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

[Stryder50]

Could be a couple years still before bing operational, but as we can see, coming close to size and maybe capability of USN CVs.

China Nears Launch of Advanced Aircraft Carrier, Satellite Images Show​

...

China Nears Launch of Advanced Aircraft Carrier, Satellite Images Show

 

[Stryder50]

As mentioned in the above article, the J-20 might have a ways to go before being usable on this new CV of China's, but so far looks to be the many candidate. Some basics;

Take a look at the 'Mighty Dragon,' China's $120 million answer to the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jet​

Take a look at the 'Mighty Dragon,' China's $120 million answer to the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jet

The jet has a maximum speed of 2,468 kph and a travel range of 5,926 kilometers.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[para bellum]

Title of this "click bait" might not be accurate

I hope it's not a ranking because it puts the Kuznetsov and Varyag above the CdG and QE, lol.

 

[whitehall]

I spent about a month aboard a WW2 vintage Carrier (USS Boxer LPH4) back in the early 60's. I remember sweltering hot quarters, water hours (salt water showers) and seemingly hours spent in the chow line. Is that old tub still around?

 

[Mushroom]

I spent about a month aboard a WW2 vintage Carrier (USS Boxer LPH4) back in the early 60's. I remember sweltering hot quarters, water hours (salt water showers) and seemingly hours spent in the chow line. Is that old tub still around?

That was a "Long Hull Essex" class ship, converted to an early LPH as part of a program to test the concept.

She was decommissioned in 1969, scrapped in 1971.

However, after around 1965 she was mostly used for logistics uses. Transporting large numbers of aircraft to Vietnam, recovering Apollo test capsules, things like that.

The oldest ship I served on was the USS Iwo Jima LPH-2. And that was a shock, as to how bad the conditions were on that tub. Even more so as two years before I had been on the USS Whidbey Island LSD-41, and the over two decades between their construction was staggering.

 

[whitehall]

That was a "Long Hull Essex" class ship, converted to an early LPH as part of a program to test the concept.

She was decommissioned in 1969, scrapped in 1971.

However, after around 1965 she was mostly used for logistics uses. Transporting large numbers of aircraft to Vietnam, recovering Apollo test capsules, things like that.

The oldest ship I served on was the USS Iwo Jima LPH-2. And that was a shock, as to how bad the conditions were on that tub. Even more so as two years before I had been on the USS Whidbey Island LSD-41, and the over two decades between their construction was staggering.

I spent some time on the LST Desoto County and the conditions seemed pretty good in the early 60's. As a FMF Marine I had occasion to visit some notorious tubs like the USS Fremont and the USS Cambria for the never ending at the time concept of going over the side on nets for landing craft exercises.

 

[Mushroom]

I spent some time on the LST Desoto County and the conditions seemed pretty good in the early 60's. As a FMF Marine I had occasion to visit some notorious tubs like the USS Fremont and the USS Cambria for the never ending at the time concept of going over the side on nets for landing craft exercises.

Well, I still remember the berthing on the Iwo. It looked like something from a WWII era movie. Nothing more than stretchers stacked 5 high, maybe a foot from your face and the cot above you. Sleeping foot to foot-head to head as there was only a few inches between each person front to back, and the row of cots next to you meant you could slap the person sleeping there.

This is what the berthing on the Whidbey Island was like.

.

Three high, and each Marine in their own little "pod". Which even had power outlets, a reading light, and an AC vent like what you would find on an airplane.

 

[fncceo]

True but a Carrier is damn near (not totally) impossible to sink.

The Japanese might disagree with you ...

The lost three in as many hours at Midway.

 

[Mushroom]

The Japanese might disagree with you

Huge difference in build and damage control from then to know.

Also, the Japanese had some of the worst damage control capabilities of any of the major naval powers. Hell, the IJN Shinano was sunk by only 4 torpedoes. The crew were sure that the damage was manageable, and a US Battle Carrier would have survived that. But the ship had poor watertight compartmentation, and the pumps could not even come close to pumping out enough water.

No, Japan lost most of their carriers due to initial design flaws. Of course, they also had during the war one of the oldest carrier fleets, and most of those built just before and during the war suffered from the same flaws of their older ones. Where as the US made huge improvements in each of their designs, and the late war carriers were almost nothing like their pre-war carriers.

Not counting the "Escort Carriers", which were intended from the start as almost disposable. Mostly converted from pre-war cargo ships.

 

[DudleySmith]

Even aircraft for the Army Air Corps and Marine Corps that were not even intended for carrier based operations.

"After loading 37 Army Republic P-47 Thunderbolts of the Army Air Forces' 73rd Fighter Squadron, 318th Fighter Group, Manila Bay sailed on 5 June for the Mariana Islands. Steaming via Eniwetok, she reached the eastern approaches to Saipan on 19 June. During the next 4 days, she remained east of the embattled island as ships and planes of the Fast Carrier Task Force repulsed the Japanese Fleet in the Battle of the Philippine Sea, and inflicted staggering losses on the enemy, crippling the Imperial Navy’s air strength permanently.

On 23 June, Manila Bay came under enemy air attack during refueling operations east of Saipan. Four Aichi D3A Val dive bombers attacked her from dead ahead, dropping their bombs which exploded wide to port. As a precautionary and rather unusual move which Raymond A. Spruance later characterized as "commendable initiative", Manila Bay launched four of the P-47 Thunderbolts she was ferrying to fly protective CAP until radar screens were clear of contacts. The Army fighters then flew to Saipan, their intended destination. Manila Bay launched the remaining planes the next day and returned to Eniwetok, arriving on 27 June. After embarking 207 wounded troops, she departed on 1 July, touched Pearl Harbor on the 8th, and reached San Diego on 16 July."

USS Manila Bay - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Pilots must have been nuts. Wonder if their wheels got wet coming off the end of the deck on takeoff.

 

[Mushroom]

On 23 June, Manila Bay came under enemy air attack during refueling operations east of Saipan.

The Casablanca class Escort Carriers were a major part of the war. The largest class of aircraft carriers ever (50 built), they were also the first Escort Carriers designed from the start for that role. Unlike the earlier classes like the Sagamon class, which were literally Cimarron class oilers that were converted to carriers.

And yes, I agree that any pilot that took off from a carrier with a land based aircraft for combat had "balls of steel". As they had never been trained for that, and were expected to leave the ship with no ordinance and just enough fuel to make it to their destination. And it would be impossible for them to return to the ship no matter what.

 

[whitehall]

Well, I still remember the berthing on the Iwo. It looked like something from a WWII era movie. Nothing more than stretchers stacked 5 high, maybe a foot from your face and the cot above you. Sleeping foot to foot-head to head as there was only a few inches between each person front to back, and the row of cots next to you meant you could slap the person sleeping there.

This is what the berthing on the Whidbey Island was like.

.

Three high, and each Marine in their own little "pod". Which even had power outlets, a reading light, and an AC vent like what you would find on an airplane.

Power outlets? The Boxer barely had air. Tight stretched canvas racks about five or six feet high with a metal air tube at the end that had a bayonet holes punched in at every rack.

 

[Mushroom]

Power outlets? The Boxer barely had air. Tight stretched canvas racks about five or six feet high with a metal air tube at the end that had a bayonet holes punched in at every rack.

The original Iwo was the same. You can barely compare the pre-Vietnam era Iwo from the ships that were built during and after the Reagan buildup (in fact they were almost the same as the ships used in WWII). And the Whidbey was one of those. The first ship designed to operate with the LCAC. I know on the LSD-41, my platoon had the same living area that my company had on the Iwo.

Hell, one of the people to know on board were the radio techs. They could cobble together a cable to let you use a PRC-77 battery with your Walkman. That was largely the height of "personal electronics" in the 1980s, and we all had one. If I remember right, for most people a PRC-77 battery could power one easily for a week.

 

[whitehall]

The original Iwo was the same. You can barely compare the pre-Vietnam era Iwo from the ships that were built during and after the Reagan buildup (in fact they were almost the same as the ships used in WWII). And the Whidbey was one of those. The first ship designed to operate with the LCAC. I know on the LSD-41, my platoon had the same living area that my company had on the Iwo.

Hell, one of the people to know on board were the radio techs. They could cobble together a cable to let you use a PRC-77 battery with your Walkman. That was largely the height of "personal electronics" in the 1980s, and we all had one. If I remember right, for most people a PRC-77 battery could power one easily for a week.

We didn't have Walkman radios back then but a PRC 10 battery could power a portable radio pretty well out in the field.

 

[Dayton3]

Within a decade or two of the Wright Brothers and their Kitty Hawk venture of powered and manned heavier than air flight craft "proof of concept" we find that during the First World War, flat platforms for landing and take-off of aircraft had been built upon the upper levels of warships and first experiments of ship-born aircraft use were in play. Especially during and shortly after WW One.

This thread is intended to focus upon such. While many Nations and their Navies provided early experiments in the concepts of aircraft landing and taking off from a warship; we will focus here, to start with, on the efforts of the United States of America (USA) and it's Navy ~ Unite States Navy ~USN.

While initial posts and focus are on the USN, other nations will be examined and considered as this thread develops.

c
Actually most of the true innovations in carrier aviation were pioneered by the British. But the U.S. took most of those innovations (launch catapults, arrested landings, angled flight decks) mated them with nuclear power and took off.

 

[Vrenn]

c
Actually most of the true innovations in carrier aviation were pioneered by the British. But the U.S. took most of those innovations (launch catapults, arrested landings, angled flight decks) mated them with nuclear power and took off.

I believe that the ruggedness of the Carrier belongs to the US. I have seen them bombed, torped and even nuked and still stay afloat. When one is scuttled at the end of it's life, they have to go in a scuttle it the old fashioned way and open all the petcocks.

 

[Mushroom]

Actually most of the true innovations in carrier aviation were pioneered by the British. But the U.S. took most of those innovations (launch catapults, arrested landings, angled flight decks) mated them with nuclear power and took off.

Actually, the Catapult was an American invention. Now the British did use the hydraulic catapult first, but the US had already been using first compressed air, then a flywheel for over a decade before then.

The same with arresting gear. The very first landing on a ship (USS Pennsylvania in 1911) used an arresting cable system.

 

[Stryder50]

As with the original about 34 years ago, along with the planes and pilots, this remains the current meme for Carrier Operations in current times.

Top Gun Maverick: The iconic ’80s aviation action classic returns to thrill a new generation​

Top Gun Maverick: The iconic ’80s aviation action classic returns to thrill a new generation - Flight Journal

Aviation History | History of Flight | Aviation History Articles, Warbirds, Bombers, Trainers, Pilots | Top Gun Maverick: The iconic ’80s aviation action classic returns to thrill a new generation

www.flightjournal.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also revives of sorts the enduring case of F-14 vs F-18. Article first appeared about 2002, then revived about two years ago when Top Gun, Maverick was supposed to be released, before COVID shut down movie theaters. Unfortunately, one needs to have a subscription to read the full article. I did recently come across the issue mentioned and when have some time in near future will present some of the points made.

Battle of the Superfighters: F-14D Tomcat vs. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet​

Battle of the Superfighters: F-14D Tomcat vs. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

Editor’s note: Every aircraft that goes into service is accompanied by controversy. This was especially true for the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Super Hornet. With the long-anticipated Paramount Pictures movie sequel, Top Gun: Maverick coming out in June, we noted that in the original 1986 movie...

readyroom.flightjournal.com

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

Flight Journal - Aviation History | History of Flight | Aviation History Articles, Warbirds, Bombers, Trainers, Pilots

Aviation History | History of Flight | Aviation History Articles, Warbirds, Bombers, Trainers, Pilots

www.flightjournal.com

 

[Sandisk]

1) Stop building ridiculous, Carrier Strike Groups.

They are ****ing dinosaurs and cost GIGANTIC, amounts of money.
Once hypersonic missiles are perfected and in mass production? That is the END of the aircraft carrier as THE naval weapon system.
50 hypersonic missiles with mid-course guidance adjustments and multiple decoys could EASILY overpower a US Carrier Strike Group's AA assets.
No way Ticonderoga's and Arleigh Burke's can defend the group from over 150 targets (with decoys) coming in at 200 feet at Mach 10. Especially if the first one takes out any AEW assets that were airborne (a Hawkeye).
Over-the-horizon limitations would limit the time the Carrier group would have to acquire the targets, Say their radar was 80 feet off of the surface? That means they would not acquire the missiles until they were about 175 miles away or so. Maybe a bit more.
When I stand at the water's edge and look out over the ocean, how far away is the horizon?

At Mach 10 (and they might be faster) or about 2 miles a second? That gives them 100 seconds TOPS from the time they first acquire the targets to track them, lock on to them and fire.
It is virtually (to my knowledge) impossible for 2 Ticonderoga's and 3 Arleigh Burke's (the normal maximum escorts in a Carrier Strike Group) to take out ALL of the missiles/decoys in 100 seconds.
And, apparently, Aegis radars cannot even track hypersonic missiles.
But even if they could?
And even if they have new, laser anti-missile systems on board and they are effective.
At least - IMO - 5 or 6 of those 50 missiles will get through.
And I doubt that even a Ford Class aircraft carrier could withstand the kinetic energy alone of 5 or 6 missiles plowing into her at 7,000 miles an hour. Certainly, she would be COMPLETELY out of action for a while.

Aircraft carriers are DINOSAURS.


2) SSGN's are the future.

An Ohio SSGN can carry up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles.
USS Ohio (SSGN-726) - Wikipedia

And each missiles can attack up to five, separate targets and have mid-course, guidance correction.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/n...rminal-guidan/

That means the Ohio could sail undetected to the coast of China, surface, launch off all of her missiles, re-submerge, sail away for missile replenishment without significant risk of getting attacked.
And her missiles could - theoretically - take out over 700 targets.
All with NO risk of a pilot being shot down and killed/captured.
And 1 SSGN costs about 1/10'th of a Carrier Strike Group.
If not less.

Amphibious Assault ships still have some role to play.
But Aircraft Carrier dinosaurs?
America should stop building new ones IMMEDIATELY.
And they could then cut back on all these insane numbers of cruisers and destroyers to escort these lumbering hogs.

And save hundreds of billions over ten years.

 

[Dayton3]

1) Stop building ridiculous, Carrier Strike Groups.

They are ****ing dinosaurs and cost GIGANTIC, amounts of money.
Once hypersonic missiles are perfected and in mass production? That is the END of the aircraft carrier as THE naval weapon system.
50 hypersonic missiles with mid-course guidance adjustments and multiple decoys could EASILY overpower a US Carrier Strike Group's AA assets.
No way Ticonderoga's and Arleigh Burke's can defend the group from over 150 targets (with decoys) coming in at 200 feet at Mach 10. Especially if the first one takes out any AEW assets that were airborne (a Hawkeye).
Over-the-horizon limitations would limit the time the Carrier group would have to acquire the targets, Say their radar was 80 feet off of the surface? That means they would not acquire the missiles until they were about 175 miles away or so. Maybe a bit more.
When I stand at the water's edge and look out over the ocean, how far away is the horizon?

At Mach 10 (and they might be faster) or about 2 miles a second? That gives them 100 seconds TOPS from the time they first acquire the targets to track them, lock on to them and fire.
It is virtually (to my knowledge) impossible for 2 Ticonderoga's and 3 Arleigh Burke's (the normal maximum escorts in a Carrier Strike Group) to take out ALL of the missiles/decoys in 100 seconds.
And, apparently, Aegis radars cannot even track hypersonic missiles.
But even if they could?
And even if they have new, laser anti-missile systems on board and they are effective.
At least - IMO - 5 or 6 of those 50 missiles will get through.
And I doubt that even a Ford Class aircraft carrier could withstand the kinetic energy alone of 5 or 6 missiles plowing into her at 7,000 miles an hour. Certainly, she would be COMPLETELY out of action for a while.

Aircraft carriers are DINOSAURS.


2) SSGN's are the future.

An Ohio SSGN can carry up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles.
USS Ohio (SSGN-726) - Wikipedia

And each missiles can attack up to five, separate targets and have mid-course, guidance correction.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/n...rminal-guidan/

That means the Ohio could sail undetected to the coast of China, surface, launch off all of her missiles, re-submerge, sail away for missile replenishment without significant risk of getting attacked.
And her missiles could - theoretically - take out over 700 targets.
All with NO risk of a pilot being shot down and killed/captured.
And 1 SSGN costs about 1/10'th of a Carrier Strike Group.
If not less.

Amphibious Assault ships still have some role to play.
But Aircraft Carrier dinosaurs?
America should stop building new ones IMMEDIATELY.
And they could then cut back on all these insane numbers of cruisers and destroyers to escort these lumbering hogs.

And save hundreds of billions over ten years.

What makes you think the launch platforms for those supposed "hypersonic missiles" can survive to get to within range of a carrier?

It has been U.S. Navy carrier battle doctrine since the 1970s to destroy the launch vehicles (mainly bombers) BEFORE they can launch their missiles. Submarines cannot launch enough missiles of any type to matter much.