View attachment 269432
The USS Wasp burns in the Coral Sea after being struck by three torpedoes from a Japanese submarine in 1942. The ship, the only one of its class, would ultimately sink because of the damage.
What is your point. No one is arguing carriers are invulnerable. People make the same mistake when discussing the tank in general and the M1 Abrams in particular.
Interesting you should choose USS Wasp (CV7)....
CV7 is the sole ship of a class built to use up the remaining tonnage allowed to the U.S. for aircraft carriers under the treaties of the time. It is in fact a reduced-size version of the earlier three ship Yorktown class (Yorktown, Enterprise, Hornet). The Navy sought to squeeze a large air group onto a ship with nearly 25% less displacement than the
Yorktown-class. In order to save weight and space,
Wasp was constructed with low-power machinery. Additionally,
Wasp was launched with almost no armor, modest speed and, more significantly, no protection from torpedoes. Absence of side protection of the boilers and internal aviation fuel stores "doomed her to a blazing demise". These were inherent design flaws that were recognized when constructed but could not be remedied within the allowed tonnage. These flaws, combined with a relative lack of damage control experience in the early days of the war, were to prove fatal.
That is not to say no other carriers were lost e.g. Yorktown in the Vattle of Midway:
Yorktown was damaged by aerial bombs and torpedoes and abandoned on 4 June but later re-manned by repair crews, then spotted and torpedoed by a Japanese submarine and eventually sank on 7 June 1942.
Actually, Carrier borne refueler do exist. KC-130 have took off from USS Forrestal in 1960s and the current fleet refueler roles have gone on the C-2 Greyhound. But Marine and Navy uses both as air refueller on board any US carrier.
While it is true that some job are exclusively dedicated to Air Force and cannot be done in the Navy, but CBG in the US navy acts as a stand alone assault platform, they can launch seaborne/airborne troop insertion and anything from deep strike to normal CAS.
No one is going to use C-130 from a carrier, since a) the entire deck needs to be cleared for it to take off and b) the carrier cannot maintain any on board. Take offs were done with no cargo and little fuel on board.
In 1963, a Hercules achieved and still holds the record for the largest and heaviest aircraft to land on an aircraft carrier. During October and November that year, a USMC KC-130F (BuNo
149798), loaned to the U.S. Naval Air Test Center, made 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested full-stop landings and 21 unassisted take-offs on
Forrestal at a number of different weights. The tests were highly successful, but the idea was considered too risky for routine "Carrier Onboard Delivery" (COD) operations. Instead, the Grumman C-2 Greyhound was developed as a dedicated COD aircraft.
The Grumman C-2 Greyhound is a late 1960s twin-engine, high-wing
cargo aircraft, designed to carry supplies, mail, and passengers to and from aircraft carriers of the United States Navy. It is a derivative of the E-2 Hawkeye Its primary mission is carrier onboard delivery (COD). Although it could probably be converted for the purpose, it is currently not used in aerial refuelling role.
The US Navy 2016 budget request confirms that the service will begin buying a version of the tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey to replace the fixed-wing C-2 as its carrier-onboard-deliver (COD) aircraft. It would buy eight Ospreys a year from 2018 to 2020. That is a win for the Bell-Boeing team that makes V-22s over Northrop, which built the C-2s, and Lockheed Martin, which proposed a modified version of its old S-3 Vikings. While lacking the speed and range of an S-3 specifically reconfigured for COD and the payload-range of an improved C-2 that were also evaluated, the HV-22 will have the ability to make vertical takeoffs and landings from any ship with a suitable landing area. The range can be extended by inflight refueling and it can land on an aircraft carrier even in the unlikely event that arrested landings are not possible.
In its day, the S-3 Viking was capable of and used for aerial refuelling: the S-3B could be fitted with "buddy stores", external fuel tanks that allowed the Viking to refuel other aircraft. The ES-3A, in addition to their warning and reconnaissance roles, and their extraordinarily stable handling characteristics and range, were a preferred recovery tanker (aircraft that provide refueling for returning aircraft). The proposed KS-3B dedicated air tanker based on S-3B utilizing the buddy refueling system, was never built however.
It was a Prowler variant that formed the mainstay of aerial refuelling for a long time. To replace both the KA-3B and EA-3B Skywarrior during the early 1970s, 78 A-6As and 12 A-6Es were converted for use as tanker aircraft, providing aerial refueling support to other strike aircraft. A few KA-6Ds went to sea with each Intruder squadron. These aircraft were always in short supply, and frequently were "cross decked" from a returning carrier to an outgoing one. Many KA-6 airframes had severe G restrictions, as well as fuselage stretching due to almost continual use and high number of catapults and traps. The retirement of the aircraft left a gap in USN and USMC refueling tanker capability. The USN Lockheed S-3 Viking filled that gap until the new F/A-18E/F Super Hornet became operational.
The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, unlike the previous F/A-18 A/B/C/D Hornet, is designed so it can be equipped with an aerial refueling system (ARS) or "buddy store" for the refueling of other aircraft, filling the tactical airborne tanker role the Navy had lost with the retirement of the KA-6D and Lockheed S-3B Viking tankers. In the tanker role, it is equiped with:
1× 330 U.S. gal (1,200 L) tank and 4× 480 U.S. gal (1,800 L) tanks for aerial refueling system (ARS).
Boeing: Boeing Super Hornet Demonstrates Aerial Refueling Capability
For the V-22, Boeing is developing a roll-on/roll-off aerial refueling kit, which would give it the ability to refuel other aircraft. Having an aerial refueling capability that can be based off Wasp-class amphibious assault ships would increase the striking power of Marine F-35Bs, as they would not rely on refueling assets that could only be based on full-sized Nimitz-class aircraft carriers or from land bases. It would involve a high-speed version of the hose/drogue refueling system. Onboard tanks and a roll-on/roll-off bladder can contain up to 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) of fuel. The roll-on/roll-off kit can also be applicable to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance functions. The V-22 could refuel rotary-wing aircraft, but it would require a separate drogue used specifically by helicopters and a partially converted nacelle. Since many Marine Corps ground vehicles can run on aviation fuel, a refueling V-22 could also service them. In late 2014, it was stated that such tankers could be operational by 2017. As of 2015, the Navy has no immediate plans to use the V-22 Aerial Refueling System (VARS) on its planned COD fleet, but it may be leveraged in the future.
However, in the future Naval Warfare, F-35 would not need to be the mainstay of US navy, yes, they will be the force to reckon with, but the USN don't just have F35 for future defence solution, the new UCLASS (X-47B) and the Q/RQ/MQ drone would also play a part, hell, they even try to modify old F-16 or F-18 into autonomous drone, well, now it's for aerial targeting, but who know what will be of use for them tomorrow?
V-22 tanker is relevant not only for CVNs with F-35Cs but also for USMC F-35Bs on board LHA/LHDs (and possibly even for supporting ground vehicles in a forward area).
COMBAT RADIUS:
F-35A better than F-16C
F-35B better than AV-8B
F-35C comparable to (a little better than) F/A-18E/F
STILL:
The X-47B has a ferry range of about 2,100nm. This suggests a combat radius of not more than than 1,050nmi. While that is more than any of the above, note that: "Northrop Grumman will adapt its current X-47B UCAV design to accommodate a consolidated set of Navy and Air Force science and technology objectives. The common objectives include a combat radius of 1,300 nautical miles with a payload of 4,500 pounds, and the ability to loiter for two hours over a target up to 1,000 nautical miles away."
X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstrator (UCAS-D)
