You are being simplistic, overly so. The island has a lot of stuff crammed into it. Stuff that is necessary to the ship's mission. You can't just stick a VLS on the side of it without impacting the ship's mission

Herald :
""Descending time scale is read from bottom to top.

0 vampire 5 hits you
1755 second rocket on vampire 4 leaves acquisition at 0 vampire 4 hits you
3510 first rocket on vampire 4 leaves acquisiton 1755 miss
5265 second rocket on vampire 3 leaves 3510
7020 first rocket on vampire 3 leaves acquisition
8775  second rocket on vampire 2 leaves  acquisition 7020
10530  first rocket on vampire 2 leaves acquisition 8775
12285   second rocket  on vampire 1 leaves  acquistion 10530
14040  first rocket on vampire 1 leaves 1 second acquisition 12285

The CdG cannot survive a six cruise missile volley without severe damage or an eight missile volley without sinking.""

Well , that 's impressive but all in vain . I 'm affraid that you can re-do all your maths but this time , try to include the 2 Sadral lauchers equipped with 12 Mistral missiles ...
h*tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral_missile
And think about this too : ""The Mistral's operational use encompasses the firing of more than 2000 missiles, with a success rate of 95%"" .

Cheers .

Oh btw Herald , the Aster 's Pk after trials is still 100% , not 80 .

Cheers .

The threat today is speed boats packed with TNT, not Blackjacks, but while Blackjacks still exist they are a potential threat.

Given your analyses of the position of a VLS system on a carrier, I would be interested to know where it is on the De Gualle.

Here's a picture of where CdG has them.

Like the US Polaris A-3, the ASTER is one of the biggest defense scandals and coverups I've ever seen.

My information is based on scattered reports from the Defense MSM about the incompetent radar/missile mismatching made, and from Beedal at Navy Matters, from DID News service and finally from my own sources at Thales and inside the program itself.

The only place where ALL that information has been assembled in a single mosaic is here at Strategy Page  AFAIK.

Its my source of supreme anger, at MBDA and Thales.

Herald

benellim, Aster is a huge chip on Heralds shoulder which has confused many a poster in the past.  Nobody knows quite how it got there, or has been able to find information to substantiate his claims, but nonetheless it is there.

In reference to the Aster testing, if you have anyone to whom you can speak, ask them about the updating problems the  bungled  update antenna  design complicates, clock mismatch, the bungled extended range booster  in Aster 30, and  why the MICA derived seeker cannot engage a  Mach 1.5+ target in a crossing shot in a drop-basket.

Stage managed carefully scripted tests against carefully tracked pre-planned targets are not legitimate weapon proofing. Try a series of surprise shots against maneuvering Coyotes and see what the failure rate is. Not even Standard or ESSM can score 100% and I doubt that a crap missile like Aster will do even as well as the numbers I charitably give it..

By the way, the salvo launch rates I chose are fairly accurate. The US PK rates are of what I am confident. I assumed that Aster was as good as published ESSM  against terminal phase Mach 2.5 Russian AShMs. The problem is that Aster is not as good.

Herald  

Seeing is no problem, because he is so thin-skinned that the epidermis cannot absorb or reflect visible light.   

But to say that spinelessness adds to flexibility would be going beyond fairness. 

BW, forgive me my little joke.  But kidding aside, let me try to make it simple. 

For whatever number of VLS missiles and consequent kills at whatever range, either A2A or A2G, their equivalent mass and cost will go farther, if it is instead spent upon a number if fighters and their payload. 

To kill an incoming a/c or cruise missile at 400km, you can either fire a $2-4M missile (SA-10/PAC-3) from the carrier/escort, or you can fire a $300K AIM-120 (forgive me for using US/Combloc examples, I wouldn't trust myself to do this with French systems), with 100km range, from a ~$50M fighter 300km out.  To splash eight, that's $2.4M for 8 AAM, or about $24M for 8 SAM. 

Do this mission twice, and you pay for the aircraft.  OK, add in operating costs of the a/c, but the SAM ain't free either.


Plus which, let's say 50 fighters can carry 8 AAM each = 400 AAM.  That's more than the entire VLS loadout of the largest cruiser.  They can also carry probably 8 JDAM each, perhaps more if you go with SDBs.  Again, 400 JDAM will probably hit as hard as 400 Tomahawks.  I would guess, I don't know but I would guess, that a CVN's magazines can comfortably house both 400 AAMs and 400 JDAMs, probably more.  And a CVN can rearm at sea whereas this is tough with VLS.


Of course, it need hardly be said that a $50M fighter-bomber, dropping eight $20K JDAMs , costs less to operate than launching 8 $2M cruise missiles.  Do this mission three times and you've just about paid for the fighter.  Of course if you use SDBs or other weapons...YMMV.  Your payback period could be quicker or slower - dropping 32 SDBs @ $30-60K, say, with one $50M a/c, vs. firing 32 $2M missiles, pays for itself the first time.

Well, to strike at 1000mi, you need refueling.  And of course you need to penetrate.  But of course a Tomahawk can miss or fail; and the F-18, Rafale, etc., can shift targets, adjust to new intel, go supersonic, jam, evade, etc., etc.

...

You know, I hope, BW, that I try not to be hurtful, so please try not to regard the following as a national reflexion:

The French military establishment, IMHO, prefers missiles over aircraft, for one reason.  Not because they take less skill to operate.  That is not the reason.  The reason is, that INITIAL cost of missiles is cheaper than the fighter-bomber infrastructure.  And costs far less to operate when not actually in use, i.e. no costs of flying BARCAP, no training missions, etc.

It is more expensive after the first or second reload, though.

Therefore, the French either expect not to fire, or not to reload.

Whereas the US plans to fire, and fire, and fire again, till the work is done.

I believe the French like to bluff a bit, in other words.  Or at least to impose their will through a show of force.  Or to strike briefly rather than over a sustained period. 

Their weapon selection is cheaper and more efficient - AS LONG AS YOU DON'T USE THEM.



Questions/comments please.

BW, aside from your own thoughts, I would be interested if you were to mail this to FS, for whose economic skills I have some respect, and get his opinion on my analysis. 

Yimmy, to be even more simplistic, why not bring along a container ship and bolt down a thousand VLS to its deck?  Slave it to an escort's radar and bang away.

If a container ship is too big and costs too much, get a barge of the proper size and tow the damned thing.