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

[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.

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.

you're right Sandisk from wikipedia

Munitions​

The TLAM-D contains 166 sub-munitions in 24 canisters: 22 canisters of seven each, and two canisters of six each to conform to the dimensions of the airframe. The sub-munitions are the same type of Combined Effects Munition bomblet used in large quantities by the U.S. Air Force with the CBU-87 Combined Effects Munition. The sub-munitions canisters are dispensed two at a time, one per side. The missile can perform up to five separate target segments which enables it to attack multiple targets. However, in order to achieve a sufficient density of coverage typically all 24 canisters are dispensed sequentially from back to front.

but you're also wrong.

Munitions[edit]​

The TLAM-D contains 166 sub-munitions in 24 canisters: 22 canisters of seven each, and two canisters of six each to conform to the dimensions of the airframe. The sub-munitions are the same type of Combined Effects Munition bomblet used in large quantities by the U.S. Air Force with the CBU-87 Combined Effects Munition. The sub-munitions canisters are dispensed two at a time, one per side. The missile can perform up to five separate target segments which enables it to attack multiple targets. However, in order to achieve a sufficient density of coverage typically all 24 canisters are dispensed sequentially from back to front.


The bottom line is that while it is theoretically possible, in practice no Tomahawk missile is going to attack five different targets.

 

[Vrenn]

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.

Things I want to know.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

Taiho's flight deck was actually three feet higher above the waterline than those of the British ABH carriers (41 feet as opposed to 38 feet). Her flaw was trying to stuff a two-story hanger into that space. That placed the lower hanger floor just above the waterline. Her loss wasn't so much due to the torpedo hit, but to abysmal damage control and poor design.

Japan WASN'T turning out "massive quantities" of war material by any standards except her own. In 1944 and 1945 Japanese shipyards were barely turning out small quantities of small escort vessels roughly comparable to the British River Class frigates and Flower Class corvettes. It took a Japanese shipyard between two and three times as long to produce a ship as an American yard for an equivalent class and American ships were larger and more sophisticated. Japan couldn't produce large quantities of 2,000 horsepower class aerial engines which is one reason it kept building Zeros since even the late model A6M5 model 52 used the Sakai 21 engine that produced 1,160 horsepower. Japan couldn't produce properly hardened steel in quantities which resulted in landing gear failures in its fighters.
The reason Japanese pilots accepted being kamikazes is that by 1944 the odds of returning from a normal bombing mission against the USN weren't appreciably better than coming home from a kamikaze sortie. By Eastern Solomons, Japanese strike groups were taking losses in excess of fifty percent when attacking USN formations. By 1944 losses were far worse. Look at the Battle of the Philippine Sea for an example. The IJN launched 430 aircraft, lost 200 and got ONE hit on the South Dakota that did minor damage.

 

[Vrenn]

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

The P-39 had some severe problems except on the Russian Front. It had limited range, a maximum of 12K altitude and it was slower than most front line fighters. It didn't get that two speed turbo supercharger it was supposed to get and the HP of the engine was way down once you started to climb from sea level. It got a single speed supercharger instead. Then there was the size. It was much smaller and it had small wings. That also hurt it in the altitude department. But it did help it in the turn department at lower altitudes. The Russians loved it because their air fields were just down the road from the actual battle so all the bad things didn't matter. And that 37mm cannon in the nose could take out anything in front of it.

 

[Mushroom]

As I already typed - the forces on the ground will have organic aircraft (both Marines and Army/Air Force) to perform those missions.

And as I already said, those Marine aircraft are 99% of the time transported by and based off of the carrier!

Holy hell, how do you think the Marine aircraft in the Middle East got there? By carrier.

I actually spend over a year on an Air Force base in the Middle East. Seeing Naval and Marine pilots was rare as hell. Almost everybody there was in the Air Force. And being part of the air defense mission I could look at our forces positioning screen and see exactly where the Navy and Marine pilots were located. On the carrier out in the Gulf.

Where do you think the Marine aircraft in most of the Middle East since 1990 have been operating out of? Not land bases, carriers.

As others have repeatedly said, you know absolutely nothing about what you are trying to say. And your repeating this yet again makes that painfully obvious.

 

[Mushroom]

Japan WASN'T turning out "massive quantities" of war material by any standards except her own. In 1944 and 1945 Japanese shipyards were barely turning out small quantities of small escort vessels roughly comparable to the British River Class frigates and Flower Class corvettes.

Sure they were.

Once again, between January 1945 and the middle of August, they churned out 1,870 A6M5s. Over 800 MXY-7 Okha rocket missiles (commonly called "Bakka Bombs" - essentially a human piloted V-1 suicide weapon). Over 400 Kaiten submarines. Around 210 Kairyu submarines. Over 100 Ki-115 suicide craft.

Over 6,000 Shinyo suicide boats. And all other small 1 and 2 man craft from earlier in the war were being pulled out of storage and updated, and all subs being recalled to transport the suicide subs to their targets.

You do not seem to realize, that by early 1945 the strategy of Japan shifted dramatically. With the loss of Okinawa, they knew that there was nothing they could do with large assets to defend the home islands. So all of their remaining efforts were going to creating as many suicide vehicles as they could.

I have posted this before, here it is again. The Nagasaki shipyard after the atomic bombing. That is one of 4 drydocks, each filled with around 100 1 or 2 man suicide submarines.

Remember, the Nagasaki Shipyard was where the IJN Musashi battleship was built, and a huge number of destroyers and submarines. By 1945 it was not turning out anything but small suicide subs.

No, they were no longer turning out "escort vessels", because there was nothing left of the Imperial fleet to "escort". And with the US having air and sea dominance, anything other than submarines or high speed night runs by destroyers was suicide. They were frantically building as many aircraft, speed boats, gliders, and submarines to be used to try and take out the transports before or during an invasion. The only ships leaving the island were frantically moving as much of their army off of Asia as they could and returning it to the mainland for the final defense. All of their war plants were dedicated to suicide craft, as can be seen by the massive numbers I just presented.

"Small Escort Vessels" are commonly called "destroyers". But by 1944, Japan was barely using their destroyers as destroyers. They instead almost all had their mission changed to transports. Either transporting supplies to and from their outposts, or transporting personnel.

I guess you do not realize the state of the IJN by 1945. They knew the fleet action to win the war was a dead dream, and they were planning on doing all they could to take as many invaders out as they could during the invasions.

 

[Mushroom]

The bottom line is that while it is theoretically possible, in practice no Tomahawk missile is going to attack five different targets.

Only if they are very close together.

Like say the target is an enemy air base. It might drop one part on the tank farm, another near the hangars, and the rest on the runway.

But it is not going to drop part of their load, then fly 10 miles away to deliver another, and so on. Then, they would just launch more missiles and send one to each. Because in reality, each of those 166 submunitions is not much more powerful than a hand grenade.

And that is not a joke, the Rockeye for example delivers a submunition that weighs 600 grams. A US M67 hand grenade weighs 400 grams.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Sure they were.

Once again, between January 1945 and the middle of August, they churned out 1,870 A6M5s. Over 800 MXY-7 Okha rocket missiles (commonly called "Bakka Bombs" - essentially a human piloted V-1 suicide weapon). Over 400 Kaiten submarines. Around 210 Kairyu submarines. Over 100 Ki-115 suicide craft.

Over 6,000 Shinyo suicide boats. And all other small 1 and 2 man craft from earlier in the war were being pulled out of storage and updated, and all subs being recalled to transport the suicide subs to their targets.

You do not seem to realize, that by early 1945 the strategy of Japan shifted dramatically. With the loss of Okinawa, they knew that there was nothing they could do with large assets to defend the home islands. So all of their remaining efforts were going to creating as many suicide vehicles as they could.

I have posted this before, here it is again. The Nagasaki shipyard after the atomic bombing. That is one of 4 drydocks, each filled with around 100 1 or 2 man suicide submarines.

Remember, the Nagasaki Shipyard was where the IJN Musashi battleship was built, and a huge number of destroyers and submarines. By 1945 it was not turning out anything but small suicide subs.

No, they were no longer turning out "escort vessels", because there was nothing left of the Imperial fleet to "escort". And with the US having air and sea dominance, anything other than submarines or high speed night runs by destroyers was suicide. They were frantically building as many aircraft, speed boats, gliders, and submarines to be used to try and take out the transports before or during an invasion. The only ships leaving the island were frantically moving as much of their army off of Asia as they could and returning it to the mainland for the final defense. All of their war plants were dedicated to suicide craft, as can be seen by the massive numbers I just presented.

"Small Escort Vessels" are commonly called "destroyers". But by 1944, Japan was barely using their destroyers as destroyers. They instead almost all had their mission changed to transports. Either transporting supplies to and from their outposts, or transporting personnel.

I guess you do not realize the state of the IJN by 1945. They knew the fleet action to win the war was a dead dream, and they were planning on doing all they could to take as many invaders out as they could during the invasions.

no they aren't. Small escort vessels are corvettes, frigates and sub chasers which Japan was still building in some numbers. Yes it was cranking out suicide weapons, but they were crude and mostly made from non-strategic materials. The suicide boats for instance were wooden and powered by any automotive engines available. I wasn't aware they they were cranking out Zeros in such large numbers so late, it looks like nearly a third of the total Zero production happened in the last eighteen months of the war.

 

[Mushroom]

Yes it was cranking out suicide weapons, but they were crude and mostly made from non-strategic materials.

The A6M5 was crude and made of non-strategic materials? As were the over 800 human operated rockets? And the almost 1,000 submarines?

And yes, the boats were made of wood. But they were not "small". These were 2 ton craft, powered by a 6 cylinder 3.3 liter truck engine. Capable of propelling the boat and over 1,000 kg of high explosives at over 55 mph.

Imagine the resources that went into producing over 6,000 such engines. Yet that is not "strategic"?

I wasn't aware they they were cranking out Zeros in such large numbers so late, it looks like nearly a third of the total Zero production happened in the last eighteen months of the war.

They were very successful as suicide aircraft. More so earlier in the war, but that was all the more reason to keep cranking them out towards the end. By the time of the surrender in August 1945, over half of the over 2,300 "special attack" missions were by the A6M series.

And they had just about to start widescale production of the Ki-115 special attack aircraft of when the war ended. And that was estimated to be around 8,000 craft a month. Once again, that is a huge amount of resources.

But they did not need frigates or corvettes. In fact, they never had any ships of those classes, they did not want or need them. The closest they had were "Gunboats", and that was 5 pre-war craft intended for shore defense (and were often utilized as armed tugs). The smallest class of ships that the IJN deployed were destroyers other than their dozen PT boats.

Oh, and they were not churning out "corvettes, frigates and sub chasers which Japan was still building in some numbers". The last 5 sub chasers they built were all completed in January 1945, and they stopped building any more to dedicate all their resources to special attack craft.

As I already stated, they were not building any "corvettes" or "frigates", because they never had any.

They were in mid-1945 starting to churn out "No. 1 Auxiliary Patrol Boats", but only 27 of them by the time of the surrender. Those were intended to be picket boats, to loiter out at sea and give warning when the invasion fleet arrived. And as they were only armed with four 25mm anti-aircraft guns they were pretty much expected to die doing that duty. They only had a top speed of 9 knots.

But please, if you have any references that they were building large numbers of those craft, I would love to see it.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The A6M5 was crude and made of non-strategic materials? As were the over 800 human operated rockets? And the almost 1,000 submarines?

And yes, the boats were made of wood. But they were not "small". These were 2 ton craft, powered by a 6 cylinder 3.3 liter truck engine. Capable of propelling the boat and over 1,000 kg of high explosives at over 55 mph.

Imagine the resources that went into producing over 6,000 such engines. Yet that is not "strategic"?



They were very successful as suicide aircraft. More so earlier in the war, but that was all the more reason to keep cranking them out towards the end. By the time of the surrender in August 1945, over half of the over 2,300 "special attack" missions were by the A6M series.

And they had just about to start widescale production of the Ki-115 special attack aircraft of when the war ended. And that was estimated to be around 8,000 craft a month. Once again, that is a huge amount of resources.

But they did not need frigates or corvettes. In fact, they never had any ships of those classes, they did not want or need them. The closest they had were "Gunboats", and that was 5 pre-war craft intended for shore defense (and were often utilized as armed tugs). The smallest class of ships that the IJN deployed were destroyers other than their dozen PT boats.

Oh, and they were not churning out "corvettes, frigates and sub chasers which Japan was still building in some numbers". The last 5 sub chasers they built were all completed in January 1945, and they stopped building any more to dedicate all their resources to special attack craft.

As I already stated, they were not building any "corvettes" or "frigates", because they never had any.

They were in mid-1945 starting to churn out "No. 1 Auxiliary Patrol Boats", but only 27 of them by the time of the surrender. Those were intended to be picket boats, to loiter out at sea and give warning when the invasion fleet arrived. And as they were only armed with four 25mm anti-aircraft guns they were pretty much expected to die doing that duty. They only had a top speed of 9 knots.

But please, if you have any references that they were building large numbers of those craft, I would love to see it.

The suicide boats were nowhere near that sophisticated, there was the navy Shinyo and the army Maru-ni both were about twenty feet long and the fastest could make thirty knots.

 

[Stryder50]

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.

The Ford class can handle about 75+ aircraft, so could do about 70 F-18 if they were available and higher command allocated such.
...
The current Nimitz-class aircraft carriers in US naval service have been part of United States power projection strategy since Nimitz was commissioned in 1975. Displacing about 100,000 tons when fully loaded, a Nimitz-class carrier can steam in excess of 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph), cruise without resupply for 90 days, and launch aircraft to strike targets hundreds of miles away.[24] The endurance of the Nimitz class is exemplified by USS Theodore Roosevelt, which spent 159 days underway during Operation Enduring Freedom without visiting a port or being refueled.[25]




Gerald R. Ford arrived at Naval Station Norfolk after seven days of builders trials in April 2017.

The Nimitz design has accommodated many new technologies over the decades, but it has limited ability to support the most recent technical advances. As a 2005 Rand report said, "The biggest problems facing the Nimitz class are the limited electrical power generation capability and the upgrade-driven increase in ship weight and erosion of the center-of-gravity margin needed to maintain ship stability."[26]

With these constraints in mind, the US Navy developed what was initially known as the CVN-21 program, which evolved into CVN-78, Gerald R. Ford. Improvements were made through developing technologies and more efficient design. Major design changes include a larger flight deck, improvements in weapons and material handling, a new propulsion plant design that requires fewer people to operate and maintain, and a new, smaller island that has been pushed aft. Technological advances in electromagnetics have led to the development of an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and an Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG). An integrated warfare system, the Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS), has been developed to allow the ship to more easily take on new missions. The new Dual Band Radar (DBR) combines S-band and X-band radar.[27]

These advances will allow the new Gerald R. Ford-class carriers to launch 25% more sorties, generate triple the electrical power with improved efficiency, and offer crew quality-of-life improvements.[5][10]
...

Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

....
Nimitz class can do @85-90 total aircrraft.

Nimitz-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Ford class can handle about 75+ aircraft, so could do about 70 F-18 if they were available and higher command allocated such.
...
The current Nimitz-class aircraft carriers in US naval service have been part of United States power projection strategy since Nimitz was commissioned in 1975. Displacing about 100,000 tons when fully loaded, a Nimitz-class carrier can steam in excess of 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph), cruise without resupply for 90 days, and launch aircraft to strike targets hundreds of miles away.[24] The endurance of the Nimitz class is exemplified by USS Theodore Roosevelt, which spent 159 days underway during Operation Enduring Freedom without visiting a port or being refueled.[25]




Gerald R. Ford arrived at Naval Station Norfolk after seven days of builders trials in April 2017.

The Nimitz design has accommodated many new technologies over the decades, but it has limited ability to support the most recent technical advances. As a 2005 Rand report said, "The biggest problems facing the Nimitz class are the limited electrical power generation capability and the upgrade-driven increase in ship weight and erosion of the center-of-gravity margin needed to maintain ship stability."[26]

With these constraints in mind, the US Navy developed what was initially known as the CVN-21 program, which evolved into CVN-78, Gerald R. Ford. Improvements were made through developing technologies and more efficient design. Major design changes include a larger flight deck, improvements in weapons and material handling, a new propulsion plant design that requires fewer people to operate and maintain, and a new, smaller island that has been pushed aft. Technological advances in electromagnetics have led to the development of an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and an Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG). An integrated warfare system, the Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS), has been developed to allow the ship to more easily take on new missions. The new Dual Band Radar (DBR) combines S-band and X-band radar.[27]

These advances will allow the new Gerald R. Ford-class carriers to launch 25% more sorties, generate triple the electrical power with improved efficiency, and offer crew quality-of-life improvements.[5][10]
...

Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

....
Nimitz class can do @85-90 total aircrraft.

Nimitz-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Is there any particular reason you post the obvious all the time?

In regards to the current carrier air wings on the Nimitz class, they cannot carry 70 F-18s. They need helicopters, tankers, AEW, EW, and even CODs. You are simply making shit up as you go.

 

[Stryder50]

Is there any particular reason you post the obvious all the time?

In regards to the current carrier air wings on the Nimitz class, they cannot carry 70 F-18s. They need helicopters, tankers, AEW, EW, and even CODs. You are simply making shit up as you go.

Says the person whom provides no sources/links for what he claims.

My so-called "post the obvious" isn't so to many, and is documentation ~ so to prove I'm not making up shit. Like some sorts do.

 

[Stryder50]

Pending my finding a more current source, there is this from about 8 years ago;
...
The air wing composition is designed to allow for broad striking power hundreds of miles from the carrier's position, while providing defense in depth of the battle group through early warning and detection of airborne, surface and subsurface targets. The modern U.S. Navy carrier air wing consists of:

• Four Strike Fighter (VFA) Squadrons with 12-14 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets; or 10-12 F/A-18C Hornets. The typical mix is one F/A-18F (two seat) Super Hornet squadron and a mix of three single seat F/A-18E Super Hornet and/or F/A-18C Hornet squadrons. In three airwings one of the F/A-18C Hornet squadrons is a U.S. Marine Corps Fighter Attack (VMFA) Squadron.
• One Electronic Attack (VAQ) Squadron of 4 EA-6B Prowlers or 5 EA-18G Growlers; The EA-6B will eventually be replaced by the EA-18G in all airwings.
• One Carrier Airborne Early Warning (VAW) Squadron of 4 E-2C Hawkeyes;
• One Helicopter Sea Combat (HSC) Squadron of 10 MH-60S Seahawks (2 - 4 of which are typically based in detachments on other strike group ships)
• One Helicopter Maritime Strike (HSM) Squadron of 11 MH-60R Seahawks (3 - 5 of which are typically based in detachments on other strike group ships).
• A detachment from a Fleet Logistics Support (VRC) Squadron Detachment of 2 C-2 Greyhounds;

...

Carrier Air Wing

A Carrier Air Wing (abbreviated CVW) is an operational naval aviation organization composed of several aircraft squadrons and detachments of various types of fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft. Organized, equipped and trained to conduct modern US Navy carrier air operations while embarked...

military-history.fandom.com

 

[Mushroom]

Pending my finding a more current source, there is this from about 8 years ago;

When talking about military aviation assets, most generally use the term "aircraft" for fixed wing, and "helicopters" for rotary wing assets.

And in general, when talking about the offensive power of a carrier, only the fighters are discussed. Not the various logistical aircraft.

Which by the way includes the F-18. So out of every one of those wings, remove at least 2 of the fighters, they are not going to be going into combat. That is because as a general rule, 1 in 5 actually has no weapons and is loaded with nothing but "buddy tanks" for refueling the other fighters in the wing.

The above shows 3 Hornets with their "Buddy Tanks". Notice, no weaponry. The fighters take off basically with just enough fuel to get to operating altitude, then go and fuel up. They then go and do the mission and refuel again before landing if needed. So you gotta automatically subtract about 20% of the number of Hornets in a Naval Air Wing.

So in most configurations for just standard operations outside of a wartime footing, that means only around 40 combat aircraft on a carrier. The rest are all support.

 

[Stryder50]

^^^
Most "in the trade" or familiar with military speak might distinguish between fixed and rotary winged, but the Wiki links above lump all together as "Aircraft Carried" or "AC" = AirCraft.

 

[Mushroom]

Most "in the trade" or familiar with military speak might distinguish between fixed and rotary winged, but the Wiki links above lump all together as "Aircraft Carried" or "AC" = AirCraft.

Which is a major reason why I never directly reference Wiki when I can. It can be a great source for references, but by itself, not so much. And being a "Professional", I tend to use professional terminology.

And in the next decade, a lot are looking to see what might be changing in the complement of a carrier. The OV-22 now that most of the bugs have been worked out and is being integrated into the Navy could replace a lot of the equipment carried. Especially replacing the C-2 and eventually the tankers they used to carry (which will free up that 20% of the Hornet wings that is doing that job now). And in addition to the UK and other countries, I think the EV-22 AWAC variant would be a spectacular fit for our amphibious groups.

 

[Dayton3]

Which is a major reason why I never directly reference Wiki when I can. It can be a great source for references, but by itself, not so much. And being a "Professional", I tend to use professional terminology.

And in the next decade, a lot are looking to see what might be changing in the complement of a carrier. The OV-22 now that most of the bugs have been worked out and is being integrated into the Navy could replace a lot of the equipment carried. Especially replacing the C-2 and eventually the tankers they used to carry (which will free up that 20% of the Hornet wings that is doing that job now). And in addition to the UK and other countries, I think the EV-22 AWAC variant would be a spectacular fit for our amphibious groups.

I thought the tanker assets of a carrier air wing was going to be filled by a group of 3 drones?

 

[Vrenn]

I thought the tanker assets of a carrier air wing was going to be filled by a group of 3 drones?

That's the plan but it's not going to happen in the next couple of years whereas the V-22 can take that role in a matter of months.

 

[Mushroom]

I thought the tanker assets of a carrier air wing was going to be filled by a group of 3 drones?

I doubt that would ever happen.

You have to realize, out of all the branches of the military, the Navy is the most "conservative".

It is fine to lose assets in a combat theater because ECM grounds your observation or gun drones. But a carrier absolutely can not operate without fuelers. I know they are playing with them, and they can have a use say several hundred miles forward. But as the main (or only) refuelling system, they will absolutely never go for that. Especially as they are huge, and take up as much room on the hangar and flight decks as an F-18/F-35. Actually better to just use a Hornet than a drone, because at least if absolutely needed you can drop the fuel pods and it is a Fighter again.

I can see great use for tanker drones. Say 150 miles from a combat action, lingering in the event a fighter has to break contact because they have been on afterburner so long that they are low on fuel but still have ordinance. They can go to that drone, refuel, and get back into the fight. Or if they have a fuel leak from getting the wing shot up, such a drone could be rushed out to top them off again so they could return to the carrier.

But as a replacement for the human powered tankers that could not care less if somebody is pumping out a gigawatt of ECM interference? That is just not going to happen.