Based on a question by Torque, this board is for NON-POLITICAL discussion of military questions, comments, opinions, and the sharing of general knowledge.

I guess the main reason I wanted this board was so I could get people's opinions regarding the USS Enterprise (CVN-65).

The USS Enterprise was commissioned: November 25, 1961 making her pretty old. She, as far as I know, is in a class of her own.

Do people know if the US Navy has any plans on what the next vessel to be named Enterprise is? I guess the first question should be "Does anyone know how long an aircraft carrier lasts?"

The USA military has been phasing out old warplanes and such in favor of more modern devices such as stealth and VTOL; are navy ships something that should updated too?

Last question.

In WWII, the battleship was the ship of the fleet (the most important, the rest of the ships were compared to it). Today, the aircraft carrier is that ship and the fleet is centered around a carrier. Is the carrier battle group going to be the way the navy's ships are structured for the future? Do people think that some other method will come along?


I know the construction of any new navy ship is politcal, so interpret my questions as being ones of technical capabilities and efficiency. Like how effective it is to operate modern aircraft on a 40 year old carrier.

I suspect that for the time being, a carrier group will be the naval structure. As I understand it, current US military doctrine is based on overwhelming air power. A carrier group is the best way to project such power.

My uncle, a former submariner, refers to all surface ships as targets.

Still, I think ScottN summed up current doctrine pretty well. Battleships ceased to be the symbol of might after the Japanese air attack on Pearl Harbor proved once and for all the effectiveness of carrier-based aircraft. America responded increasingly in a similar fashion after that, and whole fleets eventually got wiped out with combatant ships never even getting within sight (or gun range) of each other.

As for how long a ship lasts, part of that depends upon how well constructed it was in the first place, and how well upgrades can be made to it without compromising its structural integrity. Eventually, it becomes more prudent to build a new ship rather than trying to retrofit an old one.

(I'm more familiar with WWII-era vessels than modern warships, so I'll have to do some research on the specifics of modern ships such as Enterprise.)

I read somewhere that the Enterprise (CVN-65) was scheduled to be decommisioned arround 2015. The TV Enterprise probably will not las that long.

A 40 year old aircraft carrier is still worth having around because it's primary weapons are the aircraft it carries and they can and have been upgraded many times. During the first gulf war the US brought some old WW II battleships back into service because they had a bunch of really big artillery cannons, while most modern cursers and destroyers have only 1 or 2 guns because they are build around cruse missiles and anti-aircraft guns. Of course both the battleships and the Enterprise have been upgraded with modern electronic and communication systems.

they had a bunch of really big artillery cannons

Yep. There's nothing like a BB for delivering artillery. 16 inch NAVGUNs can deliver on target. Back in 'Nam, when a call for fire went to a BB, they'd ask which side of the street they wanted it on.

I read somewhere that the BBs where using UCAVs during GulfwarVer1.0 and the Iraqi military would surrender to the UCAV knowing that a few minutes later they would get to meet allah personnaly. One slight problem with the CVNs and all are that while you can upgrade the aircraft you still have to build the new craft around the levator size and deck strength including the cats and the wires. I have heard of experiments on railgun/maglev style cats to give more uumph than the steam ones now used.

Re:Last Comment
The "Electromagnetic Catapult" might come into service on the first "CVN-X" series Aircraft Carrier, due to be constructed sometime in 2015...
The main problem with older vessels are the lack of spare parts, & the obselence of many electronic components forming naval systems.
For example, the main reason why the British Royal Navy is getting rid of it's Invincible class carriers, is due to the high costs of running their gas turbine proplusion systems, due to their age.
As to the component problem, the F-22 Raptor will have to undergo a avionics "update" fairly soon after introduction, as Intel will shortly not support the i990mx processor, which is part of the Raptor's avionic subsystems.
Currently, the post FY2013 production Raptors,will not suffer from this,(they get a upgraded avionics suite) but pre-2013 production units will....

As a prelude to nitpicking(!) space fleet battles as depicted in Star Wars and Star Trek, the writer of USS Clueless has a very nice summing up of naval tactics from the trireme through current naval warfare.

If you read further, you may find you disagree with his political views. However, he has an excellent grasp of military history.

What do people think of the idea of an air force version of a navy destroyer? Something that can launch air to air missles (AAM) along with air to ground missiles (AGM). If technology continues to advance, then maybe it could even have an atom laser.

http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/Popular_papers/Atom%20laser%20Enc.pdf

It could remain airborne for about a month at a time. Something like this would not be limited to shore based attacks; if a potential target came up, it would be relatively close to the target (horizontally speaking that is). The delay time for a bunch of cruise missiles to traverse the area could be eliminated. The missile-gunship (aircraft) could cruise around the perimeter of a hotspot and have the capability of taking out targets as easy as firing an AGM downward.

There are two glaring problems that would need to be overcome in order for this idea to become reality. (At least in my mind, there are probably more)

1. Power Source
The operation of a vessel for that time period would most likely be power intensive. Its one thing to power a attack submarine, its another to keep an aircraft in the air for about a month. I'm thinking nuclear or something. Burning standard aircraft fuel would be out of the question, but nuclear energy might make some people mad.

2. The Crew
First of all, seat belts would need to be installed for combat maneuvers (think if Star Trek starships were real); as well as something to restrain the crew if they are not in chairs or bunks. Probably some one second alarm for people who are in a corridor to strap themselves to the wall…

What do people think? As mentioned above, the navy is based upon the use of air power (the carrier) and this would definitely qualify as airpower. Some people might claim that this would be Cold War type military acquisitions, but I think it would actually make the U.S. (or any other country, the U.S. would probably be the only one who could afford it) military smaller, and more efficient. If something like this could be made, the use of long range bombers would shrink, there wouldn’t need to be the number of carrier battle groups, plus many more.

The:

http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/Popular_papers/Atom%20laser%20Enc.pdf

is a link to a web page pdf file. Apparently is didn't like the format. Just copy and paste it or maybe the moderator would be generous enough to format it for me. Please

Torque: Here's the link: link

To make a link, enclose the url in the following code: \url{Type_url_here,Name_link_here} or \newurl{Type_url_here,Name_link_here}

Well that sounds like an interesting idea. An aircraft that could loiter or cruise for over a month. I think the airforce experimented with nuclear reactors in aircraft (they used a B36 bomber IRC)and discovered that at least with the available tech it wasnt feasible. Somethign about readiation due to less shielding due to too much weight. But I have an idea I wanna ask about here: Speaking of New carrier designs (I admit to not having heard about the CVNX designs) but I play RIFTS and in that gaming system there is a submersible aircraft carrier or two. From a Naval Standpoint would this be a good idea or not? I mean the technology requirements for something like this would be incredible to say the least but haivng an antire carrier suddenly appear without warning or at least a limited warning outside your shores could be at the least intimidating. Just a thought.

I don't think it would be practical. A carrier is huge as are its escorts and so on.

A story.
A while ago, I watched something on the Discovery channel or the history channel about Operation Desert Storm; It said that there was an attack sub patroling around in the Persion Gulf and that it would do practice attacks or drills with the surface ships of the carrier group and try to "sink" the carrier. The sub would launch a flare or some signal to let the surface ships know that they had failed their mission because the carrier had been "torpedo'd" Once the the surface ships got the message, they basically started hunting mercilessly for the US attack sub.

Getting back to why its not practical, the sub had only so many places it could go to hide. The Persion Gulf lacked the necessary depth and so on for the sub to remain hidden. Now think of making that attack sub several times larger. Add in the fact that a carrier-sub would need to be going in a straight line for the most part in order to launch its aircraft.

I know that the Royal Navy experimented with a very limited sub carrier in World War I (just two or three planes) but the idea was soon dropped. I don't know the details.

The Enterprise is a one of a kind - more were planned, but they were too expensive.

So they built the Nimitz class, which are even bigger than the Enterprise - 6 vessels in the Nimitz class.

The RN Invicible class date back to the 60s or thereabouts (the designs certainly do, if not even earlier). I also believe that while there are 3 Invicible class, there will only be 2 of the new carriers.

The carrier sub did exist, but I have a feeling it submerged and someone left the hanger doors open. It was certainly canned very quickly after commission. I'll have a search and see what I can turn up, although landing on it would be interesting, unless you were a seaplane and could land next to the sub and be winched aboard.

A far better design for a carrier is a catamaran design surface vessel - gives you the flight deck width and is much more stable for landing, whilst being faster to get to it's destination.

As for Cloud Base (the long duration aircraft mentioned above, the main problems aren't fuel (you can in-flight refuel it if need be), but crew comfort, and specifically food, hygiene requirements, sleeping space, etc.
Besides, what need is there? When all you need to do is deploy a missile destroyer (part of a carrier battlegroup, or run some B52s somewhere vaguely close, and loose off some Tomahawks. Same results for cheaper.

Links, courtesy of a quick google search

The M2 (the hanger doors that I mentioned) http://www.liddiard.demon.co.uk/photoix/m2/

More on submersible carriers
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/odd/index2.htm

Besides, what need is there? When all you need to do is deploy a missile destroyer (part of a carrier battle group, or run some B52s somewhere vaguely close, and loose off some Tomahawks. Same results for cheaper. - Chris Marks

Well what need is there?

I was thinking of "time" for one. There is a delay time for a B-52 to launch, fly to target, give 'em hell, and return to base. As for a Guided Missile Cruiser, I was thinking of those situations when there is another country between you and the target. Plus the time delay. According to the news, it took about 3 hours for the Tomahawks to reach their target during that first strike. (The strike before the shock and awe strikes)

Also, I have read that even after a target strike, aircraft will sometimes do recon. fly-overs to verify the target has been neutralized. (Global Hawk, Predator, along with TARPS equipped F-14s. If the target remains, another strike mission would be needed. This would be more time, more planning, more flights. If there was a aircraft missile cruiser, the target damage could be quickly assessed and another volley of missiles or bombs could be sent in.

The other need would be, that if designed correctly, it could completely remove the need for a Aircraft Carrier battle group. (I know, the Navy wouldn't be pleased; but I think that as time progresses, the US military is going to become more streamlined, act as a single military force rather than separate areas.)

Regarding Crew Comfort and other Needs
(Background information about Torque)I am a student at the University of Dayton, in Ohio majoring in Aerospace Engineering. Aside from that, I also like to draw 2D profiles of aircraft, ships, along with designing floor plans for those things. (For fun, w/pencil and graph paper) On one of my creations, I have sketched a version of an aircraft missile cruiser.

Based on my imagination along with doing some rough estimates, I am picturing that such a aircraft missile cruiser would need to be twice the size of an Boeing 747 and be have 3 decks. It would contain crew quarters, bridge and engineering rooms, mess hall (which would also be considered a lounge area), a restroom area (think of a state of the art and clean dorm restroom [I know, its hard]), along with cargo bays for food and other supplies along with an area for the weapons. I have included a small medical room.
Along with bridge and engineering rooms, there would be a room for weapons control as well as a radar-sensors room (this could provide the needs done right now by AWACS and J-STARS.)
As I said this would be something like a navy ship but for the air force.

I think the biggest problems would be weight and fuel. If it was a jet the fuel would be prohibitively expensive and require almost constant midair refueling. If it was prop driven and powered by nuclear power (which the Air force did look into during the cold war as an idea to keep bombers in the air at all times) the weight of the radiation shielding would be too much (or compromise the safety of the crew like the Russians did with the Alpha class subs) Also I'd think that keeping the engines running for weeks or months on end would be problematic.

Not to mention repair jobs while inflgith could be rather interesting. As I said I wanted some other thoughts on the submersible carrier. According to the RIFTS version this thing is about the size of a modern Nimitz yet stealthier than a Dallas. Not very likely IRL and I didnt think there was any chance of doing somehtign like it IRL but I was wondering what others thought. Very interesting that the real military had thought of that. I looked and found that the germans had a small gyrocopter they would sometimes fly behind their subs as a higher lookout when on the surface. And Brian it was the B36 they experiemnted with a nonpropulsive reactor in flight. And those where the exact problems they came up with. Wither the shielding would be so heavy the plane wouldnt be able to get off the ground or it would be so little as to be not worth it. And something twice the size of 747 would be a pretty big radar/missle target dont you think? AFAIK the 747 isnt exactly one of the most manoueverable aircraft. Airbus is coming out with a new plane bigger than the 747 so it isnt impossible to build a plane big enough to do the job. But isnt the big slow bomber rather out dated in modern warfare? Yeah there are political problems to look at when launching a missle overflight into another country but you would have the same issues with the Aircruiser that you are talking about. A country that wouldnt let you overfly missles certainly wouldnt want that behemoth flying overhead. So you would still wind up travelling over international air and water space. And I do agree that eventually the military will and should be more streamlined and unified into combined units but it would still wind up coming down to the gropo going in and getting the job done that the button pushers started. I mean a missle may be able to take out a building or a city but it takes an army to hold whats left and work on the rebuilding. Which brings me into a side thought. What do you think about replacing the traditional tracked tanks and such with the giant robtos and mechs that anime and RPGs are rather fond of. Or at the least a hover type system at least on the lighter vehicles?

Sorry about the poor spelling and formatting. I am tired and this is actually the way my mind works. Sort of one giant long continuous run on sentence streaming throuhg my brain all the time. I will try and remember that paragraphs are important in life or at least some form of seperation.

Torque, your multi-deck aircraft reminds me of a series of diecast metal toys (with some plastic parts) made by Kenner in the late 1980's, called MegaForce. There were two armies, with no specification by the toy company as to "good" or "bad" (just two opposing but relatively equally matched forces). There were sets of tanks, helicopters, jets & other "traditional" vehicles (with a slightly futuristic twist), and larger vehicles, including large, multi-deck aircraft that could carry other smaller vehicles. The back of the packages always had side-view cutaway drawings of the vehicles, showing their scale by the size of the crewmen within. Kind of neat, actually, and would have made a good wargame or something. (That's what I was planning to do with them, anyway. Never got around to it, though. Yet.)

About the only combat plane I could see them fitting a reactor onto would be a B-52. Those suckers are huge. For non-combat planes, C-5 and C-130 could probably carry one, but why?

The submarine carrier would be a neat idea but I don't think that the US millitary would want to put in the kind of R&D it would take to build one, espically considering that a US carrier battle group is almost invinsable in today's waters.

by the way, when I mentioned a aircraft cruiser, I wasn't talking about something the shape of a traditional airplane, It'd be something that would be the equilvalent of the DS9 Defiant but made to fly in the atmosphere. It doesn't have this shape, but something like Senator Amidala's (Star Wars II) transport in the beginning of the movie, (but something made for combat)

One could imagine a huge high-flying airship as recon platform and laser base. What a nice sitting duck.

who said it would be sitting? Besides, it would be less of a sitting (floating)duck than a Navy carrier.

Going back to the submarine carrier...

Would the thing completely come above water to launch planes or just the deck? I was thinking that in order to make it submarine worthy, the deck would be alligned with the ship and that planes would need to be launched unpowered via a magnetic catapult from within some type of launch tube. (for those people who have played STAR FOX for the SNES, think of the intro sequence) This would still allow planes to take off and land at the same time.

Warning!!!
I don't want anyone killed, placed in a jail cell, or just disappearing for trying to answer this question!!

Does anyone know the state of Russia's military?
Specifically, do they have programs for new fighter/Attack craft like the U.S. has with its F/A-22 and F/A-35 programs.

I know that Sukhoi has a Su-47 Berkuit aircraft, but I don't know if that is a technology demonstrator or an aircraft that is meant for production. I have seen pictures of a MiG plane designated MiG 1.42/MiG 1.44, but I don't know if MiG's plane is going anywhere.

Regarding their navy.
Do they have any plans to modernize it or are they just upgrading their present ships?

Re:Russian Federation Military Status
In short, Moribund !
The Su-37 was a demonstrator, along with the Mig 1.44. The 1.44 was cancelled, along with the reqiurement, when the Russian Federation's Military Budget was cut. There is a "Lightweight Fighter Programme" project, but, currently it exists on paper only.
Most of the new versions of the Su-27 & Mig-29 fighters are for export only. (I.e India has the Su-30 MKI variant of the Su-27, China has the Su-30 MK variant of the same, but minus the thrust vectoring nozzles,& westernised avionics of the Indian version).
Currently, the Russian airforce is "looking" at upgrading their existing Mig-29, Mig 31 & Su-27 fleets with improved avionics & engines (if they can afford it)!
As for the Russian Navy, the admiral of the Northern fleet, stated on Russian state t.v that the Northern Fleet Flagship Peter The Great (the former Kirov ) almost had a major accident, owing to lack of maintainence, hardly insipres confidence.

Thanks, if you are really brave, go look into North Korea's military.

Particularly since the Peter the Great was, I believe, nuclear.

Yes, the Kirov/Peter the Great is a nuke powered surface vesssel.

13319,usa3_042104.00.html,Here's an interesting article on "liquid armor".

Crud.

Here's the correct link.

Something on the CVX.

http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/1998/10/21st_century_navy_carriers/

and this article is rock hard.

http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/1998/12/concrete_submarines/

In case you're wondering, Canada is about to get rid of all it's main battle tanks.
The proposed replacement for the current Leopard 1A4 tanks,is expected to be the AGS (Armored Gun System) variant of the U.S Stryker, which itself, is a variant of the Swiss Mowag Piranha 4 APC/MICV.
The explanation for the replacement is thought to be the age of the tanks,with assoicated costs & the lack of airmobile assets to move them if they're needed for peacekeeping duties.

Going way back to Torque's April 18, 2004 - 09:27 pm

Airborne lasers are under development. Google for "Airborne Tactical Laser".

However, instead of "atom lasers" (whatever the heck they are), it's most likely going to be a chemical laser (as opposed to solid-state).

Re:ScottN's Last Comments
The laser proposed for the Airborne Tactical Laser program is rumoured to be a Hydrogen-Flourine chemical laser...

I actually know quite a bit about ATL... I worked on it for a while, but I'm not allowed to talk about non-public issues.

Ahh if you told us you'd have to kill us? Not exactly worht it. I'll wait until Tom Clancy writes a novel about it....

Geez, some of these things seem pretty cool, but they're also kinda scary, especially when you consider when our guys might be on the wrong end of them. Let's hope this sorta stuff is too sophisticated and system-integrated for it to flood black markets.

I was going to preface this post with "Geez...", but I see I did that in my last post here back in May, so I'll just say that I'm glad that this weapon, which can lock onto a human-sized target from three friggin' kilometers away, and in day or night, is South Korean, instead of North Korean.

They found one of the sunken Japanese carrier subs.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/japan-s-wwii-super-submarine-found-scuttled-off-hawaii-1.2448985