Source: Vayu Aerospace & Defence Review
Aircraft Carriers
Now and for the Future
RN Sea Harrier Mk.FA2, STO/VL fighter on launch from ski-ramp
With three quarters of the Earth’s surface covered by water, a fusion of ships and aircraft has seemed the most logical manner of deploying tactical aircraft where they were needed, when they were needed, with sufficient immediate technical and logistical support to sustain them in action, or whilst poised awaiting action.
During the 20th century, Britain, the USA, Japan and, to a limited extent, France successfully designed and built aircraft carriers, equipped them with aircraft and used them in action. In the 1960s, some other nations attempted to create a carrier force but only Australia, Canada, Brazil and India succeeded.
The term ‘aircraft carrier’ accurately defines what such a vessel does; but does not describe the scale at which it is capable of carrying it out. Such an imprecise name gives rise to misunderstanding on the pre-conceived ideas about the vessel. It is easy to ‘type-cast’ carriers and to classify them as strike, anti-submarine, helicopter, assault replenishment or support ships.
How Indian Navy Sea Hawk pilots learnt to land correctly, and safely, on the INS Vikrant
Asked to define the role of his aircraft carrier, a Royal Navy Captain in 1966 stated that it was to “travel enormous distances at high speed when ordered and to carry out any task on arrival in the operational area”.
The equipment deployed by an armed force is the legacy of decisions taken by previous generations, often faced with very different circumstances. The Royal Navy’s Invincible-class carriers, built to a curious specification as anti-submarine vessels in some context, is a good example of a bad design, suffering from lack of focus, and constrained the ability of these ships to offer the intervention capability that British foreign policy has sought.
Royal Navy’s future aircraft carrier, CVF
However, these light carriers have had the advantages of a carrier hull, which allowed them to operate Sea Harrier STO/VL (short take-off/vertical landing) fighters and even AEW (airborne early warning) helicopters in addition to their original anti-submarine helicopters. Recent improvements include the enlargement of the flight deck after removal of the Sea Dart area defence missile system which has allowed embarkation of an enhanced air group, including Royal Air Force (RAF) Harrier GR.7s. A Joint Force of up to 16 Royal Navy Sea Harrier FA.2s and RAF Harrier GR.7s is regularly embarked although ‘tailored air groups’ including anything from Boeing Chinook to Westland Lynx helicopters can be deployed.
The other legacy with which the Royal Navy lives today is the loss of the CVA 01 carrier project in 1966, which would have been a national asset rather than a fleet unit, capable of operating aircraft from all three services, including joint strike fighters procured jointly for the Royal Navy and RAF. Its cancellation, after ten years work and when the design was ready for industrial tender, followed the notorious 1966 Defence review, which stated:
“Experience and study have shown that only one type of operation exists for which carriers and carrier-borne aircraft would be indispensable; that is the landing, or withdrawal of troops against sophisticated opposition outside the range of land-based air cover. It is only realistic to recognise that we, unaided by our allies, could not expect to undertake operations of this character in the 1970s – even if we could afford a larger carrier force”.
Quite apart from the fact that ‘experience and study’ showed no such thing, the same document continued:
”The aircraft carrier is the most important element of the fleet for offensive action against an enemy at sea or ashore and makes a large contribution to the defence of our seaborne forces. It can also play an important part in operations where local air superiority has to be gained and maintained and offensive support of ground forces is required”.
Sixteen years later, unaided by allies, British forces were undertaking operations of this character in the South Atlantic. It fell to two much less capable aircraft carriers, the HMS Hermes (now INS Viraat) and HMS Invincible, to make the operation possible. After decades of being a ‘small ship’ navy with a few small carriers, it will not be easy for some Admirals to operate the new carriers in 2012 and it is they, rather than the aircrew, who will struggle to achieve the new ship’s potential.
The F-35B STO/VL version of the Joint Strike Fighter
Looking into the future is not easy. In 1932, a planner looking ahead some 30 years into the life of a major warship would have had to predict the rise to power of Hitler in Germany, appeasement, militarism in Japan, the end of US isolationism, World War Two with Russia as an ally, the Cold War with Russia as an enemy, the Korean War, the decline of the British Empire and the Suez Crisis! On a tactical level, the demise of the classic battleship and the rapid development of aircraft, radar and guided missiles were significant. Similar prophecies made in 1980 might not have included the South Atlantic War, the end of the Cold War and the spread of regional conflicts requiring western intervention.
If looking into the future is so difficult, what can one do to ‘future-proof’ the armed forces? Experience of the recent past can be analysed in a process known in the USA as ‘hindcasting’, and one can look for weapons systems that survived periods like those experienced. Aircraft carriers have not only survived the 20th century but also continued to grow in importance and capability. Battleships did not. Aircraft carriers, in a variety of forms and shapes, are important national assets. The very fact that the CVF Project is seen today as the cornerstone of Britain’s future defence posture 37 years after cancellation of CVAO1 illustrates that their importance has transcended the opposition of ill-informed politicians.
Several myths have been rebutted in the past decades.
In the right place: Experiences abound where carriers have put tactical aircraft in the right place at the right time. The defence of Kuwait against Iraqi aggression in 1961 by HMS Victorious, HMS Centaur, HMS Bulwark is just one of many examples. Those with a ‘fortress mentality’ have to realise that a carrier battle group does not need to be within sight all the time to be effective.
Vulnerability is the most common worry: facts reveal a different picture: only eight Royal Navy carriers were lost in World War Two, representing smaller percentage of those deployed than any other warship type. Only two of these were part of a balanced task force with a full air group in action at the time of their loss. Two others were employed ferrying RAF aircraft, and one old ship had no aircraft on board, but relied on the RAF for a fighter defence which proved ineffective against Japanese carrier-borne aircraft.
Various US Navy aircraft types on board a strike carrier
Carriers need support and ‘escorts’. So do land-based expeditionary air forces which is why the RAF maintains its own regiment of specialist soldiers and surface-to-air missiles. It also needs transport aircraft, engineers to build facilities at temporary air bases, oil tankers and specialist ammunition carrying ships to carry bulk logistics. The use of infantry, tanks, artillery and helicopters in an army battle group gives a similar idea of mutual support without criticism that the infantry is ‘vulnerable’ to attack on its own.
Deck landing. Till the 1960s, propellers, straight decks and crash barriers made deck landing a difficult and dangerous operation for rookie pilots. The British inventions of the angled deck and mirror/ projector sight changed all that and the Royal Navy has not felt the need to operate a training carrier since 1956 and techniques can be practised ashore.
The Future Carrier (CVF)
The Royal Navy began to make dramatic plans for new carriers after the South Atlantic War revealed flaws in its “legacy” equipment. At first, three ships of about 30,000 tons were considered by the growing importance of intervention operations which led to deep studies as part of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) of 1998. In consequence, plans were taken forward for two much larger ships capable of operating tailored air groups made up from Joint Forces, including Joint Force Harrier and its successors. Studies by industrial groups evaluated both CV designs, with catapults and arrester wires, and STO/VL designs. In October 2002, the UK Government elected to take forward an ‘adaptable’ design, based on the CV hull but fitted initially with a ski-jump for STO/VL operations. At the same time, the F-35B STO/VL version of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) was chosen as the fast jet component of the air groups. The F-35C CV version is a more capable aircraft but will not be available by 2012 when the UK needs the first ship to be at sea and operational. To cover the possibility of its acquisition in future, the CVF is to be capable of ‘easy’ adaptation to take catapults and arrester wires. Given the inability of the F-35C to become available in time, one wonders why so much time, effort and money was expended in less ‘future proof’ options when the adaptable carrier seems such a common sense approach. It may well be that the ships will operate both versions of the type in due course, capitalising on their relative strengths. Unlike earlier aircraft types, the JSF has sufficient commonality between sub-types to make this a viable proposition.
On schedule in January 2003, the UK Government announced that design work would be taken forward by an industrial group led by BAE Systems with Thales as a partner. The project will be so massive that the combined team will still need further expansion and they will now work on a detailed design before the next milestone, a contract to construct two ships. The first metal is expected to be cut in 2005, after which the first ship would be launched in 2009 for completion and commencement of trials Programme in 2011. HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious have already exceeded their designed life of 20 years and will be decommissioned before 2012. The second CVF is planned to replace Ark Royal in 2015, by which time she will be 30 years old. There is no room for slippage. The new carriers are to be designed for a life of 50 years, like their USN equivalents.
In addition to the JSF, the Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC) Project is of critical importance to the CVF’s ability to operate autonomously.
Size does matter and the CVF design that is emerging reveals a ship of over 50,000 tons with about two-thirds of the cost. A balanced air group of about 50 aircraft is possible, an exciting prospect for designers who could well be producing a ship that is both affordable and effective. Other navies cannot but take notice and the design is likely to be a long-standing one with export potential.
French Navy Rafale landing on the carrier Charles de Gaulle
USN Perspective
With 11 strike carricrs in service and another under construction, together with 11 helicopter carriers also capable of operating STO/VL Harriers, the US Navy is easily the world’s largest carrier force, which has consistently built big ships ‘future proofed’ against changes in aircraft design and air group composition. Work is proceeding on evolution from the Nimitz design to the CVNX, a new large hull designed to take advantage of the latest technology. Recent statements from the Pentagon have, however, shown that carriers remain the essential core of the fleet’s combat capability but that it is by no means clear that big carriers are the way forward. The Nimitz design can be traced back to the aborted United States project of 1949 and as well as being expensive to build, these carriers are extremely manpower intensive and therefore costly to operate. Cruise missiles, spy satellites and other new technologies have reduced the size of air groups and recent studies have focused on the possibility of
procuring a larger number of smaller carriers with construction being shared, competitively, between a larger number of shipyards. Present plans call for the USN to deploy more than 20 battle groups in the “war against terrorism”. Only half of these can include carriers and the procurement of ships like the British CVF would make a lot of sense. Using the rough order of costing mentioned earlier, six CVF hulls could be purchased for the cost of two Nimitz, giving the potential to embark 300 rather than 20 battle groups in the war against terrorism. Only half of these can include carriers and the procurement of ships like the British CVF would make a lot of sense. Using the rough order of costing mentioned earlier, six CVF hulls could be purchased for the cost of two Nimitz, giving the potential to embark 300 rather than 150 aircraft and to be in more places at once. These numbers are giving rise to much thought in the Pentagon at present. USN air groups would probably comprise a mix of F-35s, E-2Cs and Grumman EA- 6B Prowlers (or its replacement) types. The F-35 is a very capable fighter, even in its STO/VL form, and overcomes many of the earlier limitations imposed by such aircraft. The USN may well procure this version as well as the F-35C variant to deploy in larger numbers on helicopter carriers for specific operations.
In the 21st century
Aircraft carriers need no host nation support – they can be poised out of sight ‘over the horizon’, waiting for the political decision to act. They can operate ‘tailored’ air groups capable of operations at long ranges that make counter detection by any but the most sophisticated opposition unlikely. Should a Government decide not to act, they can fade away quietly without embarrassment. Those who favour long-range bombers as an alternative must remember that carriers can persist in operation, can ferry and land troops with helicopters, counter submarine, surface ship and air threats, provide humanitarian aid and support national diplomacy. ‘Showing the flag’ is a powerful adjunct to foreign policy, as those who have seen an aircraft carrier on a visit to their shores will agree. Aircraft caniers are a two-stage weapons system in which the ship gives range, poise and sustainability. The embarked force gives a whole spectrum of offensive and humanitarian capabilities from the sea which are difficult for a potential enemy to counter and often impossible for land-based air power which is based a long way away, to replicate. Over the next century, they may change their size and shape as much as they have over the past, but their future is secure.
Russian Navy’s Admiral Kuznetsov embarks the Sukhoi Su-33 as its prime combat element
The use of carriers as sea-based platforms is set to expand and it will be interesting to see how Australia, emerging as one of the most significant ‘medium sized maritime powers, will change its force structure. Once a member of the ‘carrier club’, Australia paid off HMAS Melbourne with her McDonnell Douglas Sky hawks, Grumman Trackers and Westland Sea Kings in 1982 without replacement. It recently selected the JSF as a potential replacement for the General Dynamics F- 111 and Boeing F/A- 18 Hornet. If it logically chooses the F-35C ‘tailhook’ or CV version, will it be shackled to a land base or will its true potential be realised as part of a joint force operating from a sea base? If Australia wanted to, could it afford it? France is in the market for a second carrier and may well lean to the CVF design, especially with Thales taking a place in the project management. Brazil and India have new aircraft carrier programmes underway and China is still the great “unknown”!
By: hawkdriver05 - 5th June 2005 at 22:14
Acarrier would make an interesting reef…….
By: Hammer - 31st May 2005 at 01:50
Excuse me if this has been posted here before, it sounds interesting
http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i040420a/i040420a.html
VIRGINIA (20 Apr 2004) — The Navy is offering 25 decommissioned ships, including four aircraft carriers, to coastal states interested in turning them into artificial reefs.One of the carriers is the Oriskany, a combat veteran of Korea and Vietnam, which could be sunk as early as this summer in the Gulf of Mexico. Plans call for it to come to rest in 211 feet of water, 22 miles offshore from Pensacola, Fla. The 888-foot, 30,800- ton carrier would be the largest vessel ever purposely sunk in the United States.
The three other flattops are the Forrestal, Independence and Constellation. The “Connie” was decommissioned last August after playing a key role in the war in Iraq.
By making the offer, the Navy is looking to reduce the size of its inactive ship inventory. The reef program is an alternative to the more costly plan to cut them up for scrap
For states, the ships could have appeal as reefs that would lure marine life * as well as recreational divers and fishermen.
As attractive as an aircraft carrier reef might sound to local dive and tourist industries, Virginia likely won’t have one because of the wide and relatively shallow continental shelf off its shore, said Mike Meier, who coordinates artificial reef projects for the Virginia Marine Research Commission.
A carrier would have to be sunk in at least 200 feet of water. That doesn’t show up until 50 miles off Virginia’s shore, a bit too far to make such a project profitable for dive boats, he said. “A carrier just won’t cut it,” he said.
Meier might like to have some of the Navy’s smaller ships and says he would take all the worn-out subway cars anyone cares to give.
Artificial reefs throughout U.S. waters have flourished in recent years, using everything from 80 of the Army’s old M-60 tanks, sunk in the Gulf of Mexico, to a Boeing 737 aircraft, sunk off Miami.
Virginia, like North Carolina, already uses railroad box cars, Navy Liberty ships, barges, military aircraft and some pre formed concrete structures, shaped like igloos, for artificial reefs. They are in the Chesapeake Bay and in the Atlantic, some as close as eight miles from shore off Chincoteague and Parramore Island on Virginia’s Eastern Shore.
Neither state has anything like what’s on the Navy’s newest list, which, in addition to the aircraft carriers, includes 11 destroyers, five cruisers, two frigates, a dock landing ship, a patrol gunboat and the 530-foot long combat stores ship San Diego.
These are ships that didn’t make the cut for foreign military sales or any other form of disposal.
Congress has set a deadline of 2006 for the disposal of more than 70 obsolete ships moored in the middle of the James River, off Fort Eustis in Newport News. An earlier plan to cut up as many as 13 of the ships in the United Kingdom has stalled because of environmental challenges.
Environmental concerns continue to be a stumbling block to the program. Virginia won’t accept any ships until the Environmental Protection Agency streamlines the process, Mier said.
Even Florida, which is just months away from taking ownership of the Oriskany, is exercising caution because of the uncertainties with environmental rules and the high cost of getting the carrier ready for sinking.
The EPA has yet to come out with firm standards about how the Navy ships are to be cleaned, said John Dodrill, who coordinates Florida’s artificial reef program for the Fish and Wildlife Commission.
Florida, which has more than 2,000 artificial reefs * 450 of them ships * doesn’t intend to accept the title to the Oriskany until the EPA gives its blessing and until the Navy tows the ship to the site and sinks it, Dodrill said.
The last large military ship sunk was the 510-foot dock landing ship Spiegel Grove in May 2002 off Key Largo, Fla. It was a near disaster.
A local tourist development group, aided by dive boat charter companies that took out bank loans for the project, raised $1.6 million.
When the ship refused to sink * its stern was on the bottom but its bow trapped air and arched out of the water * another $300,000 had to be raised to finish the job. It came to rest on its side, not its bottom.
Another reef project, using the former 520-foot missile tracking ship Vandenberg * a member of the James River “Ghost Fleet” * has been delayed for nearly seven years while sponsors try to raise as much as $2 million to sink it off Key West, Dodrill said.
With such costs rising, Dodrill said the U.S. Transportation Department’s Maritime Administration is proposing grant funding to clean some vessels.
“If it’s cheaper to scrap a ship, they will do it,” he said. “But if they can provide the ship to a local government equal to or less than the cost of scrapping it, they will.”
That apparently is what the Navy has decided with the Oriskany. Following 25 years of service, it was decommissioned in 1975, stricken from the Naval Vessel Register in 1989 and sold for scrap in 1995. The contractor defaulted.
The ship was repossessed by the Navy and towed to the Beaumont Reserve Fleet in Texas, where more than 70 people, working nearly around-the-clock, are trying to get it ready for sinking, Dodrill said.
“Today the Navy estimates it will cost in excess of $4 million to scrap it, so if they put as little as $2.1 million to $2.8 million into the ship to get it ready to reef, it is a money-saving option for them,” Dodrill said.
Plans call for the Oriskany’s flight deck to be just 100 feet below the surface, with its steel superstructure rising to within 50 feet of the surface. The ship’s interior will be closed to divers for safety reasons.
“We don’t want anyone penetrating the interior of the ship below the main deck and into the hangar bay,” Dodrill said. Still at issue is how the Navy plans to sink the big carrier.
The Japanese and American carrier war in the Pacific during World War II showed that it takes a lot to sink these ships, Dodrill said. “The Navy builds its ships to avoid sinking.”
By: Arabella-Cox - 31st May 2005 at 00:28
The carriers are expected to be reduced in size and their current delivery dates of 2012 will be pushed back, while the number of JSFs could be cut from the planned figure of 150 aircraft to as few as 100.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632571,00.html
By: Shadow1 - 31st May 2005 at 00:24
As far as US and British naval aviation goes, the JSF IS the future…….
True but for how long! With recent budget cuts and ever mounting costs on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, how until the budgetary axe falls on the JSF program. Could there be a chance the JSF never sees the light of day?
By: hawkdriver05 - 30th May 2005 at 22:07
As far as US and British naval aviation goes, the JSF IS the future…….
By: matt - 30th May 2005 at 20:43
The JSF is not really The FUTURE. that role is for the F-22 the JSF is a med ability fighter (in comparison)
AFM has nice pics of the CVG for anyone who wants an artists impression
By: Arabella-Cox - 30th May 2005 at 20:22
If the French get the 2nd carrier is there any chance they’ll order more than 60 Rafael Ms? How bout 1 or 2 more E-2s?
That would make sense.
Some of the pictures included in the link posted by Terran really put the size difference between the American and French aircraft carrier.
Well, they lie a little as Charles de Gaulle is farther away.
Ok guys, given that the new PA2 is going to be bigger than CdG, by a long shot, would the Mn decide to retire this carrier for sale to a suitable country (bearing in mind that she is nuclear powered- or would they rip out the reactors and use them in something else and install standard engines for sale), and then use the money from the sale of CdG for the purchace of a second carrier of the PA2 class?
I would be extremely surprised if that happened.
By: SteveO - 30th May 2005 at 11:43
Ok guys, given that the new PA2 is going to be bigger than CdG, by a long shot, would the Mn decide to retire this carrier for sale to a suitable country (bearing in mind that she is nuclear powered- or would they rip out the reactors and use them in something else and install standard engines for sale), and then use the money from the sale of CdG for the purchace of a second carrier of the PA2 class?
I think the only cost effective future for the CdG is to keep it in French service and get full use out of it.
By: Ja Worsley - 30th May 2005 at 06:12
Ok guys, given that the new PA2 is going to be bigger than CdG, by a long shot, would the Mn decide to retire this carrier for sale to a suitable country (bearing in mind that she is nuclear powered- or would they rip out the reactors and use them in something else and install standard engines for sale), and then use the money from the sale of CdG for the purchace of a second carrier of the PA2 class?
By: hawkdriver05 - 28th May 2005 at 10:58
Thats usualy the case……….
By: Shadow1 - 28th May 2005 at 07:45
Some of the pictures included in the link posted by Terran really put the size difference between the American and French aircraft carrier.
The article posted on the USN website presented a positive response to the exchange program between the two crews. The French were impressed by the Eisenhower’s size (Then again who wouldn’t be) while the American group sent aboard the de Gaulle were impressed by the level of professionalism displayed by the French. If only the two gorvernments coulod get along as their armed forces do!
By: hawkdriver05 - 28th May 2005 at 01:00
Dutch destroyer Tromp is here also…..
By: bring_it_on - 27th May 2005 at 19:46
Nice..
050525-N-9641C-001 Atlantic Ocean (May 25, 2005) – A French Navy Rafale M multi-role combat fighter from the French aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle performs a touch-and-go landing aboard the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), during the Multi-National Maritime Exercise (MNME) 05-1. More than 17,000 Sailors from the U.S., Canada, France, Great Britain and Spain participated in the exercise. MNME 05-1 is an exercise focused on multi-national maritime interoperability capabilities in support of NATO Response Force (NRF). NRF combines elite land, air, sea, special operations, and mission specific units into a single force that can be deployed anywhere in the world in five days and sustain itself on a wide range of missions. NRF is scheduled to be fully in place by 2006. U.S. Navy photo by Airman Peter Carnicelli
By: Arabella-Cox - 27th May 2005 at 16:55
F/A-18 on Charles de Gaulle:
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/sites/marine/actualites_et_dossiers/mai-juin_2005_mission_frame_05/220505_charles_de_gaulle
Other pictures:
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/sites/marine/actualites_et_dossiers/mai-juin_2005_mission_frame_05/22-250505_charles_de_gaulle?_&ispopup=1
Spanish AEGIS Frigate (Destroyer?) taking part……….
They are called frigates, but they are really air defence destroyers.
By: hawkdriver05 - 27th May 2005 at 10:51
Spanish AEGIS Frigate (Destroyer?) taking part……….
By: Shadow1 - 27th May 2005 at 04:21
It’s good to see the USN and the Marine Nationale work together to be able to operate in unison. I hope there will be amore information available on this exercise to see how everyone performed.
Were the American and French assets the only ones conducting air operations or was the Spanish navy involved as well with their Harriers? Did the British throw in some of their fighters as well or did they send in other aircraft!
By: Arabella-Cox - 27th May 2005 at 01:31
A recent picture of a Rafale M performing a touch-and-go aboard USS Dwight D. Eisenhower.
By: hawkdriver05 - 27th May 2005 at 01:18
CdG is due into Norfolk tommorow (fri)…………will be part of a NATO group incl Canadiean, Brit, and Spanish ships……..will try to get some pics of her as she comes in………
By: SteveO - 26th May 2005 at 18:20
A second French carrier will probably be based on the British CVF, info can be found here http://frn.beedall.com/pa2.htm
Here’s a pic
By: Shadow1 - 26th May 2005 at 17:50
Ja, thanks for the pics, they are impressive looking beasts. Cheers!
It will be interesting to see what design the USN will eventually decide upon. In the mean time, we have one more Nimitz-class carrier to look forward too.
As to the second French aircraft carrier, wasn’t it decided to build this vessel with a conventional powerplant over a nuclear reactor due to budgetary reasons? If so, I would imagine that the Marine Nationale would have the funds necessary to purchace a few more Hawkeyes and a few more Rafales. Maybe they could fund the defunct Rafale BM, which I thought was a good idea.
Sign In
May 8, 2005 at 10:13 am