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

[Mushroom]

DFS21D is that the -21D requires constant guidance while the new US version only requires guidance at launch.

So can the DFS21D hit a carrier? Yes but if any part of it's guidance is disrupted it's going to go terminal and splash down in the middle of the Pacific.

Actually, we have been speculating about the DF-21D since it was first announced. And most of those I have talked to all generally share the same belief.

It is an impossible weapon, as there is no way to guide an MRBM in a ballistic trajectory. Let alone locate and track accurately a carrier over the horizon, and have it actually hit the carrier. Literally the CEP of this missile is smaller than the width of a carrier flight deck.

Myself, I speculate that it might actually all be a cover. And it literally is the stupidest "weapon" ever announced, and is almost guaranteed to start a nuclear war if used.

Other than the DF-21D, the rest of the missiles in this class (A and C) are nuclear missiles. Now what does anybody think the reaction will be if a "potential nuclear missile" is launched at a carrier? More than anything else, this thing really has the potential to simply be being launched initiate a nuclear exchange. Especially if the US is in a condition where the use of such weapons has been released to the local commander.

Myself, I actually am leaning towards it being a complete smokescreen. A way for them to launch a nuke at a carrier, and then use the confusion that any radiation afterwards is not actually part of the weapon, but from the carrier it targeted. Myself, I have long hated the use of battlefield ballistic missiles, and think it is absolutely insane that any nuclear armed country would even consider using conventional ones. And now we are back in an era I thought was long gone. Where both Russia and China have them.

Welcome to Cold War 2.0.

 

[Mushroom]

I don't know if the SM series can intercept a Mach 6+ missile on reentry

Targeting an object does not rely on the speed. Does not matter if it is MACH 0.4 or 10+. Intercepting is simple geometry. Where will it be at a certain time, how long does it take for our missile to reach that location, fire.

And the real workhorse in Naval BM defense is the SM-3. The SM-2 is more for MRBM and lower, but the SM-3 is designed for IRBM and ICBM threats. SM-2 can do it, but it is not the best weapon for the task.

But forget GBI-GMD in this scenario. That only extends out roughly to Hawaii, and is for intercepting missiles enroute to the US itself. Worthless to protect a deployed carrier.

 

[Stryder50]

With due respect for tradition and the object of this thread topic, the vulnerability of aircraft carriers has to be included in the discussion

My intention here is to follow mostly the time-line/chronology of aircraft carriers and the aircraft used on them, since the two inter-relate to some degree. My intent is also to mostly focus on USA/USN but will include divergences to Brit/UK and Japan/IJN, especially through the 1920-1940s.

Several posts and a few pages later we should be up to the 1950s onward and the greater variations on ship and aircraft designs.

 

[Stryder50]

Classified, but expected to be 1 or 2. However, as submarines have absolutely zero surface or subsurface to air capability, that is irrelevant when talking about air threats.

Other than perhaps detecting and dispatching threatening ships that might have SSMs they could launch.

 

[Stryder50]

Myself, I almost never bring this type of thing up in a serious military thread.

Nuclear weapons are not military weapons, they are political ones. And the moment one is ever used, all considerations of "war" go completely out the window. Because it is no longer war in the regular sense, it is a thermonuclear war. Where from that moment on odds are not one single member of the military will see an enemy, as it is fought with intercontinental weapons that can destroy cities.

Considering how at times in the past, and perhaps still now, some ships do have nuclear tipped weapons (non-IRBM/ICBM), it is a factor to consider. I was responding literally to the comments of Vrenn in #11 above

Any "serious military thread" should cover the range of potential unexpected, even if low probability. Military history is filled with examples of such oversights.

Don't want a " The Bedford Incident ";

The Bedford Incident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stryder50]

Returning to the timeline and focus earlier in this thread;

USS Ranger (CV-4)​

Commissioned in 1934, USS Ranger (CV-4) was the US Navy's first purpose-built aircraft carrier. Though relatively small, Ranger helped pioneer several design features that were incorporated in the later Yorktown-class carriers. At it was too slow to operate with its larger successors in the Pacific, Ranger saw extensive service in the Atlantic during World War II. This included supporting the Operation Torch landings in North Africa and conducting attacks on German shipping in Norway. Moved into a training role in 1944, Ranger was decommissioned and scrapped after the war.

...
In the 1920s, the US Navy commenced the construction of its first three aircraft carriers. These efforts, which produced USS Langley (CV-1), USS Lexington (CV-2), and USS Saratoga (CV-3), all involved the conversion of existing hulls into carriers. As work on these ships progressed, the US Navy began designing its first purpose-built carrier.

These efforts were constrained by the limits imposed by the Washington Naval Treaty which capped both the size of individual ships and the total tonnage. With the completion of Lexington and Saratoga, the US Navy had 69,000 tons remaining which could be assigned to aircraft carriers. As such, the US Navy intended for the new design to displace 13,800 tons per ship so that five carriers could be constructed. Despite these intentions, only one ship of the new class would actually be built.

Dubbed USS Ranger (CV-4), the new carrier's name hearkened back to the sloop of war commanded by Commodore John Paul Jones during the American Revolution. Laid down at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company on September 26, 1931, the carrier's initial design called for an unobstructed flight deck with no island and six funnels, three to side, that were hinged to fold horizontally during air operations. Aircraft were housed below on a semi-open hangar deck and brought to the flight deck via three elevators. Though smaller than Lexington and Saratoga, Ranger's purpose-built design led to an aircraft capacity that was only marginally less than its predecessors. The carrier's reduced size did present certain challenges as its narrow hull required the use of geared turbines for propulsion.
...
Operating along the East Coast through the summer of 1939, Ranger was assigned to the Neutrality Patrol that fall following the outbreak of World War II in Europe. The initial responsibility of this force was to track warlike operations of combatant forces in the Western Hemisphere. Patrolling between Bermuda and Argentia, Newfoundland, Ranger's seakeeping ability was found lacking as it proved difficult to conduct operations in heavy weather.

This issue had been identified earlier and helped contribute to the design of the later Yorktown-class carriers. Continuing with the Neutrality Patrol through 1940, the carrier's air group was one of the first to receive the new Grumman F4F Wildcat fighter that December. In In late 1941, Ranger was returning to Norfolk from a patrol to Port-of-Spain, Trinidad when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7.
...

Specifications​

• Displacement: 14,576 tons
• Length: 730 ft.
• Beam: 109 ft., 5 in.
• Draft: 22 ft., 4.875 in.
• Propulsion: 6 × boilers, 2 × Westinghouse geared steam turbines, 2 × shafts
• Speed: 29.3 knots
• Range: 12,000 nautical miles at 15 knots
• Complement: 2,461 men

Armament​

• 8 × 5 in./25 cal anti-aircraft guns
• 40 × .50 in. machine guns

Aircraft​

• 76-86 aircraft

...........

World War II: USS Ranger (CV-4)

USS Ranger (CV-4) was the US Navy's first purpose-built aircraft carrier and saw extensive service during World War II.

www.thoughtco.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ranger spent most of it's time in the Atlantic ~ ETO/MTO when on active missions. The last couple years of the war as a training ship.

 

[Mushroom]

Considering how at times in the past, and perhaps still now, some ships do have nuclear tipped weapons (non-IRBM/ICBM), it is a factor to consider. I was responding literally to the comments of Vrenn in #11 above

That is an obsolete technology, that has not been used for decades.

In short, the early air defense missiles were largely crap. And as attacking bombers were able to rise to higher altitudes and started top operate in large groups, the solution that both the US and USSR adopted was launching nuclear missiles into the sky. Where the explosion could take out several bombers at once.

The Nike system used such missiles, as did several Soviet systems. And were a factor in most WWIII movies of the era.

But those are all long gone, and obsolete for many reasons. For one, nobody would be using fleets of bombers to drop nukes. Even if they did use bombers, they would be scattered and using low level penetration tactics, not 10+ bombers in formation like WWII in Berlin.

And missiles today are simply smarter and more accurate. So no reason to go detonating nukes over your own cities.

 

[Stryder50]

That is an obsolete technology, that has not been used for decades.

In short, the early air defense missiles were largely crap. And as attacking bombers were able to rise to higher altitudes and started top operate in large groups, the solution that both the US and USSR adopted was launching nuclear missiles into the sky. Where the explosion could take out several bombers at once.

The Nike system used such missiles, as did several Soviet systems. And were a factor in most WWIII movies of the era.

But those are all long gone, and obsolete for many reasons. For one, nobody would be using fleets of bombers to drop nukes. Even if they did use bombers, they would be scattered and using low level penetration tactics, not 10+ bombers in formation like WWII in Berlin.

And missiles today are simply smarter and more accurate. So no reason to go detonating nukes over your own cities.

1) You are getting off the topic of this thread. You might consider starting a separate one on the sidelines you keep trying to derail towards.

2) EMP -Electron-Magnetic Pulse. Presents a probability for first strike where only a few nukes can be devastating. Especially to defense detection, response, command and control, etc. Even in a localized/theater application, an EMP followed by your first strike of conventional sorts can be the winning edge.

If I were CCP China and really wanted to take Taiwan say, an EMP burst or two would be the way for my hardened forces to have an easier follow-up surge.

 

[Stryder50]

For me it also raises the question of whether or not they would waste the ammunition on an aircraft carrier after the planes had left.
The bigger picture surely would be mostly about destroying civilian infrastructure and the seat of government.
Still, they are one of the means of taking a war to a foreign country.
Supersonic missile technology can do it a lot quicker.

If naval warfare has any future, it's in nuclear weapons on ships built to be capable. something as small as 100 feet in length?

EXCEPT, as assorted battles between aircraft carriers in WW2 showed, a CV rarely launches ALL of it's aircraft at once. Heck, in most cases they couldn't spot all those aircraft at once anyway on the flight deck.
AND, those launched wish to return and land at their floating "airport" base. Hopefully to refuel, rearm, refit, (rest), and launch again.

Attacking an empty flight deck denies this ability. Attacking a loaded flight deck just enhances the value of your strike. As seen at battles of Coral Sea, Midway, Santa Cruz, etc.

In naval terms, the value is to;
1) Spot/find the enemy fleet formations (or ground targets) over the horizon (OTH).
2) Strike what you find.
3) Repeat same as needed.

In naval terms, the "bigger picture" is to deny your enemy the ability to strike your fleet(s) while being able to strike and sink ~ or drive back his fleet(s). Or take out the ground based targets you've been tasked to deal with.

In the case of modern aircraft carriers, like the Nimitz class for example, the flight deck is seldom "empty" and often active with landings and take-offs. The aircraft are providing CAP = Combat Air Patrols to find and intercept incoming threats while also sending off "Strike Packages" towards targets that will effect the Theater/Operational Objectives.

 

[Mushroom]

If I were CCP China and really wanted to take Taiwan say, an EMP burst or two would be the way for my hardened forces to have an easier follow-up surge.

Right, set off a nuke above Taiwan. That will surely not cause a nuclear response in return.

 

[Stryder50]

Right, set off a nuke above Taiwan. That will surely not cause a nuclear response in return.

It might.

There are nuances that could be played.

Make it appear as an asteroid strike~ act of nature and then ...

Also, where, when and how to retaliate in kind.

Like I said, this is all topic for another thread/subject.

 

[Mushroom]

Make it appear as an asteroid strike~ act of nature and then

 

[Stryder50]

Try thinking outside of the box ....

 

[Mushroom]

Try thinking outside of the box ....

There is thinking outside the box, then there is making silly statements.

A nuclear missile is nothing like a meteor. And of course the very fact that the launch will be detected. The angle and speed will be completely wrong, meteors do not explode in a ball of nuclear fire, and I can go on and on.

 

[Stryder50]

There is thinking outside the box, then there is making silly statements.

A nuclear missile is nothing like a meteor. And of course the very fact that the launch will be detected. The angle and speed will be completely wrong, meteors do not explode in a ball of nuclear fire, and I can go on and on.

Please do ~ go on and on ...
Meanwhile;

TUNGUSKA
...
The Tunguska event (occasionally also called the Tunguska incident) was a tremendous ~12 megaton[2] explosion that occurred near the Podkamennaya Tunguska River in Yeniseysk Governorate (now Krasnoyarsk Krai), Russia, on the morning of June 30, 1908.[1][3] The explosion over the sparsely populated Eastern Siberian Taiga flattened an estimated 80 million trees over an area of 2,150 km2 (830 sq mi) of forest, and eyewitness reports suggest that at least three people may have died in the event.[4][5][6][7][2] The explosion is generally attributed to a meteor air burst: the atmospheric explosion of a stony meteoroid about 50–60 metres (160–200 feet) in size.[2][8]: p. 178  The meteoroid approached from the east-southeast, and likely with a relatively high speed of about 27 km/s (60,000 mph) (~Ma 80).[2] It is classified as an impact event, even though no impact crater has been found; the object is thought to have disintegrated at an altitude of 5 to 10 kilometres (3 to 6 miles) rather than to have hit the surface of the Earth.[9]

The Tunguska event is the largest impact event on Earth in recorded history, though much larger impacts have occurred in prehistoric times. An explosion of this magnitude would be capable of destroying a large metropolitan area.[10] It has been mentioned numerous times in popular culture, and has also inspired real-world discussion of asteroid impact avoidance.[citation needed]
...

Tunguska event - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Tunguska Impact--100 Years Later | Science Mission ...​

.....
IMAGES:

tunguska blast at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Until the warhead of a ballistic~cruise missile, or torpedo, has detonated, one doesn't know if it is a conventional~"high explosive" ~ OR ~ Nuke device !!!

Welcome to the world of variable and unknown consequences. !!!

More in the next post or two-three ~plus ~~~ ! ! !

 

[Stryder50]

There is thinking outside the box, then there is making silly statements.

A nuclear missile is nothing like a meteor. And of course the very fact that the launch will be detected. The angle and speed will be completely wrong, meteors do not explode in a ball of nuclear fire, and I can go on and on.

While trying to get your "schist" together, consider ...

Want to end the "Islamic Jihad"~ "War on Terror" ???

Then get some balls and do the essential and strategic necessity.

FIRST = Invalidate Islamic Theology/Ideology with a few blatant examples of "Allah's" incompetency.

On a given date; say Ramadan or during the Hajj;

The Stages of Hajj, the Islamic Pilgrimage to Mecca​

Hajj - Wikipedia​

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Image a huge "rock from space" ~ meteorite/small asteroid ~ crashes into the Kaaba

Kaaba - Wikipedia​

In Mecca.

Then, during the next few Fridays, about noon, "Rods from God" also crash into the mosques throughout the Islamic World ~ Dar El Islam ~ that preach Islamic Jihad and forced conversion of the rest of the world, humanity ~ Dar El Harram ~ ("World of War") towards Islam; thus killing the Immans and their followers whom embrace/preach "Islamic Jihad". !!!

Would this not send a message from Allah (God~Gawd-Creator of the Cosmos) that the "Final Word ~Message" to Muhammad might have been in error ??? !!!

This is my sort of "Thinking out of the box" and how to apply strategic thinking and applications to REALLY End a War of over 1400 years duration and long overdue to be done with.

Unfortunately, "leadership" in the USA and Western Civ. lacks the balls, guts, brains, or intelligence to do such, which is well within our tech and military capacity, so we will have an enduring "forever war" that fits the goals and agendas of the global elite, rather than what best serves the whole of humanity.

Welcome to the "Dosadi Experiment"; Earth/Ki/Gia version.

 

[Stryder50]

While trying to get your "schist" together, consider ...

Want to end the "Islamic Jihad"~ "War on Terror" ???

Then get some balls and do the essential and strategic necessity.

FIRST = Invalidate Islamic Theology/Ideology with a few blatant examples of "Allah's" incompetency.

On a given date; say Ramadan or during the Hajj;

The Stages of Hajj, the Islamic Pilgrimage to Mecca​

Hajj - Wikipedia​

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Image a huge "rock from space" ~ meteorite/small asteroid ~ crashes into the Kaaba

Kaaba - Wikipedia​

In Mecca.

Then, during the next few Fridays, about noon, "Rods from God" also crash into the mosques throughout the Islamic World ~ Dar El Islam ~ that preach Islamic Jihad and forced conversion of the rest of the world, humanity ~ Dar El Harram ~ ("World of War") towards Islam; thus killing the Immans and their followers whom embrace/preach "Islamic Jihad". !!!

Would this not send a message from Allah (God~Gawd-Creator of the Cosmos) that the "Final Word ~Message" to Muhammad might have been in error ??? !!!

This is my sort of "Thinking out of the box" and how to apply strategic thinking and applications to REALLY End a War of over 1400 years duration and long overdue to be done with.

Unfortunately, "leadership" in the USA and Western Civ. lacks the balls, guts, brains, or intelligence to do such, which is well within our tech and military capacity, so we will have an enduring "forever war" that fits the goals and agendas of the global elite, rather than what best serves the whole of humanity.

Welcome to the "Dosadi Experiment"; Earth/Ki/Gia version.

On a related note, consider this;

Comets and the Bronze Age Collapse​

by Bob Kobres​

Comets and the Bronze Age Collapse

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barely had human civilizations had a couple thousand years start and events/objects of the outer Solar System had their "say~impact" on developing human culture and civilizations.

 

[Mushroom]

The Tunguska event (occasionally also called the Tunguska incident) was a tremendous

I know that quite well, and it was nothing like a nuclear missile and blast.

The entry was seen over thousands of square miles, Just like the Chelyabinsk meteor of a few years ago. It entered the atmosphere at a shallow angle, and gave off a visible trail as well as shockwaves that were over 100 miles long before the airburst.

That is very unlike any missile.

Also, no meteor impact had resulted in a nuclear detonation. Which is very different, including the bright flash of high energy emissions (which we see as light but also include x=rays, gamma-rays, and most other forms of rays). As well as the telltale radioactivity.

None of which are done by meteors.

 

[Mushroom]

FIRST = Invalidate Islamic Theology/Ideology with a few blatant examples of "Allah's" incompetency.

OK, got it. You are an intolerant racist.

Thank you, enough said. Now I know exactly how seriously to take you.

 

[Stryder50]

I know that quite well, and it was nothing like a nuclear missile and blast.

The entry was seen over thousands of square miles, Just like the Chelyabinsk meteor of a few years ago. It entered the atmosphere at a shallow angle, and gave off a visible trail as well as shockwaves that were over 100 miles long before the airburst.

That is very unlike any missile.

Also, no meteor impact had resulted in a nuclear detonation. Which is very different, including the bright flash of high energy emissions (which we see as light but also include x=rays, gamma-rays, and most other forms of rays). As well as the telltale radioactivity.

None of which are done by meteors.

Yet technology to see and detect such did not exist in 1908 ...
Nor were the results of the blast significantly different from those of a nuke detonation ...
And still they show how an impact event can closely mirror the appearance and results of a nuclear detonation ...

Also, this likely was something larger than a "meteor", likely a small asteroid.
Also, it was much larger in impact and effect than of the "Chelyabinsk meteor of a few years ago" you chose to cite.

You also fail to grasp that humans didn't have the tech to determine the full energy range of such an impact~blast effect of about 114+ years ago. Nor were any prepared in advance of the event to accurately measure such. For one and another, in 1908 there was little if any accurate tech/devices to measure real radioactivity at the time, and what was used post event remains inconclusive.

The issue isn't "any missile" as much as what type of warhead such could have, employ, andf leave traces . . . , and the 1908 Event could easily be replicated if one wished to use current tech to simulate such.


Dodge and CYA as much as you wish, you are not evading this one as possible event that could be repeated to make a human caused event look "natural".