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

[Vrenn]

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?

There are onlyh two missiles (according to your source) that are being developed. One for a Battle Cruiser and the other for the Mig-31. The ranges given are given for the burn times. I can use that by using the SM-6 on the US Navy ships. The burn time range on the SM-6 is 450 miles on a target that the ship guiding it can see. It's actual terminal tracking is only about 90 miles in a perfect world. In other words, the actual usable range of the 450 mile missile ends up to be only 90 miles because of the curvature of the earth for low flying and ships. In order to get your Air to Surface Missile into it's effective range you are going to need to have some speed and altitude. Unless you are flying a super stealth Bomber with a masked heat signature, you are going to have to come in low and do a popup when you run out of either terrain masking or curvature masking. AWACS makes it harder so you are going to have to pop up even further away. Now the game starts. Can your Aircraft get the track, lock and firing solution before the ship can. You can't so your missile is going to be one hell of a lot faster than the SM-3 and 6 Missiles which will launch first. And there is going to be more than a thousand SM Missiles available to the Ships. The SM series missiles are good for both missiles and aircraft and use the guidance from the Naval Ships which far exceeds anything even an AWACS. Even a Stealth Aircraft has severe problems when dealing with the Aegis systems and Carriers. But even Naval sensors have to pay attention to Physics so I didn't bother covering your fictitious Naval Launched missiles.

 

[Mushroom]

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.

Nice, now extend that another 30,000 feet. Because that is the altitude of the E-2C that would be flying at all times over such a group if hostilities were likely.

 

[Mushroom]

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).

At the risk of how many losses?

I think most of the world learned the lesson of "putting all your eggs in the same basket" after the Battle of Midway. But in the 21st century, nobody is going to throw away significant numbers of their bombers in what would essentially be a suicide run. Because even if they did hit the carrier, a huge chunk of those bombers would be lost.

And I for one do not think Russia is stupid enough to do that. As the number of bombers they had drastically shrunk after the fall of the USSR, each one became even more important as a strategic asset than as a tactical one. They lost one of their Tu-22M bombers in Georgia in 2008, and as far as I am aware have only used 8 of them in a one time high altitude raid over Mariupol in April. And I see no sign of that changing.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Why would they have to surface? BTW, my nephew's wife is a chief on the Ohio.

I also think you overestimate the effectiveness of hypersonic missiles. Targeting for them is damn near impossible to find and attack any ship that moves.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

How are they targeting the Carrier Strike Group 500 miles away? The Russkis have no such capability.

 

[Dayton3]

At the risk of how many losses?

I think most of the world learned the lesson of "putting all your eggs in the same basket" after the Battle of Midway. But in the 21st century, nobody is going to throw away significant numbers of their bombers in what would essentially be a suicide run. Because even if they did hit the carrier, a huge chunk of those bombers would be lost.

And I for one do not think Russia is stupid enough to do that. As the number of bombers they had drastically shrunk after the fall of the USSR, each one became even more important as a strategic asset than as a tactical one. They lost one of their Tu-22M bombers in Georgia in 2008, and as far as I am aware have only used 8 of them in a one time high altitude raid over Mariupol in April. And I see no sign of that changing.

They might think that the political/public morale impact of the U.S. losing a carrier would be worth it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They might think that the political/public morale impact of the U.S. losing a carrier would be worth it.

Read up on how much and how long it took to sink the ex-USS America CV-66 carrier as an artificial reef.

 

[Dayton3]

Read up on how much and how long it took to sink the ex-USS America CV-66 carrier as an artificial reef.

I'm familiar with it.

 

[AZrailwhale]

At the risk of how many losses?

I think most of the world learned the lesson of "putting all your eggs in the same basket" after the Battle of Midway. But in the 21st century, nobody is going to throw away significant numbers of their bombers in what would essentially be a suicide run. Because even if they did hit the carrier, a huge chunk of those bombers would be lost.

And I for one do not think Russia is stupid enough to do that. As the number of bombers they had drastically shrunk after the fall of the USSR, each one became even more important as a strategic asset than as a tactical one. They lost one of their Tu-22M bombers in Georgia in 2008, and as far as I am aware have only used 8 of them in a one time high altitude raid over Mariupol in April. And I see no sign of that changing.

If Russia has thirty Backfires, trading one carrier for fifteen of them is a net win for the USN. The odds are that in real war scenario, the Bear recon aircraft would be killed long before they could locate the carrier group by F-18s or F-35s directed by the carrier's Hawkeyes. No exact location for the carrier means the Backfires have zero chance of hitting the carrier regardless of the range of the missiles carried by the bombers.

 

[Sandisk]

How are they targeting the Carrier Strike Group 500 miles away? The Russkis have no such capability.

You've never heard of 'satellites'?

Come on now?
Do you really think they are going to develop weapons that they cannot possibly use?

 

[Sandisk]

Why would they have to surface? BTW, my nephew's wife is a chief on the Ohio.

I don't know if individual Tomahawks can be launched from underwater.
If they could be - that would make them even more effective.

I also think you overestimate the effectiveness of hypersonic missiles. Targeting for them is damn near impossible to find and attack any ship that moves.

Fine.
Please post a link from a respected source that claims they are not able to hit a ship the size of an aircraft carrier?

 

[Sandisk]

Nice, now extend that another 30,000 feet. Because that is the altitude of the E-2C that would be flying at all times over such a group if hostilities were likely.

Irrelevant.
The Hawkeye cannot track the Standard missiles the Navy would fire to shoot down the missiles.
And you are seriously suggesting that the Hawkeye's radar can track a hypersonic missile while the Aegis radar cannot?

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

Plus, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the CSG to have enough combat aircraft to cover every point in a circle with a diameter of 1,000 miles, 24 hours a day.
Impossible.

Plus, I don't think the Hawkeye's radar can see much beyond 400 miles.
They would not even see the Backfire's even after they launched their missiles and had turned for home at Mach 2.

And BTW - the Hawkeye's realistic ceiling is 28,000 feet.

E-2C / D Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning Aircraft

The E-2C Hawkeye aircraft supplied by Northrop Grumman is an all-weather airborne early warning aircraft to the naval task force.

www.naval-technology.com

Confessions Of An E-2C Hawkeye Radar Operator

The life of the often overlooked "quarterback" of the air wing that goes to work in a dimly lit flying tube to coordinate chaotic air wars from above.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Sandisk]

At the risk of how many losses?

I think most of the world learned the lesson of "putting all your eggs in the same basket" after the Battle of Midway. But in the 21st century, nobody is going to throw away significant numbers of their bombers in what would essentially be a suicide run. Because even if they did hit the carrier, a huge chunk of those bombers would be lost.

And I for one do not think Russia is stupid enough to do that. As the number of bombers they had drastically shrunk after the fall of the USSR, each one became even more important as a strategic asset than as a tactical one. They lost one of their Tu-22M bombers in Georgia in 2008, and as far as I am aware have only used 8 of them in a one time high altitude raid over Mariupol in April. And I see no sign of that changing.

And how exactly would a 'huge chunk' of 30 Mach 2 Backfires be shot down with a launch point 500+ miles from a carrier coming in at varying directions over a ocean circle covering 2.5 million square miles?
It is impossible for all that area to be covered by Super Bug's and F-35C's - let alone 24 hours a day...even if 3 carriers were used.

And not guessing...please back it up with a link to data please...as I have numerous times.

 

[Sandisk]

If Russia has thirty Backfires, trading one carrier for fifteen of them is a net win for the USN. The odds are that in real war scenario, the Bear recon aircraft would be killed long before they could locate the carrier group by F-18s or F-35s directed by the carrier's Hawkeyes. No exact location for the carrier means the Backfires have zero chance of hitting the carrier regardless of the range of the missiles carried by the bombers.

Are you serious?
1) 30 Backfire bombers - averaging 40 years old each?
Is worth anywhere remotely as much as a Nimitz class aircraft carrier that cost at least $10 billion today? Plus the cost of the aircraft lost?
2) The Russians/Chinese would track them with satellites.

The Realities of Tracking Aircraft Carriers With Civilian Satellites

Technically there is no spot on earth that is not covered by commercial satellites. Using this, a small country or non-state actor could try to keep track of warships movements. It is a radically different situation from when U.S. carriers deployed in past conflicts.

www.forbes.com

 

[Sandisk]

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.

You are missing the point.
I am not saying the CSG (Carrier Strike Group) could not see the aircraft.
I am saying that it is impossible for even 72 F/A-18's from 3 CSG's to cover a circle that was 1000 miles across. Covering every point of the circumference...24 hours a day.
That is IMPOSSIBLE.

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?

Well, it would only be 30. And that would be to launch 60 missiles.
And that is just my extreme scenario based on Aegis radar being able to track the missiles.

Realistically...if the Aegis cannot track hypersonic missiles?
They would only need 1 or 2 bombers to get the job done.

 

[Sandisk]

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.

My understanding is the Hawkeye's radar can only see out to 400 miles or so.

E-2C / D Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning Aircraft

The E-2C Hawkeye aircraft supplied by Northrop Grumman is an all-weather airborne early warning aircraft to the naval task force.

www.naval-technology.com

That would not be nearly enough to cover the potential launch range of 500 miles out of the early, Russian hypersonic missiles.
Let alone, more advanced ones being developed now by Russia and China.

 

[Sandisk]

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.

Remember, my scenario was worst case scenario based on the US Navy's Aegis radar being able to track hypersonic missiles.
Right now, apparently, it cannot.

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

So Russia would only need 1 or 2 Backfires (each carrying 3 missiles) to get the job done.

 

[Vrenn]

You've never heard of 'satellites'?

Come on now?
Do you really think they are going to develop weapons that they cannot possibly use?

Yah, works great on stationary targets. But you are going to try and hit a zig zagging target moving at about 50 mph from 2000 miles away with a missile that can't make more than a fraction of a degree of course correction at a time. The closer it gets, the less accurate it gets. Hypersonic weapons will only work on either stationary targets or targets that are unaware that you are targeting them. That is, unless you can rewrite the laws of Physics.

 

[Vrenn]

You've never heard of 'satellites'?

Come on now?
Do you really think they are going to develop weapons that they cannot possibly use?

Okay, let's see what type of Sat you are talking about. Are you talking about a GPS Sat? Only good on stationary targets. Even if you are locking on to it's last known location, it just moved to a new location. You just missed by a country mile.

What sat are you talking about?

 

[AZrailwhale]

You've never heard of 'satellites'?

Come on now?
Do you really think they are going to develop weapons that they cannot possibly use?

Standard ER have an ASAT capability. Russian satellites wouldn't last a single orbit in a war.