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

[Jaybe]

Non-consensus! NO naval unit represents just one ship!
There are always some other ships, though perhaps not a substantial number of escorts.

[Master Zen]

ONE SHIP! ONE SHIP! ONE SHIP!

At least on Standard-Huge maps.

[Master Zen]

As for the plane debate:

I don't know what to think of the Su-35. Aircraft sites/magazines/videogames rave about it, and defence mags/books tend to underrrate it. It's like the MiG-29. During the Cold War it was feared, then it was revealed to be crap, then it was proved in fact to be a better dogfighter than any western aircraft (these are Luftwaffe results, which was the only NATO AF right after the cold war ended to fly the plane)

I guess then that the Su-35 in the hands of a good russian pilot will more than match the F/A-18E. And remember that the F/A's revamped avionics are for the most part improvements in it's ground-attack capability. However, I doubt that russian pilots on average are as well trained as US pilots these days and that is a major advantage.

Missiles:

The AMRAAMski is not as good as the AMRAAM but the AA-11 SRAAM is far superior to the Sidewinder. This, with the helmet-mounted sight makes me think russian aircraft have a major edge in close-range air combat.

Ships:

Panag, where did you read that Nimitz-carriers can carry more than 30 additional aircraft??? They can only carry around 60 combat aircraft (5 12-plane squadrons of F-14s and F/A-18s), if they COULD carry more then why don't they do it? During the Afghan bombings, with 30 aditional combat aircraft, the work of 3 carriers would have been performed by 2 and it would have been MUCH more cheaper.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

For my part, I tend to think of UNITS in civ3 as follows:

Foot Soldiers (non Spec-Op); 1 unit=1000-5000 individuals
Mounted Units; 1 unit=100-500 individuals
Mechanized units; 1unit=10-50 individuals
Spec Ops; 1 unit= 5-25 individuals
Naval units; 1 unit=2-6 individuals
-battleships and aircraft carriers=2-3 individuals
-Cruisers and destroyers=3-5 individuals
-Frigates, triremes etc=5-6 individuals
Air units; 1 unit=2-10 individuals

As was said much earlier, this is an arbitrary number, but it definitely helps in the visualisation of combat!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Mad Bomber]

Aussie:

Looks pretty good but let me add a couple of comments:

I think that the basic unit for footsoldiers should be the regiment (approx 1000 men).

For Naval craft it should be 2 ships of the unit for capital ships 5 for escort types.

a squadron on a carrier is 12 aircraft, a fighter or attack squadron on land tends to be 20-24 aircraft.

For horse units and spec ops I think that 100 men is apprpriate.

For mec units 50 seems appropriate.

[Jaybe]

To me, the only wide discrepancy in Aussie's list is:
Mech units: 150 tanks (brigade, not battalion in size)

[Panag]

Su-30 (Su-27P)
Su-32
Su-33 (Su-27K)
Su-34 (Su-27IB)
Su-35 (Su-27M)
Su-37
The robust Su-27 platform has served as the basis for a number of improved variants for a diverse range of missions and users.
Su-30 (Su-27P) is a two-seat long-range intercept fighter that first flew in December 1989, and that entered service with the Russian air forces in 1992. Largely based on the Su-27UB two-seat trainer, it has a new radiolocation system which can transmit the positions of 10 targets to four other fighters at the same time. The Su-30 is made in Irkutsk.

Su-30M (MK-export version) is a standard Su-30 with the air-to-ground missiles which can carry twice the armament (8 tons) compared to the baseline Su-27. The Su-30 'export variant' of the formidable Su-27 'Flanker', can carry the latest Russian air-to-air missiles, including the medium-range R-27 family, the short-range R-73 and the new medium-range R-77 'AMRAAM-ski'. The Sukhoi-30K has a range in excess of 3,000km, which means it can easily patrol offshore installations without requiring aerial refuelling. In June 1999 Russia agreed to sell 72 of these front-line Sukhoi-30 jet fighter-bombers to China. The aircraft building enterprise in Komsomolsk-on-Amur (KnAAPO) is likely to become the main supplier of a large lot of Su-30MKK fighter jets to China. The cost of one Su-30MKK fighter jet is estimated at $35 million - $37 million. At the same time, negotiations began for Moscow to grant a licence for the production of another 250 Sukhoi-30 fighters. The Su-30MKK for China is different in details from the Su-30MKI version designed for India. Sukhoi has a $1.5-$1.8 billion deal to supply 40 Su-30MK to India. In 1997, a total of eight aircraft were supplied under this contract, which should be completed at the end of 1999. Negotiations to license the production of the Su-30MKI to the Hindustan AeronauticsLimited (HAL) works of India continued in 1997. The Indians received feasibility plans, and it is thought that a final decision would be reached this year. Production in India would begin after 2001. In all, India might produce 100 warplanes in a contract worth more than $1 billion. However, as of mid-1999 negotiations on the contract for the licensed production of Su-30MKI fighter by HAL remained delayed due to the government crisis in India, which could not be resolved until after the Fall 1999 elections. The two sides had agreed on all the basic issues, including the value of the licensing contract. As of mid-2000 India had received only eight SU-30K air defence aircraft and none of the upgraded SU-30MK multi-role aircraft in the Rs 6310-crore deal signed with Russia in 1996. There had been no deliveries after May 1997. India's Defence Research Development Organisation had failed to develop and supply key avionics sub-systems and failed to procure Western avionics to equip the SU-30MK aircraft for its designated multi-role. Under the contract, the Irkutsk aircraft production association will deliver 40 Su-30s to the Indian air force. Within the framework of a contract worth $1.8bn Russia will deliver to India 40 military planes Su-30 in different versions. At the end of 1999 Irkutsk aviation industrial association 'Irkut' was finishing the assembly of ten Su-30MK multifunctional long-range for India's Air Forces, equipped with aerial refuelling capabilities. After the deliveries are complete, HAL plans to launch production of new modifications of Su-30s under a Russian license in cooperation with Sukhoi. The Sukhoi-30 can be modified into a naval version, if the Indian Government decides to acquire an aircraft carrier.

Su-32FN is the two-seat multi-role reconnaissance and strike export version of the Su-34 fighter-bomber.

Su-33 (Su-27K) is a carrier-based variant that first flew in May 1985, and entered service in the Russian Navy in 1994. The air regiment comprising 24 fighters of the type was formed up on Russia's only operating aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov. It has extra small wings near the pilots cabin which shorten the take-off distance and improve manoeuvrability. The Su-33 can also carry guided missiles such as the H-25MP, H-31 and H-41. The Su-33 is used in both night and day operations at sea, and operate with the command center ship and with the Ka-31 early-warning helicopter. With the R-27EM missiles it can intercept antiship missiles.

Su-34 (Su-27IB - Istrebitel-Bombardirovshchik) is a two seat ("arm-to-arm") strike variant that first flew in 1990. It features frontal wings and a large flattened nose with sharp edges (like the SR-71) reduce radar cross-section. This new ship-borne fighter is fitted with two AL-31FP engines with vectored thrust. Using them allows either the take-off distance or maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of the aircraft to be increased by 10-15 per cent. The aircraft has a distinctive large "sting" in the rear which contains the NO-14 radiolocation system, a radioelectronic countermeasures system, and a fuel tank. The Su-32 and Su-34 have been developed and are in serial production in Novosibirsk for the Russian Ministry of Defence.

Su-35 (Su-27M) is a single-seat attack fighter that first flew in 1988. The Su-35 and Su-37 are made in Komomolsk-na-Amure. Like the Su-33 it features small wings near the cabin to enhance manoeuvrability. It also has new digital pilot control and digital engine control systems, replacing the analog computers in the original Su-27. The radar, with a range of 400 km, can follow the position of 15 targets and fire at 6 of them at the same time. An improved "Zuk" ("Scarab") radar features a mobile (+/- 130 degree) antenna which can follow position of 24 targets with ability to fire to 8 of them. The rear "sting" has a radiolocation system, which moved back the center of gravity, and which along with other innovations improve its tactical ability. Armaments includee: R-77, R-73, KS-172, R-27EM/AE, R-27E, R-27, H-31, H-29L/T, KAB-500L/KR, KAB-1500, H-15, H-65, H-59M, S-25LD, 500kg and 250 kg bombs.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Master Zen
As for the plane debate:

I don't know what to think of the Su-35. Aircraft sites/magazines/videogames rave about it, and defence mags/books tend to underrrate it. It's like the MiG-29. During the Cold War it was feared, then it was revealed to be crap, then it was proved in fact to be a better dogfighter than any western aircraft (these are Luftwaffe results, which was the only NATO AF right after the cold war ended to fly the plane)

I guess then that the Su-35 in the hands of a good russian pilot will more than match the F/A-18E. And remember that the F/A's revamped avionics are for the most part improvements in it's ground-attack capability. However, I doubt that russian pilots on average are as well trained as US pilots these days and that is a major advantage.

Missiles:

The AMRAAMski is not as good as the AMRAAM but the AA-11 SRAAM is far superior to the Sidewinder. This, with the helmet-mounted sight makes me think russian aircraft have a major edge in close-range air combat.

Ships:

Panag, where did you read that Nimitz-carriers can carry more than 30 additional aircraft??? They can only carry around 60 combat aircraft (5 12-plane squadrons of F-14s and F/A-18s), if they COULD carry more then why don't they do it? During the Afghan bombings, with 30 aditional combat aircraft, the work of 3 carriers would have been performed by 2 and it would have been MUCH more cheaper.

hi ,

su35 , see post above ; its a modified and glorified 27

each carrier can operate in case of wartime with at least 30 or in case of the nimitz class with 32 extra planes on its decks , ......

if you would read the specs above you would see that the f-14 is almost completely phased out and you would see that each nimitz class has at least 85 planes in peacetime ops , .....

they do handle more , during the afghan bombings one carrier was for the persian gulf and not only for use in afghan bombings , ......

they did put extra planes on those carriers , ....

they have done now the same with the Kitty Hawk who is steaming towards the indian ocean from japan , ....

have a nice day

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

su35 , see post above ; its a modified and glorified 27

just like the F/A-18E is a modificed and glorified F/A-18C to a less extent. The Su-35/37 have major new flight caracteristics like thrust vectoring which the Super Hornet doesn't. Just because they share the same basic airframe design doesn't just mean they are the same craft.

each carrier can operate in case of wartime with at least 30 or in case of the nimitz class with 32 extra planes on its decks , ......

its not economical to operate a carrier without it's max load when the aircraft are availiable. This is even more sound since most countries do not have the capability to sink a US carrier so there is no need to "diversify risk" by having more carriers with less aircraft. I'm sorry but in my extensive readings of naval matters I have NEVER come across a stat which says these US carriers can carry 50% more aircraft in "wartime" as you claim. Many of these have already been in many wars and this hasn't happened.

if you would read the specs above you would see that the f-14 is almost completely phased out and you would see that each nimitz class has at least 85 planes in peacetime ops , .....

As of FY 2001, there were still around 100-110 F-14s in the PMAI (primary mission aircraft inventory - i.e. front line) on carriers. This does not count those deployed outside carriers and those in reserve status which in total may almost duplicate this number.

they do handle more , during the afghan bombings one carrier was for the persian gulf and not only for use in afghan bombings , ......

they did put extra planes on those carriers , ....

But 30 more?????

[Panag]

Originally posted by Master Zen


just like the F/A-18E is a modificed and glorified F/A-18C to a less extent. The Su-35/37 have major new flight caracteristics like thrust vectoring which the Super Hornet doesn't. Just because they share the same basic airframe design doesn't just mean they are the same craft.



its not economical to operate a carrier without it's max load when the aircraft are availiable. This is even more sound since most countries do not have the capability to sink a US carrier so there is no need to "diversify risk" by having more carriers with less aircraft. I'm sorry but in my extensive readings of naval matters I have NEVER come across a stat which says these US carriers can carry 50% more aircraft in "wartime" as you claim. Many of these have already been in many wars and this hasn't happened.



As of FY 2001, there were still around 100-110 F-14s in the PMAI (primary mission aircraft inventory - i.e. front line) on carriers. This does not count those deployed outside carriers and those in reserve status which in total may almost duplicate this number.



But 30 more?????

hi ,

conserning load , in Vietnam it happend , example , an airwing would fly in , refuel , load bombs and take off , extra pilots being glown over in a small transport , ...

your idea about spreading aircraft over more carriers does not fly , an extra carrier cost's a zillion time more then an aircraft , .... neiher does 50 percent fly , .....32 is not 50 % of 85

if you have read extensively about the subject you should know that its commen practice to station more when needed , that in peace time there are around 85 aircraft , that there is room for at least 15-20 more below deck , that there is room on the upper forward deck and rear behind the control tower to store more , and you should have read about the fact that many extra planes are being put on after 9/11 , .......

okay the F-14 ; in fy 2001 ; 106 A/B , 47 D's , phasing out at one squadron a year , speading up by three every two years , if this goes on , no more F-14's at all in armed forces , not a single F-14 is in use today at a carrier , with the only ones flying on the Kitty Hawk for training (6-8) replaced now since the Kitty is steaming towards the gulf , .....

Su 27 , pffff its like giving a new name just because the 35 can fly a bit further , ..... if you would read the info posted above you would see that the su 27 family does not even come close to the F-18 , ..... not to speak of the new ones , .....

on top of that most of the frames from the su35's are having problems with the frames , overused , ......to many cracks here and there , ....

have a nice day

[Panag]

CVN-65 Enterprise
At the commissioning of ENTERPRISE on September 24, 1960, the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier was the mightiest warship to ever sail the seas. Enterprise is the longest carrier in the Navy at 1,123 feet. It is also the tallest (250 feet) and fastest (30+ nautical miles per hour) carrier in the fleet. She was built with a distinctive square island supporting phased-array radars and a complex EW system.
In August 1962 ENTERPRISE joined the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, and made its second and third deployments to the Mediterranean in 1963 and 1964. During the latter deployment, on May 13, the world's first nuclear-powered task force was formed when USS LONG BEACH and USS BAINBRIDGE joined ENTERPRISE. On July 31, the three ships were designated Task Force One and sent on "Operation Sea Orbit," a historic 30,565-mile voyage around the world, accomplished without a single refueling or replenishment. She was the first nuclear ship to enter combat when her aircraft struck targets in Vietnam, and she assisted in the evacuation of Saigon at the end of the Vietnam conflict.

In October 1964 ENTERPRISE returned to Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company for its first refueling and overhaul. ENTERPRISE returned to Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company in 1970 for an overhaul and second refueling. Following the 1973 cease-fire in Vietnam, ENTERPRISE proceeded to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Wash., where "Big E" was altered and refitted to support the Navy's newest fighter aircraft -- the F-14A "Tomcat."


The years 1979 to 1982 were spent at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard receiving a reconstructed island and numerous improvements. When first completed the island of the Enterprise had a very unique shaped structure consisting of a dome shaped top resting on a box, supporting SPS-32 and 33 radars, plus many ECM antennas, which were located on all four sides and top dome of the ship. These were all removed during retrofit, and the island was completely altered to resemble the island of Kitty Hawk class carriers. And in October 1990 ENTERPRISE moved to Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company for refueling and the Navy's largest complex overhaul ever attempted, being updated for service through 2015. ENTERPRISE completed its overhaul, the most extensive in U.S. Naval history, on Sept. 27, 1994.
In mid-January 1995, "Big E" returned to Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company for a five month Selected Restricted Availability. The yard period involved upgrades to all of the combat and communications systems, intelligence suites, command and control capabilities, ventilation systems, berthing and dining areas, and underway replenishment equipment. In January 1997 Big "E" returned to Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company for a six month Selected Restricted Availability. The focus of the yard period was habitability upgrades and various combat systems. An extended overhaul for the Enterprise began at Newport News Shipbuilding in 1999 and continued through mid-year 2000.

Upon her planned replacement by CVX-78 in 2013 she will be 52 years old

[Panag]

CVN-68 Nimitz-class
Twelve aircraft carriers form the centerpiece of US Naval global forward presence, deterrence, crisis response, and warfighting. In addition to their power-projection role, they serve as joint command platforms in the worldwide command-and-control network.
The carrier air wing can destroy enemy aircraft, ships, submarines, and land targets, or lay mines hundreds of miles from the ship. Aircraft are used to conduct strikes, support land battles, protect the battle group or other friendly shipping, implement a sea or air blockade. The air wing provides a visible presence to demonstrate American power and resolve in a crisis. The ship normally operates as the centerpiece of a carrier battle group commanded by a flag officer embarked in the carrier and consisting of four to six other ships, including guided missile cruisers, destroyers, frigates, replenishment ships and submarines.


The NIMITZ-class carriers are a floating airport, capable of launching as many as four aircraft a minute. The ship's four catapults and four arresting gear engines enable her to launch and recover aircraft rapidly and simultaneously. The ships carry seven different types of aircraft with a total complement of more than 80 planes. During flight operations, the flight deck of 4.5 acres is a scene of intense activity, with crew, aircraft and other equipment functioning as a well-rehearsed and carefully choreographed team to ensure both efficiency and safety. Four aircraft elevators, each the size of two average city lots, bring the aircraft to the flight deck from the hangars below. Small tractors spot the planes on the flight deck. Aviation fuel is pumped up from tanks below, and bombs and rockets are brought up from the magazines. Powerful steam catapults (affectionately known as "Fat Cats") can accelerate 37-ton jets from zero to a safe flight speed of up to 180 miles per hour in about 300 feet and in less than three seconds. The weight of each aircraft determines the amount of thrust provided by the catapult. When landing, pilots use a system of lenses to guide the aircraft "down the slope," the correct glide path for landing. The four arresting wires, each consisting of two-inch thick wire cables connected to hydraulic rams below decks, drag landing aircraft going as fast as 150 miles per hour to a stop in less than 400 feet. High in the island, seven stories above the flight deck, the "Air Boss" and his staff coordinate the entire operation, which is carefully monitored from the flight deck level as well as by the Captain on the ship's bridge. The various functions of the flight deck crew are identified by the colors they wear: yellow for officers and aircraft directors; purple for fuel handlers; green for catapult and arresting gear crews; blue for tractor drivers; brown for chock and chain runners; and red for crash and salvage teams and the ordnance handlers.

The NIMITZ-class self-defense measures include: missiles, guns, and electronic warfare. The NATO Sea Sparrow Missile System is comprised of two launchers with eight missiles each. Sea Sparrow is a radar-guided, short-to-medium range missile capable of engaging aircraft and cruise missiles. NIMITZ-class also has Close-In Weapon System mounts for short range defense against aircraft or missiles. Each mount has its own search and track radar, and a six-barrel, 20-millimeter Gatling gun capable of firing 3,000 rounds per minute
The carrier's two nuclear reactors give her virtually unlimited range and endurance and a top speed in excess of 30 knots. Eight steam turbine generators each produce 8,000 kilowatts of electrical power, enough to serve a small city. The ship has enough electrical generating power to supply electricity to a city of 100,000. The ships normally carrys enough food and supplies to operate for 90 days. Four distilling units enable NIMITZ-class engineers to make over 400,000 gallons of fresh water from seawater a day, for use by the propulsion plants, catapults and crew. The ship carries approximately 3 million gallons of fuel for her aircraft and escorts, and enough weapons and stores for extended operations without replenishment. These ships also have extensive repair capabilities, including a fully equipped Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Department, a micro-miniature electronics repair shop, and numerous ship repair shops. Keeping a NIMITZ-class carrier ready at all times requires repair shops to maintain machinery and aircraft, heavy duty tailor shops to repair parachutes and other survival gear, and electronic ships that keep communication, navigation and avionics equipment in good condition. NIMITZ-class carriers boast all the amenities that would be found in any American city with a comparable population, including a post office with its own ZIP code, TV and radio stations, a newspaper, a fire department, a library, a hospital, a general store, two barbershops and much more.


USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) departed Newport News Shipbuilding (NYSE: NNS) on July 2, 1998 after a year-long period of maintenance and overhaul work. The ship returned to its homeport in Norfolk, Va. Work performed on Roosevelt included the replacement of all four ship propellers, blasting and painting of the hull, major renovations of onboard storage tanks and miscellaneous systems upgrades.
The USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) joined the fleet in 1990 as, concurrently, USS Coral Sea (CV 43) was decommissioned. USS Abraham Lincoln underwent a one-year comprehensive overhaul and a change of homeport from Alameida, Calif. to Everett, Wash. since its last major deployment in 1995. On 11 June 1998 USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) departed Naval Station Everett to the Arabian Gulf and back over a six-month period, the ship's fourth major Western Pacific deployment.


CVN 73, 74 and 75 were authorized to replace conventionally powered carriers as they retired in the 1990s. The Congress authorized full funding in 1988 for CVN 74 and 75. These ships are modified repeats of CVN 73.
The keel of USS Harry S. Truman was laid 29 November 1993 and the ship was christened at Newport News on 07 September 1996. Harry S Truman (CVN 75) completed acceptance sea trials on 24 June 1998, was delivered to the US Navy a few days later. The ship was commissioned and put into active service on 25 July 1998 at the Norfolk Naval Base in Norfolk, VA. At that time, the Navy's oldest active commissioned ship, Independence (CV 62), transitioned to the inactive fleet. CVN 76's keel has been laid for a 2002 delivery, and CVN 77 will enter the fleet in 2008, as the two remaining Kitty Hawk-class carriers are retired. CVN 77 will act as a transition ship toward CVX, incorporating numerous new technologies and process design changes that will move naval aviation to a future carrier design.

[Panag]

Technological improvements will begin to be seen in CVN-76 RONALD REAGAN, which will be commissioned in 2002. REAGAN will have a redesigned bulbous bow for increased propulsion efficiency and trim stability. Her aircraft elevators will also have greater capacity then those currently in use aboard her sister ships. According to studies conducted by the Newport News Shipbuilding Carrier Innovation Center, one possibility evaluated would be to remove elevator number one (on the starboard side, near the bow catapults) and simply make it part of the flight deck. Elevators two and three would be widened and strengthened to handle up to three aircraft. This would vastly improve aircraft operating efficiency. According to Rear Admiral Alfred G. Harms, Commander, Carrier Group Three, the number one elevator is…"rarely used. Particularly at night because of the safety considerations." This improved flight deck layout would increase air operations safety as well as the ship’s sortie rate. As a modified repeat of USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN-75), REAGAN will provide an important step on the road to CVNX.


The Navy plans 33-month nuclear refueling Refueling Complex Overhauls for its Nimitz-class carriers beginning with the USS Nimitz in fiscal year 1998. On 01 May 1998 Newport News Shipbuilding was awarded a contract by the U. S. Navy to perform refueling and overhaul work on the USS Nimitz (CVN 68). The contract, valued at approximately $1.2 billion, was signed by Navy and Newport News Shipbuilding officials on April 30, 1998. Nimitz, the lead ship of the class, is also the first of its class to undergo this major life-cycle milestone. The ship will arrive in late May 1998 and the work performance period is scheduled to last approximately 33 months. In addition to the refueling of both of the ship’s reactors, there will be significant modernization work. This includes a major upgrade of the island house that will involve the shipyard removing the top two levels of the island house and replacing them. This action is driven by the installation of a new antenna mast that runs down along the island and will provide for better radar capabilities. The shipyard is also integrating a new radar tower aboard Nimitz. The Navy elected to overhaul the Nimitz without adding cooperative engagement, integrated ship self defense, the advanced combat direction system, the rolling airframe missile, the SPQ 9 navigation radar, a common high-band data link, the battlegroup passive horizon extension system, an outboard weapons elevator, conversion of nuclear magazines, emergency ordnance handling, and improved propellers. More than 3,200 Newport News Shipbuilding employees will be working aboard Nimitz during peak periods of the overhaul and refueling project.
The second overhaul is scheduled for fiscal year 2001, and the third is projected to begin about fiscal year 2005. The overhaul of the Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), scheduled for 2000, will be the ship's first and only refueling during a service-life expected to span approximately 50 years. On 12 February 1999 Newport News Shipbuilding was awarded a $169,790,050 modification to previously awarded contract for the FY 99 advance planning of the refueling and complex overhaul of Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) and its reactor plants. Eisenhower is scheduled to arrive at Newport News in late 2000 and remain for approximately three years. Other Nimitz-class carriers will follow so that a carrier will be in a shipyard undergoing a nuclear refueling overhaul for about the next 30 years, with the exception of about 4 years during this period.


The 1993 decision to close Naval Air Station Alameda, Ca. made it necessary to develop the facilities and infrastructure to accommodate one NIMITZ-class aircraft carrier in San Diego. The USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) is expected to arrive in San Diego in 1998. This will be in addition to the two conventionally-powered aircraft carriers, USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) and USS Constellation (CV 64), presently homeported there. The nuclear-powered NIMITZ-class aircraft carrier is a much larger and deeper draft ship than its steam driven-driven predecessors. Thus, the dredging of the berthing areas, turning basin and the access channel adjacent to NAS North Island is necessary.

Aircraft carriers are gennerally estimated to have usefull operating lives of 50 years.

[Panag]

hi ,

here is a pic of the Vinson , at that moment there are allready two fighters in the air for patrol , two coming in and two ready to leave and replace them , ....

have a nice day

[Panag]

hi ,

a clear pic from the rear ;

have a nice day