David Hingtgen Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 Why the hell didn't he offer that to us last weekend? We are (apparently) buying Super Hornets and we (apparently) need some sort of carrier. Because you're already a close ally, and we don't need to "appease" you.
kalvasflam Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 Moreover its not that much more cost effective. A first strike with eight reentry vehicles spread over 40 million dollars is five million per warhead. Each Tomahawk costs about a million each, and will likely have a higher failure rate. In anycase, this is a program that is already in its final stages and will likely be fielded in the next five years or so... so there is not much point arguing as to whether we should go ahead with it at this point or not, because its effectively already here. So, unless the Tomahawk has a greater than 80% failure rate, they can still be as cost effective as a D5 loaded with 8 MIRVs unless its a super hardened target. The penetration capability would be something, and the supplemental portion is also a good point, but at the end of the day, you're not much better off than a B-2 and it would only be a one shot deal.
David Hingtgen Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 Actual footage (as opposed to a slideshow of pics) of the Cathay 777 low-pass: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=00a_1204000744&p=1
Vifam7 Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 Getting back to the Kitty Hawk to India deal, I think this news report pretty much sinks that rumor: http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews...lBrandChannel=0 I kinda felt that the deal bordered on the unrealistic.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 27, 2008 Posted February 27, 2008 Getting back to the Kitty Hawk to India deal, I think this news report pretty much sinks that rumor: http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews...lBrandChannel=0 I kinda felt that the deal bordered on the unrealistic. "I will fall on my sword, I will hurl myself out of this airplane if there is any truth to this stupid story." hahaha! Wonder who the senior official who quoted that line was. He must have been a fan of Ex-General Al-Sahaf. But then, it would be fun if the Indians get inspired by this rumour and actually ask for the Kitty Hawk.
David Hingtgen Posted February 27, 2008 Posted February 27, 2008 Plenty of other ships. I bet the Ranger could be hauled out of moth balls and ready for service quicker and cheaper than the Gorshkov.
Vifam7 Posted February 27, 2008 Posted February 27, 2008 Plenty of other ships. I bet the Ranger could be hauled out of moth balls and ready for service quicker and cheaper than the Gorshkov. Or maybe India could ask Brazil to sell them the ex-French carrier Foch. Personally I think it'd be a good idea for India. If the US were to transfer any supercarrier to India, I wouldn't be surprised if Pakistan and/or China protests loudly. In light of our current anti-terror war, it probably isn't wise to make Pakistan angry at us.
HoveringCheesecake Posted February 27, 2008 Posted February 27, 2008 Or maybe India could ask Brazil to sell them the ex-French carrier Foch. Personally I think it'd be a good idea for India. If the US were to transfer any supercarrier to India, I wouldn't be surprised if Pakistan and/or China protests loudly. In light of our current anti-terror war, it probably isn't wise to make Pakistan angry at us. I don't want to get into politics right now, but Pakistan is part of the terror problem. Google Waziristan or the ISI. About this carrier business, I think we should try to be as nice to India as we can. They could act as a nice counterbalance to China in the region. This seems pretty straightforward to me, so is my thinking flawed here?
kalvasflam Posted February 27, 2008 Posted February 27, 2008 The main question of Indian carrier comes down to logistics. They had a few of them before, but really, they were British baby carriers of the Hermes class if I recall correct. I wonder if India would have the necessary infrastructure and money needed to keep a super carrier afloat and operating all the time. I forget, can someone tell me what it costs to actually have a carrier operation on a daily basis. It won't be cheap, I know India is much richer than it was a decade ago, but I wonder how much their military could really afford keep a carrier like the Kitty Hawk or even the Ranger floating.
Warmaker Posted February 27, 2008 Posted February 27, 2008 Is India interested in only 1 CV? I'm curious since that while having 1 CV (super or not) is a boost to naval power, there will be periods where it will be down for lengthy periods. Every machine needs to go down for inspections, repairs (PMs), etc. I know US Navy CVs rotate since there are times where the boat is undergoing scheduled, lengthy rework. With as many CVs as the USN has, it's not a problem. But having only 1 CV, it will be down for certain periods of time, and you won't have its presence out there.
David Hingtgen Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 For some nations, having a carrier is 99% prestige, 1% actual force projection. Look how many nations have ONE carrier. How many could actually use it to DO something? Here's a famous drawing showing all the world's active carriers, one by one. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.gif And half of those are VTOL-only.
Vifam7 Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 For some nations, having a carrier is 99% prestige, 1% actual force projection. Look how many nations have ONE carrier. How many could actually use it to DO something? If a country were to acquire a supercarrier like the Kitty Hawk, I would assume it would be an investment for more than just prestige. I mean, the Kitty Hawk is not some dinky VTOL or helo carrier. Even a modified Gorshkov is nothing compared to what the Kitty Hawk can bring to the table. It's one heavy duty offensive weapons system. Heck, the Kitty Hawk is pretty much the centerpiece of the US Seventh Fleet. If a country wants its navy to have prestige, a light carrier would suffice. I think the Kitty Hawk would be overkill. Too bad we don't have any Essex-class carriers left to sell.
kalvasflam Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 If a country were to acquire a supercarrier like the Kitty Hawk, I would assume it would be an investment for more than just prestige. I mean, the Kitty Hawk is not some dinky VTOL or helo carrier. Even a modified Gorshkov is nothing compared to what the Kitty Hawk can bring to the table. It's one heavy duty offensive weapons system. Heck, the Kitty Hawk is pretty much the centerpiece of the US Seventh Fleet. If a country wants its navy to have prestige, a light carrier would suffice. I think the Kitty Hawk would be overkill. Too bad we don't have any Essex-class carriers left to sell. Boy, I'd love to see some real carrier warfare again, a la WWII Pacific.
Nied Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 Is India interested in only 1 CV? I'm curious since that while having 1 CV (super or not) is a boost to naval power, there will be periods where it will be down for lengthy periods. Every machine needs to go down for inspections, repairs (PMs), etc. I know US Navy CVs rotate since there are times where the boat is undergoing scheduled, lengthy rework. With as many CVs as the USN has, it's not a problem. But having only 1 CV, it will be down for certain periods of time, and you won't have its presence out there. I seem to remember that the Indian Navy is planning to build an indigenous carrier as a follow on to the Gorshkov, so they would eventually be able to have 1 ship out on teh ocean near constantly.
Noyhauser Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 I don't want to get into politics right now, but Pakistan is part of the terror problem. Google Waziristan or the ISI. About this carrier business, I think we should try to be as nice to India as we can. They could act as a nice counterbalance to China in the region. This seems pretty straightforward to me, so is my thinking flawed here? There are some. Not to go too deeply into it, but expecting India to be a counterbalance to Pakistan actually in some way is the reason why we have the problems with Pakistan and Afghanistan today. In early 1990, after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan and American funding dried up due to the Geneva accords, the ISI essentially had a free hand to do what they wanted to do in the country. It had two objectives. The first was to keep the integrity of Pakistan. The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (of which Waziristan being one province) was a hotbed of Pashtun independence, partly because everybody had been funding Pashtun groups to fight the Soviets. By installing a religiously based group in afghanistan they would focus these religiously inspired militants towards fighting in Afghanistan, instead of fighting for independence against Pakistan. This had another advantage for Pakistan. It would create an important strategic depth for its forces. If you look at pakistan, its a thin country, with its major cities vulnerable to a major Indian thrust. By installing a Muslim ally behind it, the Pakistani military could pull back and use afghanistan as a base to wage a protracted conflict against an Indian invasion. Unfortunately, the Taliban became a real problem for Pakistan however, and were even considering disavowing them prior to 9/11. Second, India will never be a "stable" U.S. ally, like lets say the United Kingdom or Canada. Actually it won't be anywhere close even with decades of effort. On almost every single dealings in the region since 1950s we've sided with Pakistan. The Indians have long memories of this, and they are also the leader of the "non aligned movement." One of the most serious events happened in 1972 when Nixon sent the USS Enterprise during the West Pakistan war to coerce India to pull back in their attacks on what would become Bangladesh. Its one of the main reasons why they tested a nuclear bomb in 1974. Next, the Reagan in 1984 made a promise to Zia that if they renounced nuclear weapon development, the United States would extend its nuclear umbrella to it, as a defence against Indian aggression. That really raised some eyebrows. Yes, now, they are buying U.S. weapons for its own defence, but its not for an "alliance" with the United States. Actually quite a significant portion of the Indian political elite is against any dealings with the United States. The Indians have no scruples about buying weapons from anybody. This deal is no different how they bought weapons from the Russians during the Cold War, and didn't really support them either, but said some friendly words. Also, if Pakistan does get into a war with India, they'll completely stop suppressing militants in the FATA, well even less than what they are doing now. Most of the funding the West has given Pakistan since 2001 has been going to support their conventional military capabilities against India. Giving India more weapons only increases the pressure on Pakistan to defend against them instead of indigenous threats. Pakistan is a loose federation of a lot of different ethnic and religious groups with competing interests; its always on the razor's edge. Any pressure we put on it threatens to throw it out of completely out of balance. Anyway, thats just a simple overview of the political dynamics on the subcontinent. Its a pretty messy place overall.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 Here's a famous drawing showing all the world's active carriers, one by one. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.gif And half of those are VTOL-only. That really illustrates how far ahead the US military is compared to the rest of the known world.
Phyrox Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 That really illustrates how far ahead the US military is compared to the rest of the known world. Rest of the known world? You think there are still some undiscovered countries out there, do ya? Rolling around with carriers we haven't seen yet?
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 Rest of the known world? You think there are still some undiscovered countries out there, do ya? Rolling around with carriers we haven't seen yet? Referring to the rest of the solar system/galaxy/dimension etc...
David Hingtgen Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 Dutch Apaches showing off: http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/43060/df3b...n_in_stijl.html
Warmaker Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 (edited) For some nations, having a carrier is 99% prestige, 1% actual force projection. Look how many nations have ONE carrier. How many could actually use it to DO something? Here's a famous drawing showing all the world's active carriers, one by one. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.gif And half of those are VTOL-only. I haven't seen this picture before, pretty cool. And thanks guys for the extra info on CVs out there. Speaking of CVs, I remember a while ago of Japan's MSDF's interested in getting a small CV for its operations. But I think they backed off it, right? Japan's neighbors weren't relishing the idea of Japanese Carriers sailing the oceans again. GlobalSecurity.org: JMSDF Warships Edited February 28, 2008 by Warmaker
Noyhauser Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 (edited) I haven't seen this picture before, pretty cool. And thanks guys for the extra info on CVs out there. Speaking of CVs, I remember a while ago of Japan's MSDF's interested in getting a small CV for its operations. But I think they backed off it, right? Japan's neighbors weren't relishing the idea of Japanese Carriers sailing the oceans again. GlobalSecurity.org: JMSDF Warships Its not so much a carrier than a Anti Submarine LHA (minus the Harriers and alot smaller), which is why they classified it a Destroyer. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003686.html Edited February 28, 2008 by Noyhauser
F-ZeroOne Posted February 29, 2008 Posted February 29, 2008 Slightly off-topic I know, but seeing as they're not allowed nose art any more, do you think F-15E drivers would settle for painting on "By Royal Appointment" instead...?
Noyhauser Posted February 29, 2008 Posted February 29, 2008 Here's a shock: EADS wins the USAF Tanker Derby Rematch http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/business...amp;oref=slogin
the white drew carey Posted March 1, 2008 Posted March 1, 2008 Here's a shock: EADS wins the USAF Tanker Derby Rematch http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/business...amp;oref=slogin Yeah, just heard the same news myself. Wow.
David Hingtgen Posted March 1, 2008 Posted March 1, 2008 Wasn't a shock to anyone following the news over the last few days---the constant delays and secrecy meant it wasn't Boeing. Apparently the Wall Street Journal reported that Boeing won, however.
the white drew carey Posted March 1, 2008 Posted March 1, 2008 Wasn't a shock to anyone following the news over the last few days---the constant delays and secrecy meant it wasn't Boeing. Apparently the Wall Street Journal reported that Boeing won, however. Well, some of us have better things to do...
David Hingtgen Posted March 1, 2008 Posted March 1, 2008 I had posted some news/rumors on the competition here just a few days ago, to give a heads-up on the likely results for people who don't have the time...
the white drew carey Posted March 1, 2008 Posted March 1, 2008 I had posted some news/rumors on the competition here just a few days ago, to give a heads-up on the likely results for people who don't have the time... Oh David, I was just jerking your chain!
kalvasflam Posted March 1, 2008 Posted March 1, 2008 This is interesting, I remember the merits for the A330 being that it would double as a cargo aircraft as well as a flying gas station. I wonder how far this will actually go. Congress is already up in arms. The major concern ended up being that the majority of the aircraft will be built in Europe, so the job creation in the US is small in comparison if Boeing got the contract. I also wonder why Northrop bothered, their last major manned aircraft was the B-2. I don't count them for the F-35, since that's a Lockheed project. In some part I wonder if they even have that much capability left. May be this is somebody's attempt to get Northrop back into the aircraft production business. Although I don't think it's necessarily a good idea.
Noyhauser Posted March 2, 2008 Posted March 2, 2008 Hey David, what are future sales prospect for the A330? Is it correct to assume the movement of the A330 final assembly unit to Mobile could be a huge financial benefit for the region outside the tanker program?
David Hingtgen Posted March 3, 2008 Posted March 3, 2008 Passenger A330's will be effectively dead soon, likely only freighters and tankers will be built in the future, in the US. The current A330/340 line will be making the stretch 340's and probably 350. The passenger A330 will probably straggle on to last as long as the 777 (possibly being built only as special orders in the US) but at a very limited rate, while the 777 will still be selling strong for some more years. The A300 had a similar fate---it went on for many years slowly selling as a freighter, long after passenger orders dried up. The A300 actually outlived the A310 on the production line by a good number of years. (The 727, DC-10, and MD-11 also ended the production line as freighters-only, as will the 747-400 and likely the -800) As for Northrop---Northrop ROCKS, design-wise. They just are unloved by Congress, no big lobby, etc. Hello, they designed the YF-23 and B-2. And the F-20, which was cheaper and outperformed the F-16 in the interceptor role in every possible way, including knife-range turning. They were frankly "discriminated" against when it comes to contracts over the past years. (And now we have proof with all the money greasing hands/Boeing scandal etc) If you're going for "military design history"---why would Boeing get any contracts now? Their last real fighter was the XF8. Google it. And designing the B-52 a half-century ago but nothing since doesn't count for much. Every product they currently "claim" rights to was actually designed by North American, Ryan, Rockwell, or Douglas many years ago. Boeing's last attempt at modern military hardware from scratch with their own design? The plane so fugly it lost the competition before it flew, and never could hover right, the X-32. I like Boeing airliners, but have little faith in their military stuff. Unless it's designed totally by ex-McDonnellDouglas people still working there.
Smiley424 Posted March 3, 2008 Posted March 3, 2008 Boeing is good for the big stuff; transports, airliners. Yeah, I know what you're saying about Boeing. My cousin works for Boeing over in Long Beach where they produce the C-17 Globemaster. Anyway, he has this poster "100 years of Boeing Aviation" or something like that. About 75% or more of the planes/rockets pictured are Boeing planes because they bought whatever company originally produced them.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 3, 2008 Posted March 3, 2008 If Boeing had bought MBB instead of DASA, would we have seen the Boeing-109/110/209 and Boeing-262?
David Hingtgen Posted March 3, 2008 Posted March 3, 2008 Smiley, don't you mean the *McDonnellDouglas* plant in Long Beach where the *McDonnellDouglas* C-17 is built? (There was SERIOUS talk of making it available as a civil freighter, the MD-17) I wonder if the C-17's builder plates still say MDC. Late-build MD-11's were changed to say Boeing, but even the newest Super Hornets still have MDC plates. Might be a Long Beach vs St Louis thing.
Vifam7 Posted March 3, 2008 Posted March 3, 2008 (edited) As for Northrop---Northrop ROCKS, design-wise. They just are unloved by Congress, no big lobby, etc. Hello, they designed the YF-23 and B-2. And the F-20, which was cheaper and outperformed the F-16 in the interceptor role in every possible way, including knife-range turning. They were frankly "discriminated" against when it comes to contracts over the past years. (And now we have proof with all the money greasing hands/Boeing scandal etc) Northrop also technically designed the Hornet. Strange how the YF-17 originates at Northrop, grows into the F/A-18, becomes a McD product, and it's latest form as the Super Hornet is now a Boeing product. I'm sure some of the folks at Northrop are like WTF? I wonder if Northrop still gets a share on the sales of the Super Hornet as they did with the legacy Hornets... Real shame on the Tigershark. One of my favorites. Could've been a real asset to NFWS (and perhaps not having wing cracking problems as they did with the F-16!) and to countries like Taiwan, Singapore that use/used the F-5E. Taiwan really got the shaft when Reagan vetoed the sale (and still feeling it as they continue to have problems acquiring F-16s). Edited March 3, 2008 by Vifam7
Recommended Posts