F/A-18 Super Hornet

[jlvfr]

Some people here seem to think only of "sinking the carrier". But you don't have to sink it, do you? Simply remove it from combat. A hit on the flight deck, or the island, or an elevator, in short, any hit tthat prevents the carrier from operating planes, and that's it. No more carrier. Also, how much speed does the carrier need to launch fighters with a usefull weapons load? 30knots? Loose the rudder or a propeller...

[GGTharos]

It is clearly marked in the performance charts of the F-15A/B/C/D -1.

I have read otherwise in an article by a EE Lightning pilot who flew F-15's on exchange, but I am happy to be corrected if a relevant source is provided.

[Aussiegunner]

Am i the only one who still remembers about nuclear warheads on Granits?

No, but I also remember the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction.

[Jimmy]

Has Russia ever admitted to that? Not that their denials really mean anything in this case.

[NUS]

Am i the only one who still remembers about nuclear warheads on Granits?

[surfgun]

All US super carriers have Four catapults.

[Kilo 2-3]

Andrey, I don't think it's quite that simple. Nimitz-and the future Ford-class have three cats. From what I've read, each of the Nimitz's catapults are a semi-self-contained system which draws steam from the main powerplant. A good hit might be able to disable one or two cats and slow operations down; but it'd take multiple very lucky hits to down the cats. It isn't like "Top Gun." (remember the Hollywood justification at the climax of the film?) The Fords' EMALs will probably be even harder to take down.

As for saturation attacks, as gunnut said, the USN carrier isn't going to be operating in a vacuum. It'll have a blanket of CAPs, ASW patrols, SSNs, DDGs/FFGs, surrounding it, plus onion layers of onbaord defenive armament ranging from ESSMs, to RAMs, to .50 cals on the rails.

[Skywatcher]

It depends on which part of the ship the AShM hits. If its something that messes with the catapult's steam supply, the CVN is pretty much out of luck. A single general hit on the side of the carrier shouldn't be too bad, considering how large a Nimitz class is.

[Andrey Egorov]

one missle probably wouldn't do enough damage to put a carrier out of action, let alone sink it

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but who needs to sink a vessel that's unusable without its catapults? One good blow at the bow and it's out. This view is pretty common between russian warheads that still believe in "NATO's agressive intentions".
Besides, all russian missiles operate in salvos since Moskit was developed, so it's not 2 or 5 Yakhont or Granits for AEGIS is to deal with, it's 24 or more of them. For single carrier this should be enough.
All this doesn't mean that any Oscar submarine can easily sink a carrier. It just can manage to hurt it badly if lucky. The crew training is crucial anyway. Untrained crew barely can blow themselves up.

[gunnut]

Well, the last report commissioned by Congress, was the GAO's into Operation Desert Storm (With all the cruise missile data & effectiveness blacked out), and well, to put it bluntly, the F-16 was the workhorse of the war. In 1991, they were pretty basic compared to F-15's, F-111's etc.

It's not just the Hornets on Cap you have to get past, or the SM's, it's also the Shorter Range missiles, and any other aircraft that are launched in addition. In addition to the CIWS, counter measures other ships, and increasingly likely, target specific electronic attack.

I know DD's are not decked out with a lot of SM's, but in wartime with the number of cells available to it, (and lets not forget picket ships) You have a shit load of firepower available.

Here's another thing people overlook. Aegis system doesn't fight as a single ship. Ships fight as a part of an integrated air defense system. All ships can see what all other ships see. This is a system designed to defeat Soviet style saturation attacks. People think in terms of a destroyer countering a saturation attack. That's not the case. It's an entire fleet defending against a few dozens missiles and bombers.

[Chunder]

This might be too late to ask this (84 posts)
Any links on what makes Hornet and Super Hornet a good strike plane (avionics and aerodynamics)? What are the design strengths of a fast attack plane?




I would hope a carrier with a hole in it would be taken to the dock for repairs (even if she sails on her own power), no point risking operations with such a complicated vessel. Then again if the flight operations can continue it could wait for a replacement.

Well, the last report commissioned by Congress, was the GAO's into Operation Desert Storm (With all the cruise missile data & effectiveness blacked out), and well, to put it bluntly, the F-16 was the workhorse of the war. In 1991, they were pretty basic compared to F-15's, F-111's etc.

It's not just the Hornets on Cap you have to get past, or the SM's, it's also the Shorter Range missiles, and any other aircraft that are launched in addition. In addition to the CIWS, counter measures other ships, and increasingly likely, target specific electronic attack.

I know DD's are not decked out with a lot of SM's, but in wartime with the number of cells available to it, (and lets not forget picket ships) You have a shit load of firepower available.

[Aussiegunner]

Actually that fact is correct. A missile armed F-15 with no fuel tanks is structurally (IIRC, from the diagram for a nominally loaded F-15C with 4 x AIM-7 and 4 x AIM-9) limited to about M1.8, so that is its practical speed limit.

The rest I don't really know about.

I have read otherwise in an article by a EE Lightning pilot who flew F-15's on exchange, but I am happy to be corrected if a relevant source is provided.

[GGTharos]

Actually that fact is correct. A missile armed F-15 with no fuel tanks is structurally (IIRC, from the diagram for a nominally loaded F-15C with 4 x AIM-7 and 4 x AIM-9) limited to about M1.8, so that is its practical speed limit.

The rest I don't really know about.

I wouldn't be putting too much stock in that article, some of the claims are just absurd. For instance, it claims that the F-15 has a practical speed limit of mach 1.78 when in fact it is able to operate comfortably at mach 2+. It also claims that the Eagles range is less than that of an F-16 (!). Finally it miss attributes Riconni's efforts as being directed towards the F-15, when in fact he was an F-16 advocate.

[Stitch]

I would hope a carrier with a hole in it would be taken to the dock for repairs (even if she sails on her own power), no point risking operations with such a complicated vessel. Then again if the flight operations can continue it could wait for a replacement.

I suppose it depends on the situation; if they're still in imminent danger of attack from an external source, I would think they would still try and launch a CAP, unless another carrier's in the area and can provide covering fire. But your right, a carrier with a hole in it (no matter how small) would be better off making a tactical exit from the theater, rather than risk another crippling strike.

[kuku]

This might be too late to ask this (84 posts)
Any links on what makes Hornet and Super Hornet a good strike plane (avionics and aerodynamics)? What are the design strengths of a fast attack plane?

Exactly, though I would add that it would take several hits to incapacitate or destroy a target the size of a carrier anyway.

And even if a carrier IS hit, it's a pretty big ship. During GQ, most of the watertight doors are sealed, and DC teams are on alert; one missle probably wouldn't do enough damage to put a carrier out of action, let alone sink it, unless they get a lucky hit on the magazine. As someone once stated on this forum (can't remember who, might've been Dreadnought), USN DC teams are probably the best trained in the world.

I would hope a carrier with a hole in it would be taken to the dock for repairs (even if she sails on her own power), no point risking operations with such a complicated vessel. Then again if the flight operations can continue it could wait for a replacement.