Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Air Force Brat · Oct 10, 2012

TerraN_EmpirE said:
The Navy even took the Step of chopping them not some thing they normally do. They were it seems worried parts might find there way too Iran as the only other nation with them.

Typical treatment for heros, really a disgusting waste of fine aluminum, and yes I know they are not all aluminum!

Jeff Head · Oct 11, 2012

bd popeye said:
Never stated it was useless.

It's limited. The team of an Hawkeye and Tomcat can do much, much more than track 6 targets. I believe that info is still classified.

Clearly against the Iraqi Air Force at the time, the F-14s back then (in the 80s) not long after the US was no longer helping, was a great assett.

The question is, how would the perform today, 25 years later? And how many can they put in the air in a combat ready state.

Even if it is as many as a dozen or more, they are going to fair badly against US F-18s or F-15s coming in with the most modern sensors and weapons and directed by either Hawkeyes or Sentrys. If they chose to engage, I suspect their life spans will be measured in minutes.

They must be treated with respect and as potentially deadly foes, and I know they will be, but given their age and status, and the weapons and command direction available to them, I suspect they will be rapidly elimiated should they try and make a stand.

I do not expect they would fair any better against Israeli F-15s either.

jackliu · Oct 11, 2012

Jeff Head said:
Clearly against the Iraqi Air Force at the time, the F-14s back then (in the 80s) not long after the US was no longer helping, was a great assett.

The question is, how would the perform today, 25 years later? And how many can they put in the air in a combat ready state.

Even if it is as many as a dozen or more, they are going to fair badly against US F-18s or F-15s coming in with the most modern sensors and weapons and directed by either Hawkeyes or Sentrys. If they chose to engage, I suspect their life spans will be measured in minutes.

They must be treated with respect and as potentially deadly foes, and I know they will be, but given their age and status, and the weapons and command direction available to them, I suspect they will be rapidly elimiated should they try and make a stand.

I do not expect they would fair any better against Israeli F-15s either.

Iran's best bet to defend it's own air space in event of war is not with jet fighters, it is with surface to air defense, camouflage and fake props.

Expect their entire air force to be wiped out within days of conflict.

hkbc · Oct 11, 2012

jackliu said:
Iran's best bet to defend it's own air space in event of war is not with jet fighters, it is with surface to air defense, camouflage and fake props.

Expect their entire air force to be wiped out within days of conflict.

That was British doctrine in the late fifties, forget about fighter planes just use SAMs, it didn't hold up to scrutiny, 50 years later the UK is protected by fighters not SAMs.

Iran's best bet to defend it's airspace is to ensure non of it's neighbours will host the USAF under threat of ballistic missile attack. Failing that actually take out the any nearby land based airfields using ballistic missiles, this will curtail the tempo of the strikes by forcing longer round trips from more distant bases. There will still be the strikes from USN aircraft and it won't look pretty but if they still have any working AIM54's left it will allow their planes to engage from a safe stand-off distance negating the any dog fighting advantages of the F-18 the odds will be better than just sitting behind a SAM screen.

Iranian MRBMs can reach Israel which is why it has an ABM system and is so vocal about the Iranian Nuclear Bomb Threat.

Back on topic this why the US Navy invests in ballistic missile defense (park a vessel offshore from an ally to reassure them) and keeps 11 carriers (on the off chance there's no friendly airbases nearby!)

Equation · Oct 11, 2012

hkbc said:
That was British doctrine in the late fifties, forget about fighter planes just use SAMs, it didn't hold up to scrutiny, 50 years later the UK is protected by fighters not SAMs.

Iran's best bet to defend it's airspace is to ensure non of it's neighbours will host the USAF under threat of ballistic missile attack. Failing that actually take out the any nearby land based airfields using ballistic missiles, this will curtail the tempo of the strikes by forcing longer round trips from more distant bases. There will still be the strikes from USN aircraft and it won't look pretty but if they still have any working AIM54's left it will allow their planes to engage from a safe stand-off distance negating the any dog fighting advantages of the F-18 the odds will be better than just sitting behind a SAM screen.

Iranian MRBMs can reach Israel which is why it has an ABM system and is so vocal about the Iranian Nuclear Bomb Threat.

Back on topic this why the US Navy invests in ballistic missile defense (park a vessel offshore from an ally to reassure them) and keeps 11 carriers (on the off chance there's no friendly airbases nearby!)

Well it depends on how good their SAM systems are too. But I do agreed with you that jet planes are very effective aerial defenses. A country's air defense kinda need both working together with the search and radar systems to be effective.

asif iqbal · Oct 12, 2012

SAM is lazy and incompetant persons air defence

best way to engage a enemy fighter is to use your own fighter to engage

navyreco · Oct 12, 2012

European Carrier Group Interoperability Initiative

Exercise "Levante 12"

navyreco · Oct 12, 2012

PACIFIC OCEAN (Oct. 9, 2012) An Army MH-47G Chinook medium assault helicopter assigned to the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) based at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash., conducts deck landing qualifications aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Makin Island (LHD 8) following the ship's visit for San Francisco Fleet Week 2012. This is the first time Makin Island has conducted flight operations with Army Chinooks. The U.S. Navy is reliable, flexible, and ready to respond worldwide on, above, and below the sea. Join the conversation on social media using #warfighting. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class David McKee/Released)

The above pic prompted me to look for US Apache helicopters on US Navy ships in the navy.mil picture database...

Such pics are quite rare:

Atlantic Ocean (Feb. 1, 2005) - A U.S. Army AH-64 Apache helicopter prepares to launch from the flight deck aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Nassau (LHA 4) during Joint Shipboard Weapons and Ordnance (JSWORD) training.

ARABIAN SEA (June 23, 2012) Aviation Boatswain's Mate (Handling) 3rd Class Hannah Marihugh launches an AH-64D Longbow Apache helicopter assigned to 3-159 Attack Reconnaissance Battalion off the flight deck of the amphibious transport dock ship USS New York (LPD 21).

Why are US Army Apache on US Navy vessels such a rare occurrence? Contrary to (most) European armies, US Army generally don't deploy with US Navy? Is the majority of US Army pilots qualified for naval operations?

I know US Marines are there for this very task and they have their own attack helicopters. But to me, the more the better. Would be nice to be able to deploy AH64 from LHD and LHA "just in case".

jackliu · Oct 12, 2012

asif iqbal said:
SAM is lazy and incompetant persons air defence

best way to engage a enemy fighter is to use your own fighter to engage

When it come to Iran, it is not lazy, it is survival, there is no chance in hell it will come out of alive going toe to toe with US and Israel air force.

They can invest however they want, but after the 1st week of full blown war, those air craft will be reduced to pieces in the air or on the ground.

bd popeye · Oct 12, 2012

Why are US Army Apache on US Navy vessels such a rare occurrence? Contrary to (most) European armies, US Army generally don't deploy with US Navy? Is the majority of US Army pilots qualified for naval operations?

Don't know.. but this is more than likely the reason why..

I know US Marines are there for this very task and they have their own attack helicopters.

True^^ the USMC has more helos that most of the armies on this planet except China.

In 1994 an invasion of Haiti was planned. The USS America CV-66 was loaded with USMC,USAF and US Army helos for the attack that never occurred.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

On 13 September [1994], less than two weeks after leaving the shipyard, America was in the Atlantic heading for Haiti in support of Operation Uphold Democracy. As the world focused on the situation in Haiti, America carried not her normal air wing, but elements of the Joint Special Operations Command and helicopters of the 160th Army Special Aviation Regiment. Arriving at VooDoo Station on 17 September, word was received the next day to execute the planned invasion of Haiti that evening. However 45 minutes after being issued, the order was cancelled by President Clinton.

For the next 30 days, America experienced possibly the most unique situation in her history. More than 2,000 Army, Air force and Marine Corps special forces troops, and helicopters, melded together. During the ensuing month, 400 sorties were launched with a 96% completion rate. Released on 18 October, America was back in familiar Norfolk four days later.

Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Air Force Brat

Brigadier

Jeff Head

General

jackliu

Banned Idiot

hkbc

Junior Member

Equation

Lieutenant General

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General

navyreco

Senior Member

navyreco

Senior Member

jackliu

Banned Idiot

bd popeye

The Last Jedi