User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 12:15:56 PM EDT
[#1]
Unarmored flight deck (they were teak). Limited deck landing weight.
Besides weight, today's aircraft are also substantially larger than the rotary engine planes of WW II. Nope, the Essexes served their time and that time has past. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 12:16:34 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
I'm just wondering, because I don't remember seeing a ski jump on the Intrepid. And it seems like those World War II vintage carriers could carry more aircraft than the carriers currently serving with other navies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 5:17:44 PM EDT
[#3]
thanks for the replies, but I'm specifically asking about the updated Essex class. You know the ones that flew Jets off the coast of Vietnam. They also have the angles decks added and catapults.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 5:22:07 PM EDT
[#4]
Well, they worked and had planes that could carry out strike missions. I guess that makes them better than a glorified helicopter platform.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 5:23:50 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
thanks for the replies, but I'm specifically asking about the updated Essex class. You know the ones that flew Jets off the coast of Vietnam. They also have the angles decks added and catapults. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 5:34:52 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure you're not thinking of the Midway-class? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
thanks for the replies, but I'm specifically asking about the updated Essex class. You know the ones that flew Jets off the coast of Vietnam. They also have the angles decks added and catapults. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-class_aircraft_carrier |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 5:44:07 PM EDT
[#7]
Essex class operated F-8 Crusaders and Skyhawks. Operating modern fighters within a certain weight class would make them at least on par with Charles De Gaulle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 5:49:42 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Essex class carriers played a role in Vietnam. They had to operate older aircraft though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-class_aircraft_carrier |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 5:56:19 PM EDT
[#9]
Oriskany and Ticonderoga operated A-7 corsairs.
Oriskany carried 2 X F-8 Crusader squadrons and 3 X A-7 Corsair squadrons. Go to 1970 until she decommissioned. http://www.gonavy.jp/CV-CV34f.html That’s a lot of hate. The Modified Essex carriers probably did more to show the flag around the world than the super carriers. Intrepid, Oriskany, Hancock, Shangri-La, Ticonderoga, Bon Homme Richard and the the others dropped probably more ordnance than the bigger ships. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 5:56:27 PM EDT
[#10]
An Essex with Crusaders and Skyhawks would have brought more firepower to the fight than Invincible in '82.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 5:58:06 PM EDT
[#11]
You could operate F-35Bs off them but you have to realize how much larger and heavier modern planes are. A Super Hornet is twice the weight of an F-8 or 3 times as heavy as a Skyhawk.
On the other hand,could you still operate reasonably effective aircraft from one? Sure,fully modernized Skyhawks could drop bombs on the Taliban or IS as well as most things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 6:05:45 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unarmored flight deck (they were teak). Limited deck landing weight. Besides weight, today's aircraft are also substantially larger than the rotary engine planes of WW II. Nope, the Essexes served their time and that time has past. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 6:15:42 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You could operate F-35Bs off them but you have to realize how much larger and heavier modern planes are. A Super Hornet is twice the weight of an F-8 or 3 times as heavy as a Skyhawk. On the other hand,could you still operate reasonably effective aircraft from one? Sure,fully modernized Skyhawks could drop bombs on the Taliban or IS as well as most things. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 6:17:12 PM EDT
[#14]
A post SCB-125/27C Essex class carrier isn't that much different in size from the French Charles de Gaulle.
And at least in Theory, a C-11 catapult has enough throw weight for a fully loaded F/A-18E, though not quite an F-35C. The 27C Essex class had the same cats that the Midways had. Landing is likely the issue. I think the real problem would have been keeping one in operating shape for long enough to be relevant today. But if you could time-travel one right out of the late-50's (post SCB-125/27C), it would likely be more capable than anything else afloat today other than the US CVN's and the CdG. If restricted to the F-35B, then it's probably also inferior to the QE. I would think if we still had CV's of that size around, there would be some differences in aircraft. The smaller French Rafale might fit better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 6:21:07 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I still think a reworked Hawk/T-45 would make a great light attack aircraft. Throw a badass engine in it, rework the avionics and now you have a light attack plane that can launch from carriers http://www.lowflying.net/uploads/1/6/3/8/16384742/439261_orig.jpg https://66.media.tumblr.com/12b8868cf8b9cfc2cad167d43b201f8a/tumblr_peetmdB1IN1tozk3mo1_500.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 6:23:08 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A post SCB-125/27C Essex class carrier isn't that much different in size from the French Charles de Gaulle. And at least in Theory, a C-11 catapult has enough throw weight for a fully loaded F/A-18E, though not quite an F-35C. The 27C Essex class had the same cats that the Midways had. Landing is likely the issue. I think the real problem would have been keeping one in operating shape for long enough to be relevant today. But if you could time-travel one right out of the late-50's (post SCB-125/27C), it would likely be more capable than anything else afloat today other than the US CVN's and the CdG. If restricted to the F-35B, then it's probably also inferior to the QE. I would think if we still had CV's of that size around, there would be some differences in aircraft. The smaller French Rafale might fit better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 6:23:12 PM EDT
[#17]
Wasn't Oriskany kept around for so long because there were thoughts of recommissioning her in the early 80s?
Beat like a mule. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 6:29:43 PM EDT
[#18]
It’s a shame Oriskany wasn’t kept as a museum ship. She did so much. She was very capable of delivering warheads on foreheads. I did duty on 4 super carriers so when I got to visit Lexington in Corpus Christi, I was like WTF! How did they operate all those aircraft including A-3 Skywarriors in such a a small place.
Check out this video. Best of 3 out of 1/3. Look how big the skywarriors were. Also the crowded bow. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2qmx5NOe9mA Crusader and Corsair love. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaKTJIVxHM |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 6:48:02 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Modified T-45 Goshawk trainer with weapons capability? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I still think a reworked Hawk/T-45 would make a great light attack aircraft. Throw a badass engine in it, rework the avionics and now you have a light attack plane that can launch from carriers http://www.lowflying.net/uploads/1/6/3/8/16384742/439261_orig.jpg https://66.media.tumblr.com/12b8868cf8b9cfc2cad167d43b201f8a/tumblr_peetmdB1IN1tozk3mo1_500.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 6:50:03 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
I'm just wondering, because I don't remember seeing a ski jump on the Intrepid. And it seems like those World War II vintage carriers could carry more aircraft than the carriers currently serving with other navies.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 7:25:14 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lexington was in service 1943-1991, the last 30 years of that as a training carrier. Sailed back from Guantanamo at the very end. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Essex class carriers played a role in Vietnam. They had to operate older aircraft though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-class_aircraft_carrier |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 7:41:14 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You could operate F-35Bs off them but you have to realize how much larger and heavier modern planes are. A Super Hornet is twice the weight of an F-8 or 3 times as heavy as a Skyhawk. On the other hand,could you still operate reasonably effective aircraft from one? Sure,fully modernized Skyhawks could drop bombs on the Taliban or IS as well as most things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 9:08:47 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oriskany and Ticonderoga operated A-7 corsairs. Oriskany carried 2 X F-8 Crusader squadrons and 3 X A-7 Corsair squadrons. Go to 1970 until she decommissioned. http://www.gonavy.jp/CV-CV34f.html That’s a lot of hate. The Modified Essex carriers probably did more to show the flag around the world than the super carriers. Intrepid, Oriskany, Hancock, Shangri-La, Ticonderoga, Bon Homme Richard and the the others dropped probably more ordnance than the bigger ships. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 9:33:54 PM EDT
[#24]
USS Lexington CVT 16 was my first duty station out of Boot Camp Jan 1, 1972
We could launch and retrieve these attack aircraft; A-3’s, A-4’s, A-6’s and A-7’s, these fighter aircraft; F-8’s, F-9’s, |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 10:04:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a picture from the link further up of a modified, angled deck Essex with an A-3 on the deck. Could they launch at max weight? I dunno. But it appears the A-3 has a heavier empty weight than a super hornet. Assuming Wikipedia is somewhat correct. The C-11 steam catapults of the Essex Class with the SCB-27 mod were rated at 70,000 pounds with a launch speed of 108 knots. That's without wind across the bow. With a 20 knot wind coming across the bow an Essex Class Carrier with the SCB-27 mod would have no problems shooting a fully loaded KA-3B off the deck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 10:12:57 PM EDT
[#26]
What about a 21st century CVE and Skyhawks?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 10:14:30 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Rotary engines? Rotary?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 11:22:27 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
USS Lexington CVT 16 was my first duty station out of Boot Camp Jan 1, 1972 We could launch and retrieve these attack aircraft; A-3’s, A-4’s, A-6’s and A-7’s, these fighter aircraft; F-8’s, F-9’s, |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 11:35:34 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What were F9s being used for in the early 70s? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 11:47:28 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lighter / smaller aircraft. Not a even comparison to modern day Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm just wondering, because I don't remember seeing a ski jump on the Intrepid. And it seems like those World War II vintage carriers could carry more aircraft than the carriers currently serving with other navies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2018 11:53:48 PM EDT
[#31]
My father served 4 Essex deployments to Vietnam flying S2s. He was telling stories tonight and ended one about flying to Cuba in ‘59 by saying his buddy later died in the Oriskany Fire.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2018 12:03:08 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
F9 Cougar trainers would be my guess. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2018 12:08:45 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unarmored flight deck (they were teak). Limited deck landing weight. Besides weight, today's aircraft are also substantially larger than the rotary engine planes of WW II. Nope, the Essexes served their time and that time has |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2018 12:10:10 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I still think a reworked Hawk/T-45 would make a great light attack aircraft. Throw a badass engine in it, rework the avionics and now you have a light attack plane that can launch from carriers http://www.lowflying.net/uploads/1/6/3/8/16384742/439261_orig.jpg https://66.media.tumblr.com/12b8868cf8b9cfc2cad167d43b201f8a/tumblr_peetmdB1IN1tozk3mo1_500.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2018 12:11:59 AM EDT
[#35]
After reviewing what other navies had at the time, I'd have to say that the modernized Essex class were more capable than the carriers of any other navy at the time the last one was retired from front line service (USS Oriskany, 1976). HMS Ark Royal was arguably the next best. Ark Royal had better fighters (Phantom FG.1 v.s F-8J), but Oriskany's Crusaders were backed by a far superior AEW/AWACS aircraft, and she carried twice as many.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2018 1:25:59 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Modified T-45 Goshawk trainer with weapons capability? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I still think a reworked Hawk/T-45 would make a great light attack aircraft. Throw a badass engine in it, rework the avionics and now you have a light attack plane that can launch from carriers http://www.lowflying.net/uploads/1/6/3/8/16384742/439261_orig.jpg https://66.media.tumblr.com/12b8868cf8b9cfc2cad167d43b201f8a/tumblr_peetmdB1IN1tozk3mo1_500.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2018 3:40:12 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I still think a reworked Hawk/T-45 would make a great light attack aircraft. Throw a badass engine in it, rework the avionics and now you have a light attack plane that can launch from carriers http://www.lowflying.net/uploads/1/6/3/8/16384742/439261_orig.jpg https://66.media.tumblr.com/12b8868cf8b9cfc2cad167d43b201f8a/tumblr_peetmdB1IN1tozk3mo1_500.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2018 4:38:41 AM EDT
[#38]
my dad served on the Wasp, Tarawa, Lake Champlain and Leyte. The Wasp was the only angle deck/hurricane bow he served on. He said that the Wasp was mixed Jet/Prop. He served with VS32- Sub Killers in the North Atlantic.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2018 11:15:16 AM EDT
[#39]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2018 4:10:43 PM EDT
[#40]
Since she's been mentioned a lot in this thread, here's a pic of an A-7 recovering aboard CVA-34 Oriskany after a sortie over VN.
One of my Dad's prior shipmates was an officer in ship's company (DCO?) on Oriskany in the mid 60s, and he sent me a few pics. I have to see if I can find the rest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2018 4:14:57 PM EDT
[#41]
here is CVS 18 after re-fit when I dad was assigned to the Wasp, his aircraft was S2F Tracker.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2018 4:31:45 PM EDT
[#42]
I mentioned above using a CVE and A-4, but what about a CVE drone carrier? Light carrier and 40-60 drones it can put up at any time. Cheaper than a fleet carrier and air wing, you can still park it off someone's coast and send a message, and with drones carrying Hellfires or the like can still blow stuff up without putting aircrews at risk.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2018 6:36:23 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
my dad served on the Wasp, Tarawa, Lake Champlain and Leyte. The Wasp was the only angle deck/hurricane bow he served on. He said that the Wasp was mixed Jet/Prop. He served with VS32- Sub Killers in the North Atlantic. Wasp was a short-hull SCB-27A ship that later went through SCB-125. Tarawa and Leyte were long-hull, unmodified Essex-class ships Lake Chaplain was a long-hull SCB-27A ship. She was the only SCB-27 ship that did not go through SCB-125 It's posted above; but basically -Unmodified ships are unable to handle any jet aircraft -SCB-27A fitted the ships with Hydraulic catapults. This would let them operate early jet aircraft, but eventually relegated them to ASW duties as a CVS. Most later went through SCB-125 -SCB-27C fitted the ships with STEAM catapults. These were the same C-11 cats that the Midways had, and would allow them to operate as attack carriers (CVA's) until late in their lives. All later went through SCB-125 -SCB-125 is the angled deck mod. It differed slightly depending on if the ship being upgraded was a 27A or 27C. -SCB-125A is the ultimate Essex; only Oriskany got this. ETA: Because it's shown above; Antietam (CV-36) was the experimental angled deck carrier, but as she'd never gone through SCB-27, was quickly relegated to training duties, and was retired fairly young. It was just easier to modify another Essex. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2018 6:54:24 PM EDT
[#44]
Click To View Spoiler
Picture taken in 92, Pudget sound. Amazing how many old shitty boats the navy was holding onto at that time. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File