Originally Posted by
Asturias56
"All 15 support antisubmarine warfare (ASW) operations with at least one ASW helicopter squadron and a fixed wing ASW squadron aboard, "
that was 30 years ago WEBF - times change
My point was that words like 'Strike' or 'Attack' do not mean that the carrier can only perform attack roles. You may be interested in this ARRSE thread discussing the role of the carrier in the Atlantic in the Cold War:
Late 1970s US Congress Report - The US Sea Control Mission (carriers needed in the Atlantic)
1991 was really at the tail end of the Cold War, but once again we need to think about the security of the Euro Atlantic area as well as the Middle East and Indo Pacific,
Times do indeed change - but the number of potentially hostile nations with submarines has increased, and the carrier remains a way of deploying multiple ASW helicopters in a way that allows for coordination without major hassles. The nature of towed array sonar has changed, which makes the ASW helicopter more relevant than before, and possibly it means the same level of ASW protection needs less helicopters as random dipping should no longer be needed. American carriers still conduct ASW with ASW helicopters, and so do ours, and this may be in defence of crisis response shipping or amphibious forces.
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
Touch n' go F4B from Ranger, doesn't suggest they actually trapped. Includes the comment that the aircrew found her deck "terrifyingly small". Proves the deck was strong enough (I hope!) - I think the issue was more likely to be "long" traps, where the aircraft misses the target wire and ends up trapping the last wire. Run-out on that for an aircraft bringing anything back (assuming ditch fuel for minimum trap weight), particularly if off-centre would have been "interesting". Particularly with Hermes' forward lift as part of that area. It's actually a similar issue to that which led to CdG having the deck edge extension fitted to accommodate the E2.
While the studies said the F4 "could" operate from Hermes, I suspect the operational window would have been tiny. You'd need max chat to get the most WoD and in any sort of seaway, a relatively small short ship like Hermes is going to have a lot of movement at both the rounddown and the touchdown point, which even with a 4 degree glideslope is going to result in a lot of long traps or bolters.
So while the cats probably had enough oomph, trapping on an operational (as opposed to trials) basis would have been very tricky.
No no no - next you will be saying that people do PhDs related to ship/aircraft integration, and that technological issues exist, and that Lewis Page and Max Hastings are not the experts that they claim to be?
Originally Posted by Navaleye
Wiki makes mention of trials on Hermes in 69/70 however I suspect someone confused that with Eagle. I am not aware of Hermes ever launching or trapping an F4. An F18 is smaller and lighter than an F4 and would have been viable on Hermes, but came into US service in 1983 - 10 years after Hermes lost her cats.
Happy Trafalgar Day !
However, the French carriers that were too small for the Phantom (
Clemenceau and
Foch - which operated the F-8 etc) could cope with the Hornet. Never mind it being smaller or lighter, was the landing speed lower? The Hornet was designed with aerodynamic things to improve low speed handling, and systems to reduce pilot workload.
A study of Nelson's battles highlights a number of themes very relevant today. Training of the crews on the gun deck to achieve a high firing rate, the Captains of different ships have a plan to work to, communications, and commanders understanding the strengths and weakness of technology. Cannon of that time were inaccurate at range, hence the preference for close range shots. This then drove the need to train the gun crews to fire and reload rapidly. He also took an interest in the welfare of his men.
Happy Trafalgar Day to you too.