This was originally to be a reply to one of Scooter’s comments in another thread, but as the reply would have been too off-topic from the original line of discussion, I thought it better to create another topic. I also know that there have been similar topics in the past, but as not many of them have been in reference to CTOL carriers exclusively and would require a great deal of thread necromancy, I again thought it to be better to just start a new thread. On with the discussion!
Oh for the days when the RAN operated 2 Carriers. HMAS Melbourne and HMAS Sydney. Ex British ships, so we had British aircraft Sea Fury, Sea Venom, Gannets. Also in them days the British still built planes.
Anybody know how big a ship would be needed to fly off Rhinos, or Rafales, or F-35C’s?
Incat had an interesting design for a 112m carrier that could handle Harriers, F-35B’s, Ospry, and helicopters. They have since increased their boat building facility to handle 150m ships.You really need a ship “at least” around the Foch or Essex Class size. (i.e. over 270 meters and 32,000 tons +)
I don’t know, I think that you could do it for a bit over 200m and less than 30,000 tons. For example, let’s say, hypothetically, that Argentina got the impetus and capital to replace the Veinticinco de Mayo with another CTOL carrier (new build), but something far more manageable.
We’ll start, just hypothetically, with something like the Chakri Naruebet/Príncipe de Asturias as a basis, mainly because the design is nice and small. It gets the job done and doesn’t have a ton of other expensive goodies. Not much tonnage but a fairly long deck. Let’s go CTOL with it, cut the ramp off, and replace it with a single catapult (that’s all there’s room for). Extend it from the rear and install and angled deck for landings. It should be a bit over 200m and under 30,000 tons, which is the hypothetical target here.
For an air wing, we’ll order some carrier-capable naval Gripens. I figure these would likely have the new F414 engines and many of the Gripen NG upgrades, but I doubt it would have folding wings. Given the small size of the Gripen, however, they wouldn’t be necessary and would simply add to its weight and complexity. While Saab works on those and Navantia works on the carrier, they can keep the Super Etendards to keep up their CTOL skills. Other than age and the possibility of no flight hours remaining, I’d see no problem with the continued operation of the S-2Ts from the new mini-carrier. They’re kind of large but smaller than a Viking or any carrier-based fixed-wing ASW alternative. They’re great, though, being a carrier-capable turboprop, they’re ideally suited to operations from small carriers. S-2s have operated from carriers under 20,000 tons in Argentina’s past, so I don’t think something in the under 30,000 tons is too unreasonable.
Other than that, I’d play with the idea of turning one of the new generation of turboprop-powered trainer/attack aircraft into a carrier-based trainer/attack aircraft. Ideal would be the already rugged, South American Super Tucano. Give it folding wings, arresting gear, and navalize it. You get an aircraft that would sort of be a modern Skyraider at a smaller size. It takes up less space than a naval helicopter, flies faster, flies further, and is a major threat to aircraft up to the class of the A-37 or the AMX, for example. You can pack two of them in the space of even a tiny navalized Gripen.
Round out the group with a couple of Ka-31s for the AEW role and a few ASW or transport helicopters (maybe Ka-28/29 for compatibility). The Sea King AEW would be ideal, but I doubt the UK would be keen to sell them (or any naval equipment) to Argentina, and the only other option that I can see is a Merlin AEW, which would probably be three times as much as a Ka-31 and have too much UK content to be a pursuable option, anyway.
So, a carrier like that could be an option for any country with the need and the money. Carriers aren’t cheap and most of the countries that have the need and the money have a plan for one, too (US, UK, France, Russia, Italy, Spain, India, and China). Thailand and Brazil have one each, but really can’t afford them. Other countries, like Japan and soon Australia only have pseudo-carriers, but they can at least afford them.
Argentina would certainly want one, but can’t afford it right now. Brazil’s is pretty new to them, but a replacement in this range by 2020 isn’t unreasonable considering that the ex-Foch will be 60 years old by then. Brazil and Argentina both seem to be determined to stay in the carrier business despite the cost, but the older carriers are too large and maintenance-intensive to be worth their cost in the long-term.
So, around 220m and 25,000 tons, I think that you could get a CTOL carrier with an aircraft complement something like the following:
6 x Gripen Naval
6 x Super Tucano
2 x S-2T
2 x Ka-31
6 x Ka-28/29
Again, this isn’t necessarily the most viable real-world option, but I’d certainly not say taht you need anything as large as Scooter said to get a useful CTOL carrier. In fact, I think that a carrier bigger than that would be excessive for South America.
So, thoughts?
Logan Hartke
By: shiplover - 5th October 2007 at 21:40
VSS I
Hi!
The Vertical Support Ship was a development of the Sea Control Ship and should have had around 30.000 ts.
I tried to draw one as I think it would have looked together with various Sea Control Ships. There were also studies of a VSS operationg S-3 Vikings and Corsairs. I have no idea how they would have looked like – perhaps an Reversed Angle Carrier with the landing strip were the take of line of my drawing is?
What do you think? Does anybody have information about this ship?
There were further designs VSS II and VSS III with a deck edge lift. These I will draw in the next weeks.
By: Arabella-Cox - 8th September 2007 at 02:11
Is there any chance that the British might build a new model Harrier? and if so, what improvements would you like to see?
The short answer has to be no. As a matter of fact I don’t even see a used market. Because by time they would become available. They would be pretty much worn out…………:(
By: Phelgan - 7th September 2007 at 13:29
A Yak-141 derivative, perhaps?
Is that still being kicked around?
By: swerve - 7th September 2007 at 13:08
…
Of course, this thread has perhaps highlighted a market for a simplier (read “less capable”) VSTOL than F35, so may be a design aiming for something less developed (reduced stealth features?) would have had a niche after all…..
A Yak-141 derivative, perhaps?
By: Phelgan - 7th September 2007 at 12:42
Typhoons on a 25,000 tonne CV
Curious piece on Navy Matters (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-1.htm)
The UK was not the only potential customer for a navalised Typhoon, Eurofighter GmbH (the consortium which builds and sells Typhoon) is reported to have briefed the Italian Navy during 2000 about a low-cost, reduced weight, arrestor landing/angled deck variant of the Typhoon that could operate from the Italian Navy’s new 25,000 tonnes carrier, Conte di Cavour, which is due to enter service in 2006/7. The company has also offered another customer (probably India) a “more radically modified naval version of the aircraft”, presumably the STOBAR variant studied for the UK.
Doesn’t go into how many they might have embarked….
By: Phelgan - 7th September 2007 at 12:28
Is there any chance that the British might build a new model Harrier? and if so, what improvements would you like to see?
The chance for that passed in the early 1990’s. The attached is a BAe concept for a Harrier III shown at Farnborough way back in 1990. Problem was they didn’t think that the development costs would be much less than being involved in the JSF (in hindsight, technology transfer might have less of a hot potato!) as it would have involved a radical reworking if it was to have performance remotely comparable to JSF concepts.
From a national perspective it should have been considered (I don;t think it even made any of the early JCA studies), but there you go.
Our history of selling aircraft recently hasn’t been so good either, so not sure how much export potential it would have had, especially in competition with an F35 with a larger domestic home order (and discounting any chicanery wrt US-technology in the airframe).
Of course, this thread has perhaps highlighted a market for a simplier (read “less capable”) VSTOL than F35, so may be a design aiming for something less developed (reduced stealth features?) would have had a niche after all…..
By: swerve - 7th September 2007 at 11:39
Is there any chance that the British might build a new model Harrier? and if so, what improvements would you like to see?
Errr – we’re buying F-35B. And in the unlikely event of the US cancelling that, our Plan B is to buy a CTOL aircraft for our carriers. So I’d say the answer to your main question is an emphatic “No”.
By: d'clacy - 7th September 2007 at 08:44
Is there any chance that the British might build a new model Harrier? and if so, what improvements would you like to see?
By: hawkdriver05 - 7th September 2007 at 01:07
Shokaku and Zuikaku
By: EdLaw - 6th September 2007 at 16:31
The irony is that the JSF could well see more nations becoming carrier operators, by virtue of being able to buy a mix of F-35 -As and -Bs. It could well see nations like the Netherlands becoming carrier operators again, and in particular the Australians. The same could be true of the South Koreans, and perhaps even the Japanese!
By: Shipmate - 6th September 2007 at 07:48
30,000 ton CV?????
Chaps we have gone astray again.
A small CV would be limited use today as most aircraft that would give it teeth are so much larger than in the past. But please remember that steel is cheap and that is how the RN got the bigger vessel past the UK Gov as adding size only adds little to the over all cost and since other systems where dropped the overall cost remained within the budget. The CVF will have space for many systems in future but be basic to start with and much like Ocean will see many re-used items from older fleet units. Millions where saved on Ocean by doing just that.
So build a bigger, simpler vessel that will be escorted always and get a useful CAG onboard, that will cost more than the vessel itself. So reading that nations that have them now (or aircraft for them) (Brazil, Argentina and Thailand) will not replace them due to the mega cost of all the items needed to make it worth having.
UK only getting them as they will be large mobile JOINT bases that all the services can and will use not just the RN.:rolleyes:
By: Arabella-Cox - 6th September 2007 at 03:37
I agree with the MRLS, but adding in flight ops would push the costs up and away from the cheap. If you’re going to park airframes on it, the pressure to protect that investment will lead to add-on defensive systems.
A single chopper, marine complement and a couple of Ribs might be better. For anti-terror/piracy a good old fashioned gun of some sort (76mm?). An OPV with MRLS?
What I was thinking was a small stealthy platform with two or three 155mm Guns, several MRLS, two 30mm chain guns, and some form of CWIS…..possibly RAM. As for a helocopter why not a small UAV? I believe a STOVL Version would be ideal! (i.e. A160 Hummingbird, EADS Sharc, Sikorsky X-2, etc.) A Stealthy Monitor like that could easily operate within the littorals. Moving in just before or with Amphibious Forces. Which, would be supported with Naval/Marine Air (F-35’s?) and LCS’s.:D
Does anyone else have a suggestion?:rolleyes:
By: Phelgan - 5th September 2007 at 11:40
To be honest, the best bet would be to simply build a catamaran hull, and park a GMLRS on it, delivering accurate fire, out to a decent distance. If you go with a flat topped Cat, as has been mooted by Austal et al, then you could add in UAVs like the Hermes 900 or even Predator, and have the ability to park a few helos as well, as needed. A 125m Cat, with a flat deck, would be able to carry two dozen light UAVs, a pair of light helos (e.g. Eurocopter Squirrels), and carry a pair of MLRS launchers. Ammunition wise, it should be able to carry, say, 12 ATACMS (12 pods), 288 GMLRS (48 pods), a few hundred Hellfire or Viper Strike, and enough fuel for all of these, for a few days ops. This would be ideally suited to a lot of peace enforcement operations, e.g. British forces in Iraq. You could park a couple of these near wherever you’re operating, and they would be able to keep an eye on things. They would actually be very useful for naval interdiction missions, e.g. the anti-piracy and counter-terror operations in the Horn of Africa.
I agree with the MRLS, but adding in flight ops would push the costs up and away from the cheap. If you’re going to park airframes on it, the pressure to protect that investment will lead to add-on defensive systems.
A single chopper, marine complement and a couple of Ribs might be better. For anti-terror/piracy a good old fashioned gun of some sort (76mm?). An OPV with MRLS?
By: EdLaw - 5th September 2007 at 11:24
To be honest, the best bet would be to simply build a catamaran hull, and park a GMLRS on it, delivering accurate fire, out to a decent distance. If you go with a flat topped Cat, as has been mooted by Austal et al, then you could add in UAVs like the Hermes 900 or even Predator, and have the ability to park a few helos as well, as needed. A 125m Cat, with a flat deck, would be able to carry two dozen light UAVs, a pair of light helos (e.g. Eurocopter Squirrels), and carry a pair of MLRS launchers. Ammunition wise, it should be able to carry, say, 12 ATACMS (12 pods), 288 GMLRS (48 pods), a few hundred Hellfire or Viper Strike, and enough fuel for all of these, for a few days ops. This would be ideally suited to a lot of peace enforcement operations, e.g. British forces in Iraq. You could park a couple of these near wherever you’re operating, and they would be able to keep an eye on things. They would actually be very useful for naval interdiction missions, e.g. the anti-piracy and counter-terror operations in the Horn of Africa.
By: swerve - 5th September 2007 at 09:52
… Another one I’ve wondered is this, it’s widely suggested that the psychological impact of 16″ guns gives them a military value far in excess of their actual effectiveness when used for shore bombardment. The Iowa battleships were a horrific drain on USN resources for a bit of shore bombardment and putting the sh*ts up enemies squaddies. So why not just re-invent the monitor, stick a 16″ gun turret on a cheap hull or glorified barge, minimum crew, only systems needed to fire their guns, effective, cheap and easy.
I’ve seen this discussed at length elsewhere. It’s been said that you’d first have to rebuild the infrastructure for making the guns. Nobody makes that sort of tube, in that size, nowadays, or has the machinery to do so. Doable, of course, but changes “cheap” to “bloody expensive”, unless you have a very big production run. Re-using the old guns has the disadvantage that there aren’t many of them, you can’t get spares or replacements, & by modern artilery standards they’re very inaccurate – which will only get worse as you use them. No ammunition makers any more, so they also have to retool.
By: Arabella-Cox - 4th September 2007 at 23:24
A spiritual successor to the CVE, basically just a runway on a hull with a deck lift to a hangar, cheap, cheerful and it’d be useful for second rate carrier duties where all that’s wanted is a floating airfield to operate in areas with no developed air threat. Kind of like a carrier equivalent of Ocean. Another one I’ve wondered is this, it’s widely suggested that the psychological impact of 16″ guns gives them a military value far in excess of their actual effectiveness when used for shore bombardment. The Iowa battleships were a horrific drain on USN resources for a bit of shore bombardment and putting the sh*ts up enemies squaddies. So why not just re-invent the monitor, stick a 16″ gun turret on a cheap hull or glorified barge, minimum crew, only systems needed to fire their guns, effective, cheap and easy.
I’ve floated the same idea many times over………Bascially, a small stealthy monitor. Personally, I think you could either of two routes. First, a larger monitor with two or three 16 inch guns in a single turret (aka HMS Abercromie cira 1943) or a much smaller one equipped with two or three 155mm guns from the US forthcoming DDG-1000. (Germany’s New 155MM PzH-2000 Self Propelled Howitzer is another possibility) 😀
By: sealordlawrence - 4th September 2007 at 23:05
A spiritual successor to the CVE, basically just a runway on a hull with a deck lift to a hangar, cheap, cheerful and it’d be useful for second rate carrier duties where all that’s wanted is a floating airfield to operate in areas with no developed air threat. Kind of like a carrier equivalent of Ocean. Another one I’ve wondered is this, it’s widely suggested that the psychological impact of 16″ guns gives them a military value far in excess of their actual effectiveness when used for shore bombardment. The Iowa battleships were a horrific drain on USN resources for a bit of shore bombardment and putting the sh*ts up enemies squaddies. So why not just re-invent the monitor, stick a 16″ gun turret on a cheap hull or glorified barge, minimum crew, only systems needed to fire their guns, effective, cheap and easy.
I think that is part of the idea behind the Twin AGS on the DDG-1000. However as is usual with US defense procurement programs they lost track of the cheap bit.;)
By: Turbinia - 4th September 2007 at 22:37
A spiritual successor to the CVE, basically just a runway on a hull with a deck lift to a hangar, cheap, cheerful and it’d be useful for second rate carrier duties where all that’s wanted is a floating airfield to operate in areas with no developed air threat. Kind of like a carrier equivalent of Ocean. Another one I’ve wondered is this, it’s widely suggested that the psychological impact of 16″ guns gives them a military value far in excess of their actual effectiveness when used for shore bombardment. The Iowa battleships were a horrific drain on USN resources for a bit of shore bombardment and putting the sh*ts up enemies squaddies. So why not just re-invent the monitor, stick a 16″ gun turret on a cheap hull or glorified barge, minimum crew, only systems needed to fire their guns, effective, cheap and easy.
By: hawkdriver05 - 4th September 2007 at 00:22
If we’re talking limited “brushfire” wars and peacekeeping missions and such…….just build the thing to merchantile standards…….much much cheaper than a real warship………and you could go……50000….60000……or even 70000 tons…..
By: swerve - 3rd September 2007 at 17:06
Nothing wrong with trainer aircraft/pretend fighters, however if future threats develop where you have to face Hugo-like SU-30s, the whole task force will be dead meat. The on board flying club won’t be able to deal with that threat.
True, but this whole exercise is predicated on a limited force, for limited aims, on a limited budget. We’re not talking about the US navy. You do know that the RN sent a task force to intervene in a war a few years ago with no fixed-wing aircraft – successfully? Horses for courses. You do what’s possible. If you can’t afford a navy which can fight off a load of competently flown Su-30s, you don’t fight that kind of war if you can possibly avoid it. There are scenarios in which you can use a less capable carrier-borne force.
Sign In
August 30, 2007 at 3:48 am