harryRIEDL
New Member
thanks very interesting i always wondered about the smaller carrier nations ops [odd parking layout of the Skyhawks and sea kings thought they use the deck ages]
Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
thanks very interesting i always wondered about the smaller carrier nations ops [odd parking layout of the Skyhawks and sea kings thought they use the deck ages]
I love the Skyhawks. Very reliable and easily maintained aircraft.
Back in '74 & '75 I was stationed aboard the USS Hancock CVA-19. We had 3 Skyhawk squadrons assigned to CVW-21. VA-212, VA-55 VA-164.
Of course here are some pics of A-4's and F-8's on the Hancock. I was on board when the first Three pictures were taken. These are pictures I found posted on the internet.
USS Hancock CVA-19..."Fightin' Hanna"
Back in '74 & '75 I was stationed aboard the USS Hancock CVA-19. We had 3 Skyhawk squadrons assigned to CVW-21. VA-212, VA-55 VA-164.
Of course here are some pics of A-4's and F-8's on the Hancock. I was on board when the first Three pictures were taken. These are pictures I found posted on the internet.
USS Hancock CVA-19..."Fightin' Hanna"
Great pics popeye. F-8s and A-4s. Both were GREAT aircraft for their time.
When you see the activity on those decks...the sheer amount of it...it is always impressive, and continues to be to this day. That amount of activity on an ongoing basis, including through the night, on a US aircraft carrier (training, operations, missions, replensihment, repair, maintenance, etc.), is what allows the US Navy to maintain the absolute edge it does in naval aviation.
If any other nation started today, it would be dcades before they caught up in that expertise and capability...and that only if the US Navy stood still, which it is not doing.
...and of course, in the end, that all boils down to the funding and support to make all of that happen which comes right from the citiznes and their willingness to foot the bill, and an economy that allows them to do so.
Jeff you are 100% correct. Compared to any other nation the activty on a USN CV is astounding. It cannot be duplicated. By no one. Someday read the comments of the French, Russian and British after visiting a USN CV for a few days. The only way to describe it is to be there. And I was and I'm so very happy I served.
...and most Americans are proud to support their armed forces, which is the other real key that makes it possible. Both work hand in hand...people willing to serve, and people willing to support them. Both have to be in place.
I have enjoyed immensely my earlier work on DOD systems...and now for Uncle Sugar himself.
Tasman
Junior Member
The USN certainly got great value from the Essex class carriers (and their successors). Unlike the British armoured carriers which proved too difficult and expensive to modernise (demonstrated by the eight years it took to complete the reconstruction of Victorious) the Essex class were able to be upgraded to operate a large complement of modern aircraft. It still amazes me how efficient these ships and their crews were, with the attack variants able to operate over 70 aircraft including Crusaders and Skyhawks. Even the A3D Skywarrior could be embarked (although IIRC they were restricted to parking on deck because of lack of hangar height). Perhaps Popeye may confirm this.
In comparison, the larger RN carriers, Ark Royal and Eagle operated far fewer aircraft and the smaller light fleet carriers were restricted to around 20 aircraft once the change to jets came about. For example, the Australian Melbourne had a max airgroup of 8 Skyhawks, 6 Trackers and 6-8 helos (Sea Kings or Wessex).
The USN always recognised that the prime purpose of a carrier is to operate as many aircraft as possible. Even in peacetime USN carriers have operated large air groups. Other navies have typically embarked ‘peacetime’ air groups, expanding them in times of crisis. The RAN Sydney, for example normally operated only 12 Sea Furies and 12 Fireflies but took on an additional Sea Fury squadron for Korean deployments. As a result of always operating at or near ‘the edge’ the USN has achieved a level of efficiency in carrier operations that is, as Jeff has indicated, well ahead of other navies.
Tas
In comparison, the larger RN carriers, Ark Royal and Eagle operated far fewer aircraft and the smaller light fleet carriers were restricted to around 20 aircraft once the change to jets came about. For example, the Australian Melbourne had a max airgroup of 8 Skyhawks, 6 Trackers and 6-8 helos (Sea Kings or Wessex).
The USN always recognised that the prime purpose of a carrier is to operate as many aircraft as possible. Even in peacetime USN carriers have operated large air groups. Other navies have typically embarked ‘peacetime’ air groups, expanding them in times of crisis. The RAN Sydney, for example normally operated only 12 Sea Furies and 12 Fireflies but took on an additional Sea Fury squadron for Korean deployments. As a result of always operating at or near ‘the edge’ the USN has achieved a level of efficiency in carrier operations that is, as Jeff has indicated, well ahead of other navies.
Tas
I know some rescue operation training took place.Any word on any other training operations??
Neutral Zone
Junior Member
I'd read that some PLAN ships were paying a courtesy visit to Portsmouth, it's still takes a bit of getting used to to see an RN carrier escorted by a Chinese DDG but long may these events continue!
Turning back to the memories of the A-4, it has to be one of the greatest warplanes of all time. For it's size it carried a formidable punch and wasn't a bad fighter either, didn't the USN use them for a short time as fighters operating off the CVS carriers? And to think it could do all while being so small that it didn't need a folding wing! It, the A-1 Skyraider and the A-3D were all designed by Ed Heinmann, a true aviation genius, just think how much service the USN got out of all three of those aircraft! He is the sort of guy US carriers should be named after!
Turning back to the memories of the A-4, it has to be one of the greatest warplanes of all time. For it's size it carried a formidable punch and wasn't a bad fighter either, didn't the USN use them for a short time as fighters operating off the CVS carriers? And to think it could do all while being so small that it didn't need a folding wing! It, the A-1 Skyraider and the A-3D were all designed by Ed Heinmann, a true aviation genius, just think how much service the USN got out of all three of those aircraft! He is the sort of guy US carriers should be named after!
Last edited:
harryRIEDL
New Member
well Tasman you just got to one of the great selling points of the CVF is great sortie rate 110 sorties compared with a Nimitz sortie rate of 140 and the fords 160-220 at a 1/4 crew
interesting seeing PLAN ships with a newly refitted Ark Royal i belive its more of a good will exercise with a football game
Tasman
Junior Member
Yes I agree with you about the CVF.
The ability to sustain a high sortie rate requires a high degree of efficiency in flight (and hangar) deck design and operations. The total number of aircraft carried is of little importance if only a handful can be efficiently operated. I think the RN has greatly improved its ability to get the most out of a small deck with the experience gained operating the Invincible class. These have proven able to effectively operate much larger airgroups than originally planned.
In the CVF, sortie rate is a major issue in the design and layout. Modern aircraft, like the F-35B, with its reduced 'down time' for maintenance will also contribute to achieving this.
The CVF design will give a huge boost to the FAA's ability to deliver highly effective air striking power.
Tas
- Status