Carrier Aviation ~ 100 years of USA/USN Traditions; 1922-2022

[Stryder50]

True, the poor F4F was still trying to fly tail to tail with the zero and was being eaten up. The flying Tigers brought those tactics into the Pacific and things changed.

Until the "Thach Weave" was employed, then the F4F Wildcat began to have a match to the Arm Zeke/"Zero";
...
The Thach weave (also known as a beam defense position) is an aerial combat tactic that was developed by naval aviator John S. Thach and named by James H. Flatley of the United States Navy soon after the United States' entry into World War II.

It is a tactical formation maneuver in which two or more allied planes wove in regularly intersecting flight paths to lure an enemy into focusing on one plane, while the targeted pilot's wingman would come into position to attack the pursuer.
...

Overcoming the Wildcat's disadvantage​

Thach had heard, from a report published in the 22 September 1941 Fleet Air Tactical Unit Intelligence Bulletin, of the Japanese Mitsubishi Zero's extraordinary maneuverability and rate of climb. Before even experiencing it for himself, he began to devise tactics meant to give the slower-turning American Grumman F4F Wildcat fighters a chance in combat. While based in San Diego, he would spend every evening thinking of different tactics that could overcome the Zero's maneuverability, and would then test them in flight the following day.[citation needed]

Working at night with matchsticks on the table, he eventually came up with what he called "beam defense position", but which soon became known as the "Thach weave". The theory behind the beam attack was predicated on the 2-plane element of the finger-four formation. It was executed either by two fighter aircraft side-by-side or by two pairs of fighters flying together. When an enemy aircraft chose one fighter as his target (the "bait" fighter; his wingman being the "hook"), the two wingmen turned in towards each other. After crossing paths, and once their separation was great enough, they would then repeat the exercise, again turning in towards each other, bringing the enemy plane into the hook's sights. A correctly executed Thach weave (assuming the bait was taken and followed) left little chance of escape to even the most maneuverable opponent.[citation needed]

Thach called on Ensign Edward "Butch" O'Hare, who led the second section in Thach's division, to test the idea. Thach took off with three other Wildcats in the role of defenders, O'Hare meanwhile led four Wildcats in the role of attackers. The defending aircraft had their throttles wired (to restrict their performance), while the attacking aircraft had their engine power unrestricted – this simulated an attack by superior fighter aircraft.[1]

Trying a series of mock attacks, O'Hare found that in every instance Thach's fighters, despite their power handicap, had either ruined his attack or actually maneuvered into position to shoot back. After landing, O'Hare excitedly congratulated Thach: "Skipper, it really worked. I couldn't make any attack without seeing the nose of one of your airplanes pointed at me."
...

Thach Weave - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

~~~~~~~
BTW, still a valid air combat tactic, in some cases.

 

[Stryder50]

1) I trust the Navy more than I trust Vladimir Putin.

2) Backfire bombers just won't appear out of thin air. They fly from very well-known airbases. Thus the general path they will take to get to carrier battle groups will be well known. They won't be attacking from "all directions".

A carrier force of three carriers will have 72 or so F-18s and that is more than enough to crush a force of Backfire bombers before they launch any missiles.

I'm not saying that every attack on U.S. carriers would be stopped or that U.S. carriers would come through a major war unscathed. During the 1980s the estimates were in a major war that roughly HALF of all deployed U.S. carriers would be sunk or severely damaged.

But you can't win a war over the U.S. that way.

Actual, just one USN CV carries close to 70+ F-18s. Three CVs would be more like about 210+ F-18s.

 

[Mushroom]

I don't know if this is true, but I recall reading somewhere that in their pilot training the Japanese stayed with the World War One era tactic of engaging an enemy aircraft by approaching it from above and behind.

While the U.S. trained its pilots to attack at almost any possible angle which dramatically opened up the possibilities for American pilots to kill a Japanese aircraft.

Is that true?

That is still the norm today if possible, as it is impossible to be shot at if you are behind a target fighter, and giving the most time to shoot the enemy. And being above the enemy gives you more speed in the approach or to escape. As Obi-Wan would say, you always want the high ground.

However, the Zero was also designed to have an extremely tight turning radius, so they did not hesitate to trick an opponent into moving behind them, then out-turning them and slipping in behind them. To combat this, first US pilots started to work only in pairs, then the "Thach Weave" was developed. This was a technique that could help counter the higher turn and climb-dive rate of the Zero, until the US matched than surpassed it.



Mostly the US was less reliant upon the "above and behind" tactic simply because they devised a tactic that made engagements possible from almost any direction. This did not last, but in the early war it was a gamechanger.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The American Pilots were taught to Boom and Zoom. While the P-39 was not capable of this, the P-40 was.
So was the Cats. When they started doing this, the kill rate went way up. And of course the P-38 was flown that way and had a fantastic kill rate. They didn't place the limits on the P-38s like they did in the European. Finally, in the middle of 1943, the ETO allowed the P-38 was allowed to fly it's strengths and it's kill rate went way up there as well.; Even today, the F-15 will try and get you into a Boom and Zoom fight which there is nothing better at it than the F-15 but that tactic doesn't really work so well anymore with fighter against fighter.

What the Zero lacked was speed. All the USN and USAAF had to do is to keep their speed above 300 mph and the Zero couldn't touch them.

I think what he was referring to was that both the US Army and Navy trained their pilots in deflection shooting. Most, if not all, other air forces didn’t, considering it too hard and a waste of ammunition.
It wasn’t that the Zero lacked speed, on the contrary, it was slightly faster than the Wildcats, Hurricanes and P-40s it fought. What happened is that the large control surfaces that gave it its superb maneuverability were unboosted and became hard to operate at high speeds.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Also, at about $2 million a copy and with only 1,000 pound conventional warhead, they (Tomahawks) are rather pricey compared to a 1,000 bomb, which when carried by aircraft, drop from a reusable engine/transport system.

Tomahawk (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On the other hand cruise missiles and drones don’t have a very expensive pilot on board and are far more expendable than a manned aircraft.

 

[AZrailwhale]

BTW, the P-39 appears to have been a capable fighter, especially in the hands of Soviet pilots.
...
The Bell P-39 Airacobra is a fighter produced by Bell Aircraft for the United States Army Air Forces during World War II. It was one of the principal American fighters in service when the United States entered combat. The P-39 was used by the Soviet Air Force, and enabled individual Soviet pilots to collect the highest number of kills attributed to any U.S. fighter type flown by any air force in any conflict.[N 2] Other major users of the type included the Free French, the Royal Air Force, and the Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force.[4]
....

Bell P-39 Airacobra - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

At low to medium altitude where the Red Air Force fought, the P-39 was very capable. But above twelve thousand feet it was a dog. In Western Europe and the Pacific it had to fight against enemies that always had an altitude advantage. The P-40 had the same limitations, but was a much tougher, more capable aircraft so was more successful.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That is still the norm today if possible, as it is impossible to be shot at if you are behind a target fighter, and giving the most time to shoot the enemy. And being above the enemy gives you more speed in the approach or to escape. As Obi-Wan would say, you always want the high ground.

However, the Zero was also designed to have an extremely tight turning radius, so they did not hesitate to trick an opponent into moving behind them, then out-turning them and slipping in behind them. To combat this, first US pilots started to work only in pairs, then the "Thach Weave" was developed. This was a technique that could help counter the higher turn and climb-dive rate of the Zero, until the US matched than surpassed it.



Mostly the US was less reliant upon the "above and behind" tactic simply because they devised a tactic that made engagements possible from almost any direction. This did not last, but in the early war it was a gamechanger.

The Zero also had a very high rate of climb at a very steep angle.

 

[Mushroom]

That’s more than a little simplistic. The Japanese designed some very advanced aircraft and ships during the war. The Zero was supposed to be replaced by the A7M Reppu in 1943 (code named Sam) as the standard carrier fighter. The IJA has the Ki-84 Frank which was as good as any allied fighter, the Nakajima Ki-61 Hein (Tony) and the Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki (Tojo) both of which were operational by 1943. The IJN built the Taiho which was probably the equal of an Essex. It had to revert to a slightly modernized Soryu design for a wartime carrier that was roughly similar to the British light fleet carriers? Japan's problem was that it couldn’t produce anything in the quantities needed to defeat the US, let alone the rest of the WAllies.

They did continue to design new aircraft, but none were ever adopted.

The A7M never really left prototype. The pilots who tested them were highly impressed, but only the prototype and 9 production models built. 8 from April to August 1944, 1 in August 1945.

The Ki-84 was a good plane, and they built over 3,500 of them. But that was purely a land based aircraft for the IJA, so not applicable to a thread about carrier aviation. The same with the Ki-61 and Ki-44.

For the IJN Taiho, I would argue heavily that it was indeed inferior to almost every other carrier in existence. It had a heavily armored flight deck as well as a six inch armored belt. However, she was sunk by a single torpedo, And she was so heavy that the flight deck was only a few feet above the waterline. I would question anybody that called that mess an "equal of an Essex". She was only three months old and in her first battle when she was sunk. By only a single torpedo.

Japan could build better, but as typical they often found it hard to imagine that they even needed to as they just "knew" what they had was the best. And by 1944 more and more pilots were willing to do kamikaze attacks, so giving them better aircraft was largely pointless. And it was not like they could not produce more aircraft. They produced over 10,000 of the A6M series. Around 4,000 in 1944 and over 1,900 in the final 8 months of the war.

I always laugh when people try to claim that Japan could not produce more of just about anything other than major ships. Even in August her shipyards and aircraft factories were still cranking out a huge amount of war material. But when it comes to aircraft, what they were actually running short of was pilots. Towards the end of the war they had set up basic "flight schools" where high school kids were put into wood mock-ups and simply taught how to take off and follow the wing leader. And while many were lost on take-off and the flight to the target ships, they would then follow a veteran pilot until they were close to the US Navy. The veteran would then return to base as the students tried to crash into ships.

There were actually over 2,000 A6M series fighters left at the end of the war. But the demilitarization saw all but a few destroyed after Japan surrendered. There are only around 30 left in the entire world, and only a couple in flyable condition.

 

[Sandisk]

Also, at about $2 million a copy and with only 1,000 pound conventional warhead, they (Tomahawks) are rather pricey compared to a 1,000 bomb, which when carried by aircraft, drop from a reusable engine/transport system.

Tomahawk (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Really?
(I am bored today - so I'll play.)

1) Each Tomahawk apparently costs about $1.5 million per missile (land attack version) can be individually targeted - whilst in flight - to hit 5+ different targets.
So that is $300,000 per target.
With no chance of a pilot being captured/killed.

Tomahawk (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2) For the Carrier Strike Group (CSG)?

Each Super Hornet costs about $11K per flight hour to operate.

The Hourly Cost Of Operating The U.S. Military's Fighter Fleet [Infographic]

Modern military fighter aircraft are extremely expensive to procure with the unit cost for a single F-35A coming to $98 million, according to Lockheed Martin. That program has already gone down as the most expensive weapons system in history and it's set to cost $1.509 trillion through to 2070...

www.forbes.com

For an average mission against a moderately-defended target - you are going to need several F/A-18's for the mission and to refuel the strike planes.
Plus, you will need at least one Growler for electronic support.
That is at least 5-6 aircraft.
At $11K per hour?
You are talking at least $250,000.

McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Plus, at least $25,000 per JDAM bomb dropped
So add at least $125,000 for five targets...minimum.

Joint Direct Attack Munition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And what does it cost for the CSG to sail to the launch point?
An average CSG has a carrier and at least two destroyers and a cruiser.
Each Arleigh Burke-class cruiser burns 1,000 gallons an hour. At $4 a gallon - that is $4,000 an hour.

FYI: What Kind Of Gas Mileage Can You Get From A Naval Warship?

A hulking Arleigh Burke–class destroyer might typically burn a minimum of about 24 barrels (1,000 gallons) of fuel per hour, but this figure conceals so

www.popsci.com

Say, at 20 knots or 23 mph.
Rounding off to 25mph?
That is - to cruise 2,000 miles (1K to the target and 1K to get back...which would be an awfully short distance) - takes 80 hours.
That is about $320,000 per ship.
That does NOT include all the support ships fuel burn.
PLUS, it is going to cost about $10K an hour JUST for the fuel burn of 3 Arleigh Burkes for every hour they are just 'hanging around' the area, launching strikes. Again, not including the support ships.
For 3 Arleigh Burkes (using the latter for a cruiser fuel usage) - the CSG would have to burn $900,000 just getting there and back.
Plus $10K per hour during the strikes.
Not including the support ships fuel burn.

That does not include the price for paying/training/housing all the pilots.
The purchase cost of all the aircraft and the ships of the CSG - over $30 BILLION
And the cost of building and maintaining all the support ships required to keep the CSG going.
And the cost of paying/training/housing the 8,000+ personnel in a CSG.

Are you honestly saying that using Tomahawks fired from submarines is less cost effective at attacking shore targets than using an entire, Carrier Strike group?

Yes or no, please?

 

[Mushroom]

And forget about your 'providing ground support' bullshit. I already proved that they are unnecessary for that as the Marines and the Army/Air Force have their own, organic aircraft for that.

And how do you think that the Marines are expected to get their fighters to the battle?

At this time, VMFA-314 is aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in the F-35C. A Marine air wing, on a carrier.

Every carrier has at least one Marine Air Wing aboard, for that very reason. How else are they going to get to a battle area unless they are hitching a ride from the Navy? Why do you think all Marine pilots are also "Naval Aviators"?

 

[Mushroom]

Single engine aircraft tend to be a legacy from the World Wars, and also tend to be cheaper to build, and maintain. For another consideration, two engines in two airframes = two aircraft versus one, with two engines offers more versatility in missions.

Of course, then there are some real exceptions.

 

[Mushroom]

Each Tomahawk can be individually targeted - whilst in flight - to hit 5 different targets.

A Tomahawk can not loiter over an area and provide close air support to forces on the ground.

It also can not intercept inbound attackers.

Cruise missiles only attack single locations, nothing else. It is entirely an offensive weapon, and a major role of carrier aircraft is support and defense.

 

[Dayton3]

1) Each Tomahawk can be individually targeted - whilst in flight - to hit 5 different targets.

You ignore the obvious.

Each Tomahawk cruise missile has only one warhead so the ability to target five different targets is largely meaningless.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Actual, just one USN CV carries close to 70+ F-18s. Three CVs would be more like about 210+ F-18s.

No, it carries around 50 within 4 squadrons which are a mix of F-18E/Fs, and one of those 4 squadrons being the of F-18F Super Hornets.

 

[Sandisk]

You ignore the obvious.

Each Tomahawk cruise missile has only one warhead so the ability to target five different targets is largely meaningless.

This is exactly what I mean.
You obviously just made that up or assumed it.
Without even bothering to spend all of 30 seconds to check first.

The Tomahawk can carry submunitions and attack numerous targets.
It can hit a target.
Then loiter around until guided to another target.

7 of the most lethal Navy weapons in history

The Navy has the mission of securing American interests on the ocean, and here are 7 of the most lethal Navy weapons in history.

www.wearethemighty.com

And apparently 'only' costs about $1.5 million apiece (land attack variant).

Here Is What Each Of The Navy's Ship-Launched Missiles Actually Costs

Arming America's fleet of fighting ships is an extremely expensive endeavor.

www.thedrive.com

I am tired of having to correct your guesses.
I mean no offense (this time).
But we are done here.

 

[Dayton3]

This is exactly what I mean.
You obviously just made that up or assumed it.
Without even bothering to spend all of 30 seconds to check first.

The Tomahawk can carry submunitions and attack numerous targets.
It can hit a target.
Then loiter around until guided to another target.

But we are done here.

Prove it. Provide some links to these weapons and how Tomahawks carry them?

And at any rate "sub munitions" are not remotely as destructive as regular bombs.

"we are done here"? Thank goodness, I can't stand you anyway with your constant prattling about weapons you know nothing about. You're the American version of that Russian guy.

 

[Dayton3]

And what this genius Sandisk does not realize is that those "bomblets" CANNOT be dropped on different targets.

What a rube.

 

[Sandisk]

A Tomahawk can not loiter over an area and provide close air support to forces on the ground.

It also can not intercept inbound attackers.

As I already typed - the forces on the ground will have organic aircraft (both Marines and Army/Air Force) to perform those missions.
The Army has the Warthog/Apache's for ground support.
And extra Air Force aircraft - with refueling - can have F-22's circling overhead (THE BEST air superiority fighter in the world).
And airbases all over the globe for support.

The Marines have F-35B fighter/bombers that land and take-off near the battlefield.
They are better than the F/A-18's at air-to-air combat.
And at least as good at ground attack.
With FAR, superior avionics and some stealthiness.
Plus Vipers and anything the Air Force wants to chip in.

Finally, both have drones like Reapers, Avengers and Predators that can loiter for hours and carry guided missiles for support.

The Marines and Army do NOT need aircraft carriers for support.
Just because you do not want to face the truth - that is your problem.

Cruise missiles only attack single locations, nothing else. It is entirely an offensive weapon, and a major role of carrier aircraft is support and defense.

There you go.
You just made a matter-of-fact statement.
And you are 100% wrong about it.
You clearly are just making shit up or making assumptions.
And you don't even have the guts to admit it when you are wrong - that I have seen.

The Tomahawk can hit a target, loiter around and then be guided onto another target.
And do this over and over again using submunitions.

How Tomahawk Finds Its Target - Naval Post- Naval News and Information

The Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile (TLAM) is a low-flying strategic guided missile launched from naval ships or submarines to strike targets on land. The article describes hot it finds the target.

navalpost.com

7 of the most lethal Navy weapons in history

The Navy has the mission of securing American interests on the ocean, and here are 7 of the most lethal Navy weapons in history.

www.wearethemighty.com

Since you refuse to even TRY to check the stuff you post.
And are nothing but a waste of my time.
- I am ignoring you for now on, on this.

Have a nice day.

 

[Dayton3]

The Tomahawk can hit a target, loiter around and then be guided onto another target.
And do this over and over again using submunitions.

No it cannot and this just shows you know nothing about the subject. When submunitions are deployed they are dropped over a SINGLE TARGETED AREA. Because submuntiions are area denial weapons. Now that single area might well be 100 meters long and 10 meters wide, but it is still a single targeted area.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And how do you think that the Marines are expected to get their fighters to the battle?

At this time, VMFA-314 is aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in the F-35C. A Marine air wing, on a carrier.

Every carrier has at least one Marine Air Wing aboard, for that very reason. How else are they going to get to a battle area unless they are hitching a ride from the Navy? Why do you think all Marine pilots are also "Naval Aviators"?

Only two carrier air wings have Marine F-18 squadrons. At present, the Marines have only 5 F-18 squadrons and 7 F-35B squadrons.