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

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.

Good point. You only have X space on a carrier. It's not as finite as a ground installation. I don't see them taking the drone over the manned at any time when the manned can double as something else.
 
I don't see them taking the drone over the manned at any time when the manned can double as something else.

I can see them having say one or two. For the use I just described (emergency refueling far from the carrier itself).

But I also suspect that within a decade, we will have a "KV-22" variant doing the main refueling role for the Navy. And no, I have absolutely no idea what such a variant would be named, but "K" is the common letter designator for fuelers.
 
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.
Along with a great place to find references, Wiki is a start point for many, especially the general public. Whom may not be familiar with professional terminology.
 
Along with a great place to find references, Wiki is a start point for many, especially the general public. Whom may not be familiar with professional terminology.

True, but I would also say that anybody that wants to do real research should go beyond a simple "wiki" that normally plays down to largely the lowest common denominator.

And conversely, that a lot of people who jump into many forums (including this area) really have little to no knowledge of the topic at all. Now many do come in and honestly want to learn about things. But many others just come in to bash others around with their "beliefs", with no actual understanding of why and how things in the military are done. Of course, the news and other "sources" are often no better, doing things like calling APCs "tanks", helicopter carriers "aircraft carriers", and the like.

I admit I use it a lot myself, but more of as a "quick reference" for the basic stats of equipment for example. The weight of equipment, the top speed of vehicles, things like that. But for more specifics, I go off to other sources as they are more "factual", and are not changed by just anybody that wants to jump in and make changes.

star_trek_into_darkness.png
 
True, but I would also say that anybody that wants to do real research should go beyond a simple "wiki" that normally plays down to largely the lowest common denominator.

And conversely, that a lot of people who jump into many forums (including this area) really have little to no knowledge of the topic at all. Now many do come in and honestly want to learn about things. But many others just come in to bash others around with their "beliefs", with no actual understanding of why and how things in the military are done. Of course, the news and other "sources" are often no better, doing things like calling APCs "tanks", helicopter carriers "aircraft carriers", and the like.

I admit I use it a lot myself, but more of as a "quick reference" for the basic stats of equipment for example. The weight of equipment, the top speed of vehicles, things like that. But for more specifics, I go off to other sources as they are more "factual", and are not changed by just anybody that wants to jump in and make changes.

star_trek_into_darkness.png
They could also scroll to the bottom of the Wiki article and check the materials and references that composed that page and go to those sources.

(And a "Bump" to find easier.)
 
They could also scroll to the bottom of the Wiki article and check the materials and references that composed that page and go to those sources.

Which is something I often suggest.

Wikipedia can be a good source for references. But one must still use due diligence, as a lot of garbage still makes the way in there. But using Wiki itself as a reference is never a good thing. Especially when there have been so many edit wars in there over the years.
 
Which is something I often suggest.

Wikipedia can be a good source for references. But one must still use due diligence, as a lot of garbage still makes the way in there. But using Wiki itself as a reference is never a good thing. Especially when there have been so many edit wars in there over the years.
I would suggest one needs to use due diligence with nearly any source since so many are expressions of the authors perspectives and biases. Why I advise any aspiring G2/S2 to avoid 'source bias' since even in what on surface might be a "crap source" could still contain some useful information, or insights. I consider a major purpose of "education" being to teach one the methods of assessing and gauge the content and value of an information source, how to know and find the grain from the chafe.

I consider Wikipedia a form of "Cliff's Notes" for those with little experience or knowledge in a subject area, a useful start point. It also is handy for those whom don't have extensive knowledge or experience in a subject area, since it often has condensed and quick read material (which would fit a majority of those reading and posting on this forum).

I'm aware of the "edit wars", but I've also come across errors and omissions is what might seem for focused/knowledgeable sources/references.

Shortly here I'll show how the Wiki page on the Doolittle Raid can be useful in dealing with one whom appears to have limited knowledge or grasp of aircraft carrier ops in WWII in a thread on that subject.;
Doolittle's raid April 1942
 
I'm aware of the "edit wars", but I've also come across errors and omissions is what might seem for focused/knowledgeable sources/references.

Oh, I had a doozy myself a few years ago.

Carol Connors was a porn actress, and mother of actress Thora Birch. And her most well known "public appearance" was as as a contestant and introducer on "The Gong Show". And she claimed that her first appearance as a contestant was as a singer, where she got 11 points. 9 from the two men, and 2 from Jaye P. Morgan - one for each breast.

Well, I changed that as I found the video of that performance on YouTube. And in reality, she was quickly gonged off of the show and got no points. Apparently some have confused an appearance she made in a porn movie where she did a parody called "The Dong Show", where she did win. But it was removed, as apparently YouTube is not a valid reference. Even if it shows that earlier claims were incorrect.

I really do not take it all that seriously anymore, as that proved. The wrong claim of somebody is valid, but actual video evidence that was incorrect is not. Plus years of seeing edit wars.
 
EXCERPT:
5 Worst Aircraft Carriers of All-Time: Whenever you write up any sort of 5 Best or 5 Worst list, you're bound to ruffle some proverbial feathers.
Deciding what to put on the list becomes even more complicated when you're talking about a highly complex, multi-crew weapons system like, in this instance, history's five worst aircraft carriers, as opposed to comparatively simple individually-operated weapons like handguns and rifles. I suppose the criteria for making this list would have to incorporate inherent design flaws, and/or crew (in)competence, and/or inauspicious combat record alike. So then, without further ado, and in no particular order….
 

Forum List

Back
Top