Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Jeff Head · Feb 23, 2013

asif iqbal said:
Ah good point my bad I meant post WWII and Carriers of all types either escort or fleet

Well, here are the force levels beginning in late 1945, right at the end of the war:

TYPE/ YEAR --> 45 | 48 | 50 | 52 | 55 | 60 | 65 | 70 | 75 | 80 | 85 | 90 | 95 | 00 | 05 | 10
Fleet Carriers - 28 | 12 | 11 | 19 | 21 | 24 | 25 | 19 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11
Escort Carriers 71 | 07 | 04 | 10 | 03 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00
TOTAL --------- 99 | 19 | 15 | 29 | 24 | 24 | 25 | 19 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11

This does not include the large LHD or LHA flat top Amphibious Assault ships which the US began building in the 1960s and now maintains 10-11 of. So, since say, about 1980, the US has been maintining a total of 22 or so carriers if you include those.

(Source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

bd popeye · Feb 23, 2013

So...do they go on entire deployments with the CSGs? Very rarely, though the one Perry did accompany the Nimitz for an extended period throughout the South China Sea and elsewhere in the Western Pacific on the one exercise meant to send a message to the PRC that was not a "training exercise," in 2010.

But even on those training and qualification exercises, they may be with the carrier for weeks at a time in order to stay up on their CSG, ASW duties.

True Jeff.. but that's not a deployment by definition. Perhaps your definition is different from mine. What jeff has described is an exercise or temporary detachment/assignment. Of course FFGs need to train with CSGs. That's a given. But go on a major deployment? Nope.

The US Military defines a deployment as such;

From wiki...

The United States Military defines the term as follows:

In naval usage, the change from a cruising approach or contact disposition to a disposition for battle.
The movement of forces within operational areas.
The outer positioning of forces into a formation for battle.
The relocation of forces and materiel to desired operational areas.
In army usage, the term "downrange" is also common.

Deployment encompasses all activities from origin or home station through destination, specifically including intra-continental United States, intertheater, and intratheater movement legs, staging, and holding areas.

Deployments consist of women and men who leave their families and their homes with other soldiers (Airmen, Marines, Sailors) and go to another country and earn combat pay. These deployments can last anywhere from 90 days to 15 months. In the United States Army, members receive what is known as a combat patch to wear on their uniforms (ACU's) and Dress Uniforms (Class A's).

In most of the world's navies, a deployment designates an extended period of duty at sea. The United States Navy recognizes those who complete deployments with a special decoration known as the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon.(must be deployed for 90+ days away from your homeport)

Redeployment is known as the return of Soldiers in a combat zone to their prior station (i.e. where they are stationed with families, where they were prior to deploying). The time between deployments is known as dwell time.

One last thing.. there are zero FFGs forward deployed to Japan permanently assigned to the 7th Fleet. And yes as Jeff has pointed out FFG s do deploy to the 7th fleet.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I do not choose to argue with anyone over this subject. We each have a different opinion.

Have a very blessed day!

Jeff Head · Feb 23, 2013

bd popeye said:
True Jeff.. but that's not a deployment by definition. Perhaps your definition is different from mine. What jeff has described is an exercise or temporary detachment/assignment. Of course FFGs need to train with CSGs. That's a given. But go on a major deployment? Nope.

The US Military defines a deployment as such.

One last thing.. there are zero FFGs forward deployed to Japan permanently assigned to the 7th Fleet. And yes as Jeff has pointed out FFG s do deploy to the 7th fleet.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I do not choose to argue with anyone over this subject. We each have a different opinion.

Have a very blessed day!

Oh...no arguement from me, Popeye. You are 100% correct.

In terms of a complete deployment, the FFGs no longer do that. in terms of detachments to the CSG for these training exercises, some of them lasting several weeks, and which are a part of the FFGs deployment, for which they will receive a seperate ribbon of their own for their deployments...well, that happens all of the time.

It was not my desire to argue or contradict. Some folks are not aware of the definition of the terms...and even Naval reporters (official US Navy personnel) will mis-use the terms as some of those depcitions show. I just didn't want anyone thinking that the FFGs are not regularly taking part in those ASW training exercises, or also on occassion being detached as a part of an official task force for maritime operations when called for...but which still fall short of a full deployment with the carrier.

I believe the discussion made all of this clear to anyone reading...and as far as I am concerned then, mission accomplished!

God's speed, fair winds, and a following sea!

asif iqbal · Feb 23, 2013

Jeff Head said:
Well, here are the force levels beginning in late 1945, right at the end of the war:

TYPE/ YEAR --> 45 | 48 | 50 | 52 | 55 | 60 | 65 | 70 | 75 | 80 | 85 | 90 | 95 | 00 | 05 | 10
Fleet Carriers - 28 | 12 | 11 | 19 | 21 | 24 | 25 | 19 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11
Escort Carriers 71 | 07 | 04 | 10 | 03 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00
TOTAL --------- 99 | 19 | 15 | 29 | 24 | 24 | 25 | 19 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11

This does not include the large LHD or LHA flat top Amphibious Assault ships which the US began building in the 1960s and now maintains 10-11 of. So, since say, about 1980, the US has been maintining a total of 22 or so carriers if you include those.

(Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

Great link Jeff and very good to see these numbers, its amazing to see that they operated nearly 1,000 ships in 1950s and still maintained a Navy of nearly 600 ships in 1989, that must have been Reagan expansion plans kicking in, but the largest cuts are mainly in auxillarys, submarines, frigates and amphious ships

Then we see a rapid drop until they reach ~280 and where the numbers have stabilised, More importantly they have maintained 11 fleet carriers since 2006 and will maintain that level for the foreseeable future and the total surface warship fleet has actually increased Since 2005

With 18 ships under construction and more than double that planned the numbers are likely to increase to 300 in the coming years, but the 300 ships will all be very modern ships with more surface warships

bd popeye · Feb 23, 2013

It was not my desire to argue or contradict. Some folks are not aware of the definition of the terms...and even Naval reporters (official US Navy personnel) will mis-use the terms as some of those depcitions show. I just didn't want anyone thinking that the FFGs are not regularly taking part in those ASW training exercises, or also on occassion being detached as a part of an official task force for maritime operations when called for...but which still fall short of a full deployment with the carrier.

So true Jeff and unfortunately the FFGs days are numbered. The LCS some of which will replace FFGs in certain roles are quite capable ships..however IMO their crew size and dependence on automated systems inhibits their warfighting and survivability in a real shooting war.

Well, here are the force levels beginning in late 1945, right at the end of the war:

TYPE/ YEAR --> 45 | 48 | 50 | 52 | 55 | 60 | 65 | 70 | 75 | 80 | 85 | 90 | 95 | 00 | 05 | 10
Fleet Carriers - 28 | 12 | 11 | 19 | 21 | 24 | 25 | 19 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11
Escort Carriers 71 | 07 | 04 | 10 | 03 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00
TOTAL --------- 99 | 19 | 15 | 29 | 24 | 24 | 25 | 19 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11

Thanks for posting Jeff! Nice chart.

When I joined the USN on 25 August 1971 at 1100 EDST in Cincinnati OH these were the carriers in commission.

USS Intrepid (CVS 11)
USS Ticonderoga (CVS 14)
USS Lexington (AVT 16)
USS Wasp (CVS 18)
USS Hancock (CVA 19)
USS Oriskany (CVA 34)
USS Midway (CVA 41)
USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CVA 42)
USS Coral Sea (CVA 43)
USS Forrestal (CVA 59)
USS Saratoga (CVA 60)
USS Ranger (CVA 61)
USS Independence (CVA 62)
USS Kitty Hawk (CVA 63)
USS USS Constellation (CVA 64)
USS Enterprise (CVAN 65)
USS America (CV 66)
USS John F Kennedy (CVA 67)

By anyone standards that was quite a formidable group.

Franklin · Feb 26, 2013

This site is interesting, it has all the specs you want on almost every Russian naval ship you can think of. I don't know how authoritative this is but it looks pretty good.

According to this site there are 3 sub classes of the Kiev class carriers. There is the original Kiev class carriers (project 1143) Kiev and Minsk and then there is Project 1143,3 also project 1143m the Novorossiysk and finally we have Project 1143,4 first known as Baku later Admiral Gorshkov and now INS Vikramaditya.

It may also be interesting to know that the Soviet Navy seems to be changing the pennant numbers on their carriers almost every year.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

delft · Feb 27, 2013

Franklin said:
This site is interesting, it has all the specs you want on almost every Russian naval ship you can think of. I don't know how authoritative this is but it looks pretty good.

According to this site there are 3 sub classes of the Kiev class carriers. There is the original Kiev class carriers (project 1143) Kiev and Minsk and then there is Project 1143,3 also project 1143m the Novorossiysk and finally we have Project 1143,4 first known as Baku later Admiral Gorshkov and now INS Vikramaditya.

It may also be interesting to know that the Soviet Navy seems to be changing the pennant numbers on their carriers almost every year.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That gives a standard displacement of 46540 tons, full load 59100 tons, more than 10% less than the numbers generally bandied about.
I wonder what size of carrier will be initially built by China. This size, a little larger, a little smaller? I don't expect anything like 85000 tons or even larger.
P.S. I just looked at

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. That gives an unspecified displacement of 33000t and:
"Aircraft Carried J-15 aircraft, J-10 carrier based aircraft, Z-8/Ka-31 AEW helicopters and Ka-27 ASW helicopters"!

Jeff Head · Feb 27, 2013

delft said:
That gives a standard displacement of 46540 tons, full load 59100 tons, more than 10% less than the numbers generally bandied about.

I just looked at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. That gives an unspecified displacement of 33000t and:
"Aircraft Carried: J-15 aircraft, J-10 carrier based aircraft, Z-8/Ka-31 AEW helicopters and Ka-27 ASW helicopters"!

Looks like some folks need to update their specs on these various carriers, particularly the Liaoning!

I do try to keep:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

as up to date as I can.

asif iqbal · Feb 27, 2013

Amazing article in this months Warship magazine March 2013, full of naval updates here's part of the carrier section

asif iqbal · Feb 27, 2013

Just realised resolution is too low will update again tommorow with clearer pictures

Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Jeff Head

General

bd popeye

The Last Jedi

Jeff Head

General

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General

bd popeye

The Last Jedi

Franklin

Captain

delft

Brigadier

Jeff Head

General

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General