Is the Carrier too weak on defense? - Page 5

Panag · February 18, 2003, 21:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen

Precisely, I said that it was more economical to use 2 carriers with more aircraft than 3 aircraft with less. But the US did not do that so that is why I am disputing your claim of 30 more aircraft. And the 50% was referring to COMBAT AIRCRAFT which is ultimately what matters since adding solely support craft is unnesseary considering the size of the combat wing has not changed. If you count, say, helicopters, then yes, any Nimitz carrier could probably fit in 30 more.

I won't say anything about the Su 35 since it is an untried aircraft. I will simply say that I base my facts on a BAe study which showed the Su-35 to be about 30% better than the F/A-18E

hi ,

why is it so difficult to look and read the evidence posted above , .....

you find the complete rundown of all the aircraft in a typical peacetime day inwhere more then 70 out of 85 aircraft are fighters and you still make it sound there are less the ten combat aircraft , .....

further more you state that adding support aircraft is "unnesseary" , ..... well here is an example ; one day there a huge fog depression moved in on a search and recovery mission , 4 extra awacs where flown in with 12 extra refuelaircraft , ..... the additional personal and equipment where flown in on 6 transports , ..... thats 22 extra planes , ..... they stayed for 8 weeks , ....

a helicopter need more space then an airplane and handling and ops are not the same , .....

ones again , its not more economical to use ops with two instead of three , ... you forget one huge thing here , ..... the pentagon decides where a carrier is and what he does , .... economics have nothing to do to cover an area of ocean or an ops area , .....

the su 35 untried , ... ahem , .....

intresting to note is that there is a study on the hill that shows that the F-18 ( new model ) is exactly 30 % better the the su 35 , ......

have a nice day

Panag · February 18, 2003, 21:06

Su-37
The Su-37 is a super-maneuverable thrust vectoring fighter derived from an Su-35 prototype. The Su-37 represents a new level of capability compared with the Su-27 and Su-35. The Su-37 test aircraft made its maiden flight in April 1996 from the Zhukovsky flight testing center near Moscow. This impressive single-seat all-weather counter-air fighter and ground attack aircraft, derived from the SU-27, has an updated airframe containing a high proportion of carbon-fibre and Al-Li alloy. The engines, avionics and armaments are also improvements on those originally installed in the SU-27. The AL-37FU engines are configured for thrust vector control, with the axisymmetric steerable thrust vector control nozzle is fixed on a circular turning unit. The steel nozzle in the experimental engines is replaced in production engines by titanium units to reduce the weight of the nozzle. The nozzle only moves in the pitch axis, and the nozzles on the two engines can deflect together or differentially to achieve the desired thrust vector for a particular maneuver.
The Su-37 has a variety of other innovative equipment such as a radar configured for simultaneous surveillance of airspace and the ground and a high-precision laser-inertial/satellite navigation system. The all-weather digital multi-mode phased array radar operates in either air and ground surveillance modes or in both modes simultaneously. Ground surveillance modes include mapping (with Doppler beam sharpening), search-and-track of moving targets, synthetic aperature radar and terrain avoidance. The Su-37 is also equipped with a rearward facing radar in the tail stinger area of the fuselage. The Su-37 features fly-by-wire and relaxed static instability, which along with 3D thrust vectoring give the aircraft tremendous agility. It incorporates state of the art ECM in wing-tip pods, allowing improved survivability in electronic warfare environments. The Su-37 can carry air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons on 12 stations. The number of missiles and bombs carried can be increased to 14 with the use of multi-payload racks.

Sukhoi used payments earned in the sale of an Su-27 license to China to finance the Su-37 development. Russia's Air Force has not ordered any Su-37s. Sukhoi is studying the possibility of developing a two-seat version of the Su-37 with enhanced strike capabilities.

hi ,

above is the info from the latest "familymember" of the su 27 , .....

have a nice day

Dis · February 18, 2003, 21:09

I haven't read this thread entirely.

But I served on the USS Enterprise for 4 years. We had Sea Sparrow launcers (2 iirc). One on the Port side and one of the starboard side; and 3 Phalanx gatling guns. This was our only defense against missles/planes. I don't even think they are programmed to target surface targets. I was a machinist mate, not a gunners mate- so I'm not entirely sure of these weapons capabilities.

In any case just because of the carriers sheer size the defense should be higher. Any torpedo hit on the side can be isolated with watertight bulkheads. The biggest way to damage it is to set off bombs on the flight deck. The Forestal fire showed how devestating this was. But even in that case the carrier was able to get back into port and repair itself.

So you guys need to realize the sheer size of a carrier accounts for something. It's not designed like the Titanic which had very few water tight bulkeads/decks.

Panag · February 18, 2003, 21:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

MODS, PANAG IS SPAMMING!!!

hi ,

keep on topic and post your no usefull to the subject messages somewhere else , ....

bye

Master Zen · February 18, 2003, 22:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

MODS, PANAG IS SPAMMING!!!

If I had posted all that, I'd have a custom avatar by now!

Master Zen · February 18, 2003, 22:53

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

why is it so difficult to look and read the evidence posted above , .....

you find the complete rundown of all the aircraft in a typical peacetime day inwhere more then 70 out of 85 aircraft are fighters and you still make it sound there are less the ten combat aircraft , .....

Well, when there's 20 straight posts of Panag's All The World's Carriers and Landing Craft and only 15 minutes of time I can't sit down and read all of it.

I know there are 60+ combat aircraft on board on a typical peacetime day, have I said otherwise? As I said again and again, my only claim is that I'm not so sure a Nimitz carrier can carry 30 more aircraft. All you Navy guys out there should know the answer to this. Can it?

Quote:

further more you state that adding support aircraft is "unnesseary" , ..... well here is an example ; one day there a huge fog depression moved in on a search and recovery mission , 4 extra awacs where flown in with 12 extra refuelaircraft , ..... the additional personal and equipment where flown in on 6 transports , ..... thats 22 extra planes , ..... they stayed for 8 weeks , ....

But you are not asking yourself if the extra aircraft compromised the ability of the carrier wing to perform at 100% effectiveness. That's my point. Sure, you can jam pack the deck with 50 more aircraft and then there's no room to take off, see what I mean? It's not a question of how many PHYSICALLY FIT, but how many can effectively complement the wing.

Quote:

a helicopter need more space then an airplane and handling and ops are not the same , .....

Not true. Carrier helicopters have folded propellers which take up much less space. Look at the stats for an Invincible carrier and it can carry a larger helo load than a plane load.

Quote:

ones again , its not more economical to use ops with two instead of three , ... you forget one huge thing here , ..... the pentagon decides where a carrier is and what he does , .... economics have nothing to do to cover an area of ocean or an ops area , .....

So now you are contradicting yourself. On page 5 you said it was. You said, (and I quote)

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

your idea about spreading aircraft over more carriers does not fly , an extra carrier cost's a zillion time more then an aircraft ,

And economics has A LOT to do on Pentagon planning, as if it were free to move all those units anywhere.

Quote:

the su 35 untried , ... ahem , .....

intresting to note is that there is a study on the hill that shows that the F-18 ( new model ) is exactly 30 % better the the su 35 , ......

have a nice day

well, I guess we both base our opinions on different studies. Guess we'll have to wait for war to see who's right.

Nubclear · February 18, 2003, 23:37

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

keep on topic and post your no usefull to the subject messages somewhere else , ....

bye

hi,

i was joking panag.....calm down.......

HAVE A NICE DAY

HAND · February 19, 2003, 00:24

I think the carrier defence is about right. Well, who sends out or leaves a carrier by itself? It needs an escort at all times.
A typical naval battlegroup (non-invasion/controlling the sea), would be 1 carrier(2 bombers,2fighters), 2 battleships, 4-6 destroyers and about 4 subs(nuclear if possible)....I've have never lost a carrier yet!

Panag · February 19, 2003, 11:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen

Well, when there's 20 straight posts of Panag's All The World's Carriers and Landing Craft and only 15 minutes of time I can't sit down and read all of it.

I know there are 60+ combat aircraft on board on a typical peacetime day, have I said otherwise? As I said again and again, my only claim is that I'm not so sure a Nimitz carrier can carry 30 more aircraft. All you Navy guys out there should know the answer to this. Can it?

But you are not asking yourself if the extra aircraft compromised the ability of the carrier wing to perform at 100% effectiveness. That's my point. Sure, you can jam pack the deck with 50 more aircraft and then there's no room to take off, see what I mean? It's not a question of how many PHYSICALLY FIT, but how many can effectively complement the wing.

Not true. Carrier helicopters have folded propellers which take up much less space. Look at the stats for an Invincible carrier and it can carry a larger helo load than a plane load.

So now you are contradicting yourself. On page 5 you said it was. You said, (and I quote)

And economics has A LOT to do on Pentagon planning, as if it were free to move all those units anywhere.

well, I guess we both base our opinions on different studies. Guess we'll have to wait for war to see who's right.

hi ,

master zen , if you are ever in the med , give a call , .... then you can see foryourself , ....

all us carriers have at least 85 airplanes aboard , that is the minimum they have in peace time , ....

the 32 planes can be brought on extra without interfeering whatsoever with flight ops , .... look at some of the pics , you shall see it , .... the max space extra on the nimitz class is 32 , ...

you just cant compare the invincible with a nimitz class , neither are helicopters , ... example , a jolly green giant needs way more space the a blackhawk , .... then there is spare parts , handling , etc , .... and there is huge difference , ... thats the pic you have to get , .....

on the heli's you also have to take in account for example the elevators , a jolly green giant cant move on every elevator on a nimitz class , ....

have a nice day

Master Zen · February 19, 2003, 13:44

Anybody in the Navy here that could PLEEEEEASE resolve this technical dispute? I'm tired of replying...

Panag · February 19, 2003, 14:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
Anybody in the Navy here that could PLEEEEEASE resolve this technical dispute? I'm tired of replying...

hi ,

and still he does not get it , ........

have a nice day in the navy

Master Zen · February 19, 2003, 18:43

Sorry but arguing is my drug. And you are are my main supplier at this moment.

Plus, I tend not to agree with only one opinion. That's why I've asked for more.

have a nice day

Panag · February 20, 2003, 11:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
Sorry but arguing is my drug. And you are are my main supplier at this moment.

Plus, I tend not to agree with only one opinion. That's why I've asked for more.

have a nice day

hi ,

, a drug , ......

well there is nothing wrong with that , ..... imagine the whole world would not be asking Q's , .... comps would not even be around then , .....

so what in particular do you or anyone else want more of this subject , ....

most info can be provided but some details can not be put on public sites after 9/11 (!)

there is an option that really is missing in CIV III ; with a mouse click open a small window in the game and all the units in that window move to where they are pointed to , ....

this way a complete carrier group would move all together to where you want them , instead of moving and clicking each unit , ....

the second option that shall be very intresting is the click and tail for naval units , .... just tell a sub to follow for example a carrier group from the opfor , .... and when the ship that is tagged goes in an harbor the tagging unit could sit and wait till it comes out , ....

the carrier should also come in two versions , one a small with vstoll short range aircraft and some helicopters to drop troops on beaches , the second one a high defensive super unit with long range planes , ...

a solution needs to be provided to not let each type on a carrier , .....

a B-2 on a carrier , ......

these two units would create a pandoras box for scenarios and mods , .....

have a nice day

Master Zen · February 20, 2003, 14:25

Those are good ideas panag, would definitely make naval combat more realistic.

I also have the same gripe about heavy bombers being able to be launched from carriers. Not realistic at all. With PTW I loved the fact I could increase the range of aircraft so I gave stealth bombers a range of 18 but sometimes the A.I. launches from carriers (I don't do it of course).

I tried to solve this by not giving heavy bombers the "load/unload" capability so they could only be launched from cities and airbases. Didn't work.

Pap1723 · February 21, 2003, 21:05

Hey guys, read a lot of the stuff posted here. Most of it was a very interesting read, but read some of the books by Tom Clancy to see what missiles can do to aircraft carriers. Yes they have all of these great defenses, but at the same time, the missiles that are being fired at them are designed to hit the ship. Any naval commander is terrified at the thought of a concentrated attack on a carrier because they are succeptible to attack. In civ terms, maybe 8 is a little low, put it at 10 or so, but without the AEGIS ships escorting the carriers and without planes constantly flying CAP's (Combat Air Patrols), the carriers do not have much ability. In civ, just designate your planes to have air superiority and they will defend like they should.

Pap

Master Zen · February 22, 2003, 00:33

Tom Clancy had a "thing" for missiles. Blasted some carriers in Red Storm Rising, and also in Sum of All Fears. The threat is real, IMO.

Still, the big mistake was to have crappy AEGIS cruisers in Civ3, unlike Civ2. Should've given them an ability to defend with missiles like a SAM Missile Battery.

Panag · February 24, 2003, 08:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Pap1723
Hey guys, read a lot of the stuff posted here. Most of it was a very interesting read, but read some of the books by Tom Clancy to see what missiles can do to aircraft carriers. Yes they have all of these great defenses, but at the same time, the missiles that are being fired at them are designed to hit the ship. Any naval commander is terrified at the thought of a concentrated attack on a carrier because they are succeptible to attack. In civ terms, maybe 8 is a little low, put it at 10 or so, but without the AEGIS ships escorting the carriers and without planes constantly flying CAP's (Combat Air Patrols), the carriers do not have much ability. In civ, just designate your planes to have air superiority and they will defend like they should.

Pap

hi ,

just look at the falklands war , ....... "exocet" the name stands even today for fear in every ones brains , ......

lets say our little shortranged cruise missile is an exocet , .... with a power of 16 ,.... well the carrier has no chance , ...... thats at least why the carrier should have 16 as defense , ....

it works great with a defense of 32 also , .... you should see the AI trying to sink them with cruise missiles that are aboard nuclear subs and have a range of 8 , .....

thanks Soren

have a nice day

ottok · February 24, 2003, 08:45

I WANT HEAR THAT TRUTH THAT ISREAL IS NOT LOT A MORE THAN 53. NATION AT USA-says one SADDAM HATER!

Panag · February 24, 2003, 08:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
Tom Clancy had a "thing" for missiles. Blasted some carriers in Red Storm Rising, and also in Sum of All Fears. The threat is real, IMO.

Still, the big mistake was to have crappy AEGIS cruisers in Civ3, unlike Civ2. Should've given them an ability to defend with missiles like a SAM Missile Battery.

hi ,

thats an option we need , the flag ; "has double defense against airrunits" , .....

but we have been asking since the start , .....

Soren , when you have the time , .....
thanks in advance

have a nice day

Panag · February 24, 2003, 08:50

Quote:

Originally posted by ottok
I WANT HEAR THAT TRUTH THAT ISREAL IS NOT LOT A MORE THAN 53. NATION AT USA-says one SADDAM HATER!

hi ,

ottok , can you post thread related posts only , thank you , ....

have a nice day

TheStinger · February 24, 2003, 10:25

Mings gonna bin him soon i think

Ming · February 24, 2003, 10:32

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
Mings gonna bin him soon i think

Yep... but just passing through... ottok has already been suspended

Master Zen · February 24, 2003, 11:59

Hehe...our friend ottock lately had been on an anti-Israel crusade on various threads. Guess Feb.15 is still on his mind.

Sometimes his posts are hilarious though, I'll miss the guy...

Mad Bomber · February 24, 2003, 12:31

master Zen:

It is theoretically possible to have an extra 30 aircraft stowed on a Nimitz Class Carrier. However it would mean offloading all support planes except for the E2C's. THis means that all Seahawk helos, COD's, and S-3 Vikings would go. This would strip the Carrier of most of its ASW protection which a Captain or Admiral would not do unless it was a dire emergency.

In Debt of Honor, Tom Clancy did strip the John Stennis of the support planes in order to put an additional 20-30 F-18's aboard, but the Stennis was also supported by F-22's flying out of Alaska.
He also dealt with the sub threat by using old boomers to perform ASW ahead of the task force.... Highly theatrical, but not terribly realistic.

When did Clancy have carriers hit in Sum of All Fears? In debt of Honor he had Stennis and Enterprise hit by torpedos not missles.

Mad Bomber · February 24, 2003, 12:36

Dissident:

If you remember, A US Carrier hit a Turkish destroyer a while back with a sea sparrow, the Destroyer didn't sink but was pretty bad off, Turks got really pissed too, but we made reparations and we remained allies. IIRC it was the USS Independence, but not 100% sure.

Master Zen · February 24, 2003, 13:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
master Zen:

It is theoretically possible to have an extra 30 aircraft stowed on a Nimitz Class Carrier. However it would mean offloading all support planes except for the E2C's. THis means that all Seahawk helos, COD's, and S-3 Vikings would go. This would strip the Carrier of most of its ASW protection which a Captain or Admiral would not do unless it was a dire emergency.

Thank you MB, you just proved my point against panag

. I had said that adding 30 more aircraft would have resulted in sacrificing the overall capability of the wing.

Quote:

When did Clancy have carriers hit in Sum of All Fears? In debt of Honor he had Stennis and Enterprise hit by torpedos not missles.

Hehe...I only saw the movie

(but I did read RSR like 6 times at least...

)

Deathwalker · February 25, 2003, 08:01

During WW2, a lone british carrier was found by two German battleships of the cost of Norway.
The carrier did not stand a chance, so I think the defece value is fine, u just need to have escorts stacked with it

The Mad Monk · February 26, 2003, 05:51

My problem is not the defense of carriers so much as the attack value -- it should be raised to at least 4, or dropped to 0 so it can't attack at all.

Panag · February 26, 2003, 06:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen

Thank you MB, you just proved my point against panag

. I had said that adding 30 more aircraft would have resulted in sacrificing the overall capability of the wing.

Hehe...I only saw the movie

(but I did read RSR like 6 times at least...

)

hi ,

you cant compare a movie with the real world , .....µ

if one would care to view the pics in theis thread they would see the planes in front , the support planes and they would find the helo , ........

one would also read something about a search and rescue with "extra" planes and helo being aboard for a longer time , .....

have a nice day

Panag · February 26, 2003, 06:06

hi ,

some of the main defense weapons systems on carriers , ....

have a nice day

MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS)
The MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS - pronounced "sea-whiz") is a fast-reaction, rapid-fire 20-millimeter gun system that provides US Navy ships with a terminal defense against anti-ship missiles that have penetrated other fleet defenses. Designed to engage anti-ship cruise missiles and fixed-wing aircraft at short range, Phalanx automatically engages functions usually performed by separate, independent systems such as search, detection, threat evaluation, acquisition, track, firing, target destruction, kill assessment and cease fire. Phalanx underwent operational tests and evaluation onboard USS Bigelow in 1977, and exceeded maintenance and reliability specifications. Phalanx production started in 1978 with orders for 23 USN and 14 Foreign Military Sales (FMS) systems.
Phalanx is a point-defense, total-weapon system consisting of two 20mm gun mounts that provide a terminal defense against incoming air targets. CIWS, without assistance from other shipboard systems, will automatically engage incoming anti-ship missiles and high-speed, low-level aircraft that have penetrated the ship primary defense envelope. As a unitized system, CIWS automatically performs search, detecting, tracking, threat evaluation, firing, and kill assessments of targets while providing for manual override. Each gun mount houses a fire control assembly and a gun subsystem. The fire control assembly is composed of a search radar for surveillance and detection of hostile targets and a track radar for aiming the gun while tracking a target. The unique closed-loop fire control system that tracks both the incoming target and the stream of outgoing projectiles gives CIWS the capability to correct its aim to hit fast-moving targets, including ASMs.

The gun subsystem employs a gatling gun consisting of a rotating cluster of six barrels. The gatling gun fires a 20mm subcaliber sabot projectile using a heavy-metal (either tungsten or depleted uranium) 15mm penetrator surrounded by a plastic sabot and a light-weight metal pusher. The gatling gun fires 20mm ammunition at either 3,000 or 4,500 rounds-per-minute with a burst length of continuous, 60, or 100 rounds.

CIWS has been a mainstay self defense system aboard nearly every class of ship since the late 70’s. It was originally designed to defeat low altitude antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and was called the block 0. As antiship cruise missiles became more complex in maneuvers and ability to be detected, and warfare areas moved from open ocean to littoral environments, CIWS has evolved to meet the threat.

Block 1 incorporated a new search antenna to detect high altitude missiles, improved search sensitivity, increased the ammunition available for firing by 50 percent, a pneumatic gun drive which increased the firing rate to 4500 rounds per minute, and started using tungsten ammunition as well as depleted uranium. Block I improvements provide increased elevation coverage, larger magazine space for increased round capacity, a variable and higher gun fire rate, and improved radar and processing capabilities.

Block 1A incorporated a new High Order Language Computer (HOLC) to provide more processing power over the obsolete general purpose digital computer, improved fire control algorithms to counter maneuvering targets, search multiple weapons coordination to better manage engagements, and an end-to-end testing function to better determine system functionality.

Block 1B Phalanx Surface Mode (PSUM) incorporates a side mounted Forward Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR) which enables CIWS to engage low slow or hovering aircraft and surface craft. Additionally, the FLIR assists the radar in engaging some ASCM’s bringing a greater chance of ship survivability. Block 1B uses a thermal imager Automatic Acquisition Video Tracker (AAVT) and stablilization system that provide surface mode and electro-optic (EO) angle track. These Block 1B enhancements will allow day/night detection capability and enable the CIWS to engage small surface targets, slow-moving air targets, and helicopters.
Baseline 2C improvements provide an integrated multi-weapon operations capability. During integrated operations, the command system controls CIWS sensors, target reports, mode employment, and doctrine. The sensors are utilized to provide 360 degree search and track coverage, while providing track data to, and receiving designations from, the Command system. This CIWS installation includes a conversion kit for each weapon group to facilitate ease and safety of maintenance; the "maintenance enclosure" kit installs the below-deck equipment for a gun mount in a prefabricated enclosure with the mount located above it.

note ; the later models , and almost all are upgraded now have at least 1550 rounds , some models have even 2998 rounds , ......