I’ve been very interested in this topic / forum.
I am hardly qualified to make comment on naval matter, so if nobody minds I will just speak my thoughts.
I see a few major (and significant) problems with today’s U.S Navy, and its nucleus of power projection – its carriers.
I will attempt to relay my concerns via a few points –

Point 1
For a long time the West has underplayed the Soviet’s capability, as too some of the weapons it intended to use against the United States if the Cold War went hot. I am more than admit that the likes of their latter ant-ship missiles (air, surface and sub-surface) are both powerful and effective in their intended design and purpose. In some cases the West / NATO did not and still do not have the equivalent. The newer Russian political and military has demonstrated their wiliness to export their latest military technology to everyone and anyone, to gain hard foreign currency and to keep their weapons design bureaus and manufacturing in slow production to stimulate and drip feed the Russian military.

Point 2
The Soviet/Russian know the limitations of its weapons better than anyone else.
One should not forget that they were the first military to develop and deploy purpose design and built anti-ship missiles in the size and numbers it did. The Soviet’s also developed and deployed the first operational deployed CIWS (the AK-630 system). So they should (or would) be more than aware of the benefits and short comings of such CIWS’s and what an anti-ship missile must do to counter or survive them. Again I am somewhat weary that the US Navy is beginning to get hooked on their obsession with missiles, as they begin to replace their Phalanx ‘gun’ CIWS with that of the RAM ‘missile’ system.

Point 3
I cannot comprehend why the U.S Navy elected to prematurely phase out not just its capable Lockheed S-3 Viking (and its potential replacement!) itself, but also the very effective stand-off ASW capability. There is little doubt in my mind that the main reason for the phasing out of the Viking (and its mission!) aboard their aircraft carriers, was a combination of the USN’s arrogance and a cost saving measure (robbing Peter to pay Paul!). One only needs to see the ever growing proliferation of SSN and SS’s throughout the world to know and recognise the growing threat from below the water – even to a US Navy super carrier. The Russian’s past and present wiliness to sell the likes of their Kilo Class diesel electric submarines (not to mention the lucrative business of Germany and France!). Nobody who knows about submarine warfare can deny the capability of today’s diesel electric sub’s and the package of advanced and sophisticated weapons that go with them. It has been proven more than once that modern diesel electric submarines have been able to penetrate the worlds most capable and advanced carrier battle groups, and if wanting and willing deliver the death blow to a the prestige of the United States Navy.
Nobody has yet been able to convince me that the close-in defence capability of the likes of the SH-60 Seahawk can effectively stop a modern, well equipped and skilful crewed submarine. Add to this the modern sub-launched stand-off missiles which does not require the threatening submarine to enter the dangers of the carrier battle group. I still cannot believe the USN’s combat experience of WWII submarine warfare can be lost, let alone forgotten or is it the notion that American skill and technology is so superior.

Point 4
The US Navy’s false notion or arrogance in thinking it can phase out the likes of SUBROC and ASROC weapons without replacement and the advantage and capability of their intended successor ‘RUM/UUM-125 Sea Lance’ with its 65km (35 mile) range is a move and decision I have failed to work out.
Again many would argue that most US Navy combat ships carry an ASW (LAMPS) helicopter, but the deployment time of an ASW helicopter is time consuming (and in many cases restricted in weather and sea conditions). A snap shot weapon like that of Sea Lance should not be over looked regardless.

Point 5
The constant abysmal handling and management of the US Navy is very hard for me to comprehend or handle, and is costing the USN as a whole in my opinion. Its constant and seemingly never ending chopping and changing of what it wants and what it envisions as a threat, to which it expends vast amounts of money and resources, only to cancel or change its mind is both ridicules. Again many would say that the Russian Navy is no threat or challenge to the US Navy (although Putin and his puppet like to promote otherwise!), and of course there is the ever growing and real threat of the open ambitions of the PRC (and its PLAN and PLAAF). The PLA clearly has its own agenda, it is not willing to divulge, but the fact is it is growing and learning in its ability, ambition and capability to design, build and deploy ever growing capable combat ships and submarines, which has been underpinned by the worlds wiliness and want to feed this growing ambition for cash and trading preference. The PRC’s indigenise capability is also growing at an alarming rate. Add to this what the PRC can neither buy or design itself, it has proven very effective in acquiring via very clever and effective espionage.

Point 6
Add to Point 5, is the US Navy’s ridicules handling and priority of its aircraft carrier primary offensive strike asset, in the way of not just phasing out the likes of its Medium All-Weather Attack (VAM) capability in the form of the wholesale retirement of its Grumman A-6 Intruder’s (even turning its back on the likes of the A-6F for nothing in return or as a back-up) in place of the failed A-12 Avenger II program, which the US Navy was eventually happy to let die without a replacement.
The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is no replacement, nor a substitute for the A-6 Intruder in the strike role in terms of range and payload. Nor is the F-35 going to be a substitute in range/payload to that what was planned and offered by the A-12.

Regards
Pioneer

..just like every other country since the end of Cold War. And your point is exactly…… what?

I would have to agree with you, except for the PRC!!

Regards
Pioneer

Thanks Bager1968

How could I forget the Skyraider!
One of my all time favourite aircraft – well wash my mouth out and call me …….

Thanks also to Sen for your great responses to my questions!!

Regards
Pioneer

F8 internal 8000#plus.. Who needs tanks? At altitude .92 2200 pphour. Clean bird, more range than F4, F18. Even 2 sidewinders were a real drag on the bird.. Tanks are for multirole fair at anything designs.There was 5000# in that beautiful wing, plus the internals.

Thanks for the info Gunfighter8!

I thought drop tanks over Vietnam, what with the distance they had to travel!
It would have also elevated some of the pressure of the hard-worked tanker force too!

Regards
Pioneer

Sens, no links required, just look at the actual history of procurement and operations of the various types.

I don’t get why the F-104 keeps coming up, it was fast delivery truck, all be it very small, it was a useless straight fighter, and therefore out of the scope of this thread.

It is drifting away from the naval question, but I guess American fighter design in general is important for backgound reasons.

And as far as the Starfighter’s carrier compatability, any complaints of the F-8 Crusader’s landing carachtoristics would be trivial!!

Regards
Pioneer

Schorsch – thanks for your reply to my comments.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree when it comes to the Aim-7 Sparrow AAM!!
Devise a perfect working and fool proof IFF system and you can have all the BVR air-to-air missile you can fill your pocket with (not to mention you would be very rich man!!!!):dev2:
Why you wouldnt even need a pilot!

I have a tendency to look at and follow how and what the Israeli Air Force do!
Not for any specific reason, apart from the fact that they have seen more constant air-to-air combat than almost any Air Force since WWII, and in battle of do or die!
The Israeli’s have continuously disproved all the Super Powers analogy of how air-to-air combat is going to be fought time and time again!
With both NATO and Warsaw Pack take great note of these out comes and instilling changes within their own Air Forces and doctrine!
The Israeli Air Force has and is still very cynical of the likes of Sparrow and Aim-120 AMRAAM. They instead to this day rely on the likes of a good cannon(s) and the likes of the Python series of SRAAM’s for their air-to-air combat.
One of the reasons the trend of all-aspect attack, off-boresight Air-to-air weapons – the likes of Aim-9X, Aim-132 ASRAAM, R-73 (AA-11 Archer) came about, not to mention the return to the trend of high manoeuvrability designed and built air superiority fighters has had a lot to do with Israeli Air Force continues combat experience, as opposed to the wet dreams of academics and technology freaks, who often dream these things up as opposed to putting the actual uniform on and learning reality.
Note: Not everyone may like or approve of Israel, but they are shore happy (and if smart!) take on board what they learn the hard way!!

As in answer to your question about the composition of-

Was this the typical large aircraft carrier’s wing through the 1960ies and early 70ies?

I would have to say yes
The F-4 was envisaged as the carriers prime defence against Soviet anti-ship bombers, the F-8 was tasked with attack/strike escort & Tactical Reconn, the A-4’s with light attack/strike, the A-5’s with nuclear strike (originally) and reconnaissance.
The introduction of the Intruder was not so much a replacement for a given aircraft type, but the introduction of a completely new capability ‘All-Weather’ blind attack (medium).
As for its introduction time – I am a little sketchy on that!!
As for what had to go – I do not think anything had to go per say – as it was a new and unique capability the USN had long been looking for!

Regards
Pioneer