Is the Carrier too weak on defense?

[MrBaggins]

Regarding the SU-35:

Against a US carrier it would likely be going up against the F-14D Tomcat.

At full afterburn for both aircraft, and matching weapon for weapon, the effective kill range for the Tomcat is better than 40nm, and less than 40nm for the Super Flanker.

Plus... the Su is vaporware and the Tomcat is hardware. N.G. can also outproduce Su, or any other Soviet manufacturer... at this point.

Regarding the F/A18 and the Sparrow... I believe that the later versions of the Hornet can carry AMRAAMs... so they have a little more capability than at first sight.

One or two carrier battle group (comprising AEGIS destroyers/cruisers, Leanders, DGs, Aux ships, AND CVNs) can outfight anyone except China and Russia, or a couple of the satellite states. Britain doesn't really count, since it hosts a significant number of US operated aircraft.

MrBaggins

[Panag]

hi ,

the F-14 is being phased out and no longer serves a prime role in carrier ops , ....

the future is the superhornet

the su 35 cant even come close to an F-18 , not to mention the pilots , ....... the human factor is the real limit , .....

have a nice day

[MrBaggins]

Thats an absolute falacy:

The Tomcat would be still be the primary fleet defender in the event of war against a 1st rate risk: such as Russia, client states or massive importers of new technology (which there are none, as of yet.)

The SuperHornet is cost effective against current perceived threats: Arabic/sub-asiatic nation states, where you are more likely to see 2nd line fighters or strike aircraft, rather than 1st grade technology.

The F/A18 certainly wouldn't be the first choice of the navy in the case of threatening war... that would be the F14, or the F35, when it reaches service. The FA18 is vastly inferrior in terms of effective comparitive kill range, being sub 25nm against the Su35. Its doesn't have enough thrust or weapon range to compete.

It just could not defend the fleet well against a concerted ASM attack.

MrBaggins

[MrBaggins]

Panag> do you have ANY clue about what you are posting, btw... in the way of pictures.

All they are doing is demonstrating the usefulness of the Hornet as a strike platform, not an aircap platform.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Thats an absolute falacy:

The Tomcat would be still be the primary fleet defender in the event of war against a 1st rate risk: such as Russia, client states or massive importers of new technology (which there are none, as of yet.)

The SuperHornet is cost effective against current perceived threats: Arabic/sub-asiatic nation states, where you are more likely to see 2nd line fighters or strike aircraft, rather than 1st grade technology.

The F/A18 certainly wouldn't be the first choice of the navy in the case of threatening war... that would be the F14, or the F35, when it reaches service. The FA18 is vastly inferrior in terms of effective comparitive kill range, being sub 25nm against the Su35. Its doesn't have enough thrust or weapon range to compete.

It just could not defend the fleet well against a concerted ASM attack.

MrBaggins

Mr Baggins:

Panag is actually correct in this regards, but the Hornet will be phased out as well, the superhornet as impressive as it is is in an era in which the future is to change to stealthy aircraft. The F-35 will eventually replace both the F-14 (the only difference between the A and D models is the ability to use the Tomcat in a strike role) and the F-18C and E models. F-35 is set for full scale production in 2006 and to enter squadron service between 2008 and 2012.

As for the maximum kill range of the Tomcat. Based on the range of the Phoenix, a tomcat could theoretically kill at ranges of 100nm or more (the exact range is classified) however there is considerable doubt as to the effeciveness of the missle at ranges greater than 40nm. Although the Hornet is capable of using the AMRAAM it does not currently use it (the missle was developed by the Airforce and the Navy is reluctant to use it because of interservice rivalry) this will probably change if they ever are at war against a first rate AF.

As for the SU-35 it is a remarkable aircraft, but the missle range of the Apex missles it carries is a bit less than an AMRAAM. Training the US Navy provides is probably better than what the current Russian airforce could provide as well.

[MrBaggins]

In the event of a hot war with a capable foe, Tomcats would quickly find their way back into active service: They are effectively the fleets only viable defence versus a concerted ASM attack... from SSGN's or from Backfire's/Bear's. Soviet doctrin places a high value on ultra long range/high speed ASM's. AIM-54's (mach 3.5) are the only weapon capable of catching the majority of Soviet ASM's without being relatively in the direct path of the attack. SM block 1 & 2 AIM's from AEGIS ships travel at only mach 2.3, and have, relatively speaking, low endurance.

The AIM-54's maximum range of 109nm assumes a 'stationary target' (a drone flying a lazy circuit.)

All weapon systems 'maximum ranges' are based on this assumption.

A real situation, is one where a target will approach, release a weapon, and then vector away from oncoming threats. The relative afterburning speed's of aircraft and their weapon systems give an effective range: its easier to hit a target that is coming towards you, than one travelling away, at its maximum speed. This is why the Tomcat/AIM54 has a higher effective engagement range than the Su35/Apex. Not because there are doubts as to its effectiveness over 40nm. Pilot agility is irrelevant when considering a match between guided missile and aircraft. The missile can pull many more G's than a pilot, and is relentless. The kill probability is based on how accurately the proximity fuse triggers, and how much damage the weapon inflicts on the aircraft. The AIM54 has a ~90% kill rate. 2 missiles on 1 target will effectively guarantee a kill, if they are released within the effective range of the situation.

[dakooch]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

that can be overcome with the editor , defense also , but Firaxis should change the default basic settings , .....

have a nice day

Thanks for the advice Panag. I always wondered what that "Editor" was for. Have done so and will see if it kicks in on the next game.

[dakooch]

Originally posted by Underseer


I always wondered why nuclear carriers run around with so many non-nuclear escort ships. Doesn't that sorta negate the advantage of having a nuclear powered craft?

One would need minimally a lengthy essay to answer that adequately
But . . . .
The primary advantage of Nuclear power for Carriers is power (for subs, the ability to stay submerged indefinitly) and the fact you don't need to refuel except odd calendar years.
Although the escorts DO provide a passive ASW and AA defense role it would be too expensive to fit them out with Nuclear power (as in the cruiser Long Beach).

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
In the event of a hot war with a capable foe, Tomcats would quickly find their way back into active service: They are effectively the fleets only viable defence versus a concerted ASM attack... from SSGN's or from Backfire's/Bear's. Soviet doctrin places a high value on ultra long range/high speed ASM's. AIM-54's (mach 3.5) are the only weapon capable of catching the majority of Soviet ASM's without being relatively in the direct path of the attack. SM block 1 & 2 AIM's from AEGIS ships travel at only mach 2.3, and have, relatively speaking, low endurance.

Tomcats will not be replaced until the F-35 becomes operational, the Hornet will not replace the F-14. However the carrier carries less of them these days (a carrier used to carry 2 squadrons, now they only carry one, with an additional squadron of F-18's) This means that the area over the target will not be patrolled or escorted by F-14's but by F-18's.

The AIM-54's maximum range of 109nm assumes a 'stationary target' (a drone flying a lazy circuit.)

All weapon systems 'maximum ranges' are based on this assumption.

A real situation, is one where a target will approach, release a weapon, and then vector away from oncoming threats. The relative afterburning speed's of aircraft and their weapon systems give an effective range: its easier to hit a target that is coming towards you, than one travelling away, at its maximum speed. This is why the Tomcat/AIM54 has a higher effective engagement range than the Su35/Apex. Not because there are doubts as to its effectiveness over 40nm. Pilot agility is irrelevant when considering a match between guided missile and aircraft. The missile can pull many more G's than a pilot, and is relentless. The kill probability is based on how accurately the proximity fuse triggers, and how much damage the weapon inflicts on the aircraft. The AIM54 has a ~90% kill rate. 2 missiles on 1 target will effectively guarantee a kill, if they are released within the effective range of the situation.

True but the Phoenix's actual range is much greater than 100nm or whatever is their unclassified range. The phoenix was designed to intercept large formations of bombers armed with long range ASM's. Their range is actually closer to 200nm than 100nm.

The question regarding their accuracy is more along the lines of distinguishing between enemy and non-combatant targets. If the phoenix is used in its intended role against large formations then the weapon can be used at longer ranges. The problem comes into play when facing a smaller formation as the missle has the possibility of becoming confused and locking onto a non-combatant target (such as a civilian airliner) or onto decoys such as chaff or flares.

You should note that the F-14 as a platform has 5 air to air kills, all kills came within visual range of the aircraft (10nm) and with older but still capable missles.

The 90% kill ratio was established against drones, in a combat situation it would be most likely no more than 35% at ranges greater than 40nm.

The SM-2 block III and Block IV travel at 3.5 mach and are the most sophisticated SAM's in the world.

[Panag]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Panag> do you have ANY clue about what you are posting, btw... in the way of pictures.

hi ,

probably more then most people , .......

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by dakooch


One would need minimally a lengthy essay to answer that adequately
But . . . .
The primary advantage of Nuclear power for Carriers is power (for subs, the ability to stay submerged indefinitly) and the fact you don't need to refuel except odd calendar years.
Although the escorts DO provide a passive ASW and AA defense role it would be too expensive to fit them out with Nuclear power (as in the cruiser Long Beach).

hi ,

not to mention the extra room a nuclear carrier has for spare parts , more airplanes , more food , more aviation fuel , .... etc , .....

each carrier tends to go out with at least two nuclear subs and several support vessels , the long beach is getting a bit old now but the aegis ships that can be found around a carrier tend to pack a punch , .....a huge punch , ... you would have to be a fruitcake to start make a move against a carrier , ......

pic ; a low profile escort of the carl vinson , .....

have a nice day

[Panag]

hi ,

a small diagram ; .....

you shall have to blow it up a bit for a decent view (!)

have a nice day

[Panag]

NAVSEA Wire Service 99-32 (December 20, 1999)

DEC20-04. NAVSEA Newport News completes first ever Nimitz-class refueling.
By NAVSEA Newport News

The Supervisor of Shipbuilding at NAVSEA Newport News achieved a significant milestone on Dec. 1, 1999 in the complex refueling overhaul of USS Nimitz (CVN 68). The refueling of the ship's two nuclear reactors was successfully completed marking the first-ever refueling of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. Capt. Steven F. Firks, Nimitz's commanding officer, and Capt. Jeffrey A. Brooks, commanding officer of NAVSEA Newport News, signed documents that day which confirmed completion of the refueling.

"This represents a tremendous technological achievement as well as a great accomplishment for our crew and Newport News Shipbuilding," said Firks. "This accomplishment goes a long way toward preparing Nimitz for 25 more years of distinguished service."

The ship arrived May 26, 1998 for the beginning of a 33-month refueling complex overhaul. Brooks and his staff oversee the $1.2 billion dollar contract performed by Newport News Shipbuilding.

"Teamwork is a tradition for the supervisor's office," said Brooks. "We are proud to provide our Fleet customers with world class service. We are tracking to the next key event in the spring of 2000 when shore steam testing and propulsion plant testing will begin."

This "first of the class" refueling complex overhaul includes work that will repair or modernize nearly all of the ship's systems and thereby recapitalize this major Fleet asset for an additional 25 years of service. The NAVSEA Newport News-USS Nimitz Team are blazing a path for all remaining Nimitz-class carriers to follow.
-USN-


hi ,

whoah , ......

talking about refueling , ......

have a nice day

[Unconquered]

I don't feel like reading all the posts... did we ever determine what the consensus is: Is the carrier a lone unit or does it represent a battle group in civ3?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Unconquered
I don't feel like reading all the posts... did we ever determine what the consensus is: Is the carrier a lone unit or does it represent a battle group in civ3?

hi ,

the carrier stands for one unit only , ..... and its definatly underpowered , ......

have a nice day