The Village IdiWhen I said In short, carrier aircraft, and shipborne helicopters, were key to NATO I wasn’t specifically talking about ASW but in general – carriers were key to NATO plans.
As for “shipborne helicopters” I meant those carried by frigates and destroyers – which were (and are) key to ASW capabilities.
The Village IdiA7 Corsair – looks like a startled fish!
The Village IdiCarrying on……
I have found a 1980s publication called Warplane, and in it a feature on the battle for the GIUK gap.
After outlining Soviet air, submarine and surface forces, the importance of peacetime tracking of Soviet submarines is discussed – and it mentions the role of aircraft and frigates with towed array (and hull mounted) sonars, and ASW role of the RN’s CVS. Land based ASW aircraft are discussed and then….
The game of airborne cat and underwater mouse continues far into the Atlantic and US Navy Lockheed S3 Vikings are one of the most important aircraft in this theatre, not only providing a knockout punch against Soviet submarines but providing round the clock real time information on their whereabouts. Operating from carrier decks, it is not constrained by distance from land, but carries a wide array of sensors. If it were war the pattern of sonobouys laid to listen for the submarines would, in the event of a contact, be rapidly followed by depth charges. As war progresses, however, the fixed underwater monitoring systems like SOSUS would be knocked out more quickly than they could be maintained, thus increasing the importance of air dropped sonobouys and the towed arrays of surface ships.
A picture of SH3 using dunking sonar with comment.…
Once Soviet submarines are in the Atlantic, shipborne ASW forces take over surveillance. US fixed wing assets are the Lockheed S3 Viking, but local work around the carrier battle groups falls to the Sikorsky SH3, later to be replaced the SH60.
Under the heading Aircraft Carrier deployment
Carrierborne aircraft would also be involved in NATO’s attempt to close the GIUK gap to Soviet vessels. The number which would be spared for the job would depend on how many enemy ships were already at large in the Atlantic. Eight of the US Navy’s massive aircraft carriers are assigned to the Atlantic Fleet, equipped with a broad range of fixed and rotary wing aircraft. Typically, each carrier would embark an airwing with 86 aircraft in nine squadrons, the attack component being two squadrons each equipped with 12 Vought A7E Corsairs or new McDonnell Douglas F/A18A Hornets; and one unit of ten Grumman A6 Intruders for all weather and night missions, all configured either for ground attack or anti ship strikes. The Royal Navy’s three small carriers each accommodate one squadron with five BAe Sea Harriers (being increased to eight or more) in addition to Sea King ASW Helicopters. The Sea Harrier must be both interceptor and attack aircraft, and its main weapon in the later role will, in due course, be the Sea Eagle missile.
Aircraft attempting to penetrate the GIUK gap in wartime will probably be bound by on shipping reconnaissance /attack missions or a ‘back door’ attack on the UK. The threat will be met primarily by British and US forces operating from airfields in Scotland and Iceland and, if appropriate, by carrier based interceptors……..
Out at sea, other radars are watching and other fighters are poised to intercept an aggressor. As part of the balanced maritime combat force aboard nuclear powered US Navy carriers is a squadron of four Grumman E2C Hawkeyes and two 12 aircraft interceptor units usually flying the Grumman F14A Tomcat. The parasol like rotating radar scanner identifies the Hawkeye immediately as a small relative of the land based E3A Sentry, tasked with warning the fleet of incoming aircraft, it would therefore be involved in the co-ordination of defensive measures by the Tomcat, whose remarkable potential is derived in part from the Hughes AIM54 Phoenix missile, which has a range in excess of 200km (124 miles). Topping up this formidable air arm are four Grumman EA6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft.
It then discusses the combat record achieved by the Royal Navy’s Sea Harrier in the Falklands, and the limitations of the FRS1 variant which would be addressed by the upgrade to FRS2 (this became FA2 after the tactical nuclear role was dropped).
In short, carrier aircraft, and shipborne helicopters, were key to NATO.
The Village IdiThe Super Hornet of today is much more capable than it’s predecessors and they are equally well suited for blue water operations or operations in the littoral. The Super is head and shoulders above the Tomcat. It carries the far more effective AIM-120D and it has a much better radar that would be even more effective in dealing with Backfires and ASMs.
While the Seahawk lacks the speed, range ans payload of the Viking, it’s sensors are far more capable. Couple this with the fact that there is no longer a need to detect, track and attack dozens of Victor III in the third CZ and you have a perfectly suitable ASW asset for blue Waters operations.
I agree.
The CBGs had Aegis, AWG-9/Phoenix, Viking, Intruders and Fast Combat Support Ships to enable them to sweep the North Atlantic of all three (air, surface, submerged) threats by allowing them to fight their way through the North Sea and conduct offensive operations against the Northern fleet, the submarine anchorages and bomber bases on the Kola peninsula. In short the CBGs mision was to attain and maintain control of the North Atlantic and bring the war to the USSR.
Which sounds like contributing to overall ASW capabilities to me!
The Village Idinhampton
I guess your comments were aimed at me. I agree that Wikipedia isn’t particularly reliable, however countless other sources discuss the possible role of the US Atlantic Fleet in a hot war, including the eight carrier groups assigned to it. Whilst carrier embarked ASW assets may have been intended largely for defending the carrier, the fact remains that they would have contributed to overall NATO ASW capability.
While the latter could be considered ASW it was not direct ASW in defense of the convoys rather it was the application of the carriers as an offensive force that indirectly was supposed to suppress the ASW threat. The 100 or so Garcias, Knox’s and Perrys would be used by the USN for direct ASW work, not the carriers.
When did I say they would be defending convoys directly? Offensive ASW would have still been ASW.
The Tomcat’s Pheonix missile system was designed for open ocean warfare against multiple bombers with cruise missiles. Likewise, the Viking was designed with blue water operations in mind. These days, likely conflicts are likely to be of a littoral nature, and the Super Hornet and Seahawk are better suited to this environment.
pjhydro
The invicibles had a multitude of stated missions in the 80s. Convoy protection was first and it was hoped this would take place in a period of tension before full scale war broke out. After that (it was never a WW2 continous convoy plan) ASW patrols in GIUK gap, North sea oild fields and incase they weren’t overstretched enough one was supposed to come over all commando and support the RM on the Northern Flank!
I think there was originally meant to be five!
The Village IdiThis Wikipedia article may interest you: Carrier battle group
During the Cold War, the main role of the CVBG in case of conflict with the Soviet Union would have been to protect Atlantic supply routes between the United States and Europe, while the role of the Soviet Navy would have been to interrupt these sea lanes, a fundamentally easier task. Because the Soviet Union had no large carriers of its own, a situation of dueling aircraft carriers would have been unlikely. However, a primary mission of the Soviet Navy’s attack submarines was to shadow every CVBG and, on the outbreak of hostilities, sink the carriers. Understanding this threat, the CVBG expended enormous resources in its own anti-submarine warfare mission.
The Village IdiOf course ASW was part of what carriers did – the UK’s Invincible Class were originally intended as platforms for ASW Sea Kings. The US carriers all carried S3 Vikings and their Sea Kings. Soviet aircraft may have wanted to interfere with NATO ASW aircraft, so fighters were important in a ASW role.
seahawk
The carriers where big targets. And I can believe that the propaganda value of sinking a carrier would have taken away valuable Soviet resources from attacking the convois. However you only need one missile ot kill a carrier, if it a nuke. And in the middle of the North Atlantic, I would use them.
I don’t think the Soviets would have been so willing to go nuclear. In any case, a single missile would have been liable to get shot down, and the lunch platform liable to be engaged, be it a long range bomber or an attack sub.
So I don’t think they (US CVBGs) were as vulnerable as some portray, and of course they are a lot less now. The capabilities and missions of both the Tomcat and the Viking have been taken on by other aircraft (and ship based systems).
The Village IdiYou may be interested in another thing I found on YouTube. In 1986, the BBC’s Horizon programme made a documentry about the lessons of the various Argentine air attacks against RN ships during the Falklands War.
The link takes you to the first of six parts, the rest are linked in the normal YouTube way.
It is worth thinking about which lessons were understood by no action was taken, or the lessons forgotten or ignored for reasons of saving money. Note the comments about the Sea Harrier – without which we would have lost the war. The limitations demonstrated in 1982 would lead to the upgraded FA2 version, yet now we have none, and no replacement until F35 comes along. This is why many discussed this issue at huge length on the PPRuNe Sea Jet thread.
The USN of course still has fighters – lots of them.
It is interesting how technologies such as Digital Signal Procesing have advanced since the early eighties (which would have made a substantial difference), and you could speculate on all sorts of what ifs – what if the Corporate task force had had more Sea Wolf armed frigates, or if the AEW Sea Kings had been present during the war?
The Village IdiA Tu-95 could have easily taken out and land facilities.
Not if the US Navy had splashed them. Talking about the Bear:
The Tu-95RT variant in particular was a veritable icon of the Cold War as it performed a vital maritime surveillance and targeting mission for other aircraft and surface ships and submarines. It was identifiable by a large bulge under the fuselage, which housed a radar antenna that was used to search for and target surface ships. The US Navy placed high priority in intercepting the Tu-95RT aircraft at least two hundred miles from aircraft carriers with its interceptors, which would then escort the Tu-95.
I was confusing aircraft types. My bad!
The Village IdiCall me old fashioned, but I’d prefer to see a Sea Harrier flying about with “100 years of naval aviation” on the side. Alas not, they were removed from frontline service and some were sold or scrapped, some stored and a few kept alive-ish for taxying type training at Culdrose.
Suffice to say, it was still in service RN fixed wing aviation would be in a far better state. As discussed at huge length on PPRuNe on/in the Sea Jet thread. I think the RN still owns the blue display aircraft with 899 NAS marking, it would have been nice to see that flying again.
Bah! But the Sea Harrier will be involved in Fly Navy 100 events, as reported by Navy News.
Although the carrier will not be open to the general public during her stay at Greenwich (due to the logistics of ferrying people back and forth from the riverbank), there will be an ‘aircraft park’ in the grounds of the Old Naval College with a Gazelle, Lynx Mk3, Sea Harrier and Sea King on display, plus a Merlin simulator, a Royal Navy display stand, and the RN’s hot air balloon. Admission is free.
On the topic of the T45 Goshawk, you might be surprised at the number of modifications needed for naval use. Even the Adour engine needed modifying, as did the associated ground support equipment.
The Village IdiRemember that regiments of Tu-16’s and Tu-22’s swarming all over the Atlantic were Clancy fantasies. Those squadrons were the prime antiship theatre-entry prevention for the whole Northern Fleet oparea.
You think so? I thought the threat from long range bombers (with cruise missiles) was the driver behing the development of the Tomcat and its Pheonix missile? Certainly eighties publications talk of the Tomcat countering Bears. Likewise, the UK’s Sea Harrier was developed initially to shadow (and presumably engage in wartime) Bears. Perhaps I am confusing Soviet aircraft types?
This link about Exercise Ocean Safari may interest you.
AMERICA used the night and heavy seas to slip through the cordon of Soviet ships in the GIUK gap and began flight ops the following day, intercepting NATO and Soviet aircraft and ships at ranges up to 1,000 miles away in several directions, totally confusing both the NATO and Soviet units intent on locating her. Soviet Bear D surveillance aircraft were working the length and breadth of the GIUK gap looking for the elusive Battle Group.
When NATO finally launched her first assault wave, a VF-102 Tomcat, coming back from a 1200nm RECCE mission to photograph a Soviet Kynda cruiser in the English Channel, was able to slip in behind the gathering NATO armada and take out an RAF Tanker and its F-4 Phantom customers hundreds of miles from AMERICA in their assumed safe marshalling area. The Tomcat then chased down a surveillance P-3 and an RF-4 from behind, disrupting an entire sector. Meanwhile, while SECNAV was enjoying his lunch, the reporters were hopelessly lost and crying for help. Tomcats and tankers were launching in EMCON conditions and creating an outer air battle grid that handily took on all comers.
Once the NATO exercise concluded, AMERICA headed northeast to Norway where an even more daring tactic was employed. AMERICA sailed up into Vestfjord, a huge fjord, and conducted flight operations, shielded from prying soviet surveillance by the steep fjord walls. Tomcats launched and stayed below the cliffs until they reached the open sea before climbing to intercept the prowling Soviet Bears, Badgers and even Cub aircraft.
Also another one here.
I gave a constructive loadout based on carriage of the TARPS pod to be fair and after tanking, we got a vector. Although we expected the photos to be top priority, it turned out we were coming back alongside a stream of NATO aircraft looking for the ship and were in b3st position to intercept them. My first radar contact was an RAF Victor tanker in process of passing gas to 3 RAF Phantoms. 4 easy kills later, we got another vector and slid in behind an USAF RF-4 Phantom doing the speed of heat who never saw us slip in behind. Rather than use burner and have to ask for gas again, I locked him up on the radar and their warning gear must have been in fine shape as they immediately broke into us allowing us to neatly close to a guns solution. We then joined on them and showed them our TARPS pod as I signaled them to come up on quad 3s. They didn’t want to chat much as they seemed really steamed to have been tapped so early in the game and not get anywhere near the ship as we were still over a hundred miles away. We were now “winchester” and got the RTB to the ship only to pick up another radar contact heading home, which was a Navy P-3 that the E-2 declared as a hostile entity. We used the rest of our constructive ammo on the lumbering P-3 that was some sort of RDT&E aircraft supporting the NATO folks. The trap was uneventful and after the photos were developed, SECNAV asked to meet us so we got to present him with a large blowup of the Kynda in the flag spaces that night. He was casually dressed and wearing HIS leather flight jacket that he earned in flight school, which was totally cool. All in a day’s work during the cold war.
Nowadays the Super Hornet would perform those roles.
The Village Idi…..continued
I believe that during the 80s the US Atlantic Fleet was assigned no less than eight carriers.
This link is the fifth part of an docudrama on an alternative outcome to the Cold War, basically things going very wrong as the decade ends. In mentions a convoy from the US to the UK/Europe. In reality, it would have been convoy after convoy, as something like 100 000 tonnes of supplies would have been needed by NATO forces every day. It does however recognise the contribution of US carriers to NATO naval firepower, both defensively and offensively, and against airborne, surface and submarine threats.
The UK’s Invincible class would probably have operated in the GIUK gap and Eastern Atlantic, with Sea Kings for ASW and Sea Harriers operating against Soviet aircraft, providing maritime strike with Sea Eagle and potentially a tactical nuclear option.
Yoy may also be interested in another thing I found on YouTube. In 1986, the BBC’s Horizon programme made a documentry about the lessons of the various Argentine air attacks against RN ships during the Falklands War.
The link takes you to the first of six parts, the rest are linked in the normal YouTube way.
It is worth thinking about which lessons were understood by no action was taken, or the lessons forgotten or ignored for reasons of saving money. Note the comments about the Sea Harrier – without which we would have lost the war. The limitations demonstrated in 1982 would lead to the upgraded FA2 version, yet now we have none, and no replacement until F35 comes along. This is why many discussed this issue at huge length on the PPRuNe Sea Jet thread. At least a few Sea Harriers were kept in RN hands and are used for training purposes – see here. In theory at least, they could be regenerated.
The USN of course still has fighters – lots of them.
It is interesting how technologies such as Digital Signal Procesing have advanced since the early eighties (which would have made a substantial difference), and you could speculate on all sorts of what ifs – what if the Corporate task force had had more Sea Wolf armed frigates, or if the AEW Sea Kings had been present during the war?
All in all, one of the most interesting things I’ve found on YouTube.
The Village IdiForgot to mention Hostile Skies by Dave Morgan, a RAF Harrier pilot on exchange with the Navy during the Falklands, who got several kills whilst flying Sea Harrier. Later he transferred to the Navy.
The Village IdiRegarding both the Sea Harrier and the Invincible class, try Sea Harrier Over The Falklands by Cdr Sharkey Ward, ideally with something to add a wider perpective such as One Hundred Days by Admiral Sandy Woodward, the Falklands task group commander.
Also try No Escape Zone by (Lt Cdr) Nick Richardson, which covers the deployment of Ark Royal and 801 NAS to the Adriatic in 1994, his getting shot down by Bosnian Serbs and his esacpe – it also covers the horror of ethnic cleansing.
The Village IdiNATO amphibious forces were commited to operating in defence of the Northern Flank, in other words Norway.
For a Cold War becoming hot, the carriers were close to useless. Sea dominance of the decisive North Atlantic routes could be achieved using land-based aircraft, frigates and submarines. Same in the Pacific.
The arithmetic does not support relying on land based aircraft for air defence more than a few hundred miles offshore!
The US Atlantic Fleet contained several carriers. The Hawkeyes and Tomcats would have had an important role in air defence, the Vikings and Sea Kings would have been useful ASW assets, and atack aircraft would provide useful long range anti shipping capability.
You are right, however, about them being a limited war vehicle.
Sign In
