Ah, if only….
What article? By who?
So you don’t think the USN leadership was right?
The Skyhawk was a sharp little auxiliary daylight fighter. The best air defense mission use of a Corsair would have been using its range and send it against the enemy airfields.
Like the Corsair, it lacked a radar, a severe limitation in an air to air role. Was it more agile than the Corsair?
You are right that the “destroyers” of the Navy since the introduction of the F4H-1 were geared all towards Bear. A direction chosen when they decided against the F8U-3.
A sensible choice surely, given the Soviet threat?
And it was also the 1950’s Navy policy decision in favour of the super carriers designed for near-strategic nuclear strike aircraft (they never really carried) vs Essex/Midway sized medium carriers with tactical strike capability, that made big fighters possible and in Navy logic neccessary.
Big carriers = high sorties rates surely?
The Navy always did, and still does, max out the size and scope of the toys they want and afterwards they bitch that they don’t have enough of them and that they need something cheaper. Just remember that the Intruder was bought as the Skyraider light/medium replacement, but slipped into the heavy role when they had to buy the “light” Corsair to generate enough strikes. Same with the Tomcat – Hornet combo, when first they wanted all-Grumman-carriers but didn’t have the money and had to get that second, cheaper plane.
Surely the Intruder was developed as all night/all day/all weather attack aircraft with sophisticated avionics for finding and attack both surface (ie seaborne ones – enemy ships) and ground targets – a different role from the Corsair’s light atack role? As for the Hornet, wasn’t there a need for a Corsair replacement as well as something to augment the mighty Tomcat?
The Navy was just lucky that they never had to prove their F-14 destroyers in their envisioned role against cruise missile Blackjacks. And with the introduction of the Oscar boats even that primary role was basically dead.
We all were as it would have been World War Three! However, the Hawkeye/Tomcat/Pheonix combination would have offered the best possible defence for resupply convoys in the Atlantic.
And with the introduction of the Oscar boats even that primary role was basically dead.
The Bears and their cruise missiles were no longer a threat?
And these days the Navy is pushing the LHAs and LHDs into the traditional role of the Essex carriers for lowly real-world needs, making them the busiest vessels in the fleet, so as to max out the size of the gold plated blue water SURNAV toys, in total disregard if it makes sense for the overall forces. It’s a big ego problem and a lack of political leadership.
Eh? Explain.
Does it mention the story of the Sea Harrier which made the CVS concept work, including its premature demise (discussed at HUGE length here on the PPRuNe Sea Jet thread)?
…..and about the survival of fixed wing air power in the Navy.
Still an issue, sadly.
I’d just be happy if the Sea Harrier was still in service, it would help with maintening skills and making the transition to CVF in a few years time easier. Best of all, there would be no capability gap with fleet air defence.
Hence yet another link to the PPRuNe Sea Jet thread. We might not have ben able to stop it being retired, but perhaps we did help keep a decent number of aircraft in MOD/RN hands.
I guess in an emergency any aircraft with air to air weaons can perform a limited air defence role. I’ve seen pictures of Corsairs being loaded with Sidewinders during the 1991 Gulf War – I think only one US carrier still had the Corsair.
Were the pilots trained for that role? Don’t know.
Hmm.
Schorsch
I’m a little confused. Why wasn’t the F14A a true fighter? Surely fleet air defence is a fighter role, why is why it had a powerful radar in the front end with the Pheonix (AIM 54 or am I wrong?). The Cold War threat was largely from long range Soviet bombers with long range cruise missiles, so it was developed to counter that. Isn’t the whole point to engage the enemy at the greatest range you can?
But it did OK in dogfights with Libyan aircraft….
As for the A7, I guess in an emergency it could be used for a limited air defence role (limited by lack of a air to air radar etc), it could carry Sidewinders although I guess that was for self defence. However, this is what the publication said:
The Light Attack sqaudrons are in many ways the bread-and-butter of the Carrier Air Wing, called upon to perform a wide variety of tasks. These range from assisting Intruders on interdiction tasks to close air support and defence suppresion. The Corsair and the Hornet are both agile enough to augment Tomcats in the fighter role.
Of course the Hornet was designed with fighter roles in mind, so it had a decent radar with air to air modes, as well as agility and a a prefix starting with F.
I’ve found a few copies of an old publication from 1990 called Firepower. Although some may view the loss of the F14 Tomcat, A6 Intruder and S3 Viking as a disaster, I think I’m correct in saying a CVW now has more capable fighters (yes I know F/A18 Hornet always had an air/air role and even the A7 could do a limited air/to air role – not suprising it was agile as it was developed from the Crusader) than it did twenty to twenty five years ago.
Why is North Korea so strident about its rocket?
Wasn’t P1154 supersonic, with a two sea version for the RN?
If only….
Sens
I disagree.
Yes it is in some way. At a given point they do become a trip-wire or red-light.Something like a blown-up destroyer can be judget as an accident or skirmish and did so several times. To sink a CVN is a mayor exercise and the ones doing so can assume, that the USA can see that as an offical declaration of war.
Gulf of Tonkin ring any bells?
To sink or seriously damage a CVN would be an axtremely difficult undertaking, not only would the attacker face the air wing aircraft, the supporting/escorting ships and carrier’s own defences. Even then, ships that large, built to resist damage and with crews fully skilled in fire fighting and damage control, are very survivable. The fires and explosions suffered by the USS Forrestal off of Vietnam were similar to a number of direct hits, but she survived. Limited damage (say a single missile hit) would have a limited effect, and I suspect flying operations would continue.
In the interim, India intends to continue operating Sea Harriers upto 2020 (yes 2020), and has tried to purchase surplus retired ones from the UK (discussed on the last few pages of the PPRuNe Sea Jet thread).
Not taking chances with capability gaps, I guess.
Where would you get steam catapaults from anyway?
Sens
Are you saying that USN carriers are vulnerable, but you think that’s a good thing?
Any chance of a STOVL version?