Why the Navy Misses the Old F-14 Tomcat, Despite All of the Problems

Re:Why the Navy Misses the Old F-14 Tomcat, Despite All of t... by TheForumTroll on Tuesday September 04, 2018 @04:23AM (#17907476)

The problem is that in a real war (as in not a war with jets versus people in caves) the carriers will be lost in days. Look how easy targets they are to even old diesel subs. They get sunk in pretty much all realistic training against any foe with a sub. Otherwise it only takes one ballistic anti-ship missile per carrier. They need to go the way of the battleships.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why the Navy Misses the Old F-14 Tomcat, Despite All of t... by manigandham on Tuesday September 04, 2018 @01:06PM (#17910675)

Would they? Why do people think carriers are so easy to sink? They are massive nuclear powered machines with entire fleets protecting them. I doubt any submarine would get close enough to launch anything without being obliterated.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why the Navy Misses the Old F-14 Tomcat, Despite All of t... by carrier_hmmm on Tuesday September 04, 2018 @04:41PM (#17912589)

Reasonable survey of the criticism and vulnerabilities:

https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why the Navy Misses the Old F-14 Tomcat, Despite All of t... by dmoy on Friday September 07, 2018 @04:06PM (#17937254)

Late reply so you might not see, but in all the realistic simulations, carriers get completely destroyed in the early hours of any actual conflict. (All the big boats do, but carriers are especially juicy targets)

See, for example, MC02.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why the Navy Misses the Old F-14 Tomcat, Despite All of t... by foldr on Tuesday September 04, 2018 @06:30AM (#17907978)

I don't think that's necessarily inevitable. None of the British carriers was sunk during the Falklands war, despite the Argentines having diesel subs and exocet missiles.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why the Navy Misses the Old F-14 Tomcat, Despite All of t... by gaius on Tuesday September 04, 2018 @06:36AM (#17908001)

None of the British carriers was sunk during the Falklands war

Yes and no. The Atlantic Conveyor, a makeshift helicopter carrier, was sunk, taking the UK’s Chinooks with it, leading to the famous “yomp” across the island. But you are right that both of the Harrier carriers were OK.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why the Navy Misses the Old F-14 Tomcat, Despite All of t... by foldr on Tuesday September 04, 2018 @06:42AM (#17908026)

Ah, yes, fair enough, but of course the Atlantic Conveyor neither didn't have the defenses of a modern carrier, and wouldn't have been as much of a defense priority.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why the Navy Misses the Old F-14 Tomcat, Despite All of t... by daddylonglegs on Tuesday September 04, 2018 @08:30AM (#17908536)

Note that the Argentinians started the war with only five air-launched Exocet missiles in stock and with those they took out an air defence destroyer and a very important supply ship.

The Argentinians deployed two submarines. The Royal Navy caught the WWII surplus Santa Fe. The more up to date San Luis evaded the RN and it's attacks were only foiled by poor maintenance of it's weapon systems.

The British submarines drove the Argentinian surface ships (including their carrier) into port.

The RN of the time was as good as any at anti-submarine warfare and had quite modern air defences. I think the Falklands war showed how effective air-launched missiles and submarines were (are).

[ Parent | on HN ]