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

[AZrailwhale]

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.

To begin with, the Backfires would be coming from one or two bases at most. They lack the endurance to make your attacks from varying directions. They would also be tracked via satellite from their takeoffs on allowing the carrier literally HOURS of warning. And you are still ignoring the simple fact that the Backfires can't launch their missiles blindly, they need an exact fix on the carriers to have any hope of getting even one hit. The USN has been practicing this and developing countermeasures ever since 1945.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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

It's not money, it's tactics. If the Russians lose half their force killing ONE carrier, the USN still has eight or so, plus the French one, the English two, the Japanese four and the Italian one left. At Midway the USN lost one sixth of its fleet carriers, while the IJN lost half of their fleet carriers (that's allowing Junyo and Hiyo to be considered fleet carriers). The Russians losing half of their maritime bomber force would be just as devastating. It would cost them the ability to contest the USN's control of the SLOCs. They would have to husband their remaining force to use to defend their bases from carrier attacks.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

That's the advertised figure, the real range is probably more than double that from altitude. Plus, the Hawkeyes would be several hundred miles from the carriers on the threat axis which even using your range estimate would allow them to detect the Backfires a hundred miles before they could launch their missiles.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You've never heard of 'satellites'?

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

You ever try to locate a carrier battle group by satellite in the open ocean?

 

[Dayton3]

It's not money, it's tactics. If the Russians lose half their force killing ONE carrier, the USN still has eight or so, plus the French one, the English two, the Japanese four and the Italian one left. At Midway the USN lost one sixth of its fleet carriers, while the IJN lost half of their fleet carriers (that's allowing Junyo and Hiyo to be considered fleet carriers). The Russians losing half of their maritime bomber force would be just as devastating. It would cost them the ability to contest the USN's control of the SLOCs. They would have to husband their remaining force to use to defend their bases from carrier attacks.

Which is why in all the techno thrillers, while the Soviet Backfire force generally gets some shots in early, they are then all but annihilated and that's all she wrote.

 

[Dayton3]

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.

It is also impossible for a force of Backfires to attack from every possible direction simultaneously. The Russians don't have the aerial refueling assets to achieve that.

 

[Vrenn]

Which is why in all the techno thrillers, while the Soviet Backfire force generally gets some shots in early, they are then all but annihilated and that's all she wrote.

In the Military Aero World, we know that no country will have enough bombers to defeat a super carrier group. If you get extremely lucky, you might be able to disable a carrier for a few hours but that's about it. You are going to have to get close with a lot of numbers. You will have destroyed your entire Air Force and probably not totally defeated the carrier force. And then it's the carrier force's turn.

Now, if he knew anything he would make it a naval battle. The scenario of using modern support ships and the 4 Iowa Class Battle Ships shows that such a blend has more than an even chance of defeating the carrier group. The Battleship Group would play the Missile game while it closes. It would be unable to defeat the Carrier. Meanwhile, the Carrier Group would not be able to defeat the Battle Ship group either. There would be a high attrition rate on both sides. It's going to come down to whether the Battle Ships can close close enough that their 16in guns can be used. Get the Iowa Class within 8 miles or so and it's going to start hitting the carrier most of the time. And that 2500 lbs of explosives going off under the skin of the carrier will tear it up and make it into a barrier reef. On the other side of the coin, the Battle Ship Group can end up the same way with the same percentage.

 

[Dayton3]

In the Military Aero World, we know that no country will have enough bombers to defeat a super carrier group. If you get extremely lucky, you might be able to disable a carrier for a few hours but that's about it. You are going to have to get close with a lot of numbers. You will have destroyed your entire Air Force and probably not totally defeated the carrier force. And then it's the carrier force's turn.

Now, if he knew anything he would make it a naval battle. The scenario of using modern support ships and the 4 Iowa Class Battle Ships shows that such a blend has more than an even chance of defeating the carrier group. The Battleship Group would play the Missile game while it closes. It would be unable to defeat the Carrier. Meanwhile, the Carrier Group would not be able to defeat the Battle Ship group either. There would be a high attrition rate on both sides. It's going to come down to whether the Battle Ships can close close enough that their 16in guns can be used. Get the Iowa Class within 8 miles or so and it's going to start hitting the carrier most of the time. And that 2500 lbs of explosives going off under the skin of the carrier will tear it up and make it into a barrier reef. On the other side of the coin, the Battle Ship Group can end up the same way with the same percentage.

Good post but in fairness no other nation has any real gun battleships. The closest they ever came to battleships of any kind were the Kirov class missile battlecruisers that the Soviet Navy had. And in them after launching their entire complement of cruise missiles it was "run like hell while you wait to die".

 

[Vrenn]

Good post but in fairness no other nation has any real gun battleships. The closest they ever came to battleships of any kind were the Kirov class missile battlecruisers that the Soviet Navy had. And in them after launching their entire complement of cruise missiles it was "run like hell while you wait to die".

Very true. What's funny, I watched a scenario where the Germans used their two heavy Battleships along with their Battle Cruisers and support ships go against a 2000 era carrier group. The WWII German Battleship Group won. One of the Battle Ship got within range with only one of it's big turrents operational and that's all it took. The same thing was run using two Iowa Class Battle Ships and WWII support ships against the Nimitz battle group of 2002 with the same results. WWII Battleships were "Bulletproof". Moreso than a Carrier. If you armored up the carrier as much as the late WWII Battleship the Carrier would roll over and sink.

But if you were to use the Super Carrier supported and shielded by smaller carriers along with other support ships the Battleship Battle Group would lose almost 100% of the time. And that became the doctrine for the US in early 1944 broke the Japanese Navies backbone.

 

[Ringo]

A disgruntled Admiral indignantly told Churchill he was scuttling the tradition of the Royal Navy. Gretton wrote that Churchill answered:

“Don’t talk to me about naval tradition. It’s nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash.”

 

[Stryder50]

Stepping back in time a bit ...

The real-life Maverick who took on 7 Soviet jets in a classified Korean War dogfight​

...
EXCERPTS:

On Nov. 18, 1952, during the Korean War, Navy Lt. Royce Williams, along with three other pilots from his fighter squadron, VF-781, launched from the USS Oriskany into the stormy skies over the Sea of Japan. There were more than 250,000 sorties flown by the Navy during the conflict, but the ensuing engagement would end in one of the great feats of aerial combat, even if it was covered up for decades due to the tense political environment of the Cold War.​

© Provided by Task & Purpose During the Korean War, Navy Lt. Royce Williams went head-to-head with 7 Soviet fighters and not only survived, but left the fight with multiple confirmed kills. (Task & Purpose photo composite/Wikimedia Commons/U.S. Navy via Twitter)

The Oriskany was part of Navy Task Force 77, striking at logistics centers in North Korea. The target that day was the city of Hoeryong, right along the Yalu River where the borders of China, North Korea, and what was then the Soviet Union met. That made the bombing missions a risky proposition, given the possibility of violating each nation’s airspace.

Williams, on his second mission of the day, was flying as part of the combat air patrol in a Grumman F9F-5 Panther.

A U.S. Navy Grumman F9F-2 Panther of Fighter Squadron 24 (VF-24) "Corsairs" flies over ships of Task Force 77 during operations off North Korea on 4 July 1952. (Wikimedia Commons)

“We started to rendezvous with each other as we climbed out of the clouds,” Williams recalled in an interview with Task & Purpose, “And that’s when we heard from the combat information center that there were inbound bogeys from the north.”

Pulling above the clouds at more than 12,000 feet, Williams spotted seven contrails high in the sky above him. They were MiG-15s.

Comparable to the U.S. Air Force F-86, the MiGs outclassed Williams’ Panther in speed, maneuverability, climb rate, and the weapons range. While the Navy had scored some early kills against the MiGs, their mission had switched to one of mostly ground attack. Williams had been training as a Navy fighter pilot since 1944, but the primary mission of the Panthers in Korea was air-to-ground engagements.

The aerial combat was generally confined to the western half of the Korean peninsula, where the Air Force’s F-86 Sabres would patrol the approaches from China known as “MiG Alley.” This was one indication that let Williams know the planes he was facing were almost certainly launched from the Soviet Union.
...
As the two MiG formations gained altitude to make their attacking dives, Williams found himself on the tail of one and downed a second aircraft.

Because the Panther carried less ammunition than the MiGs, Williams had to choose his shots carefully.

“In the moment I was a fighter pilot doing my job,” said Williams. “I was only shooting what I had.”

The five remaining Soviet jets were now taking turns climbing and then making passes at Williams. He could only twist and turn the Panther to the limits of its abilities, engaging a Soviet jet when it passed in front of his sights or rapidly turning to face them head on.

Williams fired at another MiG and it banked out of the fight. As that Soviet pilot’s wingman turned towards Williams, he fired a long burst as the two jets passed belly-to-belly, with the Soviet aircraft crashing into the sea.

In more than 30 minutes of aerial combat, Williams had downed at least three of the MiGs, with a fourth one heavily damaged.

His plane, though, had suffered plenty of damage of its own.
...
It was then that the national security implications of the encounter began to take hold. While Soviet volunteers were known to be flying in Korea, Williams had engaged the actual Soviet Air Force. Furthermore, his flight had been made aware of the Soviet jets based on intelligence from a small detachment from the National Security Agency — then less than a year old — operating on one of the other ships in the task force.

Williams was informed by Navy Adm. Robert Briscoe, commander of Naval Forces Far East, that while it was confirmed he had shot down three and possibly four MiGs, he was not to discuss the engagement with anyone, ever.

Which is what Williams did. Through the rest of his career — another 23 years including 110 missions in Vietnam — the only official record of the engagement was Williams’ one confirmed kill and a Silver Star. Two of the other pilots in Williams’ flight that day also received credit for downing enemy aircraft.

Four decades later, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, records began to emerge from Moscow confirming the engagement. The dogfight was covered in a 2014 book by Russian historian Igor Seidov, “Red Devils Over the Yalu: A Chronicle of Soviet Aerial Operations in the Korean War.”
...

The real-life Maverick who took on 7 Soviet jets in a classified Korean War dogfight

 

[Sandisk]

You ever try to locate a carrier battle group by satellite in the open ocean?

What kind of a nonsense question is that?
Neither of us have in the past 20 years.

Are you saying that Russia/China do not have the ability to track US Carrier Strike Groups?
And if you are - link please or your answer means nothing.

And, for fun, here is the location of all of the US carriers.

https://southfront.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/US_CSG_locations_04_05_2021-1024x1024.jpg

 

[Sandisk]

It is also impossible for a force of Backfires to attack from every possible direction simultaneously. The Russians don't have the aerial refueling assets to achieve that.

They do not need tankers for that.
They have 19 tankers.
But they can use any number of other aircraft as 'buddy tankers' (the US Navy does it all the time with F/A-18's).

And again...AEGIS CANNOT TRACK HYPERSONIC MISSILES.
THE RUSSIANS ONLY NEED ABOUT A DOZEN MISSILES - if that - TO SINK A CARRIER (possibly).
Got it yet?

I am sick of this guessing on your part - and making stuff up without backing up ANY of it.

Yes or no?
Can you provide ANY links from unbiased sources that disproves - factually - what I have typed on this.
Yes or no?
And if so, please post them?

And you have not dealt with the capabilities of the Ohio's at all - which was my main point.

 

[Sandisk]

That's the advertised figure, the real range is probably more than double that from altitude. Plus, the Hawkeyes would be several hundred miles from the carriers on the threat axis which even using your range estimate would allow them to detect the Backfires a hundred miles before they could launch their missiles.

So, you are now making up the capabilities of combat aircraft?
Sorry pal, there is no point talking to you on this if you are just going to fantasize what capabilities are.

 

[Sandisk]

It's not money, it's tactics. If the Russians lose half their force killing ONE carrier, the USN still has eight or so, plus the French one, the English two, the Japanese four and the Italian one left. At Midway the USN lost one sixth of its fleet carriers, while the IJN lost half of their fleet carriers (that's allowing Junyo and Hiyo to be considered fleet carriers). The Russians losing half of their maritime bomber force would be just as devastating. It would cost them the ability to contest the USN's control of the SLOCs. They would have to husband their remaining force to use to defend their bases from carrier attacks.

One, none have you have proven AT ALL that even one Backfire would be shot down.
They would launch from 500 miles away.
And newer hypersonic missiles have FAR longer ranges than the Zircon.

Two, as I have already shown, the Aegis radar system cannot (apparently) even track hypersonic missiles.
If they cannot track them?
They cannot shoot them down.
The Russians/Chinese would only need a half dozen missiles (launched from aircraft/surfaces ships/submarines) to sink a carrier.

 

[Sandisk]

To begin with, the Backfires would be coming from one or two bases at most. They lack the endurance to make your attacks from varying directions. They would also be tracked via satellite from their takeoffs on allowing the carrier literally HOURS of warning. And you are still ignoring the simple fact that the Backfires can't launch their missiles blindly, they need an exact fix on the carriers to have any hope of getting even one hit. The USN has been practicing this and developing countermeasures ever since 1945.

Already dealt with this.

 

[Sandisk]

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

That was a hit on a dormant satellite in LEO (Low Earth Orbit)

Navy Hits Satellite With Heat-Seeking Missile

Navy reportedly blasts old spy satellite with heat-seeking missile.

www.space.com

The Standard does not remotely have the capability to hit a spy satellite in higher orbits.

But even if it did, all that would do would provoke the Russians and Chinese to take out American satellites. And that helps no one in the end as it leaves everyone blind and out trillions of dollars.

And please, from now on, post links to back up your points or I will not read them.
I am tired of you people throwing out your (you are not the worst) pie-in-the-sky ideas without a shred of data to back them up.

 

[Sandisk]

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?

I am not familiar enough with satellites to discuss them at length with confidence.
I would assume we are talking about military surveillance satellites.
And...no, I am not talking about GPS.
GPS is for tracking...not surveillance.

Besides, there are stealth drones in Russian (Chinese?) service that can loiter far outside the CSG and monitor it's position.

S-70: Russia's Stealth Drone Looks Like a Powerhouse

All things stealth these days are key. F-35, F-22s, and Su-57 dominate the talk of defense experts these days. But Russia’s stealth drone, the S-70, needs to also be part of this conversation as well. Here is what we know right now on this UAV: Russia’s S-70 Okhotnik-B drone has reportedly...

www.19fortyfive.com

But so what if the CSG moved?
They can only move at 35 miles an hour. And they are a GIGANTIC target.
I highly doubt they could evade detection.
And the hypersonic missiles do not need the exact whereabouts of the target at launch.
Just the general area.

My point is that until someone can post a link to unbiased, factual proof to the contrary?
I will assume that the Russians/Chinese can track the locations of US carrier Strike Groups.

 

[Sandisk]

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

50 mph?
Where are you getting this from?
Where is a link to unbiased, factual proof that a Nimitz or Ford-class aircraft carrier can do 43 knots?
I doubt you can provide it.
At best, they can do about 40 mph, to my knowledge.

Zigzagging?
A 100,000+ ton, Nimitz-class aircraft carrier cannot do much 'zigzagging' unless it is very, lazy zig zag's.
This isn't a destroyer or a frigate we are talking about.

And I said 500 miles away - not 2,000.

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.

Fine.
Show me a link to unbiased, factual proof that all of the hypersonic missiles currently in service in China or Russia are incapable of hitting an aircraft carrier at sea - and I will read it.

Also, as I have pointed out before, Aegis - apparently - cannot even TRACK a hypersonic missile.

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

It would not know what is coming to know to take evasive action in the first place.

 

[Vrenn]

They do not need tankers for that.
They have 19 tankers.
But they can use any number of other aircraft as 'buddy tankers' (the US Navy does it all the time with F/A-18's).

And again...AEGIS CANNOT TRACK HYPERSONIC MISSILES.
THE RUSSIANS ONLY NEED ABOUT A DOZEN MISSILES - if that - TO SINK A CARRIER (possibly).
Got it yet?

I am sick of this guessing on your part - and making stuff up without backing up ANY of it.

Yes or no?
Can you provide ANY links from unbiased sources that disproves - factually - what I have typed on this.
Yes or no?
And if so, please post them?

And you have not dealt with the capabilities of the Ohio's at all - which was my main point.

Sorry, but it takes a special mod to be a tanker. The F-18 Tanker Version is NOT the same as the Fighter version although it can do most of the fighters mission. But it's heavier and can't handle near the Gs.

Now, let's look at the Backfire Bombers. Russia has 66 Backfires serviceable at this time (as of 2021). But with the Ukraine War, they might only have about half that number. Out of the 100 available, they are running about 30 to 40% serviceability rate right now. That means that the real number will be closer to 30 to 40 at any given time. The actual numbers are all over the place (depending on which russian beaurew is giving out the info) from 66 to 100. And none of them are listed as able to do tanker duty.

Now let's talk about range. At a maximum combat range of 1600 miles, the Bomber has enough range for a one way trip unless he meets up with a tanker. And the Russians have 15 IL-78 Tankers total. The Russians are going to be quite effective in coastal defense but not in Blue Water Offense. The US Military will eat their shorts after X number of miles off the coast.