Aircraft carriers in and after the Twilight War

[Mohoender]

Dragoon, you are absolutely right but we are talking Twilight and in Twilight it would have been strengthen insteed.

[dragoon500ly]

"Essex class during their careers ships fitted and assigned the CVS designation were ASW carriers with Fixed wing and helicopter anti-submarine aircraft and AEW aircraft, although for a short time some also carried an A-4 Skyhawk squadron for daytime combat air patrol(retired/scrapped) Fixed Wing CATOBAR and Helicopters".

I sware I didn't know and simply used logic. It appears that I came up with what seems to be almost the exact USN complement on that matter.

By 1980, this role was assigned to Tarrawa and then Wasp but, with these ships already busy, wouldn't the US Navy be simply smart and use what was available as it had always done in its past I agree that putting the other surviving Essex might be tricky but Lexington was still ready to go to Sea by 1991 (as was Dedalo by 1989). Even if not assigned to combat duties, they are re-armed to some extend and assigned to aircraft transport. Then, however, it stands a good chance to be sunk.

The CVS carried a squadron of A-4 (12 ac), one of S-2 Tracker (12ac) and one of SH-3 ASW helos (8 ac).

Insofar as rearming Lexington...You would most likely be looking at 2-3 Mark 15 Phalanx CIWS, perhaps 2 25mm Bushmaster cannons, 4-8 .50 calibers. The 25mm Sea Vulcan CIWS was entering its final testing and its possible that one or two might have been fitted (there is a variant that held 2-4 Stinger missiles) and that would be it for gun armament. For missile armament, pretty much the only possibility would be the EX-24 Rolling Airframe Missile mount (24 RIM-116A missiles). Its a "bolt-on" mount and there would be no reloads so it would be a one shot wonder....but!

I talked with a naval member of my group and while he wasn't certain there may have been a possibility of Hornet and Bennington being recommisioned and serving as ASW escorts with SH-2/SH-60. One thing that he was adamant about, both ships lacked a lot of critical spares and would most likely been operating with one or two turbines shut down.

He also described Bon Homme Richard as being held together by paint and rust and that he would station himself next to the nearest life boat if there was any chance of combat...Oriskany was described as being in almost as poor a hull condition.

I also checked with him about the flight deck and what aircraft could be operated. Hornet/Bennington were still fitted with two Korean War vintage hydraulic catapults that could launch ac of up to 30,000lbs weight. Bon Homme Richard/Oriskany were fitted with two 1st generation steam catapults and would have been able to launch ac of about 38-40,000lbs weight.


The F/A-18 Hornet in the fighter role would weigh 37,000lbs, in the strike role, weight would go up to 48,300lbs

The F-14 Tomcat would range from 58,600lbs to 70,500lbs

The F-4S Phantom had a launch weight of 56,000lbs

A-7 Corsair had a max takeoff weight of 42,000lbs

A-6E Intruders had a launch weight of 60,400lbs

A-4 Skyhawk had a launch weight of 25,500lbs

S-3B Viking has a launch weight of 52,400lbs

E-2C Hawkeye has a launch weight of 51,600lbs

EA-6B Prowler has a launch weight of 54,500lbs

As you can see, aside from the A-4, the F/A-18 would be the only one capable of being launched. But there is a further problem with the Essex carriers, their flight deck elevators are not large enough to support modern ac. and their angle decks would place an excessive amount of strain on the ac's landing gear due to their short run.

[Mohoender]

Thanks dragoon, very good info.

[Legbreaker]

Re sinking carriers, it's worth noting a single Australian Oberon class submarine "sank" a US carrier during an exercise in the late 80's early 90's (can't recall the exact year) somewhere around the Timor Sea (I think) singlehandedly. All it takes is patience and stealth followed by a single spread of torpedoes.

NO ship is invulnerable or out of reach to a determined and skilled attacker. All that can be hoped for is risk minimisation.

[Legbreaker]

Further to my last post, I think this quote from Wiki is worth thinking about.

During several multinational exercises and wargames, the Collins class has demonstrated its effectiveness in the hunter-killer role by successfully attacking both surface warships and other submarines. In late May 2000, Waller became the first Australian submarine to operate as a fully integrated component of a USN carrier battle group during wargames. Waller's role was to search for and engage opposing submarines hunting the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, a role in which she performed better than expected. A few days later, as part of the multinational exercise RIMPAC 2000, Waller was assigned to act as an 'enemy' submarine, and was reported to have successfully engaged two USN nuclear submarines before almost coming into attacking range of Abraham Lincoln. Waller performed similarly during the Operation Tandem Thrust wargames in 2001, when she 'sank' two USN amphibious assault ships in waters just over 70 metres (230 ft) deep, although the submarine was 'destroyed' herself later in the exercise. Waller's second feat was repeated by Sheean during RIMPAC 02, when the boat was able to penetrate the air and surface anti-submarine screens of an eight-ship amphibious task force, then successfully carry out simulated attacks on both the amphibious assault ship USS Tarawa and the dock landing ship USS Rushmore.

Later that year, during two weeks of combat trials in August, Sheean demonstrated that the class was comparable in the underwater warfare role to the Los Angeles-class nuclear powered attack submarine USS Olympia. The two submarines traded roles during the exercise and were equally successful in the attacking role, despite Olympia being larger, more powerful, and armed with more advanced torpedoes. In 2003, a Collins-class boat carried out successful attacks on two USN nuclear submarines and an aircraft carrier during a multinational exercise. The repeated successes of the class in wargames and multinational exercises earned the Collins class praise from foreign military officers for being "a very capable and quiet submarine", and recognition of the boats as a clear example of the threat posed to navies by modern diesel submarines.

It may not be a Soviet sub, but it does demonstrate the ability of a diesel powered sub to quietly operate in and around a carrier task force without being detected soon enough to stop a successful attack.

[Targan]

When the Collins class boats are in the water and working well they're very effective. Its keeping the damn things in good working order that's the problem. To say they've had some teething problems is a huge understatement.

[Legbreaker]

Looking through the information on them, it seems this was mainly due to arguements over who was actually responsible for fixing any issues discovered from the design and construction. As an example, one of the companies involved in the early days is no longer trading and the company the finger was then pointed at refused the responsibility for rectification (and rightly so since it was never in their contract to begin with). Politics has also been a BIG player with both sides using the relatively small teething issues as a political football.
The Australian Navy also didn't realise that as they were the "parent navy" for the design, it would essentially be up to them to find and fix issues and that they wouldn't have a tested and proven design from day one.
Twenty years after the first vessel was laid down, we're almost at the point where they work properly all the time. Now our big problem is crewing them - we currently have enough trained and experienced crew for only about 3 subs (we have 6). This isn't as big a problem as it may seem to begin with as 3 (I think) of the 6 subs are currently in drydock being overhauled (normal maintenance schedule).

[Mohoender]

Not only talking of diesel submarine. In 1998, "Casabianca" (a Rubis-class nuclear powered submarine) managed to think both USS Eisenhower and her Ticonderoga-class escort cruiser using torpedoes and MM39 Exocet.

Exocets missile have damaged more NATO ships than any other missile to date (fictively and in reality).

[dragoon500ly]

Dragoon, you are absolutely right but we are talking Twilight and in Twilight it would have been strengthen insteed.

No arguement here! Its what the Sovs would have kept in service that is the question. I'd expect the Blinder and Badgers to be retired in favor of more Backfires and the then-in-developemnt Blackjack. Certainly there would have been addition Frogfoots, Flankers and Fulcrums to fill out the carrier air groups.

The only real question is what they would have done with the various Bears As old and wornout as the Badgers are, the Bears are in even worse shape. The new Be-42 Mermaid is one possibility, but the Soviets had nothing that could match the Bears 9,500km operational radius. And that means that they would have had issues with the Deep Atlantic recon/target designator missions that the Bears carried out.

[dragoon500ly]

As capable as the Kuznetsov and Kiev-class carriers are, IMHO, they really pretty much a dead end. In the power projection role, they simply do not match the capability of US carriers. Their air groups are geared to air and ASW defense. The addition of massive batteries of SSM/SAMs instead argue that their real role is to supress Allied aviation long enough to get within range of their SSM battery.

The real surprises in the Soviet fleet are not their carriers. Rather it is the development of the Kirov and Slava-class cruisers and the Sovremennyy-class destroyer. Now these designs, in an anti-carrier role, are downright SCARY!!!

Take the latest Kirov, the Admiral Nakhimor for example. A battery of 20 Shipwreck SSMs (reloadable!), as well as 96 SA-N-6, 40 SA-N-4 and no less than 256 SA-N-9 and 192 SA-N-11 SAMs! This is a ship that can take on a carrier air wing and survive long enough to get within range of the carrier!

The Slava cruisers are a threat to the carrier escorts. A battery of 16 Sandbox SSMs and protected by 64 SA-N-6 and 40 SA-N-4 SAMs and for close-in work a twin 130mm "automatic" mount and 10 533mm torpedo tubes. This is a ship designed to go toe-to-toe with any Bunker Hill-class cruiser.

And last, but by no means least are the Sovremennyy-class destroyers. Easily a match for any Spruance-class destroyer! They have a battery of 8 Sunburn SSMs and 40 SA-N-7 SAMS, two twin 130mm automatic mounts and 4 533mm torpedo tubes. Just picture the impact one of these would have if it was shadwoing a carrier battle group during "peacetime"...

And to give a better feel for their ability to "reach-out-and-touch-someone"...

The Shipwreck SSM can carry a nuclear or conventional warhead out to 300 nautical miles. The Sandbox SSMs can also carry a smaller nuclear or conventional warheads out to 300 nautical miles and the Sunburn SSMs carry a conventional warhead out to 50 nautical miles.

Given a decent shot at a carrier battle group, these may be what the Soviets are really counting on to nail a carrier.

[Mohoender]

Dragoon

I agree with everything you say and I think that the Soviet carriers would have been used to protect the main strike force: Kirov, Slava, Sovremmeniy and Oscar submarines.

About the Bears, they should be kept in service. Production line were reopened shortly before the fall of USSR and more new ones would have been fielded to replace the older ones. All current Bears had been built only 20 years ago. They are fairly recent aircrafts, in fact.

If the Twilight War had occured, these would have been among the newest soviet aircrafts.

[rcaf_777]

I wouldn't have expected that, thanks for the info. Then, I would tend to replace them with refitted S2 Tracker. Might not be ideal in term of realism but I always loved the Tracker and Canada might have been willing to sale his fleet back to US. Or may be they are serviced by Canadian crews.

I have thinked the the Canadain trackers would flying out of there old base at Summerside PEI. they would good to fly ASW patrol in around the St Laurent basin

[Olefin]

been looking at the S-2 Tracker and how it could have been brought back for service on carriers during the Twilight War - I would think the best place they could have been obtained from actually would be California -Cal Fire (formerly CDF) operates 23 of the upgraded S-2FAT Turbo Trackers that have the torpedo bays replaced with water tanks - not sure how long it would take to retrofit them back - but that would be one place the Navy could get them to use on older carriers

Marsh Aviation in Mesa AZ had a bunch of them there as well that they were retrofitting as fire tankers - so could be flyable ones there too or even ones that hadnt been converted yet

Also the US must have had a few left in operational status - we sold three S-2G to Argentina in 1995

FYI we also sold 36 A-4M/OA-4M and TA-4F modernized to the A-4AR to them from 1997-2000 - not sure if they came from the last USN squadrons operating the aircraft or from the boneyard - but thats enough planes to form a couple of squadrons to equip something like Hornet or Oriskany if they pulled them out of long term storage (for the V-1 timeline where the Cold War doesnt end and thus the Navy keeps them around) - or for that matter the Lexington

[cawest]

been looking at the S-2 Tracker and how it could have been brought back for service on carriers during the Twilight War - I would think the best place they could have been obtained from actually would be California -Cal Fire (formerly CDF) operates 23 of the upgraded S-2FAT Turbo Trackers that have the torpedo bays replaced with water tanks - not sure how long it would take to retrofit them back - but that would be one place the Navy could get them to use on older carriers

Marsh Aviation in Mesa AZ had a bunch of them there as well that they were retrofitting as fire tankers - so could be flyable ones there too or even ones that hadnt been converted yet

Also the US must have had a few left in operational status - we sold three S-2G to Argentina in 1995

FYI we also sold 36 A-4M/OA-4M and TA-4F modernized to the A-4AR to them from 1997-2000 - not sure if they came from the last USN squadrons operating the aircraft or from the boneyard - but thats enough planes to form a couple of squadrons to equip something like Hornet or Oriskany if they pulled them out of long term storage (for the V-1 timeline where the Cold War doesnt end and thus the Navy keeps them around) - or for that matter the Lexington

Mesa got the S-2s trucked up from Tucson. I have no idea what would be in Tucson in the 80s and 90s. I know that had a crap load of Grumman AF Guardians Bearcats and Tigercats.