Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

bd popeye said:

I don't think that info was classified.

I checked the demensions. It could have fit in the hangar with the tail folded or open. But I do not ever recall seeing the venerable "Whale" in the hangar deck. Never. On any ship I served aboard. We had them on the Kennedy & America. On the Midway we had RF-4 instead of A-3's. Now, A-3's did occasionaly come aboard on all the ships I was on except the Nimitz in 1991. When they came aboard depended upon the mission we were performing.

On the Midway we had RF-4c's from VMCJ-1 out of MCAS Iwakuni Japan. I think they had only two aircraft.

Click to expand...

I thought the RF-4C was the USAF version, the Navy and USMC had the RF-4B? The F-4C was a minimum change USAF variant on the Navy's F-4B which they followed up with the F-4D (looked the same but more changes internally) and the definitive USAF versin the F-4E (smaller diameter nose radar and gun mounted underneath). F-4F not initially used to avoid confusion later used for Luftwaffe version of F-4E with simplified avionics, '4G used for a small batch of F-4Bs in the sixties (aircraft later reconverted to B standard) and later adopted for USAF wild weasel SEAD aircraft, F-4H not used, F-4I not used, F-4J upgraded F-4B for USN/USMC, F-4K was J model with British RR Spey engines for RN (stolen by RAF) known as FG mk1, F-4L was K model proposed for USN for ESsex class (not adopted due to wooden decks/afterburners not being a good mix), F-4M was K model for RAF without long nose leg and other detail changes known as FGR mk2, F-4N was USN B model upgrade to J standard with extras, O, P, Q, R, not used, F-4S was upgraded F-4J to keep them viable into the 80s. If I remember correctly...

The F-4A of course covered about 45 pre production and trials aircraft which varied in appearance radically across their own production run, only the last 20 or so resembling the B model. Reading about it years ago was where I first heard the phrase 'Never fly the A model of anything' or in English 'beware of anything with Mk1 stamped on the side'!

Popeye, do those Nimitz-class carriers that have had the RIM-116 fitted still use Sea Sparrow? I know that Washington has had her RIMs fitted.

If they do still use Sea Sparrow with the newer systems, do you think it's worth it? Should they just remove them?

Oh no! All of a sudden I'm an answer man!

I thought the RF-4C was the USAF version, the Navy and USMC had the RF-4B? The F-4C was a minimum change USAF variant on the Navy's F-4B which they followed up with the F-4D (looked the same but more changes internally) and the definitive USAF versin the F-4E (smaller diameter nose radar and gun mounted underneath).

Click to expand...

Honestly..I was just a "non-rate" on the Midway. All I know as thet we had the F-4s with the pointy nose so they could spy on the Russians ..But once agin you were correct Obi Wan. The USMC did indeed fly RF-4B's. I just looked it up and they flew them until 1990. The only ship I ever saw them on was the Midway.

Other impressive recce aircraft on board Enterprise during its Hobart visit were a small number of RA5C Vigilantes. Were they in service during your time in the navy? I loved the look of them and they seemed almost as large as the Skywarriors (may actually have been longer).

Click to expand...

Yes the Vigilante was in service up to 1980. Usally they deployed with 3-4 aircraft per air wing. Those things took up a lot of space. They were huge. Seems like one was always spotted(parked) in the aft(rear) end of the hangar deck..eating up a lot of space.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The RA-5C in the Vietnam war

The RA-5C was first deployed to south-east Asia in August of 1964, initially flying missions only over South Vietnam because the Navy was reluctant to jeopardize the aircraft's sophisticated and very expensive equipment, should the aircraft be lost over North Vietnam.

Eventually, the Vigilantes did go North, suffering the highest loss rate of any Naval aircraft in the war. In all, eighteen Vigilantes were lost in combat.

• 11 were lost to antiaircraft fire.
• 2 were shot down by SA-2 Guideline surface-to-air missiles (SAM's).
• 1 was lost to an Atoll missile fired from a MiG-21 fighter.
• 4 were lost for unknown reasons, over N. Vietnam.
• 1 other aircraft was lost for unknown reasons, not over N. Vietnam.

Of the 11 lost to antiaircraft artillery, the majority were during post-strike reconnaissance missions; North Vietnamese gunners knew that shortly after a strike a Vigilante would be overhead, without supporting flak suppression.

Thirty-one deployments were made to Vietnam by Vigilante squadrons. During the early period of Vietnam operations, Vigilante squadrons deployed with six aircraft. As the war progressed, this figure began declining, first to five, then to four and finally, by 1974/75, to three aircraft per squadron.

Gradual disestablishment of the "Vigilante" force occurred during 1979-1980 with the deactivation of the last RA-5C squadron, and phasing out of the last of the 156 RA-5/A-3Js produced.

Click to expand...

Popeye, do those Nimitz-class carriers that have had the RIM-116 fitted still use Sea Sparrow? I know that Washington has had her RIMs fitted.

If they do still use Sea Sparrow with the newer systems, do you think it's worth it? Should they just remove them?
7 Hours Ago 02:13 AM

Click to expand...

The USN is gradually as CVN's go through re-fits replacing old Sea Sparrow systems with the RIM-116. In fact the USS Kitty Hawk CV-63 ,stationed in Japan, was the first CV to recieve the system. Also the now sunk USS Belleau wood LHA-3 had RIM-116 fitted. It too was at one time was stationed in Japan.

As far as I know those ships with the old Sea Sparrow system keep them in operation and soon they all will be replaced.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Features
The RIM-116 RAM is designed as an all-weather, high-firepower, low-cost, self-defense system against anti-ship cruise missiles and other asymmetric threats. Its original Block 0 design was based on the infrared seeker of the Stinger missile, and the warhead, rocket motor, and fuse from the Sidewinder missile. The Block 0 configuration uses Radio Frequency (RF) for midcourse guidance and transitions to Infrared (IR) guidance for terminal engagement. There is no shipboard support required (i.e. no illuminators) after missile launch. While retaining Block 0 guidance modes, Block 1 incorporates the added capability of autonomous IR-all-the-way guidance, thus countering advanced anti-ship missiles that do not employ onboard radar seekers. RIM-116 has been installed or is planned on the following ship classes: CV/CVN, DD-963, FFG, LHA, LHD, LSD, and LPD-17. The Navy expects to procure approximately 2,000 Block 1 missiles.

Click to expand...

DD-963?? The USN needs to update that page!! The "Spru-cans" are all decomissioned.

The news in this article is a big blow to the Indian Navy. It puts their CV programme two years in the rears. seems their pals the Russians are saying their newly re-fit CV the former and now will be delayed for two years.!! If I were the IN I would be steaming mad!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Concern in Delhi as Moscow delays aircraft carrier delivery, cost spirals

By IE
Wednesday April 25, 02:02 AM
Admiral Gorshkov or the rechristened Vikramaditya aircraft carrier was slated to be a showpiece Independence Day 2008 gift from Russia. But the arrival of the floating airfield stands delayed to at least 2010 with Russian shipbuilders underestimating the length of cabling in the warship.
Much to the concern of New Delhi - India's sole aircraft carrier INS Viraat does not have many years left with only 12 Sea Harrier jumpjets on deck - the Gorshkov project is now going into cost over-run of over $113 million, provisions of which have not been made in the Indo-Russian contract.

The warship, refurbished at the cost of $1 billion, which includes 16 MiG 29K aircraft, is being built at the Sevmash shipyard in Serverodvinsk City, once home to Russia's Northern Fleet.

Earlier, Russian shipbuilders had estimated 700 km of cabling in the ship but that's been revised to a total of 2,400 km for the carrier to be operational with the Indian Navy for the next two decades. According to official sources, even the sky-jump on the deck of Gorshkov is not completed and work is going at a slow pace.

A team headed by Vice Admiral B S Randhawa, Controller of Warship Production, and Joint Secretary (Maritime Acquisition) is going to Moscow next month to impress upon the Russians to speed up the Gorshkov repairs. On May 15, Randhawa will also inspect Gorshkov at the shipyard in northern Russia.

Adding to concerns here is Moscow's decision to look the other way as Pakistan received Chinese JF-17 fighters last month. These aircraft are powered by Russian RD-93 engines. Pakistan will now get 15 more fighters next year and another 200 by 2015.

Click to expand...

bd popeye said:

The USN is gradually as CVN's go through re-fits replacing old Sea Sparrow systems with the RIM-116. ..
As far as I know those ships with the old Sea Sparrow system keep them in operation and soon they all will be replaced.

Click to expand...

That exchange seems perhaps a little strange to me. I would much more have thought the Phalanx could be replaced with RAMs, since these systems are rather in the same class, but not the sea sparrow.
That's a loss in range, thus the carrier can only engage AShM in it's close vicinity. It shouldn't be that hard to put some ESSM there.
However, in an era were saturation attacks have become really unlikely that reduction and relying on escorts while engaging close-in threats with a higher efficiency may be ok.

The news in this article is a big blow to the Indian Navy. It puts their CV programme two years in the rears. seems their pals the Russians are saying their newly re-fit CV the former and now will be delayed for two years.!! If I were the IN I would be steaming mad!

Click to expand...

Probably strains the CV branch, but I think the Viraat was to stay in service until 2012 when the Vikrant enters service anyway.
Now the indians will have to introduce two "new" CVs into the fleet nearly the same time.

I wouldm't worry about the Viraat/Hermes hanging on, she was built tough! The Sea Harriers are being upgraded too with the intention of retaining them beyong Viraat's withdrawal so the IN will remain credible in the CV field for some time yet. Of course they could make a bid for Invincible around 2010, even if they only lease her as a stopgap for say five years.

Thanks to one and all for keeping this great thread alive with some new discussion!

That exchange seems perhaps a little strange to me. I would much more have thought the Phalanx could be replaced with RAMs, since these systems are rather in the same class, but not the sea sparrow.
That's a loss in range, thus the carrier can only engage AShM in it's close vicinity. It shouldn't be that hard to put some ESSM there.
However, in an era were saturation attacks have become really unlikely that reduction and relying on escorts while engaging close-in threats with a higher efficiency may be ok.

Click to expand...

The USN is maintaining the Phalanx CIWS system on all CVN's.

As far as warding off any missile attack. USN CVN's never go to sea without an escort. I'm sure you are aware that a USN CVN would rely on it's Arliegh Burke and Tico escorts to fend off a missile attack.

Of course they could make a bid for Invincible around 2010, even if they only lease her as a stopgap for say five years.

Click to expand...

I wish I could find this article I once read that stated the RN was not planning on selling off the Invincible. Do you know if,for certain, they do plan on selling the ship off as you stated?

bd popeye said:

Oh no! All of a sudden I'm an answer man!

Click to expand...

And a good job you're doing to! Thanks for the info - some of these things you can't get off the net or from books, but you can get it from people who were there (or on board in this case)!

Cheers

bd popeye said:

The USN is maintaining the Phalanx CIWS system on all CVN's.

As far as warding off any missile attack. USN CVN's never go to sea without an escort. I'm sure you are aware that a USN CVN would rely on it's Arliegh Burke and Tico escorts to fend off a missile attack.

Click to expand...

Yes I'm aware that a CVN will have it's excorts to defend against missile attacks. I just wanted to say that I think one or two dozen ESSMs on a Nimitz-class wouldn't really take up valuable space. But it adds another ship to the fleet that carries them making the simultanious engagement capability a little greater.
According to the CVN-21 will be armed with ESSM and RAM, while Phalanx is not mentioned. I havn't found anything else on the armament of it.

Besides the Invincibles and Principe de Austurias wich only have guns, current and future western (european) CVs have now at least point defence (Aster15 -> up to 30km; Aspide on Gabrialdi->14km)and not only CIWS SAMs.
The de Gaulle has all three types: Aster 15 point-defence, Mistral CIWS and eight 20mm guns.
But then again these vessels have not the same escorsting firepower like USN CVNs.

Quote:I wish I could find this article I once read that stated the RN was not planning on selling off the Invincible. Do you know if,for certain, they do plan on selling the ship off as you stated?

With this government nobody knows anything for certain. They are fond of selling the family silver, so to speak, and even though scrap metal prices are rising again they know they will still get a better price for Invincible as a going concern than as scrap. Warship sales are well established in principle because they lead to lucrative support contracts and follow on sales, and RN ships are only scrapped these days as a last resort.

The LPD HMS Intrepid was decommissioned in 1991 but is still hanging around Portsmouth harbour with her sister HMS Fearless (paid off 2002) because scrapping would be very expensive due to environmental concerns. There is still talk of preserving Fearless as a Falklands memorial, but Intrepid would not be a candidate as she was stripped for parts (including the massive stern gate) to keep Fearless running for her final 11 years. Recently there was a newspaper story that Intrepid would be 'Recycled' (new 'green' way of saying scrapped) in the UK in order to guarantee Health and Safety concerns would be met, but no details or dates were announced. In the current climate and unless something drastic changes I don't see Invincible going anywhere near a scrapyard anytime in the forseeable future. Part of the British influence on the JSF program has been to insist on keeping the size of the aircraft down so that it would fit on the Invincible class' lifts. Yet they were never scheduled to operate them... could it be a bit of forward sales planning to increse the number of buyers for the F-35B by seeling the Invincible class as cheap second hand platforms for Lightnings (FNS Foch went to Brazil for $15million, but the real money is in support contracts)? Big business has a lot of influence over this Government and I'm sure this thought has crossed a few minds. Just as in the US, scrapping ships here under current environmental and H&S rules is prohibitively expensive and towing them to India to be scrapped small children for a few pennies a month is politically unpopular to say the least. I believe they will sell the class on as going concerns simply for monetary reasons, and money is the only language modern pollies understand.