Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

asif iqbal · Dec 10, 2013

Jeff Head said:
Well Asif, you are getting a bit too exuberant.

Yes, the Queen Es can hold more fighters than they currently plan. Instead of the 12, each could hold 36.

But the US carriers can do the same, only a lot more.

If it was a known big fight, and if the Europeans were "surging," each US carrier would also "surge," and carry 90+ aircraft which would mean each of them would go in with 72 of their own fighters. On each carrier.

Two fully equipped Nimitz though would still have a hard time against two Queen Es and the Charles de Gaulle and either of or both of the Cavour and the Juan Carlos. And the Queen Es absolutely need the CDG for is for the Hawkeyes. Sadly, when the UK went with the STOBAR carrier, as opposed to the CATOBAR, they missed out on the best AEW too. and the AEW is a game changer in these kind of confrontations.

Maybe some day a very decent Opsrey AEW aircraft will be developed, but even then, that aircraft will not be a match of the E-2C...much less the new E-2D the US will have.

So...if you add all five of the major european carriers together, that's why I say it will take at least three US carriers to deal with that. The European force would max out at about 156 fighters, while the three Nimitz would bring 216 to the same party. Advantage US...but still a very dangerous situation.

As it is...it's not going to happen. All of those carriers will be on the same side in any forseeable future conflict.

Well no because it would still take two Nimitz Class carriers to trump two QE carriers, 2:1 would mean 72 vs 72 and better AWACS alone couldn't make up for the extra carrier, plus RN would have to hit one target and USN two deminishing the small advantage USN has

So that's why I said it would take two Nimitz carrier strike groups to ensure superiority over Royal Navy, one to equal the fire power and two to out do it

But what we should really be comparing is bombs on target rate or sortie rate

Two QE can produce 150-180 sorties per day equal to a Nimitz Class, USN would not use half a carrier so would have to bring second carrier in the game meaning again two Nimitz Class carriers to equal the RN albeit a much greater sortie rate probably 50% more but it still means two full strength Nimitz strike groups committed

Franklin · Dec 10, 2013

I'm not talking about future planes like the F-35B Lightning II. I'm looking at the current air wings of carriers.

Europe has 4 carriers the Charles de Gaulle (France), Cavour (Italy), Giuseppe Garibaldi (Italy) Juan Carlos I (Spain).

The Europeans have the following carrier capable planes.

France (12 Rafale M) (16 Super Etendard)

Italy (16 Sea Harriers)

Spain (17 Sea Harriers)

The Giuseppe Garibaldi can carry 12 to 18 Sea Harriers alone but as far as i know the Italians only have 16 Sea Harriers in their inventory. So that means Europe has 61 planes on carriers in total vs the 48 planes of a Nimitz class carrier. However with the exception of the 12 Rafale M all other planes are vastly inferior to the F/A-18 Hornet and the Super Hornets. How well would a Sea Harrier or a Super Etendard do against a F/A-18 Hornet in an air battle ? And as far as escorts are concerned the US has more AB class DDG's and Tico class cruisers than the Europeans have Type 45, Horizon or FREMM's in their arsenal.

In the future the Europeans will do better as Europe will have 72 F-35B's, 24 to 28 Rafale M's and then the Sea Harriers. Then Europe will be much more of a challenge for the US. Perhabs the US will need at least 3 carriers to counter the Europeans. Even then the performance of the F-35C is superior to the F-35B. But as far as i know Spain and Italy have no plans to buy F-35B's for their carriers. The only customers for the F-35B is the US Marines and the RN.

PS how many F-35C's can a Nimitz class carrier carry ?

Jeff Head · Dec 10, 2013

asif iqbal said:
Well no because it would still take two Nimitz Class carriers to trump two QE carriers, 2:1 would mean 72 vs 72 and better AWACS alone couldn't make up for the extra carrier, plus RN would have to hit one target and USN two deminishing the small advantage USN ha.

The Royal Navy sacrificed a lot when they gave up on the CATOBAR. The AEW advantage of the Hawkeye, and especially now the new E-2D is emmense.

I believe the UK pols did this because they could not forsee a time of the UK having to be involved in any major war at sea scenario without US support...or French support.

So, without a strong AEW aircraft out in the far eaches of any ocean, the Queen E's together would not fair well at all against a single, fully loaded Nimits. With the Charles de Gaulle, however (since we are talking about a "European," combined force), it would definitely (IMHO) take two Nimitz carriers to face the of the Queen Es and the CDG. combination.

As to the second scenario, two NImitz class carriers would have a tough fight against all five European carreirs. To assure a very strong likelihood of victory, I would not go against all of them without three Nimitz. But I believe a large carrier group of three Nimitz or Ford carriers would be able to defeat all of the European carriers.

asif iqbal said:
Two QE can produce 150-180 sorties per day equal to a Nimitz Class, USN would not use half a carrier so would have to bring second carrier in the game meaning again two Nimitz Class carriers to equal the RN albeit a much greater sortie rate probably 50% more but it still means two full strength Nimitz strike groups committed

As long as you include the Charles de Gaulle in there...I agree.

All the sortie rates in the world will not help if you do not know where your opponent is...but he knows where you are. That would be the case if there was a singel Nimitz against both Queen Es. With the E-2D against a force without anything similar...they US would have a huge advanatge...almost impossible to voercome.

With the CDG, they have a decent chance of finding the US carrier group at good range. Without it, the US carrier will never come within range of the Queen E's AEW, and would be able to launch its own strike packages long before the Queen Esfound the exact location of the carrier.

Now, the Queen E would send out patrols in an attempt to find the US carrier...but the US would have that huge advantage in establishing barrier caps to keep that from happening, and altrernately finding the UK carriers with its E-2D aircraft assisting its fighters.

Please understand, the Queen Es are going to be very potent and powerful carriers...with excellent strike groups. But without the advanced and long range AEW capabilities, they are hobbled if they ever have to go up against a carrier that has those capabilities. The Sea Kings or Merlin AEW helos are no comparison. An Osprey AEW would help a lot...but still would not be a competitor to an E-2D. That's why many were so sad to see the change to the STOBAR for the UK.

As I said, I believe the PM's probably thought they could go ahead because they figured the US or French would be involved with the Queen Es in any major war at sea scenario where that long range AEW would become critical. And they are probably right.

As it is...this whole discussion is really academic. It is almost beyond the realm of belief or possibility that these forces will ever fight one another in our life time, or in that of our grand children.

Franklin · Dec 10, 2013

asif iqbal said:
Well no because it would still take two Nimitz Class carriers to trump two QE carriers, 2:1 would mean 72 vs 72 and better AWACS alone couldn't make up for the extra carrier, plus RN would have to hit one target and USN two deminishing the small advantage USN has

So that's why I said it would take two Nimitz carrier strike groups to ensure superiority over Royal Navy, one to equal the fire power and two to out do it

But what we should really be comparing is bombs on target rate or sortie rate

Two QE can produce 150-180 sorties per day equal to a Nimitz Class, USN would not use half a carrier so would have to bring second carrier in the game meaning again two Nimitz Class carriers to equal the RN albeit a much greater sortie rate probably 50% more but it still means two full strength Nimitz strike groups committed

The problem is that the USN will be using F-35C's and the RN will be using F-35B's. The capability of the F-35C exceed the F-35B by some margin. So the RN can't match the US plane for plane as the American ones are better.

asif iqbal · Dec 10, 2013

Doesn't matter how you weight it up there's no way a single Nimitz Class strike group could trump two Queen Elizabeth Carrier strikes group no chance not in a 100 years, you are talking about each single Royal Navy carrier having two Daring Class DDG let alone the capability of just one, four Daring Class would ensure nothing screens past them without them knowing, you are also missing out two very very formidable SSN two Astute Class which could hold of single Virginia Class

No I don't believe that is possible at all let alone happen, you might come close to matching two carrier groups of the Royal Navy with your single Nimitz package but there's no way you will surpass them, no that would require two full USN Nimitz Class carrier strikes groups

The better carrier AWACS of USN doesn't make up for the extremely well equipped twin carriers groups the UK will deploy

So again I will say a single Nimitz carrier group could equal the two QE but not surpass it, of you want to surpass it that will require two strike packages

kwaigonegin · Dec 10, 2013

Jeff Head said:
In addition to China and India, I would add Russia to the mix of those nations capable of building a larger carrier. They may well build a larger carrier in the forseeable future. Even then though, I do not forsee any of them building anything like the Ford Class. Maybe something on the order of 80,000 tons in the future for any of those three.

I would probably throw Brazil in the mix there too. I can see them start building (or have someone build it for them) a new 60K-75K ton CV in the next 10 years etc

Franklin · Dec 10, 2013

Jeff Head said:
The Royal Navy sacrificed a lot when they gave up on the CATOBAR. The AEW advantage of the Hawkeye, and especially now the new E-2D is emmense.

I believe the UK pols did this because they could not forsee a time of the UK having to be involved in any major war at sea scenario without US support...or French support.

So, without a strong AEW aircraft out in the far eaches of any ocean, the Queen E's together would not fair well at all against a single, fully loaded Nimits. With the Charles de Gaulle, however (since we are talking about a "European," combined force), it would definitely (IMHO) take two Nimitz carriers to face the of the Queen Es and the CDG. combination.

As to the second scenario, two NImitz class carriers would have a tough fight against all five European carreirs. To assure a very strong likelihood of victory, I would not go against all of them without three Nimitz. But I believe a large carrier group of three Nimitz or Ford carriers would be able to defeat all of the European carriers.

As long as you include the Charles de Gaulle in there...I agree.

All the sortie rates in the world will not help if you do not know where your opponent is...but he knows where you are. That would be the case if there was a singel Nimitz against both Queen Es. With the E-2D against a force without anything similar...they US would have a huge advanatge...almost impossible to voercome.

With the CDG, they have a decent chance of finding the US carrier group at good range. Without it, the US carrier will never come within range of the Queen E's AEW, and would be able to launch its own strike packages long before the Queen Esfound the exact location of the carrier.

Now, the Queen E would send out patrols in an attempt to find the US carrier...but the US would have that huge advantage in establishing barrier caps to keep that from happening, and altrernately finding the UK carriers with its E-2D aircraft assisting its fighters.

Please understand, the Queen Es are going to be very potent and powerful carriers...with excellent strike groups. But without the advanced and long range AEW capabilities, they are hobbled if they ever have to go up against a carrier that has those capabilities. The Sea Kings or Merlin AEW helos are no comparison. An Osprey AEW would help a lot...but still would not be a competitor to an E-2D. That's why many were so sad to see the change to the STOBAR for the UK.

As I said, I believe the PM's probably thought they could go ahead because they figured the US or French would be involved with the Queen Es in any major war at sea scenario where that long range AEW would become critical. And they are probably right.

As it is...this whole discussion is really academic. It is almost beyond the realm of belief or possibility that these forces will ever fight one another in our life time, or in that of our grand children.

Of course no one here believes that there will be a war between the US and Europe this is all academic and for fun. However i have to ask can the E2 Hawkeye's detect F-35's that suppose to be stealthy. And wouldn't enemy radars like those of a Type 45 pick up the E-2 Hawkeye and there for warn them that an attack is coming ?

asif iqbal · Dec 10, 2013

Franklin said:
The problem is that the USN will be using F-35C's and the RN will be using F-35B's. The capability of the F-35C exceed the F-35B by some margin. So the RN can't match the US plane for plane as the American ones are better.

Make no difference, UK has a very high guard in the Daring Class, during a excercise a few years back a land based Eurofighter Typhoon was sent to attack a Daring Class DDG, the Typhoon was tasked to attack from a very high angle of attack fast and was to launch a stand off misisle, not only did the Daring detect, track and engage the missile it also engaged the Typhoon, nothing will pass this DDG it can scan from the sea to outer atmosphere and can see a tennis ball thrown in the air from 20km away

Four such DDG would ensure a circle of very tough defence against any air attack and can also direct fightes to the war zone

72 x F35C might have more firepower than 72 x F35B but that alone will not ensure you a win, to win you will need to commit two Nimitz carriers and field the full 144 fighters to ensure superiority because you have 4 of the worlds best DDG get past

perfume · Dec 10, 2013

Jeff Head said:
The Royal Navy sacrificed a lot when they gave up on the CATOBAR. The AEW advantage of the Hawkeye, and especially now the new E-2D is emmense.

I believe the UK pols did this because they could not forsee a time of the UK having to be involved in any major war at sea scenario without US support...or French support.

That and because of the costs and the state of the economy at the time of the decision. I believe if the STOBAR/CATOBAR decision were to be made now or in a couple years time, they would have gone for the CATOBAR. We could see that Cameron really wanted catapults and only made a U turn when he knew that the UK's military budget couldn't support building 2 CATOBAR QEs.

I agree with Jeff here, the only enemy I see the UK facing by itself in a conflict in the next 20 years is Argentina. With current trends, the RN ain't gonna need no CATOBAR, E-2s or F35Cs to deal with what Argentina has in any Falklands scenario.

kwaigonegin · Dec 10, 2013

Franklin said:
Of course no one here believes that there will be a war between the US and Europe this is all academic and for fun. However i have to ask can the E2 Hawkeye's detect F-35's that suppose to be stealthy. And wouldn't enemy radars like those of a Type 45 pick up the E-2 Hawkeye and there for warn them that an attack is coming ?

The question is not about ability to detect because EVERYTHING can be detected if close enough and/or given the right conditions. In war, the trick is to detect the other guy before he detects you! that's really about it. It's the very basic of fundementals of hunting.. whether it's deer hunting or hunting naval ships or subs. If a deer or turkey sees you first then you might as well pack up and go home.
For someone to attack someone they have to know where the other party is at first. For you to win you need to know where he is first before he knows where you are.

The question you need to ask is under wartime conditions can an E-2D detect a Type 45 first or the other way around?

Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General

Franklin

Captain

Jeff Head

General

Franklin

Captain

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General

kwaigonegin

Colonel

Franklin

Captain

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General

perfume

New Member

kwaigonegin

Colonel