

www.ga.com...


NAVAIR’s EMALS developers have given a green light to engineers at General Atomics in Tupelo, MS to engage in full power train testing of EMALS motor components.

This second phase of High Cycle Testing (HCT-2) will involve full power train testing, and will give a specific prediction of EMALS operations. HCT-2 will also perform environmental qualification testing, which is used to confirm the adequacy of the equipment design and safety under normal, abnormal, design basis event, post design basis event and in-service test conditions

www.defenseindustrydaily.com...

There is some question as to whether they'll be ready in time, but they're making good progress on them.

The RN carriers will be using steam catapults, as they didn't want to take the chance on the technology not being ready in time. The GA EMALS wouldn't be available to them until after 2015.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



Zaphod 58,

The word I am getting here is that the E MALS catapult system will not be ready for the Gerald Ford. I may have mispoke when I stated the whole class. I am hearing that there are bugs in the system and it will not be ready for at least the first carrier.

Also as happens often in a new design there are huge numbers of bugs to be worked out. We are not just talking about the EMALS alone but the support systems as well since there will be huge changes here too.

Nonetheless..I am still wondering how this will effect the rest of the electronics throughout the carrier with such a powerful magnetic shot to get an aircraft off the deck. Curious about this.

Thanks,
Orangetom



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join