I heard a story about the Big E from an E-9. I admit it should not be possible for an E-9 to give information on an active, still nearly new ship, but I know what I was told. I had his trust since we spoke of my duty in Germany in the Army. The speed hit by the Big E happened but one time. One of the propellor shafts got a mild bend or wow in it so the Navy ordered it to be held at a lower top speed. If I give the top speed, they will send assassins. LOL Besides, my recall is just rusty enough I don't want to hand out a number that is wrong. But it was extremely fast. I guess steam and nuclear works very well.
Jane's is usually really good at getting people close to the ballpark on performance, usually with a little bit of wiggle room in favor of the holders of those assets. I forget which boat he was on at the time--maybe the Lincoln--but a buddy of mine said he didn't know for certain that CVN's top speed but he knew it had run once about 4 knots faster than its reported top speed when he was deployed on her when they had to close distance on another vessel so the air wing could assist with a medical emergency transport.
Warships real top speeds are usually classified and I'm willing to bet so are their range and endurance. "Janes" has to be the # 1 source on any thing that is military.
There is also the aspect that top speeds are really top safe speeds without risking damage to the vessel as opposed to the fastest they can possibly go. Our carriers can apparently fly in reverse too but that puts them at greater risk for damage.
An E-9 in the Navy, a Navy Master Chief Petty Officer is at the top of the enlisted grades. When I was in the Marines I found my self on board the USS Valley Forge (Essex class LPH); USS Princeton (Essex class LPH); USS Iwo Jima (LPH); USS Mansfield (DD) and a County class LSD, never part of the ships company, always part of a BLT (Amphibious Landing Team) comparable to a MEU today. I was warned by old salts, any time you saw a Chief. keep low and hide if you can.
If you are talking about Russian supersonic anti-ship missiles, yes. They are a threat and the reason why every Carrier has multiple escorts with the AEGIS air defense system. If you are talking about the supposed achinese carrier killed ballistic missiles, they haven't even tested them once.
Because modern deep strike is a mission for unmanned missiles. Why send a pilot into harm's way when you can send a Tomahawk or a JASSM? You ignore the fact that all those Hornets and soon to be Lightnings on modern carriers can carry stand off weapons.
Two hits are reported on a stationary image of a carrier in Goby desert. Direct hits. Claimed to be DF-21D. Target – stationary. There are no technical obstacles to finish the concept. Russians made this missile in 60ties but cancelled it. If China had access to this tech, all they had to invest into was guidance. Everything else is more or less simple. You over-under-estimate the threat They have the satellites, they have a reliable carrier, they have the guidance expertise. The question is only about short-term hyper-velocity maneuvering. Not an extreme task.
Testing it against a stationary target on land is the same as having never tested it. Saying there's no technical difference between striking a stationary target at a known test range on land is the same as hitting a moving target on the ocean when you don't necessarily know exactly where they are is so absurd I don't even know how you could write it.
Tomahawk cruise missiles can be easily defeated by a real military. Tomahawks are slow moving sub sonic. Tomahawks still can't hit moving targets. That's why their still no anti ship Tomahawks. Tomahawks can't take out harden targets. Tomahawks are usually used in the early stages of hostilities taking out command and control centers, radars, SAM's, etc so the fixed wing aircraft can come in and do their thing. Armed UAV's in the future is questionable with their legality on the battlefield. That's why the USN UAV's on carriers will only be used as air refueling tankers and recognizance.
We had them at one time. The UGM-109B was a Tomahawk anti-ship missile, that had the seeker head of a Harpoon for tracking and target acquisition. But they were phased out in the 1990's when Russia and other countries started to put their own version of CIWS on board their ships. At that point it was realized their utility in combat was almost zero and they were retired.
For deep strike against hardened targets, you would use a B-2 carry a MOP. It still wouldn't be a mission for carrier aircraft. Once you've killed the enemy IADS, you can do deep strike with any aircraft capable of mid air refueling. The statement you made about the Navy UAVs being only designed for mid air refueling and recon is totally false. The X-47 is most definitely being designed with bombing capability.
Hmmm, the B-2 is still a limited strike aircraft, and it is not used against air defense systems. It is also not used against hardened targets. The B-2 is a penetration bomber, it is not used for hardened targets. The technique for hardened targets is generally a more specialized attack aircraft (like "Wild Weasel" fighters alone of in combination with missiles). Sending bombers after hardened targets is simply stupid, and why we do not do it. Fighters have a good chance of getting away from ground to air missiles, bombers not so much so. Their "stealth" is designed to prevent detection on the approach, not in being invisible and not being seen at all. Once seen, they are far to vulnerable, especially because of their size. By it's very name, the X-47 is a test aircraft. It is not expected to see service for at least another decade at the soonest, and there are still a lot of questions as to how effective it will actually be. And being subsonic and with only 2 weapon bays, it is really not that effective of a platform. Manned aircraft already are more efficient in putting bombs on target.
Right. The B-2, the aircraft the Massive Ordinance PENETRATOR was designed to be carried by, isn't capable of destroying hardened targets... Wanna correct yourself or just make yourself look this ignorant? Those two bays on the X-47 can carry a 2,000lb JDAM each and it's a stealth platform. That's basically an unmanned F-117.
We are not talking the same language here. In military terms, a "hardened target" is not something like a bunker. A hardened target is one that is highly defended. Like say an air base that is ringed with multiple layers of air defense systems. So yea, if you are thinking a "hardened target" is a bunker (with few to no air defenses), then yea a B-2 is perfect. But that is really not the case at all. Sorry, but more that you do not understand what the term actually means, not that I made a mistake. ANd if it has air defenses, they are first gonna attack with more conventional systems until those systems are degraded or eliminated. Yea, 2 JDAMs. That is gonna do a lot of good trying to go up against a SAM site that is spread out over around 4 square miles of landscape, with 6+ launchers and redundant RADAR systems. Or against a series of Silkworm TELs spread out along 4 miles of coastline and defended by MANPAD missile systems. Very few military targets call for JDAMs. And no, I am not going to correct myself, because I know exactly what I am talking about here. Do not forget what my profession is. And yet again I say "Stealth does not mean invisible". The goal of stealth is to minimize RADAR profiles, to evade the edge of RADAR detection ranges and to hopefully prevent missile lock-on and tracking. It does not actually make the plane invisible, and does absolutely nothing against systems that track via sight, LASER, and other systems.
Pretty sure the U.S. Navy canceled the X-47 program last year (2016) as you will see with my next post in response to Questerr.
No, this ignorant old salt will not correct himself and I still stand by what I said. Holly green amphibious crap... can carry freaking two 2,000 lb JDAM's !!! Or 4,000 pounds of JP fuel to refuel FA-18's and F-35's !
They did not cancel it, the program ran it's course and was completed. And originally the 2 models made were to be turned into museum pieces. But the Navy has ordered that they be held in storage in flying condition, in the event the program is picked up again.
So you go after the SAM's and TEL's with Tomahawks, JSOW's, or SLAM's. And I was in the military for 8 years working in intelligence, "hardened target" always referred to a bunker.
The Stingray can still carry munitions. Every site I've looked at says it will retain strike capability. Two 2,000lb JDAMs will destroy any target that isn't a deeply buried bunker.
The "Stngray" can but... it wont. Been there and done that. I'm former Sub Unit One 1st ANGLICO, NGFS is my specialty and I was good at it. And I participating on more than a few CAS missions than most could claim. In a real war against a real military you will be dealing with area targets, not small individual targets. Do you know and understand "Time On Target" ???? ( TOT) First developed by the British in North Africa during WW ll . Quickly adopted by the U.S. Army Artillery Corps and perfected by the U.S. Army by 1943 and quickly adopted by the U.S. Marine Corps in the Pacific in 1943 and also by the U.S, Navy by 1944 for providing naval shore fire support. New isn't always better: !!! Today it would take 18 Arleigh Burke destroyers on the gun line to accomplish a TOT mission that was accomplished by 3 Gearing class destroyers on the gun line during the Vietnam War.
Modern testing methods allow flight\performance\integrity testing without crashing multiple test models like we had to do in the old times. If the target was acquired by a satellite in a given quadrant honestly, on the fly, without the operator knowing the probable position, than I consider acquisition test to be true. If the warhead managed to search and find and lock on target by its original procedure, with guidance from satellite or without one, than I consider lock to by live. If the target is in previously proven maneuvering envelope, why should I disbelieve that if will hit the target now? If the test is true if it is not an intimidation I would consider it valid. Basically this is standard procedure, all heavy-medium ship killing missiles are tested against stationary targets, can make a moving one, but why bother… Modern guidance systems have to cope with much more complicated issues than a compensation of a 30knot target speed… And please do not re-phrase me, use quote.
Once again you show yourself to be a dinosaur who doesn't understand that war has changed extensively since WW2.
There is zero evidence that test occurred under guidance. The Chinese have not demonstrated capability with maneuvering ballistic warheads. And they certainly haven't shown that those maneuvering warheads can hit a moving target.
