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

[Dayton3]

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.

You have no proof of that. Especially given AEGIS has already directed the intercepts of missiles traveling at hypersonic speeds in the past.

 

[Vrenn]

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.

Their safety speed is listed at 30kts which is about 35mph. The top Speed of the Yorktown was 33kts or 37mph but that was it's real top speed. Have you ever seen a modern carrier turn and burn? They look like a speed boat. The reason that the Nimitz Class only got 4 screws and 4 propulsion unites was that the Enterprise could use it's 4 screws and twice as many reactors to run as fast as a cigar boat at 33.6kph/38.7. But you can trust me that it could go a lot faster..

You want to see a speed run of the CVN-65? It was known to rooster tail. The exact speed of a US Carrier is still classified including that of the Big Easy.

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.

You are already defensive at the 700 mile mark if you can even make it that close. The F-18s and F-35s will be hitting you long before the 500 mile mark where you can detect your target. They won't attack right away. They will be quite civilized about asking you to turn about. But you won't make another 20 miles when they seen the massive missiles you are carrying on your centerlines.

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.

I think we have already give enough cites for the reasons why they can't due to physics. It's going to be up to you to provide links to prove they can.

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.

Russia has them on Buyan Class Corvettes which have a maximum range of 1700 miles. They lack the ability to link in with Aircraft Radar so it's on it's own. Given that maximum ht is only 22 feet, that means the curvature of the earth becomes a very important factor in it's detecting, tracking and ...... I'll be kind and give it a maximum of 100 mile range. In a Carrier Group, the outside destroyer, frigate or whatever will be 80 miles from the carrier. He was picked up at least 200 miles away and confronted on his intentions and waved away. Not only is he well within the SM-3 and SM-6 SS Missiles, the host of Aircraft and other Missiles can knock his little ass right out of the water long before he can see his intended target. Russia has zero of this missile loaded out on Aircraft for much the same reasons.

 

[Vrenn]

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.

You picked the wrong weapons and delivery weapons. It can be done (if you allow the US Navy to be stupid and the Russian Miliary to cheat). Much like the Japanese war games for Midway. But you will notice the distances are what I hold would be used. And the US Navy would have to be really, really asleep at the wheel to allow them to get that close.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

And every aircraft carrying buddy stores can’t carry any ordnance. Plus buddy stores carry a lot less fuel than a tanker. So now you have reduced your thirty aircraft strike force to ten or less since the strike aircraft would have to refuel on both their outwards and return flights. You keep pointing out how stupid your premis is.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

I’m using the figures YOU posted. It’s also a known fact that militaries never release the actual performance figures of their equipment.

 

[Sandisk]

And every aircraft carrying buddy stores can’t carry any ordnance. Plus buddy stores carry a lot less fuel than a tanker. So now you have reduced your thirty aircraft strike force to ten or less since the strike aircraft would have to refuel on both their outwards and return flights. You keep pointing out how stupid your premis is.

Blah blah blah.

You are the one who just makes up combat capabilities as he goes.

Post links to your statements or I will waste no more time on you.

 

[Sandisk]

You picked the wrong weapons and delivery weapons. It can be done (if you allow the US Navy to be stupid and the Russian Miliary to cheat). Much like the Japanese war games for Midway. But you will notice the distances are what I hold would be used. And the US Navy would have to be really, really asleep at the wheel to allow them to get that close.

What?
That's a video game channel.
That is your link to data?


Simple question.
Show me a link to proof that Aegis can track a hypersonic missile.
Without that - this all is irrelevant.

 

[Sandisk]

Their safety speed is listed at 30kts which is about 35mph. The top Speed of the Yorktown was 33kts or 37mph but that was it's real top speed. Have you ever seen a modern carrier turn and burn? They look like a speed boat. The reason that the Nimitz Class only got 4 screws and 4 propulsion unites was that the Enterprise could use it's 4 screws and twice as many reactors to run as fast as a cigar boat at 33.6kph/38.7. But you can trust me that it could go a lot faster..

You want to see a speed run of the CVN-65? It was known to rooster tail. The exact speed of a US Carrier is still classified including that of the Big Easy.

So...you made it up.
You have no link to ANY solid evidence that a Nimitz or Ford can do 50 mph.
So noted.

You are already defensive at the 700 mile mark if you can even make it that close. The F-18s and F-35s will be hitting you long before the 500 mile mark where you can detect your target. They won't attack right away. They will be quite civilized about asking you to turn about. But you won't make another 20 miles when they seen the massive missiles you are carrying on your centerlines.

The Radar range of the Hawkeye is not that far.
As I have already shown.

I think we have already give enough cites for the reasons why they can't due to physics. It's going to be up to you to provide links to prove they can.

I don't much care if you believe it or not.
I posted sources that say it can.
You don't want to believe them?
Whatever.

Russia has them on Buyan Class Corvettes which have a maximum range of 1700 miles. They lack the ability to link in with Aircraft Radar so it's on it's own. Given that maximum ht is only 22 feet, that means the curvature of the earth becomes a very important factor in it's detecting, tracking and ...... I'll be kind and give it a maximum of 100 mile range. In a Carrier Group, the outside destroyer, frigate or whatever will be 80 miles from the carrier. He was picked up at least 200 miles away and confronted on his intentions and waved away. Not only is he well within the SM-3 and SM-6 SS Missiles, the host of Aircraft and other Missiles can knock his little ass right out of the water long before he can see his intended target. Russia has zero of this missile loaded out on Aircraft for much the same reasons.

What the bloody heck are you blathering about now?
I said:
Also, as I have pointed out before, Aegis - apparently - cannot even TRACK a hypersonic missile.
And I posted links to back that up.
And you post this baloney?

Do you have a link to disprove this from a viable source?
Not YouTube videos that can be made by ANYONE.
Reports from viable sources.
Yes or No?

I have already wasted far too much time on this nonsense.
First you post speed figures for US carriers that you clearly just made up.
Then you start blathering on about Russian Corvettes in regards to Aegis being able to track hypersonic missiles?!?

I will not read any more of your silliness and guesses/made up numbers unless it is accompanied by links to reports from viable sources.

 

[Sandisk]

You have no proof of that. Especially given AEGIS has already directed the intercepts of missiles traveling at hypersonic speeds in the past.

Fine...then post a link from a report from a viable source that Aegis can track ENEMY (not their own) hypersonic missiles?

Without it - we are done here.
I have wasted FAR too much time on this as it is.

 

[Dayton3]

Fine...then post a link from a report from a viable source that Aegis can track ENEMY (not their own) hypersonic missiles?

Without it - we are done here.
I have wasted FAR too much time on this as it is.

Don't be ridiculous.

1) How would the U.S. Navy have any examples of enemy hypersonic missiles to test on?
2) What would be the differences between U.S. built hypersonics and enemy ones anyway?
3) No one has any hypersonic cruise missiles yet so your entire idea is stupid.

Three strikes.
You lose.

 

[Vrenn]

What?
That's a video game channel.
That is your link to data?


Simple question.
Show me a link to proof that Aegis can track a hypersonic missile.
Without that - this all is irrelevant.

Junior, that's the closest thing to reality you are going to get without going to a real war. It's the most realistic simulator in the world. When I was in the AF, we used Air Wars which was no where near as sophisticated. Are you aware of who wrote the original DCS Program? The Russians and they still have the bulk of the writing for it today. But since then, it's world wide. It's recommended by US, British and Russian Military Flyers as being as real as anything there is out there.

Now, you must admit that the Russians and Chinese are a couple or three years away from fielding their military hypersonic missiles in enough quantity to make a difference. It's like saying the SU-57 is a true threat. And yes, the US is slightly behind. But by 2025, hypersonic missiles (and a host of other weapons) will be obsolete.

And that is just the ground units. The Space units are also going to come on line about next year making even mervs worthless. Now, they are not claiming that they can use it against nuclear tipped warheads but I think that is to buy time in order to get the whole system online first. Unlike the Russians and Chinese, when the US says they are near completion, they really are.

 

[Vrenn]

So...you made it up.
You have no link to ANY solid evidence that a Nimitz or Ford can do 50 mph.
So noted.

lt's like saying the F-15 cannot exceed Mach 2.5. It's top speed is 2.5 in Military Power with Afterburner. But it has another speed of VMax if you don't mind smoking your engines and a few parts falling off on your way home and that has been classified from the first day it took flight. Sort of like a Mig-31 running at Mach 2.83.

50 mph is just 43kts. The published top speed of the Big E was 37kts and that was without throwing that rooster tail which it could do. 5 knots ain't so hard. In the event of war, published maxes will be thrown out the window.

The Radar range of the Hawkeye is not that far.
As I have already shown.

I don't much care if you believe it or not.
I posted sources that say it can.
You don't want to believe them?
Whatever.

What the bloody heck are you blathering about now?
I said:
Also, as I have pointed out before, Aegis - apparently - cannot even TRACK a hypersonic missile.
And I posted links to back that up.
And you post this baloney?

Do you have a link to disprove this from a viable source?
Not YouTube videos that can be made by ANYONE.
Reports from viable sources.
Yes or No?

I have already wasted far too much time on this nonsense.
First you post speed figures for US carriers that you clearly just made up.
Then you start blathering on about Russian Corvettes in regards to Aegis being able to track hypersonic missiles?!?

I will not read any more of your silliness and guesses/made up numbers unless it is accompanied by links to reports from viable sources.

Good. That means you will stop posting.

 

[Dayton3]

lt's like saying the F-15 cannot exceed Mach 2.5. It's top speed is 2.5 in Military Power with Afterburner. But it has another speed of VMax if you don't mind smoking your engines and a few parts falling off on your way home and that has been classified from the first day it took flight. Sort of like a Mig-31 running at Mach 2.83.

50 mph is just 43kts. The published top speed of the Big E was 37kts and that was without throwing that rooster tail which it could do. 5 knots ain't so hard. In the event of war, published maxes will be thrown out the window.




Good. That means you will stop posting.

I thought aircraft with bubble canopies (like the F-15) couldn't exceed Mach 2.5 for safety reasons.

Worth noting is that the sometimes maligned F-4 was considerably faster than the much-praised F-15.

 

[Vrenn]

I thought aircraft with bubble canopies (like the F-15) couldn't exceed Mach 2.5 for safety reasons.

Worth noting is that the sometimes maligned F-4 was considerably faster than the much-praised F-15.

That was as good a reason as any given to cover the Vmax rating. I was with the Eagles for 3 years and we were still figuring out it's capability. I imagine with the EX, it's back to discovering new discoveries. BTW, the F-104A top speed is still classified. Oh, they have an announced top speed but not the real one. When the F-105 was making it's record breaking speed run, orbiting above it was a trusty F-104A from Nasa. The last reengining of the F-104A gave it better than 1to 1 thrust to weight ratio with two sidewinders. Yet it was announced it couldn't do more than Mach 2. With those stats, you can bet it could even "supercruise".

The F-4 topped out (on paper) at Mach 2.3. That means, give it a fudge factor, Mach 2.5. But it wasn't aerodynamic and would start melting things above 2.5. One you go above 2.5 you get into a whole new world that only the Mig-25, Mig-31 and SR-71 lives in.

 

[Dayton3]

That was as good a reason as any given to cover the Vmax rating. I was with the Eagles for 3 years and we were still figuring out it's capability. I imagine with the EX, it's back to discovering new discoveries. BTW, the F-104A top speed is still classified. Oh, they have an announced top speed but not the real one. When the F-105 was making it's record breaking speed run, orbiting above it was a trusty F-104A from Nasa. The last reengining of the F-104A gave it better than 1to 1 thrust to weight ratio with two sidewinders. Yet it was announced it couldn't do more than Mach 2. With those stats, you can bet it could even "supercruise".

The F-4 topped out (on paper) at Mach 2.3. That means, give it a fudge factor, Mach 2.5. But it wasn't aerodynamic and would start melting things above 2.5. One you go above 2.5 you get into a whole new world that only the Mig-25, Mig-31 and SR-71 lives in.

I thought the F-4 had tested out at Mach 2.7?

 

[Vrenn]

I thought the F-4 had tested out at Mach 2.7?

Sure, if you don't mind leading edges melting off, engines puking and parts falling off. Mach 2.7 would be a short dash. Maybe a minute or two. Anymore than that and you get first hand knowledge of what happens to anything above mach 2.5 in atmosphere.

 

[Dayton3]

Sure, if you don't mind leading edges melting off, engines puking and parts falling off. Mach 2.7 would be a short dash. Maybe a minute or two. Anymore than that and you get first hand knowledge of what happens to anything above mach 2.5 in atmosphere.

Genuinely curious, what is the significance of Mach 2.5? Assuming high altitude. 50,000 feet or above.

 

[Stryder50]

Here's another classic aircraft of USN CV aviation, and one I think should be reconsidered. Revised and updated.

Douglas A-4 Skyhawk: The US Military's Beast in the Sky​

MSN

 

[Vrenn]

Genuinely curious, what is the significance of Mach 2.5? Assuming high altitude. 50,000 feet or above.

We can use the comparison between the Concorde and the Boeing 2707.

The Concorde flew at a maximum of Mach 2.07 depending on the skin temp. As it gained altitude, the skin temp got cooler and it could go faster. But since it was primarily constructed of Aircraft Aluminum, it was limited in speed due to the temperature of the skin. Especially the nose and the leading edge.

The Boeing 2707 was the US answer to the Concorde. It was to out concorde the condorde. It was larger and faster. Carried more passengers and had more range. Now the bad news. In order to make it fly at it's Mach 2.7 it needed to be constructed of Stainless Steel in many areas. Since it was above Mach 2.5, a whole new world was entered. And at Mach 2.7, at the time, there was no known Aircraft Aluminum or replacement available. There were only two that could handle the heat and that was Stainless Steel and Titanium. They did build a mockup of the 2707 and determined that had they built it out of Stainless for the nose and leading Edge it would be too heavy to fly. And Titanium was just too expensive, and Lockheed seemed to be only one capable of working with Titanium.

It's funny, even at 70,000 feet, the 2.5 rule still applies. But at 90,000 it doesn't. To give you an idea, the SR-71 usually flew at 80,000 feet at Mach 3.2 but if it went to 90,000 feet or higher it went much faster. The deciding factor was the skin temp. I imagine the NASA F-104A had the same experience since it still had it's turbo engine burning at over 90,000 feet and it lived at 103,000 feet for astronaut training.

I don't know why Mach 2.5 is the beginning a different world but I think it has to do with metallurgy more than anything else.

 

[Stryder50]

Footnote to the above^;

IIRC, I read once that the SR-71 was built with gaps in the skin panels and fuel tanks to allow for heat expansion when getting into Mach speeds, at which point they would expand and seal. When fueled pre-flight they leaked puddles underneath, so tanks only filled and topped just before take-off.

Also, the fuel used was not standard jet fuel, but a special blend for those specific engines. Hence the aerial tankers supporting only carried that type of fuel and couldn't also serve other jet aircraft at the same time/flight. In other words, the SR-71 also required dedicated aerial tankers to support it's mission flights. An added cost to operate, and a factor in discontinue of it's use.

Not to mention improvement in satellite technologies provide as good and a safer overflight observations.