Study Proposes Light Aircraft Carriers for the Future Fleet

Variants for different customers or mission profiles
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1131
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post15 Oct 2020, 16:15

blindpilot wrote:
milosh wrote:,,,, any chance of mistake by NORAD.


The pressure to respond quickly with preemptive counter force suppression from the Ohio Class sub off the coast, "before it gets worse", is not trivial... really bad things spiral out from, "well, let's at least close down the ICBM sites before they are just empty silos."

You (the Chinese) would have to be an idiot to launch a "salvo" of missiles thinking there's no chance of a mistake ... yeah right ... keep thinking that ... you'll get us all killed.

But as above, I certainly pray you're right.

MHO
BP


Today is quite easy to know what is fired and WHERE it goes so I don't think someone will instantily press red button and fire missiles which will have similar path as in case of attack on Russia. Also fear from possible attack on silos (even though I don't see in what scenario Chinese ASBM salvo would look like that) isn't really something to be feared off.

How knows in what shape Minutemen are. Last one was probable build while you was in NORAD :D
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1392
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post15 Oct 2020, 17:17

blindpilot wrote:
I certainly pray you are right ... but ... keep in mind I was working on systems in the Missile Warning Center in Cheyenne Mountain as a Missile Warning Officer when little defcon lights and missile counters went spinning in the wind in the late 70's, on the phone with a handful of senior officers, sorting out what was real or not.


Thankfully, the intervening 40 years saw dramatic improvements in strategic early warning and C3I.


blindpilot wrote:The pressure to respond quickly with preemptive counter force suppression from the Ohio Class sub off the coast, "before it gets worse", is not trivial... really bad things spiral out from, "well, let's at least close down the ICBM sites before they are just empty silos."


Why wouldn't the PRC be in a launch-on-warning posture? D5's accuracy is predicated on a design range MET so
they have lots of time assuming they can detect a mid-ocean launch.

There's unlikely to be US pre-emptive strike on the strategic front.

If we detected PRC SSBNs well off their typical patrol routes, en masse, then maybe.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1131
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post15 Oct 2020, 18:23

There isn't any realistic chinese conventional BM salvo attack which can look as attack on west coast.

Mostly close to that is attack on Hawaii but conventional BMs don't have that range and even that doesn't look like attack on west coast.

Only if they fire over Kamchatka it can be seen as attack on west coast, but there isn't any reason to do that.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6446
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post15 Oct 2020, 21:27

quicksilver wrote::lmao:

The study recommends a study.

More classic Navy ‘rope-a-dope.’



Decisions decisions, lets put them off some more
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6446
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post15 Oct 2020, 21:37

Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, I have my doubts we will ever see a Light Aircraft Carrier (CVL) for the USN. Unless they plan on replacing the current LHA/LHD (Wasp/America) Amphibious Ships. Plus, would the USMC even go along with such a proposal???


Nor, do I see the country (US) giving away its ace in the hole card??? (Nimitz/Ford Class Super Carriers) Something that the PLAN can't match in the foreseeable future......


:doh:


Thats a bizarre assumption

Assuming the USN plays its cards right, the L-class ships (which do more than just carry aircraft) aren't going anywhere. They get some new "light" carriers, don't compromise the CVN plans they have. That would be the ideal

People need to remember that these things that "never happen" (and I admit the odds are long) aren't carried by even recent history. Like when some mouth-breather says "the Navy will never accept a single engine anything" and I have to remind them they had single engine aircraft still on the decks in the same decade JSF program with its double plus ungood single engine was forming. Same with the post world war II "small carriers" that soldiered on into vietnam Midway went into the 1990s, and could never carry Tomcats but still made herself useful.

Its actually only fairly recent history where the navy operated only mulit-role hornets, from only CVNs. before that they operated various sizes of airplanes, from various sizes of ships. yes the odds are long, but my point is "never say never"
if one could assure the navy they are getting "more" as in "actually more" and not some "trade" or "addition by subtraction" bullspit then they might just go along with it. the issue is of course there are no true assurances, and the navy would have to "hate" the little carriers constantly in order to ensure the true Harbor Queens continue to be built. Those anchors are heavy, and they need to be dropped and never moved
Choose Crews
Previous

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests