Final Countdown: Today's Nimitz faces off with Nimitz of 1980

[Snowdog]

Ok, you had to know by reading the thread's title that this was going to be a silly, off-the-wall question.  Working 3rd shift, sometimes these questions come out of nowhere and are promptly tossed around.

I recently saw the old 1980's movie The Final Countdown (staring Michael Douglas, Martin Sheen, Katharine Ross) on View it Now (Netflix) and after briefly mentioning this, somehow I became involved in an office discussion on the following scenario:

The USS Nimitiz of today is sucked into the same vortex that transported the Nimitiz of 1980 (from the movie) and for whatever reason, they faced off (perhaps one of the two carriers want to change history and the other plans to prevent it).  I would think the more modern Nimitz would hold a distinct advantage as over 30 years has elapsed between the two. 
A couple of my buddies believe that today's Nimitz might hold some advantage, but it wouldn't be a game changer due to the F-14 Tomcat and its armament typical of 1980 (could wreak havok on even the ships of today) flown by skilled pilots.
The Phoenix was brought up several times as being a threat to modern aircraft and the carrier itself.

Admittedly, most of what I know either comes from books I read when I was a kid or Wikipedia these days.  Heck, the whole discussion brought up fond memories of the posters I used to have on my bedroom wall as a kid, especially one of an F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle, F-16 Falcon and F-18 Hornet flying in formation.

Anyway, from what I could dig up on the Phoenix (or AIM-54 according to Wikipedia) is that its was a long range air-to-air missile.  Honestly, wouldn't a 1980's AIM-54 be something we could counter with modern evasive maneuvers? 

Bottom line: How do you think this would hash out if both sides were aware of each other and somehow also were aware of the date each arrived from ("they're more advanced than us"/"We're more advance than them")?  I think the obvious advantage would be that the crew of the current Nimitz would be aware of what the armaments (and specifications thereof) of the other Nimitz but not the other way around. 

But would this guarantee a rout?

I would think this shouldn't involve any nukes, just for the sake of arguement.

Yeah, we're now bored but the lively discussion has yet to be settled.

Oh, BTW... I am completely aware many of you have the song The Final Countdown by Europe going through your head now and that wasn't intended.  We had to deal with that all night too, sorry.

Thanks in advance!

[MicroBalrog]

Problem:

Aircraft carriers do not fight wars alone. They are protected by the battlegroup. Those cruisers and missile destroyers? They ain't just a fancy decoration.

To explain just how important these are, the Soviet Union used to have its naval bomber come close to U.S. carriers and paint them with their RADAR. The results were then used for military research.

It transpires that it was not possible for Soviet naval aviation to get a lock on U.S. carriers because ECM from the battlegroup was making use of the Soviet RADAR nearly impossible. Eventually a plan was worked out to engage U.S. battlegroups first, then attack the carrier (the plan involved eight separate nuclear weapons, and is not relevant to us here).

The point is, 2010s Nimitz would win handily due to the amazingly superior sensors, recon capacity, and ECM of its battlegroup.

[K Frame]

Terrible movie, all in all.

The Phoenix missile was designed as a fleet defense missile for killing Soviet bombers carrying air to surface anti-shipping missiles. It's not particularly maneuverable, which is fine if it's going against bombers.

The Phoenix is not capable of being used as an anti-shipping missile, nor would it be particularly good in intercepting fighters.

The Phoenix was only ever carried by the F-14 Tomcat - it has been retired from service, the Phoenix was retired several years before it.

And no, I don't believe it would be a rout because the capabilities of the aircraft that would be involved in such a battle really aren't that much different.

Sensors, ELint, jamming, etc., are more advanced now, but their not so far advanced above those of the 1980s that they would convey an insurmountable advantage.


8

[MechAg94]

I would think the F-18 SuperHornet would be at an advantage over the F-14 along with newer/better air to air missiles.  Ship carried missiles and radar ought to be better.  I agree it is not insurmountable and it also assumes equal pilot skill/training. 

[HankB]

Original movie was disappointing . . . aside from Kirk Douglas' overacting, it's as if if they had an interesting idea, and then the suits came in and started rewriting it . . . and finally near the end someone said "Hey, we can't change history or create an alternate time line, so how do we get ourselves out of this?"

As for Nimitz 1980 vs. Nimitz 2011, carrier-to-carrier without the battlegroup . . . the biggest advantage of the later carrier is that they would have a pretty good idea about the capabilities of Nimitz 1980 and have better electronics and sensors.

Then factor in that the newer attack planes (F/A 18s) would come in a lot faster than the old Intruders and have a better chance of penetrating the carrier's CAP, and the old Nimitz would have a problem.

On the other hand, I wouldn't write off the Phoenix missles - maybe modern fighters and ECM would reduce their effectiveness, but they'd probably still be able to pick off a 2011 vintage E2C Hawkeye from quite some distance away, taking away part of Nimitz 2011's "eyes."

Did these carriers meet "then" or "now?" How dependent on GPS was 1980 Nimitz vs. 2011 Nimitz?

Finally, crew . . . part of the original premise behind the conflict was that "perhaps one of the two carriers want to change history and the other plans to prevent it" . . . could the captain of either ship keep it from his crew? And what if some of them really, really didn't agree? I mean, how many soldiers/sailors would actually open fire on other Americans even if ordered to? Even a small number of, well, dissidents could mess up an attack order if they were in key positions.

[wmenorr67]

Not to mention what would happen if there was a younger version of a sailor on the 1980 Nimitz and was killed in the fight?  Would the 2011 version just disappear or die also?

[roo_ster]

Not to mention what would happen if there was a younger version of a sailor on the 1980 Nimitz and was killed in the fight?  Would the 2011 version just disappear or die also?

A problem many/most time travel stories have to manage, yet so few do.

[wmenorr67]

I guess to expand on my question, How does the Nimitz sink the Nimitz?  What happens to the 2011 Nimitz if the 1980 is defeated?

[Scout26]

Screw that.  I'd really rather see what ONE Nimitz class carrier would have done to the Japanese Fleet during WWII.

Pearl Harbor - umm, not so much.  Almost no US losses.  Figure Japan losese all six Carriers at a minimum.  Midway 6+ months early. 

Doolittle Raid - F-4's, 14's, 18's sweeping Zeros from the skies over Japan.  Then some bombing runs on either strategic (factories and the like) or tactical (ships, port, airfields).  Boy, would that be one helluva "You've screwed with the wrong folks" message.   

Island hopping, nope.  Bringing the war right to your front door step, with Nukes.  NOW.


As an aside the only way I think that there would be a '80's vs 2011 Nimitz would be that the later is full of Ron Paul Tea Partiers who recognize FDR as the first Anti-Christ. 

[AZRedhawk44]

As an aside the only way I think that there would be a '80's vs 2011 Nimitz would be that the later is full of Ron Paul Tea Partiers who recognize FDR as the first Anti-Christ. 

Win.   

Original movie was disappointing . . . aside from Kirk Douglas' overacting, it's as if if they had an interesting idea, and then the suits came in and started rewriting it . . . and finally near the end someone said "Hey, we can't change history or create an alternate time line, so how do we get ourselves out of this?"

Agreed.  Fully let down by the movie.  They're all set to attack the Japanese fleet, all fighters launched... and whoops!  It's time to go back in time.

Yawn.

[TommyGunn]

 

Terrible movie, all in all........

I actually enjoyed the original movie.  Especially the dogfight between the Zeros and the Tomcats.  That was wicked -- I never before ever felt any sympathy for a Japanese Zero pilot but in that movie ....... 

Screw that.  I'd really rather see what ONE Nimitz class carrier would have done to the Japanese Fleet during WWII.

Pearl Harbor - umm, not so much.  Almost no US losses.  Figure Japan losese all six Carriers at a minimum.  Midway 6+ months early. 

Doolittle Raid - F-4's, 14's, 18's sweeping Zeros from the skies over Japan.  Then some bombing runs on either strategic (factories and the like) or tactical (ships, port, airfields).  Boy, would that be one helluva "You've screwed with the wrong folks" message.   

Island hopping, nope.  Bringing the war right to your front door step, with Nukes.  NOW.


As an aside the only way I think that there would be a '80's vs 2011 Nimitz would be that the later is full of Ron Paul Tea Partiers who recognize FDR as the first Anti-Christ. 

Yea....I would have enjoyed watching the Nimitz forces wack the Japs at Pearl Harbor.

How else was it gonna end -- they couldn't really change history.
Author Martin Caidin (famous for writing Marooned and Cyborg)  wrote a novelization of that movie.  It expanded on the story a bit ... we found out what happened to the Nimitz's CAG (James Farentino's character) after the Nimitz returns and Martin Sheen steps off and ... for the first time .... actually meets, face-to-face, his employer.  Oh, and the "time storm's" origins are revealed.
I ain't tellin'  though.  If yous guyz wanna know ...scrounge up an old copy of the book.   

[AJ Dual]

Martin Caidin?

Oh wow.. that's a blast from the past. Do you remember C.A.D.S.?

Synopsis, A small group of Air Force soldiers is testing the pilot program of exoskeletal powered armor designed to fight world-war III. The Soviet Union unleashes a massive pre-emptive attack. The team heads cross country on gigantic ATV's made to carry them in their NBC-proof suits, and they battle biker gangs, etc. on their way to rescue the President in his Washington D.C. bunker as the Soviets try to dig their way down to him.

[TommyGunn]

AJ, I have an incredibly vague memory of that but I am sure I never read it.   Caidin wrote, Maryjane Tonight at Angels Twelve, Aquarius Mission, Beamriders, and other usually aviation-related books.  Even his sci-fi books were often aviation heavy.
Marooned was about an Apollo-like spaceship that became marooned in orbit and was made into a Gregory Peck movie.
Cyborg was about an ex-astronaut-turned-test-pilot who crashed during the test of an experimental aerodynamic lifting body and lost both legs, left arm, and became a government experiment in bionic reconstruction and a covert agent.  If this sounds familiar, that's because it was turned into the pop 1970s TV series, The Six Million Dollar Man.
Interesting, Caidin also wrote a ..."re-do" of Buck Rogers shortly before his death.  In it Rogers is resurrected 500 years in the future and given bionic body parts.  I have the book though I haven't gotten to read it yet.  Bionic parts also are mentioned in Aquarius Mission, a novel about a race of water-breathing humanoids discovered living in a trench off the Aleutian Islands.  That was purchased for a movie but never actually filmed.  It was a pretty decent novel despite its ostensible outlandish theme.  Holy "Man From Atlantis" time.    -------Talking about 1970s pop TV stuff......

[RoadKingLarry]

Did these carriers meet "then" or "now?" How dependent on GPS was 1980 Nimitz vs. 2011 Nimitz?

GPS wasn't fully deployed in 1980 so in a scenario where GPS is unavailable the 1980 Nimitz would suffer almost no degradation while the 2011 Nimitz would experience significant inconvenience.

In a scene where both ships were transported to 1945 both would experience a loss of radio and satellite navigation, Loran, OMEGA, old style Satnav. 
Forcing a little realism into it the inertial navigation systems of both ships would probably be horked by the sudden spatial displacement and related magnetic fluxes associated with it. I'd give a slight edge to the 1980 Quartermasters in establishing a fix with celestial navigation over the 2011 crew.

As to ECM capability, slight edge to 2011 equipment and very slight edge to 1980 operators due to their lesser reliance on computerized analysis of sigint.

Overall I'd give a slight edge to the 2011 Nimitz but I wouldn't discount the possibility of a superior tactician at the Conn of the 1980 ship partly because of the continued and accelerated promotion of career asskissers over superior quality officers.

[TommyGunn]

In a scene where both ships were transported to 1945 both would experience a loss of radio and satellite navigation, Loran, OMEGA, old style Satnav. 
Forcing a little realism into it the inertial navigation systems of both ships would probably be horked by the sudden spatial displacement and related magnetic fluxes associated with it. I'd give a slight edge to the 1980 ...........

In Martin Caidin's novel, a lot of consternation arose over the seeming loss of satellite communications and such, as I recall.  No one had any problem figuring out WHERE they were .... it was WHEN they were that was confusin'   .... I mean Jack Benny broadcasts on AM?  No Blondie?  What the ----? ?

[birdman]

I would have to say 2011 Nimitz, even w/o battlegroup (with group, it would be an even bigger rout...addition of spy-1D and other radar upgrades, DDG destroyers, SM-2ER, and VLS would change the counter-air picture dramatically), for the following reasons:
1. Our ECM against Phoenix will be VERY good (especially since we sold them to Iran)
2. 1980 ECM against AMRAAM woud be ineffective (it didn't exist then)
3. Larger number of multi-role AC in 2011 (the navy's apparent "all planes are f-18's right, so let's just fill a carrier with them...AMD a few e-2's)
4. Extended range harpoon vs. Early harpoon, and more aircraft capable of carrying them (see #3)

[Gowen]

If I'm reading this right, would the 1980 Nimitz be able to go toe to toe with the 2011 Nimitz?  The 1980 Nimitz would win hands down.  The 1980 Nimitz had nukes, it would nuke the snot out of the 2011 Nimitz.  I don't know that today's carriers have nukes.

[TommyGunn]

I am pretty sure the current Nimitz class carriers carry nukes.........

[MechAg94]

Which ship would have better defense against anti-ship missiles?

[RoadKingLarry]

I am pretty sure the current Nimitz class carriers carry nukes.........

 It is the policy of the US Navy to neither confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on any ship or station of the US Navy.

[Mabs2]

Better question:
Who would win?  SDF Macross vs Nimitz 2011.

[TommyGunn]

It is the policy of the US Navy to neither confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on any ship or station of the US Navy.

Which means (translated) that the ship in question is carrying nukes.

[MillCreek]

I am pretty sure the current Nimitz class carriers carry nukes.........

I wonder.  I thought I had read some years back that the Navy had removed all 'tactical' nukes from the surface fleet.  The missile subs still have nukes, so do the carriers still carry 'strategic' nukes?

[Regolith]

It is the policy of the US Navy to neither confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on any ship or station of the US Navy.

So how does that work when the sole purpose of the ship in question is to carry nuclear missiles, such as with boomers?

[birdman]

So how does that work when the sole purpose of the ship in question is to carry nuclear missiles, such as with boomers?

Well, they may or may not have nukes on board.