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

[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.

You ignore the obvious:

1) An Ohio class submarine with Tomahawk missiles cannot provide air cover for other forces.

2) Carrier battle groups can detect incoming missiles FAR BEYOND the horizon thanks to the E-2 Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning aircraft.

3) What makes you think the "hundreds of billions" you suggest would be saved by cutting U.S. carrier forces would be spent any place better?

4) If carriers are such a bad investment why do so many other nations try to build and deploy them? Especially the Chinese?

 

[Sandisk]

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.

Um...because the range of even the old 3M22 Zircon hypersonic missile is over 500 miles.
Newer ones will have much longer ranges.

All an enemy would need is a few minutes to launch 50 missiles. No way a Carrier Strike Group can track, attack and shoot down/sink all possible launching platforms (aircraft/ships/submarines) up to 500 miles away from the Strike Group in all directions. Let alone do it before they get a chance to launch their missiles.

 

[Sandisk]

You ignore the obvious:

1) An Ohio class submarine with Tomahawk missiles cannot provide air cover for other forces.

What for?
The Marines carry their own organic, air cover in F-35B's.
And the Army has it's own organic, ground support PLUS they have the Air Force.
The Carrier aircraft are unnecessary.

2) Carrier battle groups can detect incoming missiles FAR BEYOND the horizon thanks to the E-2 Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning aircraft.

Aegis cannot even track hypersonic missiles. No way the Hawkeye can. And even if it could - it has no weapons. And it cannot guide the Strike Group's Standard missiles to intercept them. Best they can do is warn them. Which means nothing if the missiles cannot be tracked by Aegis.

Can the AEGIS missile defense system shoot down hypersonic missiles?

Answer (1 of 6): The answer is, it depends. Firstly, what kind of Hypersonic Missile are we talking about? There are three main types and the AEGIS system has varying effectiveness against each one. The first is the traditional Ballistic Missile like the LGM-118 Peacekeeper or RS-28 Sarmat, thes...

www.quora.com

Why Russia's Hypersonic Missiles Can't Be Seen on Radar

The speed of hypersonic weapons are changing the way the world's military minds think about the future of great power conflicts in ways no one could have predicted.

www.military.com

3) What makes you think the "hundreds of billions" you suggest would be saved by cutting U.S. carrier forces would be spent any place better?

Oh come on now?
That is no excuse not to save hundreds of billions of dollars.
Plus, what is the point on spending it on weapons systems that are dinosaurs?

4) If carriers are such a bad investment why do so many other nations try to build and deploy them? Especially the Chinese?

So your justification for building more aircraft carriers is because other countries are?

As I said before...every, major naval power build battleships in the 1930's - long after it was obvious that they were obsolete and vulnerable to aircraft carriers.
Many weapon systems in history have been manufactured long after they were useful.

Plus, politicians are the ones who buy the weapons systems - not the military.
And most politicians are idiots - especially when it comes to weapons procurement.
Look at the RN QE's?
Only a complete moron builds 65,000 ton STOVL aircraft carriers (with all the limitations they have over CATOBAR carriers).
But they did.

 

[Dayton3]

Um...because the range of even the old 3M22 Zircon hypersonic missile is over 500 miles.
Newer ones will have much longer ranges.

All an enemy would need is a few minutes to launch 50 missiles. No way a Carrier Strike Group can track, attack and shoot down/sink all possible launching platforms (aircraft/ships/submarines) up to 500 miles away from the Strike Group in all directions. Let alone do it before they get a chance to launch their missiles.

Why not? U.S. carrier air wings have practiced doing just that for decades.

 

[Dayton3]

What for?
The Marines carry their own organic, air cover in F-35B's.
And the Army has it's own organic, ground support PLUS they have the Air Force.
The Carrier aircraft are unnecessary.

Aegis cannot even track hypersonic missiles. No way the Hawkeye can. And even if it could - it has no weapons. And it cannot guide the Strike Group's Standard missiles to intercept them. Best they can do is warn them. Which means nothing if the missiles cannot be tracked by Aegis.

Prove it. With unbiased sources please.

And F-35s are NOT primarily tasked for air cover but ground support.

Army helicopters are a poor substitute for fixed wing air support. And Air Force bases are not everywhere you need them.

 

[Dayton3]

What for?
The Marines carry their own organic, air cover in F-35B's.
And the Army has it's own organic, ground support PLUS they have the Air Force.
The Carrier aircraft are unnecessary.

Aegis cannot even track hypersonic missiles. No way the Hawkeye can. And even if it could - it has no weapons. And it cannot guide the Strike Group's Standard missiles to intercept them. Best they can do is warn them. Which means nothing if the missiles cannot be tracked by Aegis.

Can the AEGIS missile defense system shoot down hypersonic missiles?

Answer (1 of 6): The answer is, it depends. Firstly, what kind of Hypersonic Missile are we talking about? There are three main types and the AEGIS system has varying effectiveness against each one. The first is the traditional Ballistic Missile like the LGM-118 Peacekeeper or RS-28 Sarmat, thes...

www.quora.com

Why Russia's Hypersonic Missiles Can't Be Seen on Radar

The speed of hypersonic weapons are changing the way the world's military minds think about the future of great power conflicts in ways no one could have predicted.

www.military.com

Oh come on now?
That is no excuse not to save hundreds of billions of dollars.
Plus, what is the point on spending it on weapons systems that are dinosaurs?

So your justification for building more aircraft carriers is because other countries are?

As I said before...every, major naval power build battleships in the 1930's - long after it was obvious that they were obsolete and vulnerable to aircraft carriers.
Many weapon systems in history have been manufactured long after they were useful.

Plus, politicians are the ones who buy the weapons systems - not the military.
And most politicians are idiots - especially when it comes to weapons procurement.
Look at the RN QE's?
Only a complete moron builds 65,000 ton STOVL aircraft carriers (with all the limitations they have over CATOBAR carriers).
But they did.

Questions:

1) Why do you believe performance claims about Russians missiles that DO NOT EVEN EXIST now?

2) You do know that NO Russian or Soviet missile has ever worked as well as they have claimed.

3) Who do you believe the claims of a notorious lier like Putin?

4) No supercarrier has been attacked, damaged much less severely damaged much less sunk.....EVER!!

So why do you believe the next "super missile" coming down the pike will be able to do so?

 

[Sandisk]

Why not? U.S. carrier air wings have practiced doing just that for decades.

No they don't.
They have never practiced to take out hypersonic missiles.
Just missiles they can track and destroy.

But alright.
Please tell me - with link(s) to back it up - how a Carrier Strike Group is going to be able to stop 20 Backfire bombers (each with 3 Zircon hypersonic missiles) from flying towards them at Mach 2 and launching their missiles 500 miles away from the carrier from various directions?
The latter's Standard missiles range is not remotely long enough.
There are not enough aircraft in several carriers to remotely cover that much air space, 500 miles away from a carrier over a wide arc of ocean.
And they HAVE to shoot down the Backfires before they launch their missiles. Because once they do - Aegis cannot even track the missiles.
Not ONE Backfire bomber can launch even one set of missiles.
Impossible.

 

[Sandisk]

Prove it. With unbiased sources please.

Prove what?
Everything I stated is common knowledge and the Aegis tracking part I included two sources.
You are NOT going to find a Navy source saying they cannot track hypersonic missiles.
Come on now.

And F-35s are NOT primarily tasked for air cover but ground support.

The F-35B is a fighter-bomber...not a ground attack aircraft.
It has the same radar and basic, air-air capability as the F-35A and C.

Army helicopters are a poor substitute for fixed wing air support. And Air Force bases are not everywhere you need them.

Tell that to the Apache Longbow pilots.
If the Army is there - there will be room for airbases or they would not go there.
And again, the Marines have organic air support.

 

[Dayton3]

No they don't.
They have never practiced to take out hypersonic missiles.
Just missiles they can track and destroy.

But alright.
Please tell me - with link(s) to back it up - how a Carrier Strike Group is going to be able to stop 20 Backfire bombers (each with 3 Zircon hypersonic missiles) from flying towards them at Mach 2 and launching their missiles 500 miles away from the carrier from various directions?
The latter's Standard missiles range is not remotely long enough.
There are not enough aircraft in several carriers to remotely cover that much air space, 500 miles away from a carrier over a wide arc of ocean.
And they HAVE to shoot down the Backfires before they launch their missiles. Because once they do - Aegis cannot even track the missiles.
Not ONE Backfire bomber can launch even one set of missiles.
Impossible.

A single F-18 armed with 4-6 AMRAMM missiles can shoot down several Backfire bombers well before the come within range of those magical hypersonic missiles.

And your sources regarding the Aegis not being able to track hypersonic missiles are completely speculative.

 

[Sandisk]

Questions:

1) Why do you believe performance claims about Russians missiles that DO NOT EVEN EXIST now?

Because several countries are developing/testing hypersonic missiles. Even America.

2) You do know that NO Russian or Soviet missile has ever worked as well as they have claimed.

Oh come on now.
So no Russian missile has ever worked properly?
Whatever.
Besides, I am more worried about Chinese missiles in the future - not Russian ones.

3) Who do you believe the claims of a notorious lier like Putin?

See above.

4) No supercarrier has been attacked, damaged much less severely damaged much less sunk.....EVER!!

Ummm...okay.

So why do you believe the next "super missile" coming down the pike will be able to do so?

Because I have read LOTS of data on them.

Hypersonic Weapon Basics – Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance

missiledefenseadvocacy.org

Hypersonic Missiles: What are they and can they be stopped?

A hypersonic arms race is underway; here Defence iQ offers some insights into how the technology is developing and the strategic threat this capability poses to geopolitical stability.

www.defenceiq.com

But alright.
Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that hypersonic missiles can not and will never be able to sink an aircraft carrier?

And you are missing the point.
Now answer my question, please?
What is the point of having carrier battle groups if an Ohio-class SSGN can do practically everything they can do?
And at a tiny fraction of the cost with NO chance of a pilot getting killed/captured?

 

[Dayton3]

Because several countries are developing/testing hypersonic missiles. Even America.

Oh come on now.
So no Russian missile has ever worked properly?
Whatever.
Besides, I am more worried about Chinese missiles in the future - not Russian ones.

See above.

Ummm...okay.


Because I have read LOTS of data on them.

Hypersonic Weapon Basics – Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance

missiledefenseadvocacy.org

Hypersonic Missiles: What are they and can they be stopped?

A hypersonic arms race is underway; here Defence iQ offers some insights into how the technology is developing and the strategic threat this capability poses to geopolitical stability.

www.defenceiq.com

But alright.
Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that hypersonic missiles can not and will never be able to sink an aircraft carrier?

And you are missing the point.
Now answer my question, please?
What is the point of having carrier battle groups if an Ohio-class SSGN can do practically everything they can do?
And at a tiny fraction of the cost with NO chance of a pilot getting killed/captured?

Because an Ohio class SSGN CANNOT provide air cover over an area of the ocean the size of Texas.

You need a dozen or more combat aircraft available at one time to provide effective air cover.

And you miss a greater point

1) Ohio class submarines are extremely unmanueverable in littoral waters.

2) In just a few years the Ohio class cruise missile armed submarines will all be gone anyway and no one is going to build any more.

 

[Sandisk]

A single F-18 armed with 4-6 AMRAMM missiles can shoot down several Backfire bombers well before the come within range of those magical hypersonic missiles.

And your sources regarding the Aegis not being able to track hypersonic missiles are completely speculative.

The F-18 has to be in range.
Over a radius of 500 miles from the carrier.
That is 2.5 MILLION square miles.
There is NO WAY that there would be enough aircraft on board several carriers to keep constant, air patrols to cover remotely that much area.

Of course it's speculative.
You think the Navy is going to admit it?!?

 

[Dayton3]

The F-18 has to be in range.
Over a radius of 500 miles from the carrier.
That is 2.5 MILLION square miles.
There is NO WAY that there would be enough aircraft on board several carriers to keep constant, air patrols to cover remotely that much area.

Of course it's speculative.
You think the Navy is going to admit it?!?

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.

 

[Sandisk]

Because an Ohio class SSGN CANNOT provide air cover over an area of the ocean the size of Texas.

You need a dozen or more combat aircraft available at one time to provide effective air cover.

What do you need to have air cover over the ocean for?

And you miss a greater point

1) Ohio class submarines are extremely unmanueverable in littoral waters.

2) In just a few years the Ohio class cruise missile armed submarines will all be gone anyway and no one is going to build any more.

Littoral zone?
Why the heck would an Ohio class boat be in shallow water, just offshore?
The tomahawk missile has a range of about 1,000 miles.
The sub could be hundreds of miles offshore.

You are just guessing/making stuff up now.
You have NO IDEA what will be built in the future.
But alright - where is your link to unbiased, factual evidence that no one will ever build any more SSGN's?

And you do realize that to convert a ballistic sub into an SSGN is no big deal...just change the vertical launch tubes?
Which is what happened with the Ohio's (plus they made other, structural changes - but they were not necessary to launch the Tomahawks).

 

[Sandisk]

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".

So what? They can be air refueled to come at the carriers from numerous directions.
And that is just Backfires. There are numerous other ways to launch these missiles - ships/submarines/etc..

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.

No, 72 F-18's cannot be on station, 24 hours a day and covering the ENTIRE circumference of an area of ocean that radiates out for 500 miles in every direction.
That is not possible.

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.

Again...the point is that the aircraft carrier is a dinosaur that can be replaced by an Ohio SSGN right now and be able to take out just about every target a carrier could and at a TINY fraction of the cost.
THAT is the point.

The hypersonic missile is just icing on the cake of my point.

With a 30 trillion dollar debt and trillions in yearly deficits?
It is the duty of the military to look at every way possible to save money whilst still protecting us.

 

[Dayton3]

So what? They can be air refueled to come at the carriers from numerous directions.
And that is just Backfires. There are numerous other ways to launch these missiles - ships/submarines/etc..

No, 72 F-18's cannot be on station, 24 hours a day and covering the ENTIRE circumference of an area of ocean that radiates out for 500 miles in every direction.
That is not possible.

Again...the point is that the aircraft carrier is a dinosaur that can be replaced by an Ohio SSGN right now and be able to take out just about every target a carrier could and at a TINY fraction of the cost.
THAT is the point.

The hypersonic missile is just icing on the cake of my point.

With a 30 trillion dollar debt and trillions in yearly deficits?
It is the duty of the military to look at every way possible to save money whilst still protecting us.

Agree to disagree.

The U.S. should be spending at least a trillion a year on our military and cutting the debt by gutting social programs.

By the way, you think 50 or more Backfires (loaded with missiles by the way) taking off from a Russian airbase along with 20 or so tankers, and a bunch of converted bombers with surface search radars (to find the carrier forces in the first place) is going to simply escape notice in a war time situation?

 

[AZrailwhale]

No they don't.
They have never practiced to take out hypersonic missiles.
Just missiles they can track and destroy.

But alright.
Please tell me - with link(s) to back it up - how a Carrier Strike Group is going to be able to stop 20 Backfire bombers (each with 3 Zircon hypersonic missiles) from flying towards them at Mach 2 and launching their missiles 500 miles away from the carrier from various directions?
The latter's Standard missiles range is not remotely long enough.
There are not enough aircraft in several carriers to remotely cover that much air space, 500 miles away from a carrier over a wide arc of ocean.
And they HAVE to shoot down the Backfires before they launch their missiles. Because once they do - Aegis cannot even track the missiles.
Not ONE Backfire bomber can launch even one set of missiles.
Impossible.

One, the carrier's fighters far outrange the missiles and will kill the launch platforms before they can launch their missiles.
Two, the missiles need initial guidance from another platform, the carrier's fighters and missiles can kill that platform before it can inform the missiles where the carrier is.
The Hawkeye's systems can detect the recon aircraft's radars long before the recon aircraft can even detect the Hawkeye, let alone the carrier. That's the whole purpose of AEW aircraft they can be located hundreds of miles away from the carrier on the threat axis to detect incoming enemy aircraft and missiles. Plus, the Hawkeyes can feed targeting solutions to Standard ER missiles which can intercept targets at 150 miles from the target ship.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The F-18 has to be in range.
Over a radius of 500 miles from the carrier.
That is 2.5 MILLION square miles.
There is NO WAY that there would be enough aircraft on board several carriers to keep constant, air patrols to cover remotely that much area.

Of course it's speculative.
You think the Navy is going to admit it?!?

That's what AEW aircraft are for. Their active radar can extend the carrier group's radar coverage several hundred miles on the threat axis. The AEW aircraft either picks up the attacking plane's radar at VERY long range or uses its own radar to locate the attacker a couple of hundred miles from the AEW platform. Then it vectors the CAP fighters out to destroy the intruder. Radar is like a flashlight at night, you can see it far further than it can see you.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Agree to disagree.

The U.S. should be spending at least a trillion a year on our military and cutting the debt by gutting social programs.

By the way, you think 50 or more Backfires (loaded with missiles by the way) taking off from a Russian airbase along with 20 or so tankers, and a bunch of converted bombers with surface search radars (to find the carrier forces in the first place) is going to simply escape notice in a war time situation?

I think the Russians only have about thirty out of a total of sixty Backfires that are flyable anymore. The largest number used in any operation in the past decade has been 12.

 

[Dayton3]

I think the Russians only have about thirty out of a total of sixty Backfires that are flyable anymore. The largest number used in any operation in the past decade has been 12.

I'll concede that if they really wanted to wage a massive anti carrier effort that the Russians (or Chinese) could get more of their Backfires available and even use some Blackjacks (TU-160s). But your point is well made.