Embarked fighter-bombers

[jcf]

Don't take it personally ysi.  Jon can be cantankerous at times.  He gets that way if he hasn't bitten the heads off any kittens lately.

More a case of Kendra fatique. 

Apologies to ysi. 

[ysi_maniac]

^^^^

[zenrat]

Don't take it personally ysi.  Jon can be cantankerous at times.  He gets that way if he hasn't bitten the heads off any kittens lately.

More a case of Kendra fatique. 

Apologies to ysi. 

Understandable.

[Joe C-P]

Fighter-bombers are never as good as straight fighters, so while they could defend the carrier, having some dedicated fighters aboard is needed.
Fighters often carry some small bombs, so they can take advantage of opportunities such as a surprise attack or an unexpected target. In the case that fighting is needed the bombs can be dropped to lose the excess weight and drag.

The escort carriers in the Atlantic would carry a few fighters in case of long-range patrol bombers, but mostly torpedo bombers.

[ysi_maniac]

To carry only one type of aircraft would have advantages in terms of flight crews, spare parts, aso ...

[rickshaw]

To carry only one type of aircraft would have advantages in terms of flight crews, spare parts, aso ...

But it would limit the carrier's utility.   While one type might predominate, other types are still required to allow the Carrier to operate as the centre of a task force and be able to both defend itself and it's ships and strike at the enemy's forces.

[zenrat]

While only having one type of aircraft inevitably results in compromise and reduced performance across all missions there is something to be said for a modular approach where as many components as possible are shared across all the different aircraft types.

[Joe C-P]

The USN is trying this right now, reducing their carrier fleet to basically F/A-18s and H-60 copters.

[PR19_Kit]

The USN is trying this right now, reducing their carrier fleet to basically F/A-18s and H-60 copters.

And some Hawkeyes I hope?

[sandiego89]

The USN is trying this right now, reducing their carrier fleet to basically F/A-18s and H-60 copters.

And some Hawkeyes I hope?

Indeed, E-2's will be part of the USN carrer task force for decades to come. 

The movement towards multi-role aircraft has allowed some economies of scale on the modern USN flight deck, but as noted the Hornet/Superhornet will never be able to replace some of the capability of prior generation aircraft.  It is also important to note that some of the Hornet/Superhornets are still tasked and trian more for certain primary and secondary roles- so may not really be "swing-role" as much. My thoughts:

F/A-18 A-D, serving primarily in attack roles. A and B about gone.  Better avionics than the A-7, much worse payload/load range than the A-6 or earlier A-3.
F/A-18-G.  Has replaced the EA-6B.  Better avionics, but the extra crew will likely be somewhat missed.  Worse range.  Better self protection. 
F/A-18 E-F as tanker.  Typically 4-5 "E's" are configured in the 5 wet configuartion as a buddy tanker.  Much worse in amount of fuel to give than earlier KA-6's, KA-3's or S-3's.  Bring back the Viking.
F/A-18 E.  Single Seater. Used primarily as attack, secondary fighter.  Better than the A&C in terms of about everything: range, avaionics, payload, flexilibility.  Worse payload than A-6.
F/A-18 F. Two seater.   Used primarily as a fighter and attack.  Better than the B&D in terms of about everything.  Replacced the F-14 in fleet defense- better sustainabilty, less range, far less charm.

S-3 Viking.  Had already given up the the ASW role before retirement, but lingered on for tanking and sea Control.  H-60 and surface assets replaced the near protection role, but its legs. tanking and adapatabilty seem missed.

E-2.  No real end in sight, with the D coming on line.  Effective.

C-2- being replaced by the MV-22 COD.  Think the range and dependability of the C-2 will be somewhat missed.   

Methinks the heavy attack and heavy tanker are the two biggest things missing from the modern USN flight deck.             

[tomo pauk]

Browsing a bit about the Hellcat, there are some pictures of it carrying a torpedo during the tests in the Detail & Scale book on the type.

[DarrenP2]

Blackburn Skua was a fighter/bomber

[KJ_Lesnick]

What exactly is a BFC as you have mentioned the acronym but not told those of us that don't have a clue about what it stands for?

BF = Bomber-Fighter; C = Curtiss.

The aircraft was called the Model 64 Goshawk, which the USN designated the XF11C-1, which was to be an improved version of the F6C: It had an R-1510 engine, more spacing between the wings, metal control surfaces instead of fabric, and 2 x 0.30 machine guns and the provision for either an auxiliary fuel tank or a 474 pound bomb.  Prior to making the purchase, they bought a demonstrator called the Model 64A, which had an R-1820, longer landing-gears, a tail-wheel, fabric-covered elevator surfaces for some reason, a crutch that would allow the centerline bomb to be swung clear of the propeller arc for dive-bombing attacks, and racks for smaller bombs on the wings.

They ended up buying both of which the first was called the XF11C-1 and the second was called the XF11C-2, and for some reason, they decided to call it a fighter-bomber, or in this case: Bomber-Fighter, which is more logically consistent.  The XF11C-1 became the XBFC-1, and the XF11C-2 became the XBFC-2, and with some modifications became the BFC-2.

A total of 28 were built plus 2 prototypes, and they were assigned to the 'High-Hat' squadron (VF-1B), which served off the Saratoga, and a squadron (VB-6) were technically assigned to the Enterprise but never embarked.

This aircraft design though insignificant in numbers, did earn some interesting distinction as two of them ended up in Germany's hands (I'm not sure if this was legal, but it happened): Ernst Udet was asked to evaluate these aircraft for the newly-formed Luftwaffe and became an overnight proponent of dive-bombing.  He of course took it to a comically absurd level as he wanted pretty much everything to be able to dive-bomb and the obsession lead to slow development of level-bombing systems, though they got around it (by swiping it from the US) eventually.

The XF11C-3, which had a hand-cranked retracted landing-gear proved to be the basis for the BF2C-1: The rear fuselage was raised a bit, the lower-wings were re-designed as a metal structure of biconvex design