CVN Gary Hart

[Uncle Fester]

The Brits let their AEW and long-range intercept capability atrophy because MoD had assumed for years that any future war Britain fought would be a NATO war; thus, they would have Hawkeyes and Tomcats for that sort of thing. The RN point-defense weapons like Sea Cat were proved seriously deficent against cruise missiles and even Scooters with iron bombs, especially when crippled by lack of effective AEW. Fortunately, the Argies didn't have many Exocets to play with, and after the General Belgrano was torpedoed, the Argie Navy sat out the rest of the war. Read Admiral Woodward's book, it's very pertinent to our Navy's future vs. well-trained peer competitors.

As for why the C-2B will be able to tank? It's because the Rhino guys heard about this and started screaming and twitching.

 

[Flash]

What kind of ship defense did the Brits have during the Falklands? Anything like our CIWS or BPDMS (or whatever the follow-on to that system is)? You know, to knock those suckers out of the sky...

The Brits had the Sea Dart and the Sea Wolf as their main SAM's (the old Sea Cat was still being used on a few ships but only as a point defense weapon to supplement AAA), they did not have any Phalanx, Goalkeeper or any comparable CIWS systems as to what they have today (I believe they added some Phalanx to their carriers soon after the war).

The Sea Dart was roughly comparable to an SM-1, a medium range SAM that was introduced in the 70's. It was used in the Gulf War to shoot down at Seersucker, but that was a lot bigger and easier ASCM to shoot down. The Sea Wolf was a short range missile that was very effective against aircraft in its engagement zone, but was not primarily an anti-missile system. Missile defense for the RN at the time consisted of chaff and ECM, and not much else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dart_missile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Wolf_missile

Then you had the Sea Harrier, which was very effective but it never interecepted a Super Entendard. No AEW was there to cue them........

 

[phrogpilot73]

I understand that airborne radar duties is one of the missions of the Navy SH-60 fleet but I was responding specifically to Phrogpilot's and Master's apparent assertions that helos and Aegis could do the job of the E-2 for an ESG, which is what I got from their posts.

Let me clarify - I don't think the Aegis/H-60 combo can do the job of an E-2. I was just saying that is what is available to the ESG...

 

[HeloBubba]

Let me clarify - I don't think the Aegis/H-60 combo can do the job of an E-2. I was just saying that is what is available to the ESG...

And with that gear they will improvise, adapt, and overcome...

 

[statesman]

Despite the domestic critics, the Navy is clearly betting the farm on supercarriers—both today and tomorrow. Navy leaders aren’t alone in their devotion to the big decks; Britain, France, India, Russia, and China also are moving to acquire large, air-capable warships.

I think it cute that the author of this article makes it sound as though the super-carrier isn't an already proven system.

 

[Lawman]

I think it cute that the author of this article makes it sound as though the super-carrier isn't an already proven system.

Well.... theirs arent. :icon_smil Save for England.

 

[statesman]

True. But its good to hear that the Brits man finnaly remove their heads from their @$$ and build an actual carrier again.

 

[Lawman]

True. But its good to hear that the Brits man finnaly remove their heads from their @$$ and build an actual carrier again.

Have you seen the proposal for the Carrier its self? Its the same size as our retired Midway Class Carriers but is expected to carry less Aircraft.

And then there is the whole problem of Money in the Brit MOD.

 

[statesman]

But still 3 times the tonnage of the current carrier. I dont know much, or anything about this program. This is actually the first I have heard of the Brits stepping up their sea power. I have found it to be a travisty that England has almost given up being a maritime power, so I am excited to hear that they are at least talking about building a real carrier. Even if it is smaller than the Midway class, thats still a big ship.

 

[Lawman]

But still 3 times the tonnage of the current carrier. I dont know much, or anything about this program. This is actually the first I have heard of the Brits stepping up their sea power. I have found it to be a travisty that England has almost given up being a maritime power, so I am excited to hear that they are at least talking about building a real carrier. Even if it is smaller than the Midway class, thats still a big ship.

Yeah but its more the idea that if your gonna commit to the idea of a Carrier and then crap out on a "hybrid" you'd have better spent the money on Surface Combatants that project the same kind of firepower and give you more boats to do it with....... Shit I sound like a SWO. Im gonna go stand in the corner now.

 

[eddie]

Yeah but its more the idea that if your gonna commit to the idea of a Carrier and then crap out on a "hybrid" you'd have better spent the money on Surface Combatants that project the same kind of firepower and give you more boats to do it with....... Shit I sound like a SWO. Im gonna go stand in the corner now.

Good point.

Honest Question (that we probably won't be able to discuss as I'd like): What can a big deck (or amphib carrier) bring to the fight that X number of brand new surface combatants can't?

I suppose the most obvious thing would be air superiority, but does that always have to matter (I don't know how well surface warfare air defences work)?

 

[raptor10]

It brings
more pilots
more bombs
more sorties

Not to mention humanitarian relief missions and show of force...

The quote isn't talk softly and carry a moderately sized stick...

 

[A4sForever]

^ & endurance, survivability.

 

[eddie]

It brings
more pilots
more bombs
more sorties

Not to mention humanitarian relief missions and show of force...

The quote isn't talk softly and carry a moderately sized stick...

I'm talking about shells and tomohawks.

^ & endurance, survivability.

That's fair.

Why do we need planes? That's an honest question. Yesterday I can answer for. Today is what I'm asking about. Tomorrow will be informed by Today.

 

[A4sForever]

^ God, that's a beautiful picture -- should warm the heart of every Navy man. And woman, too ...