Are the US Navy Carrier Fleets Obsolete?

I want to see that also. The "cruiser Gap" was from 1974-1975, when the Navy undertook a program to do 2 things:

Designate and reconfigure Frigates and Destroyers to operate as Cruisers.

Design and build a new class of Cruisers.

Now as I stated already, the first was in 1975, when President Ford was in office.

Now the second I am breaking into 2 parts. The Ticonderoga Class Cruiser was already on the design board in 1975, but completion of plans was rushed. In 1978 (this is during the Carter Administration), the plans were finalized and the keel for the first ship in the new class was laid down (January 1980).

That was also under President Carter.

The second ship, the USS Yorktown was ordered in April 1980, also under President Carter.

It was not until the 3rd ship, the USS Vincennes that the order for a ship was placed during the Reagan Administration. But guess what? It was actually ordered in August 1981, under the last Carter budget. So Reagan was in office, but the purchase was determined by the Carter Administration.

The same with the USS Valley Forge, and the the USS Thomas S. Gates.

Simple fact of the matter is, all 5 of the first flight of Ticonderoga class cruisers were built or budgeted during the Carter Administration. The first true "Reagan Era" cruiser would be the USS Bunker Hill, the 6th ship in the class.

And the first 5 ships? All gone, sunk or turned into razor blades (2 waiting for scrapping, nobody wanted them as museum ships). The remaining ships are all Reagan era Second Class ships.

 

You might have heard of this place called the "Crimea". Perhaps you want to research where it is located and which country has historically had naval bases there as their only year-round warm water port.

Then I would advise doing research regarding the treaty and what it says about aircraft carriers.

 

You mention a single treaty. Interesting.

I guess you never heard of Vladivostok. Or their Northern Fleet, as even with their main base being largely seasonal, were still able to keep it operating almost year round because of their massive investment in ice breakers, and their basing rights with a great many nations.

Yes, I am aware of that treaty and what it means. But I do not understand what that had to do with the Pacific Fleet. The fleet with undoubtedly would benefit far more from carriers than any of their other fleets. But gee wiz, they never built them there either.

Of course, this also follows in the way the Soviets always treated their navy. Largely, it was ignored. And you can see this in how they treated their Battleships.

The last class of Russian-Soviet Battleships were all WWI era ships, all 3 were lost in the war. The last one was under construction when the war ended (and about 85% complete), but it was scrapped rather than completed.

But strangely enough, the pre-war Dreadnought class ships that had been completed prior to the Revolution were retained, but during the war they were used as little more than mobile artillery platforms. The Soviet Navy had lost so many cruisers and destroyers that they could no longer protect them.

And there were the 4 (of 15) planned Sovietsky Soyuz class Battleships. Designed and ordered right before the start of WWII, these were rather impressive. In many ways, they might have even rivaled the Iowa class of ships of the US. But between construction flaws and shortages none were ever completed, and all were scrapped after the war.

Like the Kronshtadt class Battle Cruisers, and the Stalingrad class Battle Cruisers.



None of which were built, for any of their fleets. All were designed, and construction on around half of them was started. But they were all scrapped after the war.

No, the reason why the Soviets (Russians) never invested in Carriers is simply that after the fall of Imperial Russia, the Soviets never really cared about their navy. And it is not only seen in the lack of carriers, but also in the lack of Battleships, and the lack of Battle Cruisers.

Case in point, at the time of the Revolution, 3 of the 4 Borodino class Battle Cruisers were already launched, and at 60% or greater completion. And the 4th ship of that class was at 50% completion and ready to be launched. In 1925 the Soviet Navy proposed finishing off the Izmail as an aircraft carrier. But the branch that always held the purse strings of the Soviet military was the Red Army, and they rejected this proposal. So instead it was scrapped.

No, they simply ignored Carriers as they did all other Capitol ships. That single treaty meant nothing.

 

The Cruiser Gap was largely because after retiring the last of the WWII era cruisers, we no longer had any ships with actual anti-ship capabilities. Our Frigates and Destroyers of that era were only escort ships. Lots of defensive firepower, limited offensive (largely in torpedoes, more of a stand-off weapon), and anti-air missiles.

So some of our largest Destroyers-Frigates were redesigned to support Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and they took up the role of the old Cruisers. Operating in advance of the fleet, to detect and engage enemy ships with missiles (instead of guns) in advance of the Carrier and her escorting Destroyers.

And the Kirov class was really impressive. With 20 SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles, everything had to be done to keep these ships away from our carriers. This is why the Cruiser Gap resulted in "new" cruisers. We needed ships in front of the fleet to have a capability to stand-off these ships.

And it was why the Iowa class Battleships were brought back. The only ships in the world that could survive attacks by those missiles were the BBs. So by making fleets out of those ships, it presented the Soviets with ships that were able to take that kind of punishment, and still continue to fight.

 

Oh I hate when my response is eaten. Here I go, largely making the same post again.

What does a single treaty have to do with the Soviet-Russian Navy, which had 4 fleets?

More specifically, what does it have to do with Vladivostok and the Pacific Fleet?

Nothing. Not a single solitary thing.

The reason the Soviets-Russians never invested in Carriers is also the same way they never invested in a single Battleship after the start of WWI, nor any Battlecruisers. To put it simply, the Red Army held the purse strings, and never allowed the Soviet Navy to become much of a force.

There were over a dozen Battle Cruisers and Battleships in various stages of completion at the end of WWI. And all were scrapped in place, even though some could have been outfitted in a relatively short amount of time. There was even a proposal to complete the Izumal as a Carrier, but the Army rejected that proposal.



There was even the 4 Sovetsky Soyuz class Battleships under construction at the start of WWII. Those were impressive beasts, roughly comparable to the Iowa class of battleships. But all were scrapped after the war was over.

No, the Soviet Union never built carriers because they did not want Carriers. No more than they wanted Battleships or Battle Cruisers. In that nation, the Army has always held the purse strings, and always determined what ships were to be built. And as far as the Army is concerned, the Navy was only good for submarines. Attack subs to try to stop the US response ships in case WWIII ever started, or Ballistic subs to threaten other nations with nuclear weapons.

But the rest of it? The Soviets never really cared. No more than Russia really does today.

Heck, even the last of their WWI era Battleships were never used as Battleships. The Army insisted they be kept close to their ports, and used as little more than mobile artillery.

 

But the Soviets DID invest in carriers. Call the Kiev class ships what you want but they did carry an integral air wing. No matter that it was crappy Forgers.

 

It takes more than aircraft to make a ship a carrier.

As early as WWI, Battleships had aircraft. And even today our Amphibious ships like the LHD Wasp Class can carry fighters.

But the difference is in the number of aircraft, the type of aircraft, and the mission of those aircraft.

On a carrier, the aircraft are there primarily to attack other ships. Like in WWII, they were to attack the Carriers and other ships of the opposing navy. Pearl Harbor, Midway, the Philippines, the purpose of the aircraft on a carrier is to attack ships.

The aircraft on other ships generally fall into 3 classifications.

First off, spotters and recon. This was the first use, when biplanes were strapped onto Battleships. They try to find other ships that the Battleship can engage. Or they would act as spotters for the guns on the ship which did the actually attacking.

Secondly, they were to provide air defense for the ship against enemy fighters. This is the main purpose of aircraft like harriers and the F-35B. There are only 6 "fighters" on an LHD. And their primary task is to protect that ship from enemy fighters. There are nowhere near enough aircraft to conduct strike missions on enemy fleets.

Finally, there is the secondary roles that all fighters on Naval ships have, ground attack in support of US ground forces. Once the sea lanes are secure, the fighters are then released. Originally to support the Marines in any amphibious landings they may make, now to support any US land forces that may need their assistance.

Now we get to the aircraft themselves. On an LHD or similar ship, they are short or vertical take-off fighters. This means they have a much lighter munitions load than their catapult launched and tailhook landing cousins.

And the numbers. An LHD only has 6 fighters, and that is more typical. The only real odd-ball in this is the LHA America Class. It is designed to carry up to 20 fighters if needed, at the expense of the number of Marines it can carry. It however is also designed to operate as the flagship for Amphibious Warfare groups. But these are still the AV8B or F-35B versions, so nowhere near as capable as the F-35C model.

A Nimitz class carrier however carries normally at least 50, and as many as 60 CATOBAR fighters. These fighters have a much larger munitions payload, and have a greater flight range. These are true offensive warships, where their fighters are used as the strike force.

Now for the Kiev and newer Kuznetsov class ships.

To begin with, the Soviets-Russians never called these ships "aircraft carriers". They have always been and are "Aircraft Carrying Missile Cruiser". And the ship design and aircraft complement bears this out.

It only carries 12 Su-33 fighters, that take off on a ski-jump nose. This lets them be heavier than a STOL or VTOL configuration, but nowhere near as heavy as a CATOBAR fighters. And by having only 12, this is akin to the fighters on an Amphibious ship. Intended almost entirely as a defensive measure for the cruiser and it's fleet, not in conducting offensive operations against enemy ships.

For offensive operations, it relies upon it's missiles.

So the 2 Russian ship classes that carry fighters are still not "carriers". No more than the USS America is a "carrier". It is simply a ship that carries some fighters.

 

In the potential event of WW3 Europe was destined to become the main theater. Consequently there was not much need for the carrier fleet due to the proximity of targets. Same for Artics and Far East theaters, the job could be done with conventional aircraft. Moreover, supporting both land forces supermacy and challenging the US on the number of carriers would be unbearable for the Soviet economy.

-------------------------
I believe Questerr has answered why Kuznetsov and it's now Chinese sistership were never called "aircraft carriers". Since the shipyard, which was building them, was located on the Black Sea coast, it was neccesary to avoid "aircraft carrier" wording, so they could pass the straights without violating Montreux Treaty. They are fully functional aircraft carriers, which support a group of navalised Su-27s. Stating otherwise is living in the wet dreams.

 

Watching that thing gave me a headache. Basically a fanboi's idea of what they wanted in a wet dream.

Rail guns, lasers, nuclear power plant? About the only thing missing was to turn it into a spaceship.

No, the era of Battleships as in the BB Iowa class is gone. They were great ships, but the design is simply to old, as is the equipment.

But it has to be remembered what I had said several times earlier. Battleship is more of how a ship is used than any specific feature.

All that would be needed in the modern era would be a modernized CB Alaska class ship. Considered a "Large Cruiser" or "Battle Cruiser", there was actually very little to differentiate the CB from the BB was the size of guns (12" instead of 16"), 15,000 tons of displacement, and about 45 feet in length.

And with modern fire control, LRLAP munitions, guided precision artillery rounds similar to the M712 Copperhead, and modern missiles. With capabilities like that 2-4 of these would more than fulfill the demands of providing naval gunfire without trying to resurrect 75 year old ships.

And yes, in the modern era this would indeed be the equal of a Battleship. Like the Iowa class, building them with 9-12" armor would be proof against all conventionally armed missiles in use today.

Building enough to place 1 in each Amphibious Warfare task force would restore a capability that has been gone since the Gulf War.

 

When was the last time big naval guns were used in Viet Nam? Tet, or later? The last I'm personally familiar with was the Loftburg, a DD, not a battleship, which weren't 'big' guns, but more than enough to wipe out NVA HQ's miles inland by themselves, and I don't recall any more after that, which is why I'm asking; I'm too lazy to Google for a while now. Were any used in the Gulf War or some police action?

 

The New Jersey wasn't used more in the Vietnam War because it became a political issue in that its use was seen as impeding peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese.

The restored Iowa class battleships were used for bombardment both in Lebanon during the 1980s and against Iraqi forces in Operation Desert Storm.

 

Ah . Thanks for the info. I had thought that Cheney had killed them off under Bush I, after Reagan left office and he slashed the military to the bone, and that those were gone by Desert Strom, and didn't pay much attention to naval actions outside of air strikes and containing Iran in the straits. Reagan spent a lot on 'refurbishing' three of them, iirc, but the Navy didn't want them, they wanted other stuff with the money that went into the battleships at the time. I totally forgot about Lebanon.

 

IIRC, the U.S. Navy's reservations about the Iowa class battleships (and all four were put back into service) had little to do with the ships themselves but with the personnel requirements. Again IIRC the sailors required to man an Iowa class battleship was equivalent to that used to man four cruisers. And the U.S. Navy due to long overseas deployment schedules has always been sensitive to anything that stresses their personnel numbers.

 

Easily overlooked in discussions about the Iowa class battleships is that the Reagan Admin. also planned to resurrect the carrier U.S.S. Oriskany and outfit it with an airwing composed solely of F/A-18s but the overall condition of the ship and resistance in Congress nixed those plans.

Of course the really cool idea apparently floated in the first year of the Reagan Admin. was to take the B-58 Hustlers out of mothballs and reengine them with modern turbofans to supplement the planned buy of B-1 Lancers. But of course it turned out the B-58s had been scrapped a few years earlier.

 

The Soviet aircraft industry was slow to develop fuel efficient aircraft, hence why they didn't devote much to naval air power until well after WW II; during the war, they had to import octane booster from Britain to even make their air force even able to get off the ground in many cases. They could only field older planes using their own refining capabilities, but the new aircraft engines they got from the Brits for their 'modern' aircraft industry and air force needed a higher quality and higher octane levels to fly, and they only managed air superiority because of Hitler stripping the East almost completely of fighters, bombers, and anti-aircraft guns to defend from the Allied bombing raids over Germany itself in the West. The latter is why they could get away with using even old WW I biplanes to bomb and strafe German positions. See 'the Night Witches' for the female pilots who flew some of those during the war.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...female-fighter-pilots-of-world-war-ii/277779/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/world/europe/nadezhda-popova-ww-ii-night-witch-dies-at-91.html

I can't find where they managed to start refining their own, but it was probably not until after 1947 before they became truly independent producers of their own, and even in the 1970's they still ended up having to rely on importing refined petroleum products, and this despite Fred Koch developing and upgrading their domestic petroleum refining industry from the 1920's to the early 1950's. The two best sites I had links for re high octane fuels history and the Soviets oil industry are now dead links, unfortunately, so this one is the only one I have, pending finding another somewhere.

http://www.oilru.com/or/47/1006/

This one is dead, but probably on the Wayback Machine somewhere:

http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2004/Eugene-Houdry-Octane1oct04.htm

As I've said before I'm not much of a gearhead type, but this raises a question for me on whether the Navy's carrier aircraft use a higher grade av fuel than the Air Force aircraft uses? this would seem to be a necessity for take-off from a deck to me.

 

dblepost

 

Perhaps during the piston engine era they did but I really doubt today. Because I know that most countries that fly F/A-18s for example (Switzerland, Australia) to name just two, their Hornets are compatible and can be flown from U.S. aircraft carriers.

It's worth nothing that Switzerland, even though it is completely landlocked has had F/A-18 pilots who are fully certified to operate from U.S. carriers.

 

1990-1991 during the Gulf War.

That was the main reason why Saddam had almost all of his forces facing East towards the Persian Gulf. With a Division of Marines on the amphib carriers and the BBs cruising up and down the coast pounding all of his defensive positions, he was sure that that was how the invasion was going to happen.

 

Ahh, the Great Carrier Reef. On my bucket list is diving at that site.

But I have never heard of Reagan trying to bring back the B-58, and I can not imagine his doing so. The B-58 was always intended to be an interim bomber, holding the place of a Supersonic Bomber until a true one was built. Originally the B-70 Valkyrie, this role was ultimately fulfilled by the B-1 Lancer.

One of the first things President Reagan started pushing for was the resumption of B-1 construction. So trying to bring back the B-58 really makes no sense.

Especially since the role once fulfilled by the B-58 was at that time being fulfilled by the F-111.

 

It might've been simple rumor. I read about it in Air Power Review in a special on the B-58. The B-1 is only loosely a "supersonic bomber". The B-1B certainly isn't. It's "supersonic" capability is merely residual and very seldom used. But even the B-1A which could make more than Mach 2.2 was only supposed to use this capability for a "dash to target"

 

Or a dash after releasing it's payload or dashing from SAM's and Migs.

 

At any rate, the B-1B Lancer capability of motoring away at just under Mach 1 down on the deck seems to be far more of an effective way of evading both Migs and SAMs.

 

I think the current USAF SOP or tactics is Hi - Low - Hi.

During the Vietnam War, Hanoi and the Haiphong harbor area had the heaviest anti aircraft defense in history.

1/2 of all American aircraft losses over North Vietnam were from AAA ( anti-aircraft artillery) and small arms fire.

Fly hi to avoid AAA you have to deal with SAM's and Migs.

Fly low to avoid the SAM's and Migs you have to deal with AAA.

 

I thought current USAF tactics for attacking heavily defended airspace was

Hi-Low-Low-Hi.

Medium to high altitude en route to target area.
Low altitude during ingress to target
Low altitude during egress post weapons delivery.
Medium to high altitude homeward cruise.