USN "super carriers" too big?

E-2C/D; EA-6B/EA-18G WILL be on the same carrier as the F/A-18E/Fs, now won’t they?

Looks like they’ll be available at least… even if the satellite tracking/recon, etc aren’t.

Yes, on a major strike, no doubt they’ll be around but you can’t assume they’ll all be there every time you need them. For example, in Operation Enduring Freedom, F-14s would go so far inland that they were out of coverage of even Air Force AWACS coverage. Do you not cover the B-1 that you’re supposed to rendezvous with because the E-2 broke? If you design an aircraft that has to have them there every time in order to be successful, you’ve designed an aircraft that isn’t good enough.

Ah, but one can’t assume that any or all of that will be available in every situation.

E-2C/D; EA-6B/EA-18G WILL be on the same carrier as the F/A-18E/Fs, now won’t they?

Looks like they’ll be available at least… even if the satellite tracking/recon, etc aren’t.

USS North Caroline being ACR-12 in this case, not BB-52 or BB-55.
http://www.battleshipnc.com/history/acr12/acr.php
http://www.battleshipnc.com/history/acr12/catapult.htm

My mistake. Wrongly assumed she was a battleship because of her name.

BTW, anyone watch NatGeo channel recently? Nice documentary on the evolution of the carrier starting from the first attempts to lauunch planes off the battleship USS North Carolina up to the present Nimitz-class supercarriers.

USS North Caroline being ACR-12 in this case, not BB-52 or BB-55.
http://www.battleshipnc.com/history/acr12/acr.php
http://www.battleshipnc.com/history/acr12/catapult.htm

BTW, anyone watch NatGeo channel recently? Nice documentary on the evolution of the carrier starting from the first attempts to lauunch planes off the battleship USS North Carolina up to the present Nimitz-class supercarriers.

E-2C/D; EA-6B/EA-18G, satellite tracking/recon, etc.

Ah, but one can’t assume that any or all of that will be available in every situation. This was the original argument USAF used to spin the results of Cope India 2004, that it wasn’t realistic because USAF didn’t have all of its AWACS, JSTARs, etc. there during the exercise and that the F-15s used weren’t equipped with AESA (at the time there were only 18 F-15s in the entire USAF equipped with AESA, and no more were on order).

Sometimes it just comes down to what you got with you. Even when the E-2 is around, you’ve still got to be able to deal with the call, “Stinger six-one, looks like they’re comin’ at ya with something faster, more agile, passive sensors and longer ranged weapons. Y’all be careful now, ya hear”?

Again, though, this gets away, IMHO, from what this thread is supposed to be about.

Of course that depends the threat……………Let’s also not forget the Super Hornet would hardly work alone either. Are you talking Air Threats, SAMs, the whole network, what???

All of the above. I am questioning the concept of it being a “… little problem…”

You can not discuss the merits/disadvantages of the US carrier size without discussing the embarked aircraft. They are the carriers ‘main battery’. Not discussing a/c would be like evaluating the size of a battleship without comments on the main battery of the ship.

You can not evaluate any ship as a ‘stand alone’. The merits of the US carrier design have to be considered in light of the mission of the USN and the composition of the carrier task forces. The carrier is just one piece of a larger puzzle.

The larger the carrier, the more versitility. You have more space for aircraft and their ammunition. There are less issues of space/weight limitations of future a/c designs.

No doubt in the next decades we will see alternative aviation oriented platforms emerge as UAV’s come of age and demonstrate the ability to conduct a broad range of operations.

However, there will always be a place for manned a/c. We cannot place all our reliance UAV’s

I mus disagree with your first paragraph. The issue of carrier size is what enables you to embark x number of aircraft, with y amounts of ordnance, its endurance, speed, survivability, versatility, etc. These characteristics will be or not be there based on the carrier design, regardless of the capabilities of the a/c operating from it. For example, when the Forrestals were designed, clearly no one had any idea that there would be a plane such as the F-4 or F-14 operating from them at some unknown point way in the future. They designed those carriers to be able to operate aircraft with certain handling characteristics, requirements and up to a certain size, and it was what those carriers could do that drove the carrier compatibility specs of all aircraft that followed. For example, the Wind Over the Deck requirement for carrier aircraft design takes into account that if necessary the carrier can maintain well over 30 knots for the duration of the launch/recovery operation. Therefore, if you design an aircraft with a zero WOD requirement, it can take off with a 30 knot tailwind. It couldn’t do so from an Essex because the catapults aren’t powerful enough and the ship can’t sustain the necessary speeds. All of this is independent of what the aircraft can do once they’re airborne. Similarly, the BB was designed to carry a main battery of a certain weight and size. Whether or not that battery was actually mounted or not (and in some British cases the design battery wasn’t mounted) does not affect what you designed for. Come to think of it, there’s another difference in the two cases. In the case of the BB, like most warships, the ship itself is the weapon, it does the fighting and its main guns are merely the armament it’s designed to carry. In the case of the CV, the aircraft are the weapons and they do the fighting. The ship itself doesn’t do the fighting, it serves as a platform and as such its design is not tied to any specific armament, just that all kids of aircraft that meet certain characteristics can operate from it.

Interestingly, although I disagree with your first paragraph, I totally agree with your third.

You can not discuss the merits/disadvantages of the US carrier size without discussing the embarked aircraft. They are the carriers ‘main battery’. Not discussing a/c would be like evaluating the size of a battleship without comments on the main battery of the ship.

You can not evaluate any ship as a ‘stand alone’. The merits of the US carrier design have to be considered in light of the mission of the USN and the composition of the carrier task forces. The carrier is just one piece of a larger puzzle.

The larger the carrier, the more versitility. You have more space for aircraft and their ammunition. There are less issues of space/weight limitations of future a/c designs.

No doubt in the next decades we will see alternative aviation oriented platforms emerge as UAV’s come of age and demonstrate the ability to conduct a broad range of operations.

However, there will always be a place for manned a/c. We cannot place all our reliance UAV’s

We’re probably getting too far afield from the point of this topic, which is about the carriers themselves.

YES OF COURSE !
THE MAIN THEME OF THIS TOPIC IS: US BIG CARRIER, TOO BIG
NOT BEST AIRWING OR NAVAL AIRCRAFT
How are moderators ?

lol, many post were to be deleted 😀

Let’s also not forget the Super Hornet would hardly work alone either.

E-2C/D; EA-6B/EA-18G, satellite tracking/recon, etc.

We’re probably getting too far afield from the point of this topic, which is about the carriers themselves. I would want to opine, though, that with the lethality of today’s weapons, no one of the current generation is going to be able to handle anyone remotely contemporary, “..with little problem”.

Of course that depends the threat……………Let’s also not forget the Super Hornet would hardly work alone either. Are you talking Air Threats, SAMs, the whole network, what???

The Super Hornet equipped with the excellent APG-79 AESA Radar, AMRAAM’s, AIM-9X’s, and the HMJCS will handle both BVR and WVR engagements with little problem in the forseeable future. For example what’s the Super Hornets likely threat…………..Trust me the F-35 will get here in time.;)

We’re probably getting too far afield from the point of this topic, which is about the carriers themselves. I would want to opine, though, that with the lethality of today’s weapons, no one of the current generation is going to be able to handle anyone remotely contemporary, “..with little problem”.

Staying with what’s availalbe today, I didn’t say SH wasn’t a good dogfighter, just that there are a bunch out there that are better. Also, even WVR, the multi-turning dogfight is not very productive and historically back to WWII we’ve seen that this is so. In the age of missiles, especially with the types we have with the agility they have now, engaging ins sustained dogfight is practically suicidal. It’ll be acquisition and the ability to lock on and launch that will make more of a difference

The Super Hornet equipped with the excellent APG-79 AESA Radar, AMRAAM’s, AIM-9X’s, and the HMJCS will handle both BVR and WVR engagements with little problem in the forseeable future. For example what’s the Super Hornets likely threat…………..Trust me the F-35 will get here in time.;)

The USN does need the F-35 and future UCAV’s. Yet, I am surprised at your comments. As the Super Hornet is a very capable dogfighters. Which, is really less important in the real world of BVR engagements nonetheless……..

Staying with what’s availalbe today, I didn’t say SH wasn’t a good dogfighter, just that there are a bunch out there that are better. Also, even WVR, the multi-turning dogfight is not very productive and historically back to WWII we’ve seen that this is so. In the age of missiles, especially with the types we have with the agility they have now, engaging ins sustained dogfight is practically suicidal. It’ll be acquisition and the ability to lock on and launch that will make more of a difference

Discussing superior alternative choices the USN had relative to to the SH (Super Hornet) at this point are moot, constitute the “Road not taken”, and may bring this thread off point, so let me just offer an opinion on the points here. First (and as an ex-Naval air guy it pains me to say this), but the F-15K/SG (which are the current versions and are the points of comparison since the SH described above represents the absolutely newest SHs) is waaay superior to the SH in virtually every category.

SH has high AoA performance 2nd to none, except forRaptor (and Fulcrum and Flanker families and the J-10). However it is not that great a dogfighter close in. All the aircraft just mentioned are better, as are Typhoon and Rafale, not sure about Gripen. In fact, the Hornet C/D is better air-to-air, as the Navy has always said. All of them except Raptor either alreeady have or are in the process of getting HMCS. Fortunately, close-in dogfighting plays a minor role in air combat. Still, SH will be at a disdvantage facing any of them air-to-air and probably the MiG-21 bison as well.

Remember, the SH has never won a sales competition (Australia was not a competition), and usually doesn’t make the finals. It’s not a bad plane, it’s a good one, it’s just that there’s better stuff also for sale.

Looking at carrier capable aircraft, Rafale is more agile (USN pilots involved in cross decking acknowledge this to a point). In some strike scenarios/loadouts it also has greater range. This is of course not using the SH cmparison tactic of loading it with standoff powered weapon and loading the other plane with gravity weapons. While it doesn’t yet have full AESA (due to French Gov’t dithering), that looks like it’s coming, and AESA by itself is not a quantum leap. BTW, if Rafale enters air combat, it doesn’t have to drop its IRST as SH will have to (once it gets one).

As an aside, close-in AESA actually has some disadvantages due to its narrower field of view (90 degrees and in some cases only 60).

The SH is serviceable, but Naval Air really needs F-35/UCAV to remain viable.

The USN does need the F-35 and future UCAV’s. Yet, I am surprised at your comments. As the Super Hornet is a very capable dogfighters. Which, is really less important in the real world of BVR engagements nonetheless……..

Really, until the arrvial of the PAK-FA and J-XX. The Super Hornet is very capable of taking care of itself. Especially, equipped with APG-79 AESA Radar, HMCS, AIM-9X’s, and AMRAAM’s. To be honest its hard to beat in it attended Strike Role. With the possible exception of the F-15E/K Strike Eagle. Its also a hell of a dogfighter close in……………It will do until the F-35B/C enter service over the next 5/10 years.:cool:

Discussing superior alternative choices the USN had relative to to the SH (Super Hornet) at this point are moot, constitute the “Road not taken”, and may bring this thread off point, so let me just offer an opinion on the points here. First (and as an ex-Naval air guy it pains me to say this), but the F-15K/SG (which are the current versions and are the points of comparison since the SH described above represents the absolutely newest SHs) is waaay superior to the SH in virtually every category.

SH has high AoA performance 2nd to none, except forRaptor (and Fulcrum and Flanker families and the J-10). However it is not that great a dogfighter close in. All the aircraft just mentioned are better, as are Typhoon and Rafale, not sure about Gripen. In fact, the Hornet C/D is better air-to-air, as the Navy has always said. All of them except Raptor either alreeady have or are in the process of getting HMCS. Fortunately, close-in dogfighting plays a minor role in air combat. Still, SH will be at a disdvantage facing any of them air-to-air and probably the MiG-21 bison as well.

Remember, the SH has never won a sales competition (Australia was not a competition), and usually doesn’t make the finals. It’s not a bad plane, it’s a good one, it’s just that there’s better stuff also for sale.

Looking at carrier capable aircraft, Rafale is more agile (USN pilots involved in cross decking acknowledge this to a point). In some strike scenarios/loadouts it also has greater range. This is of course not using the SH cmparison tactic of loading it with standoff powered weapon and loading the other plane with gravity weapons. While it doesn’t yet have full AESA (due to French Gov’t dithering), that looks like it’s coming, and AESA by itself is not a quantum leap. BTW, if Rafale enters air combat, it doesn’t have to drop its IRST as SH will have to (once it gets one).

As an aside, close-in AESA actually has some disadvantages due to its narrower field of view (90 degrees and in some cases only 60).

The SH is serviceable, but Naval Air really needs F-35/UCAV to remain viable.

Don’t want to get this topic heated up here in this forum, but the Super Hornet really depresses me. It’s (now) getting great avionics, true, but you can put avionics in anything. That’s why for carrier aviation to remain viable, we need (since we’ll never be able to restart A/FX) the F-35 ASAP.

Really, until the arrvial of the PAK-FA and J-XX. The Super Hornet is very capable of taking care of itself. Especially, equipped with APG-79 AESA Radar, HMCS, AIM-9X’s, and AMRAAM’s. To be honest its hard to beat in it attended Strike Role. With the possible exception of the F-15E/K Strike Eagle. Its also a hell of a dogfighter close in……………It will do until the F-35B/C enter service over the next 5/10 years.:cool:

Don’t want to get this topic heated up here in this forum, but the Super Hornet really depresses me. It’s (now) getting great avionics, true, but you can put avionics in anything. That’s why for carrier aviation to remain viable, we need (since we’ll never be able to restart A/FX) the F-35 ASAP.

You have to admit NavAir makes the most out of it. A strike package of E fighters, F kinetic strikers and G electronic strikers offers pretty impressive capabilities. It’s a pitty the Air Force never built a Electronic Eagle, otherwise they could have had a similar round-out setup.

Need a crystal ball to know what the F-35 will bring the fleet in the end! Sometimes I wonder if just carrying A/A ammo inside and A/G outside in LO fairings wouldn’t have produced a more fighter-like design.

@ Building LCS on upper Lake Michigan: Must be some powerful interests there. People sure are happy to have a job opportunity besides buidling cabins for vacationers and such.

I never said it affected the design, just that it was a retarded place to build it.

Agreed…………..Especially, considering all of the warm water ship yards.