Aircraft Carriers

Gollevainen said:

well main threat of what against all S.american navies are planned to be used
are the other S.american navies.
And in that, carrier, even a modest one, is clear advantage and it brings some of the most basic features of sea borne aviation in to completely different ligth if compared to other parts of world...

Click to expand...

Brazil has the Sao Paulo but that's it for carriers in South America. However, I do not really see much need for a carrier in Chile. I don't think that they have any major threats against them. As for patrolling duties, just buy a few maritime patrol aircraft.

Somebody said that Bolivia wants to reclaim its route to the Pacific. That dispute was during the 1800s. Besides, Bolivia is landlocked so an aircraft carrier wouldn't do much good.

I wonder about those squadrons which normaly deploy on carriers- during refits isn't the Navy has more than enough of them? Also, the USMC F-18 squadrons deploy both on overseas land bases and carriers!

"Argentina did not commit her CV to the fray" thanks to the threat of British SSNs- otherwise their CV would have been used! IMO not only S.American carriers are more "pride than need"- the Thai Navy CV is also the royal yacht which rarely leaves port, not to mention the RN Kuznetsov that could use some Chinese $$$ to operate accident-free!

..But the last time the Kuznetsov air wing flew from its deck was in 1998, when the ship traveled to the Mediterranean. Another voyage of a big Russian naval task force into the Mediterranean, led by the Kuznetsov, was planned for the fall of 2000, but the sinking of the Kursk nuclear submarine stopped it. ..
The Kuznetsov was used during the Kursk salvage operation as a stop-off for helicopters, but its air wing stayed on terra firma. Now the Kuznetsov is in a shipyard for repairs and will not sail until 2004. Due to a lack of funds and apparently serious problems with the Kuznetsov's main engines, it's possible it will never do much sailing again.
Russia's best carrier pilot, General Timur Apakidze, plunged to the ground in his naval air force Su-33 at an air show near Pskov a year ago and died from his injuries. Apakidze was the first Russian pilot to take off and land on deck. Most experts agree his death was the result of too little flight practice.
This summer Ukraine allowed the Kuznetsov air wing to use the aircraft simulator airfield that the Soviets built in Crimea to do some simulated landings and takeoffs. But with no real sea practice for several years and no prospect of any in the immediate future, it's safe to say that Russia's naval air capability is zero.
It would seem pragmatic for our defense establishment to concentrate its limited resources on having at least one operational aircraft carrier group to fly the flag worldwide, if it is serious in its talk of preserving Russia as a naval power of any significance. Instead, resources are being spread thinly in a futile attempt to keep all former Soviet naval holdings alive, including the Baltic Fleet.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Soviet-built carriers, including the Kuznetsov, have been plagued with maintenance problems. Their steam turbine engines require distilled pure water, but supplying this at sea is often a problem, as the engine tubings constantly get clogged up and rupture. Typically, a Russian aircraft carrier puts to sea for a month or two, and then spends years in the shipyard undergoing repairs.The Kuznetsov does not have a takeoff catapult, and its Su-33 fighters cannot take off with any heavy payload or at full fuel capacity. The Kuznetsov fighters cannot bomb land targets or attack enemy ships: They carry only light air-to-air missiles to intercept enemy planes. The Kuznetsov also has long-range S-300 anti-aircraft missiles and was built primarily to defend ships and submarines at sea against NATO air supremacy, while its helicopters can attack enemy subs.
This time in the Atlantic, our carrier battle group simulated an attack by a U.S. carrier group with cruise missiles of the Pyotr Veliky and Oscar II subs, while the Kuznetsov did its best to defend against enemy aircraft counterattacks. Nowadays a mid-Atlantic clash between Russian and U.S. carrier groups seems to be a remote possibility, but what else can our Navy do? Its present hardware allows it to either stay in port or simulate fighting NATO.
The Navy put all it had into a show of strength to try to show the West, the Kremlin and our public it is still capable of action. The result, like other high-profile naval exercises in recent years, is a public embarrassment that could easily have turned into a major disaster. ..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I wonder about those squadrons which normaly deploy on carriers- during refits isn't the Navy has more than enough of them? Also, the USMC F-18 squadrons deploy both on overseas land bases and carriers!

"Argentina did not commit her CV to the fray" thanks to the threat of British SSNs- otherwise their CV would have been used! IMO not only S.American carriers are more "pride than need"- the Thai Navy CV is also the royal yacht which rarely leaves port, not to mention the RN Kuznetsov that could use some Chinese $$$ to operate accident-free!

Click to expand...

The USN has enough air wings for now. Sometimes the CVW's are re-assigned to another ship and or some squadrons transition into other update aircraft. Such as a Super Hornet.
-------------------------------------

As far as the Falklands war is concerned I just read this in another forum. The member claims that CV-59 was on station near Brazil during the Falklands War. Maybe Obi Wan can shed some light on this subject.

FORRESTALS CG was doing "excercises" off the coast of South Florida, I was part of it. My ship took on a un-usual amount of fuel after leaving Ft. Lauderdale; the consesus was that and our un-official orders were to steam south and stand by in case the Brits need help in the islands. We got as far as Fortaleza, Brasil and you guys got it mopped up.
So, if things turned bad down there, we would have finished it off for you. Our BG was composed of 59, Yorktown, 2 OHP and 1 each Adams and Knox. We picked up 2 688's off Mayport and Key West.
I think it would have worked out either way

Click to expand...

That link may or may not let you in...

I checked that story and the "FID" ..CV-59. was in the MED/IO from June 'til Nov of '82.



It could have been in the area discribed for a short period of time.

Interesting topic to come back to... I know that President Reagan threw a lot of weight behind the British war effort, despite opposition from Jean Kirkpatrick, the US ambassador to the UN who favoured Argentina simply because it was an AMERICAN nation. She and others in the administration saw the communist threat to central and South America as being much more important than helping a NATO ally and Argentina was a key ally of the US in that fight. Also she appeared to see the matter as a continuation of the dismemberment of the British Empire and the Falklands were just another colony to be liberated from the tyranny of mad King George's rule... at which point Ronnie muzzled her and told her that Britain was the closest ally the US will ever have and America would definitely take the UK's side. NATO stocks of the latest model sidewinder (AIM-9L) were released to the RN (which up until the start of the conflict had been equipped with older AIM-9Gs left over from FAA Phantoms) when the US pledged to replace any used missiles and other equipment was released to the Task Force. I'm not at all surprised that a US Carrier group was quietly put on standby to assist, although thankfully it wasn't needed. If one or both of the RN's CVs had been disabled there were two replacements back in the UK, Illustrious, which was being rushed to completion, and Bulwark, which could have been reactivated within a couple of months. A second Task Force could have been dispatched in July, loaded mainly with RAF GR3 Harriers and the two prototype AEW Sea Kings.

I have no doubt that if needed, the US would have lent a CSG to the RN for the duration (remaining US manned of course) simply because the US could not afford to let it's closest ally lose. The performance of the Sea Harrier force in combat surprised everyone, defeating a modern land based air force ten times it's size whilst operating 8,000miles from it's own bases, a result that shocked everyone except those who flew the SHAR. As Cmdr Nigel 'Sharkey' Ward CO of 801 NAS aboard Invincible said in his book 'Sea Harrier over the Falklands'; "We are not outnumbered, we are in a Target-Rich Environment!".

Obi Wan Russell said:

Interesting topic to come back to...

Click to expand...

Hey, Obi Wan, have you ever read the book, "The Battle for the Falklands", by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins. I found it to be a riveting and well documented and welll stated account. Amazing what the RN and Army did down there against superior numbers so far away from re-supply.

Took some serious naval losses too.

I am concerned with recent cuts in the RN budget and ships, and with the recent resurgance og Argentine claims to the islands, that they may well try again. What do you think, and what would the RN respond with?

Personally, despite the cuts, I believe one or two RN carriers and the Ocean and other Amphibious vessels could respond, particularly if the new Halifax DDGs are operational...even one of them.

Such a force would overwhelm any Argentine effort IMHO.

Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them... The RN with just two CVs, one more decommissioned and laid up in Portsmouth, large numbers of destroyers and frigates facing the axe prematurely along with the Ice Patrol ship Endurance. A Government that prioritises the RAF and the Army, whilst seeing little use for the RN.

Question. 1981 or 2007?

answer: BOTH!

Some fools never learn...

Yes I have read that book, I have an original copy from the eighties lurking on my book shelf along with Anthony Preston's Sea Combat Off the Falklands, one of the first books to anylise what happened. In that book the author states that amongst the hasty measures looked into during the conflict was reurning a few Gannet AEW planes to service, and although a few airframes were still airworthy the only deck they could have launched from was Bulwark as she had no ski jump. Whilst the Gannet was capable of free takeoff without a catapult, they still needed arrestor wires to stop and the last ones Britain possesed had gone to the breakers yard in 1980 aboard Ark Royal.

I believe if we get the Navy we were promised (two CVFs, F-35B, 8 Daring class DDGs, and keep the new amphibious force) then we could retake the Falklands (it has to be conceded that in a race the Argentines will get there first). The RAF base at Mount Pleasant will be seen to have been folly, as the four fighters there will not be able to stop a full scale invasion as they will simply be overwhelmed by superior numbers (of inferior aircraft) and some Argentine Air Force General will thank the RAF for building him a very comfortable new air base from which they can base their high performance fighters and strike planes (something they couldn't do at Stanley airport in 82). Sharkey Ward said in his book that the New Air Base was a waste of money and Stanley should have been upgraded to operate Sea Harriers (a full squadron, 12+) which could do the job much better than the Tornados and if the Islands fell again then Argentina would again be unable to base fighters there. There is a growing realisation here about the Governments disastrous defence plans (which are rumoured to include closing Portsmouth, cutting the Daring class back to four units and cancelling the CVFs. In my book this is Treason, ie giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war). The treasury refuses to provide any extra funds for fighting the wars in Iraq and Afganistan so the costs have to come out of the normal peacetime budget, Which is about half what it was in the eighties.
Don't let anyone suggest that Britain cannot afford to fund its defence program, after all this country has the world's Fourth largest economy, and the MODs budget is one of the smallest of all the government departments. The way things are going talk about replacement Trident SSBNs will be moot; there will be no RN to man them.

Having had a few minures to think about it in the Shower (some people sing, I ponder future war scenarios. C'est la vie. Pardon my French!), a future invasion of the Falklands would probably start with Argentine special forces being landed by Sub (several trips to build up a sizeable force) who then prepare to attack RAF Mount Pleasant. The Tornados would then be lured away to a decoy incursion by AAF aircraft to keep them occupied whilst the airbase is attacked and taken. The Argentines then have a base to fly in more troops from the mainland and quickly overwhelm the garrison (by weight of numbers, as in 82). More troops are shipped in (has anyone noticed how the impoverished Argentine Navy is still finding funds to invest in amphibious shipping, including converting one of their type 42 DDGs to a fast amphibious transport. The other one may be converted too if funds permit) and within 24 to 48 hours the islands are in Argentine habds once more. We would struggle to send a Task force now as we have nowhere near as many ships (although the amphibious force is about the right size, we have insufficient escorts) and since the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier we have barely adequate fleet defence, the GR9 harrier has no radar and only sidewinders for self defence, no BVR capability. When the SHAR was withdrawn the MOD said air defence would be assumed by the type 42 DDGs, but now these are being paid off with no replacement for most of them.

Perhaps this Government, in their zeal to be "at the heart of Europe", actually believe we are no longer an island nation and are now a landlocked country between Belgium and Luxembourg!

There is a growing realisation here about the Governments disastrous defence plans (which are rumoured to include closing Portsmouth, cutting the Daring class back to four units and cancelling the CVFs. In my book this is Treason, ie giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war). The treasury refuses to provide any extra funds for fighting the wars in Iraq and Afganistan so the costs have to come out of the normal peacetime budget, Which is about half what it was in the eighties.
Don't let anyone suggest that Britain cannot afford to fund its defence program, after all this country has the world's Fourth largest economy, and the MODs budget is one of the smallest of all the government departments. The way things are going talk about replacement Trident SSBNs will be moot; there will be no RN to man them.

Click to expand...

Damn Shame! That is a horrible. Basically dismantleing the RN. A disppicable act!

And we defence "buffs" in the US are bemoaning the fact that the USN will name CVN-78 after the 38th President. After reading this we have nothing to bitch about!

Obi Wan Russell said:

Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them... The RN with just two CVs, one more decommissioned and laid up in Portsmouth, large numbers of destroyers and frigates facing the axe prematurely along with the Ice Patrol ship Endurance.

Click to expand...

It's worse than I thought. My heart felt sorrow for you and your nation.

Obi Wan Russell said:

Yes I have read that book, I have an original copy from the eighties lurking on my book shelf along with Anthony Preston's Sea Combat Off the Falklands, one of the first books to anylise what happened.

Click to expand...

I thought it was an excellent book and will find, buy and read the other that you mention.

Obi Wan Russell said:

I believe if we get the Navy we were promised (two CVFs, F-35B, 8 Daring class DDGs, and keep the new amphibious force) then we could retake the Falklands (it has to be conceded that in a race the Argentines will get there first).

Click to expand...

The Argentines know this too and if they are going to act, will act when you are at your weakest...well before the new carriers come online.

Obi Wan Russell said:

The RAF base at Mount Pleasant will be seen to have been folly, as the four fighters there will not be able to stop a full scale invasion as they will simply be overwhelmed by superior numbers (of inferior aircraft) and some Argentine Air Force General will thank the RAF for building him a very comfortable new air base from which they can base their high performance fighters and strike planes (something they couldn't do at Stanley airport in 82). Sharkey Ward said in his book that the New Air Base was a waste of money and Stanley should have been upgraded to operate Sea Harriers (a full squadron, 12+) which could do the job much better than the Tornados and if the Islands fell again then Argentina would again be unable to base fighters there.

Click to expand...

Agreed. if a base was going to be built there, it needed a full squadron of aircraft to keep the Argentines in check. Four will not do.

Obi Wan Russell said:

There's a growing realisation here about the Governments disastrous defence plans (which are rumoured to include closing Portsmouth, cutting the Daring class back to four units and cancelling the CVFs. In my book this is Treason, ie giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war). The treasury refuses to provide any extra funds for fighting the wars in Iraq and Afganistan so the costs have to come out of the normal peacetime budget, Which is about half what it was in the eighties.
Don't let anyone suggest that Britain cannot afford to fund its defence program, after all this country has the world's Fourth largest economy, and the MODs budget is one of the smallest of all the government departments. The way things are going talk about replacement Trident SSBNs will be moot; there will be no RN to man them.

Click to expand...

I believe such action is treasonous as well. We have plenty of it going on here in the states...but not nearly to the extent you are experiencing it. The world is not a safe place and there are still significant maritime risks and dangers.

Obi Wan Russell said:

a future invasion of the Falklands would probably start with Argentine special forces being landed by Sub (several trips to build up a sizeable force) who then prepare to attack RAF Mount Pleasant. The Tornados would then be lured away to a decoy incursion by AAF aircraft to keep them occupied whilst the airbase is attacked and taken. The Argentines then have a base to fly in more troops from the mainland and quickly overwhelm the garrison (by weight of numbers, as in 82). More troops are shipped in (has anyone noticed how the impoverished Argentine Navy is still finding funds to invest in amphibious shipping, including converting one of their type 42 DDGs to a fast amphibious transport. The other one may be converted too if funds permit) and within 24 to 48 hours the islands are in Argentine habds once more. We would struggle to send a Task force now as we have nowhere near as many ships (although the amphibious force is about the right size, we have insufficient escorts) and since the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier we have barely adequate fleet defence, the GR9 harrier has no radar and only sidewinders for self defence, no BVR capability. When the SHAR was withdrawn the MOD said air defence would be assumed by the type 42 DDGs, but now these are being paid off with no replacement for most of them.

Click to expand...

I hope the Argentines do not read and act on your post.

The west's continued draw down and complacancy, particularly in the Naval arena, may well one day, sadly IMHO, be seen as one of the great follies of the 21st century. Much as the 1930s was in a by gone era.

I heard somehere that the Brits were considering handing the Falklands to Argentina, but the junta there decided to force the issue as it was loosing popular support at home. The main assets aren't the islands but rich fishing area around them. I guess the Monroe doctrine didn't apply here! That war saw the seeds of future conflicts in the Antarctic- unless the dispute is resolved to Argentina's satisfaction!
I don't think that in the long run the UK & her allies stand to benefit by defending/keeping the islands (which is affront to all in Latin America & S.Hemisphere) - but that's off topic...
The AAF may one day decide to get the Su-30s, following Venezuela's example! Then may God help the British!

While reports vary, it seems apparent that Venezuela has now bought between 24-30 SU-30MK2s, a multi-role 2-seat variant with substantial air-air and air-ground capabilities. The SU-30MK2 is not the most advanced Russian fighter developed; it lacks the canard foreplanes or thrust vectoring of more advanced variants like India's SU-30MKI, or Sukhoi's new variants the SU-34 strike aircraft or SU-37 fighter that are waiting for procurement orders. Having said that, SU-30MK2s as a base platform are the equal of China's most advanced SU-30MKKK2s, and equal to or better than most SU-30 variants currently serving in Russia. ..
One-one-one, and with other things being equal (both of which rarely apply in tactical situations), the SU-30s match up well against US aircraft. Where the US "teen series" fighters like the F-16, F-18 and F-15 are built around 1970 designs, the Sukhoi jets are late 1980s designs that apply many of the lessons from America's teen series aircraft, plus some of their own twists. The result is an improved airframe with a large and capable radar and a higher-performance design; one capable of unique maneuvers and remarkably adaptable to modernization via canards, thrust vectoring, and other advanced features. Indeed, Sukhoi's fighters have become the baseline against which most twin-engine western fighters are measured. Their only major weakness is the design's inherent lack of stealth.
In air-to-air combat, many observers consider the SU-30 to be superior to both the F/A-18 and F-15 variants, on even footing with the Rafale, outclassed by the Eurofighter, and very much outclassed by the stealthy F-22A. In terms of air-ground combat, however, their range, payload, and performance means their only western equal may be the F-15E+ Strike Eagle variants, with the F-22A excelling the SU-30s in specific missions like air defense suppression but unable to carry their weight or versatility of armament.
With that said, one should add that the fighter sale is only the first part of any military capability. Venezuela's SU-30 fleet will depend on advanced missiles like the short-range AA-11/R-73 Archer and long-range AA-12/R-77 'AMRAAMski' to give it real air-air punch - modern SU-30s include the ability to fire the R-77s in addition to the older R-27/AA-10 Alamo. In the strike role, possession of smart bombs and missiles (esp. antiship missiles) will make a significant different to the fighters' full striking power. Paying attention to whether or not Venezuela buys those "ancillaries," therefore, is as important as the aircraft sale itself.

Click to expand...

'Sea Combat off the Falklands' by Anthony Preston, published 1982 by Willow books, ISBN 002180464, and another good read on the subject is 'Air War South Atlantic' by Jeffrey Ethell and Alfred Price, published 1983 by Book Club associates, ISBN 028399035x.

I'm hoping there will be a backlash of public opinion about the looming defence cuts, so far media attention has been on the Army as they are in the front line in Iraq and Afganistan and are being criminally underfunded (US forces in theatre call them 'the Borrowers' because they are always asking the US for essential equipment). The only air threat facing the UK at the moment comes from hijacked airliners, which can be successfully intercepted by Hawk trainers fitted with sidewinders (about 100 of the T1 Hawks were modified to this standard in the eighties and are still in service) so the Typhoon order cannot be justified at the present. If we are going to stay in the expeditionary warfare game then carriers are the only way to go.

The four Tornados based in the Falklands have names; Faith, Hope, Charity and Desperation! Successive British Governments from the sixties and seventies were constantly trying to offload the Falklands to Argentina; there was just the small matter of the Falkland Islanders themselves, so British they bleed red white and blue! None of them speak Spanish (deliberately) and unlike the government they were and are still proud to be British. To anyone from the US reading this, imagine how you'd feel if the US government decided to negotiate for the return of your home town to Mexico just because they couldn't be bothered with you any more?

If Argentina does follow my plan for invading the Falklands I'll sue them for breach of copyright! On the other hand a good naval war is just what the RN needs right now to remind the Government how much it is needed. Ho Chi Minh was said to be the USNs best friend in the Vietnam war for proving the value of CVAs, and likewise General Galtieri was said to be the savior of the RN in the Falklands. What we need right now is a crackpot dictator who lives near the sea and doesn't care who he upsets...