Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Delbert · Nov 29, 2008

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

PrOeLiTeZ said:
thats not true. the soviet carriers were to escort their SSBN, purely for defensive role. it depends how you utilise the carrier. when you build a carrier you can't say its for offensive, it can be for either, it just depends what you intend to do with it. soviet doctrine was different to the USN, during the Cold War. China plans to build carrier to insert influence upon the possible conflict between Tawain, and assume soverienty over the resource rich islands in the South China Sea. Other then that they plan to use it for defence, not projecting powers beyond South-East Asia. 6 carriers are deemed sufficient. 2 for each fleet. One in docks and one on patrol.

I agree with the South China Sea Islands. But regarding with the Taiwan strait, the coastal provinces especially GuangZhou and Fujian are already enough, no need to utilize carriers.

6 carriers for defensive purposes?? Wouldn't that be too much and a waste? Wasn't the frigates, destroyers and submarines enough?

The airfields along the coastal provinces are sufficient to launch aircraft for defensive roles. No need to utilize carriers for that.

That's one of the main reasons why China wasn't yet rushing or pushing very hard for a carrier.

I would rather see the carriers used to project power along the Malaca strait or Indian Ocean which are deemed very vital since most of the sea trade routes passes along it.

So I would rather consider 3 aircraft carriers for offensive roles to be sufficient.

Kongo · Nov 29, 2008

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

One cannot say that backfires are mainly against carriers either? Do you hae proof of that? All those load outs are equally applicable against large transports and troop carriers.

Why have you attended the Soviet doctrine? Do you realize that the Soviet Navy is an adjunct of their Army, and their Army's goal is to "liberate" Western Europe? The Soviet Navy is not there to prove its power, its there to serve a very specific purpose. Go read some references.

Oh come on. Just admit that you pulled out 'Soviet Doctrine' and found yourself stuck with it as a wrong example.

The range of the KH-22, did you really think that was arbitrarily set?

Did you check the USAF threat video? And in Zhuhai, they have gone one version up on the export version.

If you are talking about the AFA threat video, please stop before you further embarass yourself.

You're telling me this when you don't know what Soviet Navy doctrine really is?

And how do you know I don't? In fact, when you tried to pull out the Soviet Navy Doctrine to support your assertion that the role of the Backfires were to attack convoys, it showed clearly to me that you didn't know a hoot about doctrine and tactics, least of all Soviet navy doctrine.

So tell me how carriers can protect the troop transports reinforcing NATO armies?

Carriers were never there primarily for convoy escort, those jobs were mainly envisioned for smaller carriers or frigates. The Soviets could never ignore Carriers, however, because they presented a nuclear threat. Prior to the introduction of nuclear Tomahawks, they were the only platform other than the SSBNs (and SSNs with SUBROC) capable of nuclear surface attack. That made taking them out one of the highest priorities of the USSR.

I never seen the Super Hornet trump the Tomcat in range. I want you to qualify that.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Assuming the use of S-3 tankers, an F-14D strike, refueling somewhere between Quetta and Sukkur, Pakistan, wouldn't have any trouble attacking targets in northern most Afghanistan. If however, an F/A-18 E/F refuels in the same spot, it will barely make it to Kabul. The unrefueled radius of an F-14D carrying normal strike load (4 2,000lb LGBs, 2 Phoenix missiles and two Sidewinders plus 675 rounds of 20mm and two 280 gallon external tanks) is at least 500 statute miles. Accompanying E/F Super Hornets have only a 350 statute mile radius carrying about half the bomb load."

And once again, I tell you, loiter time isn't cruise time.

I also want you to show me references of the Tomcat's loiter time.

""The most devastating commet came from a Hornet pilot who flew numerous side by side comparison flights with the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets and says, 'We outran them, we out-flew them and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them."

Stats for the F-14D came from declassified NAVAIR files. The Hornet and SuperHornet files have not been declassified, so I relied on Jane's All the World's Aircrafts for the SuperHornet data.

And once again, I tell you, loiter time isn't cruise time.

You can stop repeating that without knowing the differences between the two. Cruise speed is essential only for escort, loiter time is essential for fleet air defense. It's time to get that in your head.

Well then, go ahead and tell me. Tell me please how you plan to protect the supply lines to NATO.

Great. Someone who has no idea and argued so much earlier. Try looking at teh 1980s Maritime Strategy. I'm only going to give pointers, I'm not here to teach you every single detail.

Why don't you explain to me why USAF land based aircraft are able to pull sortie rates exceeding that of carrier born aircraft by several fold?

Take a map and look at the ranges which USN aircraft have to travel. Then find out what are teh factors that make up sortie rates. In fact, I have given the information earlier as a freebie, but sadly you are unable to read well enough.

Is there a Super Hornet with a 2000km combat radius with a full combat load? I think not.

Whatever a Super Hornet can reach, a Flanker will do equal to better. Flankers are among the most rangiest fighters out there.

So what?! So if there is a 200000km ranged flanker, carriers would not be a survivable proposition anymore?! Or it won't be an effective asset capable of carrying out its missions? You seriously believe that? Just add range to land based fighters and carriers are neutered? I shake my head in sorrow. With knowledge gaps like these, it's no wonder you have so much faith in PLAN counter-carrier ops. Don't you understand the aircraft and it's weapons are only relevant after the search, detect and target phases are resolved?

crobato · Nov 29, 2008

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Kongo said:
Oh come on. Just admit that you pulled out 'Soviet Doctrine' and found yourself stuck with it as a wrong example. The range of the KH-22, did you really think that was arbitrarily set?

Explain to me how is that a wrong example? Find me references that say otherwise.

Do you honestly think that every missile was truly directed at carrier?

If you are talking about the AFA threat video, please stop before you further embarass yourself.

Data there isn't inconsistent from what I have seen mentioned in Chinese reports.

And how do you know I don't? In fact, when you tried to pull out the Soviet Navy Doctrine to support your assertion that the role of the Backfires were to attack convoys, it showed clearly to me that you didn't know a hoot about doctrine and tactics, least of all Soviet navy doctrine.

So you're saying that Backfires are developed not to support Soviet doctrine?

prove it.

Show me an authoritative reference of what Soviet doctrine is.

Carriers were never there primarily for convoy escort, those jobs were mainly envisioned for smaller carriers or frigates. The Soviets could never ignore Carriers, however, because they presented a nuclear threat. Prior to the introduction of nuclear Tomahawks, they were the only platform other than the SSBNs (and SSNs with SUBROC) capable of nuclear surface attack. That made taking them out one of the highest priorities of the USSR.

*Sigh*. If you honestly believe that...

In the age of the Ballistic Missile besides.

Stats for the F-14D came from declassified NAVAIR files. The Hornet and SuperHornet files have not been declassified, so I relied on Jane's All the World's Aircrafts for the SuperHornet data.

Stop beating around the bush and show it then.

You can stop repeating that without knowing the differences between the two. Cruise speed is essential only for escort, loiter time is essential for fleet air defense. It's time to get that in your head.

Bull. Cruise speed is also necessary for strike. As for loiter time being better than the Tomcat's, you need to prove your assertions.

Great. Someone who has no idea and argued so much earlier. Try looking at teh 1980s Maritime Strategy. I'm only going to give pointers, I'm not here to teach you every single detail.

Try posting it. I'm calling you out.

Take a map and look at the ranges which USN aircraft have to travel. Then find out what are teh factors that make up sortie rates. In fact, I have given the information earlier as a freebie, but sadly you are unable to read well enough.

Really, where is the information you have given out as a freebie? Anyone seen one?

So what?! So if there is a 200000km ranged flanker, carriers would not be a survivable proposition anymore?! Or it won't be an effective asset capable of carrying out its missions? You seriously believe that? Just add range to land based fighters and carriers are neutered? I shake my head in sorrow. With knowledge gaps like these, it's no wonder you have so much faith in PLAN counter-carrier ops. Don't you understand the aircraft and it's weapons are only relevant after the search, detect and target phases are resolved?

Oh please, show me your 2000km Super Hornet combat radius first with full load.

Your lack of references are increasingly tiresome. So is your constant attempts to steer things out of topic.

FriedRiceNSpice · Nov 29, 2008

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

What matters is range at which the PLAN can maintain credible surveillance.

All you need is a couple of sattelites. China already has a quite a few up.

So they're impressed, so now their sortie rates exceed that of the Carrier? I'm impressed with how far you can stretch logic.

Ground-based aircraft will naturally be able to sustain higher sortie rights.

Certainly range is a factor, but it isn't quite the overriding factor you make it out to be, or people would have made 2000km ranged strike-bombers. Does that doesn't make a carrier unsurvivable within 2000km of the coast then? To those who understand, that 2000km range doesn't matter one bit without considering other factors at play.

I don't understand your question. Flankers have 3000km+ range at altitude, Backfires have 7000km+ range.

Kongo · Nov 29, 2008

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

FriedRiceNSpice said:
All you need is a couple of sattelites. China already has a quite a few up.

Satellites? Look carefully at what kind of satellites and how many of them China has put up first. Small piece of advice. Find out more about EO, SAR satellites and the advantages and disadvantages to them. Not just any kind of satellites can be used to provide ocean surveillance. Invariably, when casual mention of satellites are put forth as evidence of credible ocean surveillance, it is a mark of not knowing enough about satellites and their limitations.

Ground-based aircraft will naturally be able to sustain higher sortie rights.

Depends on a lot of factors, which makes any simple generalisation like this meaningless. In any case, just having a higher sortie rate is by itself also meaningless, if one knows how the USN intended to use the carriers against a capable for like the Soviet Union.

I don't understand your question. Flankers have 3000km+ range at altitude, Backfires have 7000km+ range.

Sorry , missed a zero there. But you have made my point nicely. The carrier group was regarded as survivable even against say, 7000km ranged backfires, so what exactly is the arrier so vulnerable to to a far shorter ranged flanker?

Kongo · Nov 29, 2008

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Explain to me how is that a wrong example? Find me references that say otherwise.

Do you honestly think that every missile was truly directed at carrier?

Say again. Do you really think the range of the KH-22 was settled on without reason?

Data there isn't inconsistent from what I have seen mentioned in Chinese reports.

:roll: chinese reports.

So you're saying that Backfires are developed not to support Soviet doctrine?

Where have I said that? I've only mentioned that you have misused Soviet Doctrine in trying to support what you are saying. Soviet Doctrine said no such thing about Backfire's targets being mainly convoys.

Show me an authoritative reference of what Soviet doctrine is.

There are many analysis of Soviet navy doctrine out there, many of which are authoritative. Do you need my help on everything?

*Sigh*. If you honestly believe that...

In the age of the Ballistic Missile besides.

Snort. Naturally I was referring to the Sea leg of the nuclear Triad. Which is common sense, since we're talking about the navy here? Trying to score cheap kills like this helps yourself none.

Stop beating around the bush and show it then.

The NAVAIR stuff concerning the F-14D were obtained from Naval Historical Center in Washington, DC. Nice place, do go there if you ever go to Washinton. It is in paper format, and I certainly don't intend to buy a scanner just to appease you. Feel free to disbelieve, affects me not. I do have an electronic subscription to Janes though, that I can post.

interdiction with two SLAM-ER, two AMRAAMs, two Sidewinders and three 1,817 litre (480 US gallon; 400 Imp gallon) external tanks, hi-hi-hi (including flight of SLAM-ER)
945 n miles (1,750 km; 1,087 miles)
fighter escort with four AMRAAMs, two Sidewinders and three 1,817 litre (480 US gallon; 400 Imp gallon) external tanks 795 n miles (1,472 km; 914 miles)
Combat endurance
maritime air superiority, six AAMs, three 1,818 litre (480 US gallon; 400 Imp gallon) external tanks, 150 n miles (278 km; 173 miles) from aircraft carrier 2 h 15 min

Bull. Cruise speed is also necessary for strike. As for loiter time being better than the Tomcat's, you need to prove your assertions.

Cruise speed is not critical for strike as long as it is not overly low, which the Super Hornet isn't.

Really, where is the information you have given out as a freebie? Anyone seen one?

Great, you have confirmed that you absolutely can't read, after I posted the freebie twice. Saying it the third time to see if it penetrates your skull. LOOK AT THE RANGES INVOLVED between USAF and USN fighters in the scenarios.

Try posting it. I'm calling you out.

Try searching for it. The full version hasn't been declassified, but there has been alot of public discussions and debates on the 1980s Maritime Strategy since a declas version was put out. It's disappointing that you require me to spoonfeed you on everything. But if you are really incapable of finding a good read on the Maritime Strategy on your own, ask nicely and I'll point you to a good read.

Oh please, show me your 2000km Super Hornet combat radius first with full load.

One last time. So what? Even if the Super Hornet cannot carry a load 2000km, so what? Neither could the carrier's aircraft outrange the Backfires back then. So what? Only ignorants discounted the carrier's survivabiity back then despite the longer range of the Backfires. The Soviets certainly never thought themselves safe from carriers even with the Backfire's longer range.

Your lack of references are increasingly tiresome. So is your constant attempts to steer things out of topic.

Where have I steered things out of topic? Certainly it takes more than one person to steer things out of topic if true. I have provided references, by the way, so your attempt to malign me is worrisome.

FriedRiceNSpice · Nov 29, 2008

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

One last time. So what? Even if the Super Hornet cannot carry a load 2000km, so what? Neither could the carrier's aircraft outrange the Backfires back then. So what? Only ignorants discounted the carrier's survivability back then despite the longer range of the Backfires. The Soviets certainly never thought themselves safe from carriers even with the Backfire's longer range.

A Backfire's range does not in itself guarantee the capability to defeat carrier groups. As long the range of USN carrier-based aircraft and air surveillance exceeds that of the missiles on the Backfires, then the USN will be able to intercept the bombers. Backfires cannot defend themselves against any kind of multirole fighter, regardless of whether its a Hornet or a Tomcat. To escort the Backfires you need multirole or long-range air superiority fighters. Thats where the Flankers come in. Now, if it was possible to build a 20,000km range fighter-bomber then someone do it. You can build a few expensive, big 20,000km range bombers but a few Tomcats/Hornets could turn such a fleet of big bombers into burning scraps of metal. It is simply impossible to build escorts with ranges that much greater than that of a Foxhound.

In order to launch a succesful attack on a carrier fleet, not only do you need enough platforms to carry the sufficient amount of long-ranged anti-ship missiles, you need the escorts to be capable overcoming enemy carrier-based aircraft. That also means you need the EW assets in place. AWACs would be nice too, during Soviet times I believe they would have a few Foxhounds with their long-range radars in the strike group.

Finally, one more reason people don't just build super-long range land-based aircraft- tankers. It is far cheaper and effective to maintain a tanker fleet than to build large, heavy expensive aircraft that would barely outmaneuver a 747.

Small piece of advice. Find out more about EO, SAR satellites and the advantages and disadvantages to them. Not just any kind of satellites can be used to provide ocean surveillance.

Will SAR satellites designed for military reconassaince do the trick?

Depends on a lot of factors, which makes any simple generalisation like this meaningless. In any case, just having a higher sortie rate is by itself also meaningless, if one knows how the USN intended to use the carriers against a capable for like the Soviet Union.

Well, in the case where land-based aircraft are operating at extreme ranges, or if tanker support is needed then naturally their sortie rates will see a significant decline.

crobato · Nov 29, 2008

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Kongo said:
Say again. Do you really think the range of the KH-22 was settled on without reason?

LOL. You think that Kh-22s are the main armament of the Backfires?

Backfires belong to the Strategic Aviation arm of the Soviet Union. Their primary goal is to bomb cities, bases and missiles sites in a big radioactive cloud. Their primary targets are on land.

:roll: chinese reports.

Which has been consistent and everyone now, even the Pentagon, relies upon. Have you ever read Pentagon reports? Please note the references.

Where have I said that? I've only mentioned that you have misused Soviet Doctrine in trying to support what you are saying. Soviet Doctrine said no such thing about Backfire's targets being mainly convoys.

BULL. You neglect a book that is published by the Naval War College during the heydey of the Cold War (first published 1979).

Soviet doctrine says no such thing that carriers are the _primary_ targets of Backfires. Carriers may be _a_ target for the Backfires, but not primary ones.

There are many analysis of Soviet navy doctrine out there, many of which are authoritative. Do you need my help on everything?

Why would you bother mentioning it without following it up with an actual references.

And please include the page.

Snort. Naturally I was referring to the Sea leg of the nuclear Triad. Which is common sense, since we're talking about the navy here? Trying to score cheap kills like this helps yourself none.

LOL. The sea leg of the Nuclear Triad is on SSBNs.

The NAVAIR stuff concerning the F-14D were obtained from Naval Historical Center in Washington, DC. Nice place, do go there if you ever go to Washinton. It is in paper format, and I certainly don't intend to buy a scanner just to appease you. Feel free to disbelieve, affects me not. I do have an electronic subscription to Janes though, that I can post.

LOL. Why don't you read the article again, which is written by a rear admiral?

Oh golly as if I have not seen my share of errors published by Janes.

Cruise speed is not critical for strike as long as it is not overly low, which the Super Hornet isn't.

Honestly that is complete bull.

Speed matters when it comes to preserving the presence of the target on the target area and reducing the ability for the opponent to defensively respond in time.

Great, you have confirmed that you absolutely can't read, after I posted the freebie twice. Saying it the third time to see if it penetrates your skull. LOOK AT THE RANGES INVOLVED between USAF and USN fighters in the scenarios.

Oh Puhleeze. Show me when the Super Hornet can exceed a Flanker on range.

Try searching for it. The full version hasn't been declassified, but there has been alot of public discussions and debates on the 1980s Maritime Strategy since a declas version was put out. It's disappointing that you require me to spoonfeed you on everything. But if you are really incapable of finding a good read on the Maritime Strategy on your own, ask nicely and I'll point you to a good read.

Carriers for strategic nuclear delivery? Why? When B-52s can range completely right from the continental US and bases in Western Europe deep into the Soviet Union, and go from target to target. Can a B-52 take off and land on a carrier? Does a carrier have anything close to a B-52?

Its so funny that about acting like you got the references, and yet you don't show them.

One last time. So what? Even if the Super Hornet cannot carry a load 2000km, so what? Neither could the carrier's aircraft outrange the Backfires back then. So what? Only ignorants discounted the carrier's survivabiity back then despite the longer range of the Backfires. The Soviets certainly never thought themselves safe from carriers even with the Backfire's longer range.

The strike range of your aircraft determines how far the carrier has to be against the land or sea targets.

And today you got Flankers that can potentially carry antiship missiles, further increasing their strike range.

Where have I steered things out of topic? Certainly it takes more than one person to steer things out of topic if true. I have provided references, by the way, so your attempt to malign me is worrisome.

Provided what references? You want some references?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Key Data:
Crew
F/A-18/E – 1
F/A-18/f – 2 – the pilot and co-pilot
Dimensions:
Wingspan
44ft 8in
Width, Wings Folded
30ft 7in
Length
60ft 1in
Height
16ft
Weights:
Empty Weight
30,000lb
Take-Off Weight With Attack Payload
66,000lb
Performance:
Maximum Speed
In excess of Mach 1.8
Flight Ceiling
50,000ft
Combat Radius
400nm
Combat Endurance
135 minutes

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Range:
Combat: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 kilometers), clean plus two AIM-9s
Ferry: 1,660 nautical miles (3,054 kilometers), two AIM-9s, three 480 gallon tanks retained
Ceiling: 50,000+ feet
Speed: Mach 1.8+
Crew:
A, C and E models: One
B, D and F models: Two

CRS report.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Such ranges were not achieved by the F/A-18C/D, whose range/payload
capabilities have been reduced by weight growth due to equipment added in
successive upgrades since 1982, when its combat radius was 366 nm in fighter
missions and 415 nm in attack missions. In 1992 the Navy projected the F/A-18E/F’s
fighter combat radius to be about 420 nm, with an attack radius of about 490 nm —
exceeding requirements of 410 nm and 430 nm for these missions.3 In carrier
landings, the F/A-18E/F is estimated to be able to bring back 9,000 lb of
fuel/ordnance payload vs. the C/D’s recovery payload of less than 6,000 lbs.

Table 1. Comparison of F/A-18 C/D and E/F
C/D E/F
Program Unit
Acquisition Cost
$43 million (FY06$)a $93.9 million (FY06$)b
Propulsion 2 F404-GE-402 turbofans 2 F414-GE-400 turbofans
Thrust 17,700 lbs 22,000 lbs
Speed Mach 1.7 Mach 1.8
External fuel capacity 6,700 lbs 9,800 lbs
Approx. Un-refueled
Combat Radius
Fighter: 366 nm
Attack: 415 nm
Fighter: 420 nm
Attack: 490 nm
Weapon hard points 9 11
First Flight November 1978 December 1995

The Super Hornet is claimed to have a 40% increase in combat radius over the Hornet. What's the range of the Hornet?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

F/A-18C/D
F/A-18 on Takeoff from carrier

Length: 56 ft (17.1 m)

Height: 15.3 ft (4.7 m)

Wing Span: 40 ft (12.3 m)

Propulsion: Enhanced Performance Engine (EPE): Two F404-GE-402 engines, each in the 18,000 pound thrust class. Combat thrust-to-weight ratio greater than one-to-one

Combat Radius: 500+ nm (900+ km)

Combat Ceiling: Approximately 50,000 ft (15,250 m)

Kongo · Nov 29, 2008

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Sigh. Laugh so much, know so little. Please do inverse that.

LOL. You think that Kh-22s are the main armament of the Backfires?

Backfires belong to the Strategic Aviation arm of the Soviet Union. Their primary goal is to bomb cities, bases and missiles sites in a big radioactive cloud. Their primary targets are on land.

So now you try misdirection, and even in misdirection you reveal more about what you don't know. We are talking about Backfires in a naval context, right? Naturally, we are then talking about the ones deployed with the Soviet Naval Aviation. So why are you bringing the ones in Strategic Aviation in? Quite obviously you didn't know that a good deal were in Soviet Naval Aviation? As I said, laugh less, learn more.

Which has been consistent and everyone now, even the Pentagon, relies upon. Have you ever read Pentagon reports? Please note the references.

Yes, yes, the Pentagon needs to read Chinese reports to learn about their systems. :roll: That's an AFA video, fer chrissakes! DO you really think the AFA is the USAF? I applaud your gullibility. THe Pentagon relies on neither AFA nor Chinese reports to assess their capability. They have their own software and tools to do that for them.

BULL. You neglect a book that is published by the Naval War College during the heydey of the Cold War (first published 1979).

Soviet doctrine says no such thing that carriers are the _primary_ targets of Backfires. Carriers may be _a_ target for the Backfires, but not primary ones.

And so Soviet Doctrine was to have the Backfires attack convoys as you first claimed? How about providing proof for that, Mr I-want-proof-I-can't-show? And I know you won't be able to. In fact, Soviet doctrine doesn't specify anything like that, these are operational, or even tactical issues. Now you understand why I have never claimed anything about Soviet Doctrine mentioning the use of Backfires against Carriers? It doesn't even fall under the realm of 'doctrine'! So you don't even need to bother, by saying you want proof you have demonstrated more of what you don't know than you do.

Why would you bother mentioning it without following it up with an actual references.

And please include the page.

Page? PAGE!? Good christ! You think doctrines are written in a page for you? Read the whole book, boy! Soviet Naval Policy and Doctrine by Robert Herring (or something, its been some time since I last read and returned it) is as good a book to start as any. It concentrates more on the earlier years but it gives a good backgrounder.

LOL. The sea leg of the Nuclear Triad is on SSBNs.

You mean you actually never knew that Carriers were nuclear capable assets and were tasked with offensive nuclear missions? This is beyond astounding.

LOL. Why don't you read the article again, which is written by a rear admiral?

Oh golly as if I have not seen my share of errors published by Janes.

And admirals make no mistakes, have no agendas? The name Spey sound familiar? Learn a lesson from this, don't sprout 'authoritative' sounding 'admirals' or whatsoever and assume what they say are definitely correct. Besides, you haven't provided proof that Jane's is wrong in this case.

Honestly that is complete bull.

Speed matters when it comes to preserving the presence of the target on the target area and reducing the ability for the opponent to defensively respond in time.

I never said it didn't completely matter, but it is not critical in the way you try to decribe it to be. And neither is the Super Hornet necessarily as slow as you make it out to be. The A-6 never had a high cruising speed, nobody complained about that. In fact, with the F-14 usually in an Air to air config, I suspect people are unfairly comparing it's likely performance then against the Super Hornet in an air to ground config.

Oh Puhleeze. Show me when the Super Hornet can exceed a Flanker on range.

I see, trying misdirection here again? The issue is sortie rates, now you understand the difference, you jump back to range? Haven't I said many times? what does range really matter, when considered with other factors in absentia? Knowing facts and figures doesn't help at all if you don't understand the implications behind them.

Carriers for strategic nuclear delivery? Why? When B-52s can range completely right from the continental US and bases in Western Europe deep into the Soviet Union, and go from target to target. Can a B-52 take off and land on a carrier? Does a carrier have anything close to a B-52?

Clap clap. You've throughly shown yourself to be fully ignorant. Carriers were indeed nuclear tasked. If one followed your logic, then why were carriers needed at all, since B-52s could drop conventional munitions too. Please, exercise your grey matter.

Its so funny that about acting like you got the references, and yet you don't show them.

I've shown those I could, and given you the means to find them where I couldn't.

Provided what references? You want some references?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Key Data:
Crew
F/A-18/E – 1
F/A-18/f – 2 – the pilot and co-pilot
Dimensions:
Wingspan
44ft 8in
Width, Wings Folded
30ft 7in
Length
60ft 1in
Height
16ft
Weights:
Empty Weight
30,000lb
Take-Off Weight With Attack Payload
66,000lb
Performance:
Maximum Speed
In excess of Mach 1.8
Flight Ceiling
50,000ft
Combat Radius
400nm
Combat Endurance
135 minutes

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Range:
Combat: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 kilometers), clean plus two AIM-9s
Ferry: 1,660 nautical miles (3,054 kilometers), two AIM-9s, three 480 gallon tanks retained
Ceiling: 50,000+ feet
Speed: Mach 1.8+
Crew:
A, C and E models: One
B, D and F models: Two

CRS report.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Such ranges were not achieved by the F/A-18C/D, whose range/payload
capabilities have been reduced by weight growth due to equipment added in
successive upgrades since 1982, when its combat radius was 366 nm in fighter
missions and 415 nm in attack missions. In 1992 the Navy projected the F/A-18E/F’s
fighter combat radius to be about 420 nm, with an attack radius of about 490 nm —
exceeding requirements of 410 nm and 430 nm for these missions.3 In carrier
landings, the F/A-18E/F is estimated to be able to bring back 9,000 lb of
fuel/ordnance payload vs. the C/D’s recovery payload of less than 6,000 lbs.

Table 1. Comparison of F/A-18 C/D and E/F
C/D E/F
Program Unit
Acquisition Cost
$43 million (FY06$)a $93.9 million (FY06$)b
Propulsion 2 F404-GE-402 turbofans 2 F414-GE-400 turbofans
Thrust 17,700 lbs 22,000 lbs
Speed Mach 1.7 Mach 1.8
External fuel capacity 6,700 lbs 9,800 lbs
Approx. Un-refueled
Combat Radius
Fighter: 366 nm
Attack: 415 nm
Fighter: 420 nm
Attack: 490 nm
Weapon hard points 9 11
First Flight November 1978 December 1995

The Super Hornet is claimed to have a 40% increase in combat radius over the Hornet. What's the range of the Hornet?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

F/A-18C/D
F/A-18 on Takeoff from carrier

Length: 56 ft (17.1 m)

Height: 15.3 ft (4.7 m)

Wing Span: 40 ft (12.3 m)

Propulsion: Enhanced Performance Engine (EPE): Two F404-GE-402 engines, each in the 18,000 pound thrust class. Combat thrust-to-weight ratio greater than one-to-one

Combat Radius: 500+ nm (900+ km)

Combat Ceiling: Approximately 50,000 ft (15,250 m)

And those were supposed to prove what? An arbitrary figure without any mention of loadout whatsoever, how impressive! I have given you range figures at particular loadouts, but you dismiss them out of hand simply because they don't suit you. I must say that I'm throughly surprised at your behaviour as a moderator!

Kongo · Nov 29, 2008

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

A Backfire's range does not in itself guarantee the capability to defeat carrier groups. As long the range of USN carrier-based aircraft and air surveillance exceeds that of the missiles on the Backfires, then the USN will be able to intercept the bombers. Backfires cannot defend themselves against any kind of multirole fighter, regardless of whether its a Hornet or a Tomcat. To escort the Backfires you need multirole or long-range air superiority fighters. Thats where the Flankers come in. Now, if it was possible to build a 20,000km range fighter-bomber then someone do it. You can build a few expensive, big 20,000km range bombers but a few Tomcats/Hornets could turn such a fleet of big bombers into burning scraps of metal. It is simply impossible to build escorts with ranges that much greater than that of a Foxhound.

In order to launch a succesful attack on a carrier fleet, not only do you need enough platforms to carry the sufficient amount of long-ranged anti-ship missiles, you need the escorts to be capable overcoming enemy carrier-based aircraft. That also means you need the EW assets in place. AWACs would be nice too, during Soviet times I believe they would have a few Foxhounds with their long-range radars in the strike group.

Finally, one more reason people don't just build super-long range land-based aircraft- tankers. It is far cheaper and effective to maintain a tanker fleet than to build large, heavy expensive aircraft that would barely outmaneuver a 747.

The problem with assembling an armada of aircraft is the time needed to do so. And rather iIronically, the issue of cruise speed is very critical in the case of the aircraft trying to strike a carrier, but not the other way around.

Will SAR satellites designed for military reconassaince do the trick?

Unfortunately for the PLAN, its current SAR sats will not be able to handle the job. People are easily confused by this, and understandably so. SAR sats are usually dedicated to the land recon role, and are not able to undertake ocean recon roles due a few factors. One is that they usually spend the time over the oceans recharging their batts. The Soviet system SAR ocean recon sats got round that by being atomic powered. Caused a good deal of unease and even unrest in one occasion, and unusual methods of discarding the sats at the end of their useful lives too, I must add! Another problem is that they don't provide target velocity. Having a still picture of the ocean is actually quite pointless, unless you have a system that can engage the carrier immediately. Nobody has that. So what is needed is the target velocity, from which you can extrapolate the target position a x hours ahead from now, with x being the time needed to get the weapons to the carrier. THe Soviet constellation envisioned doing that by having 2 SAR sats pass by in close succession, allowing for the second picture taken to give the carrier speed and bearing. Now, China has no such SAR sat constellation in place, indicating that they are in a land recon role. Even if they were paired up, they don't have the numbers required to provide the level of surveillance needed.

Well, in the case where land-based aircraft are operating at extreme ranges, or if tanker support is needed then naturally their sortie rates will see a significant decline.

You have seen what Crobato hasn't despite 3 attempts to tell him. The longer the ranges travelled, the lower the sortie rate. Doesn't take a genius to understand why.

Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Delbert

Junior Member

Kongo

Junior Member

crobato

Colonel

FriedRiceNSpice

Major

Kongo

Junior Member

Kongo

Junior Member

FriedRiceNSpice

Major

crobato

Colonel

Kongo

Junior Member

Kongo

Junior Member