What did a USN carrier air wing look like in the post-war era?

Matt

Matt

So I've been randomly looking into post-war era aviation, before air to air missiles generally ruined everything for everyone. In one decade the USN fielded a bewildering array of aircraft. I've found references to how the Carrier Air Wing looked in part of the Korea era, 1 to 2 squadrons of Panthers, 2 to 3 of Corsairs, and 1 squadron of Skyraiders. But what about the rest of the decade?

For example of what I mean, here's a non-exhaustive list of 1950s USN aircraft:

  • F4U-5 Corsair
  • AU-1 Corsair
  • AD Skyraider variants for strike
  • AD Skyraider variants for AEW, EW
  • F8F-2 Bearcat
  • TBF Avenger variants for ASW, AEW, COD, etc
  • F9F-4 Panther
  • F9F-6 Cougar
  • F2H Banshee
  • FJ Fury
  • F4D Skyray
  • F3H Demon
  • F8U Crusader
  • F11F Tiger
  • A4D Skyhawk
  • A3D Skywarrior
  • AJ Savage
  • S2F Tracker
  • WF Tracer
  • TF-1 Trader

I know I missing a few models, and in particular a sundry of sub-variants of that list. Where the hell do they all fit in? What niche did each model of aircraft fill? What directly replaced what? Why was BurAir so insane back then? Does anyone really know?
 

Riain

Banned
There is a website, that I can't give you a link to because it takes some finding the few times I've looked, that lists the CVWs in each carrier's cruises. I didn't really look at the 40s and 50s because I was into Vietnam at the time, but I think what you want would be in there.
 

Just Leo

Matt said:
Why was BurAir so insane back then? Does anyone really know?
Click to expand...

Could you elaborate on what a non-insane navy would look like? Which navy was better? Is it better now?

In the good old days, you could give advanced technology a shot, like F7U, and if it doesn't work, replace it. If the F-35 doesn't work out well, what then?
 
Matt

Matt

Just Leo said:
Could you elaborate on what a non-insane navy would look like? Which navy was better? Is it better now?

In the good old days, you could give advanced technology a shot, like F7U, and if it doesn't work, replace it. If the F-35 doesn't work out well, what then?
Click to expand...

In an ideal world you would have one type of aircraft across the fleet for one mission type. It vastly simplifies training, operations, and logistics. That part of what I find so confusing. I know a lot of the types I listed didn't serve on the decks at the same time, but for example the F9F Panther, FJ Fury, and F2H Banshee were all fighters serving on carrier decks at the same time.
 

Roches

I've looked up this info for Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations. You can usually find the information for each ship through Wikipedia -- first find what Carrier Air Wing and/or what squadrons served aboard your chosen ship at a given time, then look up the wing or the squadrons in the wing to see what aircraft it used. Seaforces.org seems to have a lot of data but I don't know if that's the site mentioned above.

One Command scenario has the USS Essex, CVA 09, in February 1952. This is probably well researched but I don't have named sources.

12 x F9F-2B Panther (AAW, guns)
12 x F4U-4B Corsair (bombs and rockets)
4 x HO3S-1 (search and rescue helicopters)
12 x F2H-2B Banshee (bombs and rockets)
4 x F9F-2P Panther (recon cameras)
4 x AD-4W Skyraider (AEW)
6 x AD-4NL Skyraider (not armed in scenario, can be loaded with bombs and rockets)
6 x F4U-5N Corsair (AAW, guns)
12 x AD-2B Skyraider (bombs and rockets)

As you can see, it's a bewildering array of aircraft, both prop and jet powered. Here's another website that lists Korean War carrier deployments, including a/c type: http://www.koreanwaronline.com/arms/Squadrons.htm It doesn't have numbers of aircraft but "Det" would mean "detachment", i.e. less than a squadron which if I'm not mistaken was 12 a/c at the time. (I'm not an expert by any means...)
 

Luminous

Matt said:
Why was BurAir so insane back then?
Click to expand...

Well, this is slightly disingenuous. You're including the Corsair, whose last major use by the US was in the Korean war, with aircraft like the F11F, which was a supersonic jet fighter which first flew in 1954 - years after the last major operational use of the Corsair by the US, and 14 years after the Corsair's own first flight! They are aircraft of a completely different generation, and by the end of its service the Corsair would not

Or, in another comparison, you include the AJ Savage on the list - which was the Navy's first nuclear-capable bomber, first flying in 1948, first in service in 1950. This aircraft was directly replaced A3D Skywarrior 7 years later, late in the 50s.

You're looking at a period at the height of innovation in aviation - this is the meat of the transition from piston-driven propeller aircraft to turbojets and turboprops. The first supersonic flight, period, was in 1946. In less than a decade, the navy had their own supersonic fighter design. With the abrupt mission change after the end of WW2 and through the beginning of the cold war, along with the appearance of a peer competitor against which the US had to compete, you had a period of rapid improvement and turnover in air frames ensue.

That rapid turnover, and the rapid creation of new aircraft whose capabilities far exceeded earlier ones, resulted in a lot of overstock of aircraft that were either not as capable or were not part of the supply chain (piston engine aircraft on the same flight deck as jets). It's hardly ideal, but no one operates under ideal conditions. There are old airframes which are still as capable, especially in auxiliary roles such as ground attack, and it would be insane to toss away aircraft which still have life on them when they still had a role to perform. Did this complicate logistics? Most certainly, it did.

There's also the cost concern. The US is not in a total war scenario, as it was during WW2. It could not afford to continue production and replacement at the same levels. Compare roughly 12,500 Corsairs to 1,400 Panthers to 200 Tigers produced in total - the sheer number of aircraft replacement did not exist, so older aircraft continued to serve as they were being phased out. There also is the need to actually get some level of use out of older aircraft.

This is in direct contradiction to today, where most fighters are, in a sense, missile trucks and other devices for the use of launching missiles. The performance improvement often comes from the missiles and the electronics. It's why the F-22 and F-35 tend to be slower than fighters of yesteryear as well.

tl,dr: Designs update rapidly, and ideal world scenarios where total replacement do not exist, necessitating use of older aircraft.
 

DaveBC

Just Leo said:
Could you elaborate on what a non-insane navy would look like? Which navy was better? Is it better now?

In the good old days, you could give advanced technology a shot, like F7U, and if it doesn't work, replace it. If the F-35 doesn't work out well, what then?
Click to expand...

Matt said:
In an ideal world you would have one type of aircraft across the fleet for one mission type. It vastly simplifies training, operations, and logistics. That part of what I find so confusing. I know a lot of the types I listed didn't serve on the decks at the same time, but for example the F9F Panther, FJ Fury, and F2H Banshee were all fighters serving on carrier decks at the same time.
Click to expand...

One thing to bear in mind was that the development cycle was much shorter to go along with the larger number of units.

Unlike today, 60-70 years ago -- and you can also see this especially obviously in something like the evolution of strategic bombers in the Air Force -- you had the luxury of three choices as a new design was tested:

a) If it truly was the best available, then adopt it as the latest and greatest, recognizing that the next iteration will be along soon.

b) If it was a bit of a disappointment but still serviceable, then manufacture some while waiting for the next iteration to come along in a couple of years.

c) If it simply didn't work at all, then keep the old planes around while, once again, waiting for the next iteration to come along in a couple of years.

This is a very different procurement puzzle than the one faced, say, today, where the options for a major aircraft project like the F-35 are at the end of the day just one: A) keep reinforcing it until it works.
 

Luminous

Essentially, if you just break it down into the following:

Midwar Piston Fighter (F4U Corsair, Mid 1940 first flight)
Last-generation Piston Fighters (F8F Bearcat, Late 1944 first flight)
First-generation Subsonic Jet Fighters (straight wing, F9F Panther, Late 1947 first flight)
Last-generation Subsonic Jet Fighters (swept wing, F9F Cougar, Late 1951 first flight)
First-generation Supersonic Jet Fighters (F11F Tiger, Mid 1954 first flight/F8U Crusader, Early 1955 first flight)

So, in that sense, you had a development cycle in that timespan around 3 to 4 years. Compound that with multiple prototypes and alternate aircraft, along with similar development cycles and multiple competing designs, and you end up with the plethora of aircraft options that are available.
 

Riain

Banned
What is particularly unusual about the F35?

It was competed against the X32, so its not as if the F35 isn't the better of 2 options. The gestation of the Eurofighter Typhoon and Rafale can be traced back past the EAP of 1986, past the ACA mockup of 1982 to when the UK, West Germany and France formed a joint programme in 1979, to get the Typhoon in 2003 and Rafale in 2001, so long lead times aren't unusual. Nor are cost blowouts, the Spey Phantom and F111C costs blew out 50+ years ago!
 

viperjock

Something else you have to bear in mind is that the Piston engine fighter bombers and attack planes were still very effective in the post war period. Corsairs and Skyraiders were the workhorses of Korea.
 

DaveBC

Riain said:
What is particularly unusual about the F35?

It was competed against the X32, so its not as if the F35 isn't the better of 2 options. The gestation of the Eurofighter Typhoon and Rafale can be traced back past the EAP of 1986, past the ACA mockup of 1982 to when the UK, West Germany and France formed a joint programme in 1979, to get the Typhoon in 2003 and Rafale in 2001, so long lead times aren't unusual. Nor are cost blowouts, the Spey Phantom and F111C costs blew out 50+ years ago!
Click to expand...
I'm not sure whether this was a response specifically to me and I'm also a little reluctant that we turn this into a debate on the F-35 since isn't there a rule on contemporary politics in this forum, but anyhow, my point was less that the F-35 was a unique lemon than that the politics of procurement have gradually shifted in a way that causes anxiety which simply wouldn't have happened in the 1950s, back when, whether it was an acceptable design or not, there would have been a successor along in a few years anyway.

I'm not sure that anybody has the stomach to run numerous next-generation fighter and bomber projects simultaneously anymore.

If you told someone in 1950 -- to pick a date from the original post in this thread -- that you had a great idea but it would take 25 years to move from inception to full production, they would have shown you the door. My goodness, that's half the Cold War gone.
 

PSL

When I read Freedman 'Net Work Centric Warfare', I was horrified to find the Aegis air defence system of the 1980s USN cruisers [touted as the only system that could handled massed Soviet missile strikes] , was actually based on a 1960s proposed "Typhoon" system, which was rejected as being too costly. Further that Typhoon system was only made possible because of digital technology created in the early 1950s by some Canadian researchers.

Could such a system have been widespread use through out the 60s/70s, to face down the emerging threat of Soviet missile cruisers? Of course it could - but it was not completely mature by then and not in-sync with warship building program cycles to say nothing of budget & training cycles. I concluded [1980s] that in future all modern weapon systems had to be modular & bolt on technology in order to be fleet wide deployable or else it would have to be too costly and time consuming to implement and become a waste of time in the long run.

Conversely all warships should be made much much larger in future to have sufficient growth space to be modified and adapted to 'emerging technology'.

ITS THE COST OF DOING BUSSINESS.
 

RamscoopRaider

Donor
DaveBC said:
I'm not sure whether this was a response specifically to me and I'm also a little reluctant that we turn this into a debate on the F-35 since isn't there a rule on contemporary politics in this forum, but anyhow, my point was less that the F-35 was a unique lemon than that the politics of procurement have gradually shifted in a way that causes anxiety which simply wouldn't have happened in the 1950s, back when, whether it was an acceptable design or not, there would have been a successor along in a few years anyway.

I'm not sure that anybody has the stomach to run numerous next-generation fighter and bomber projects simultaneously anymore.

If you told someone in 1950 -- to pick a date from the original post in this thread -- that you had a great idea but it would take 25 years to move from inception to full production, they would have shown you the door. My goodness, that's half the Cold War gone.
Click to expand...
Well it is not that anyone has the stomach, more than no one has the budget to do that save the USA and PRC. F-22 cost $28 billion for R&D and T&E, the F-35 $55 Billion. The US and PRC can afford to spend multiple billions a year on combat aircraft R&D, most other countries cannot
PSL said:
When I read Freedman 'Net Work Centric Warfare', I was horrified to find the Aegis air defence system of the 1980s USN cruisers [touted as the only system that could handled massed Soviet missile strikes] , was actually based on a 1960s proposed "Typhoon" system, which was rejected as being too costly. Further that Typhoon system was only made possible because of digital technology created in the early 1950s by some Canadian researchers.

Could such a system have been widespread use through out the 60s/70s, to face down the emerging threat of Soviet missile cruisers? Of course it could - but it was not completely mature by then and not in-sync with warship building program cycles to say nothing of budget & training cycles. I concluded [1980s] that in future all modern weapon systems had to be modular & bolt on technology in order to be fleet wide deployable or else it would have to be too costly and time consuming to implement and become a waste of time in the long run.

Conversely all warships should be made much much larger in future to have sufficient growth space to be modified and adapted to 'emerging technology'.

ITS THE COST OF DOING BUSSINESS.
Click to expand...
I agree with you but its Typhon, not Typhoon, after the Greek father of monsters with a hundred heads
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Just Leo said:
Could you elaborate on what a non-insane navy would look like? Which navy was better? Is it better now?

In the good old days, you could give advanced technology a shot, like F7U, and if it doesn't work, replace it. If the F-35 doesn't work out well, what then?
Click to expand...
There was also the fact that the tech was advancing so quickly that you were lucky to get a couple years out of a design, even the ones that weren't failures out of the box. You also had the move from dedicated interceptor to multi-mission that dumped fairly decent designs before their time (the F4D aka F-6A being a decent example, with the F11F, despite some engine issue being another).

The really interesting part is how it just totally flipped with the introduction of the F4 & F8, A-4/A-6/A-7. The Fleet played that hand from the early 60s until the Tomcat arrived in the mid 1970s (and probably should still have the Intruder in service, but I digress...).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top