AHC-CVs the dominant naval compenent of nuclear triad

IOTL, the US Navy developed the Douglas A-3 Skywarrior and the North American A-5 Vigilante as carrier-based aircraft capable of carrying strategic nuclear weapons. However, these aircraft had the misfortune to enter service at the same time as the first ballistic missile submarines, and thus were never used in their intended roles.

Your challenge is to have carrier-based aircraft the dominant naval component of the nuclear triad.
 
Would it not be a 'Tetrad' ? USAF Bombers, USN Bombers, ICBM, SLBMs ?

The problem for a triad is that SSBNs have so many more advantages over CV based bombers. (everything apart from dual none nuclear use) Could you kill land based bombers instead but you might end up with just SLBMs (as UK/Fr have done due to cost)

Do you have a date in mind could it be before SLBMs if so USS United States (CVA-58) might fit ?
 

jahenders

Banned
I really can't see it. Aircraft carriers are simply impossible to hide and too vulnerable to missiles.

The Russians (et al) can see where are carriers are at pretty much any given time. So, in a Russian first-strike scenario, they just have to hit the general area of the carrier with a few nukes and they'd be pretty sure of a kill. Even if they didn't kill the carrier, the nuke effects would make air operations effectively impossible for a few dozen critical minutes.

I think the only time they could have been a significant player in that role was before lots of IRBMs/ICBMs, but only if the aircraft were long enough range that the carrier could stand off a LONG way. Not only did the development of missiles nix that possibility, but long range bombers made it somewhat irrelevant to launch from a carrier.

I guess they COULD contribute, though, as a quick strike capability at the start of a war (before they die).

IOTL, the US Navy developed the Douglas A-3 Skywarrior and the North American A-5 Vigilante as carrier-based aircraft capable of carrying strategic nuclear weapons. However, these aircraft had the misfortune to enter service at the same time as the first ballistic missile submarines, and thus were never used in their intended roles.

Your challenge is to have carrier-based aircraft the dominant naval component of the nuclear triad.
 
Yeah the whole point of the SLBM is that it deters a first strike by nearly assuring a functional second strike even if the first strike is spectacularly successful. That provided a strong stabilizing--perhaps I should say sobering-- influence during the Cold War to both sides.
 
IOTL, the US Navy developed the Douglas A-3 Skywarrior and the North American A-5 Vigilante as carrier-based aircraft capable of carrying strategic nuclear weapons. However, these aircraft had the misfortune to enter service at the same time as the first ballistic missile submarines, and thus were never used in their intended roles.

Your challenge is to have carrier-based aircraft the dominant naval component of the nuclear triad.

My understanding is that given enough warning HMS Ark Royals Job before she was scrapped in 1978 was to head up north to within range of the Russian Long range bomber airbases in or about the kola Pennisular and sortie her Nuclear Bomb armed Buccaneers at them.
 
Unless the ASBs halt all progress on missiles, it's not happening. Carriers had nukes on board and would have used them in an exchange, but they're too valuable conventionally to all be tied down as deterrents.
 
My understanding is that given enough warning HMS Ark Royals Job before she was scrapped in 1978 was to head up north to within range of the Russian Long range bomber airbases in or about the kola Pennisular and sortie her Nuclear Bomb armed Buccaneers at them.

In this role, carriers are acting more in a tactical role analogous to land based, intermediate range missiles like the Pershings that were deployed in 1983. So, they would be an important part of the ability to project nuclear power but not a strategic component.
 
IOTL, the US Navy developed the Douglas A-3 Skywarrior and the North American A-5 Vigilante as carrier-based aircraft capable of carrying strategic nuclear weapons. However, these aircraft had the misfortune to enter service at the same time as the first ballistic missile submarines, and thus were never used in their intended roles.

Your challenge is to have carrier-based aircraft the dominant naval component of the nuclear triad.

This would be hard to accomplish in my view. The advantages of SSBN's are many and I can't see a service other than a Navy operating SSBN's.

If for some reason SSBN's fall out of favor then I can see a Navy wanting to deploy dedicated nuclear strike air craft on their air craft carriers to keep some skin in the game so to speak, but I can't see these air craft being an equal part of a triad compared to bombers and ICBM's.
 
Yeah the whole point of the SLBM is that it deters a first strike by nearly assuring a functional second strike even if the first strike is spectacularly successful. That provided a strong stabilizing—perhaps I should say sobering—influence during the Cold War to both sides.
The advantage of sea launched ballistic missiles always puts me in mind of a line from Moby Dick, "From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee." Sure you might be able to nuke us into oblivion, but we're taking you down with us if you try it.
 
Top