The current CVN’s of the USN are being needlessly overworked supporting asymmetrical warfare when they were designed to fight a much different battle. The raw power and cost are overkill for much of the current work loads. Why would a smaller carrier suitable for three dozen 500mph-capable propeller driver COIN warbirds in the 2000hp range not largely work for combatting terrorists?
By: AyalaBotto - 15th April 2010 at 17:42
How about something like the “Atlantic Conveyor” used in Falklands. Use a container cargo ship to store parts equipment in. Build a flight deck for helicopters/harriers and maybe mount a Phalanx on it.
speaking about “Atlantic Conveyor” here’s a photo I found on the WEB some time ago (Unknown Source):
regards
Ayala Botto
Lisbon, Portugal
By: Ja Worsley - 15th April 2010 at 17:35
How about something like the “Atlantic Conveyor” used in Falklands. Use a container cargo ship to store parts equipment in. Build a flight deck for helicopters/harriers and maybe mount a Phalanx on it.
Well if you are going to go that way mate, then Maersk already have a design ready to go- The S Ship concept
As for mounting a few Phalanx on it, these vessels would need a decent protective suite since they are basically floating Islands!
By: davek128 - 15th April 2010 at 02:19
How about something like the “Atlantic Conveyor” used in Falklands. Use a container cargo ship to store parts equipment in. Build a flight deck for helicopters/harriers and maybe mount a Phalanx on it.
By: Ja Worsley - 13th April 2010 at 18:24
Another thought came to mind over Easter while I was away. If you want to bring back the OV-10 Bronco, then why not have something a little harder hitting
Bring back:
The A-37 Dragonfly
I remember reading somewhere that the CIA had plans to have these planes operate out of standard shipping containers. Two containers carried the plane and stores, equipment, fuel and weapons as well as a workshop and a rudimentary control facility. The planes wings folded upwards and were lowered upon leaving the container. I have seen the A-37 in operation (albeit as a warbird collectors piece at several airshows) and I can tell you, they are nothing short of spectacular, they jump of the ground in such a short distance that carrier ops would really pose no problem, landing also is very short, I seriously doubt if a hook system would really be needed!
By: Ja Worsley - 28th March 2010 at 18:57
If you want to talk about the BA-609, check out my thread V-22 Offsprings
The Italian Navy is looking at using a Military version already of the BA-609 as an alternative to NH-90’s
I just bought the latest Navy magazine where the front article was talking about the OV-10X and how Australia should buy some for use from the new LHD’s we are getting instead of buying F-35B’s. Now I’m not sure of this idea- F-35B’s offer a level of support and strike capability that a Bronco (or any similar aircraft) could not- yet the Lightning also has it’s draw backs too. I’m not going to weigh in on the Australian debate until I know for sure that we are going to go down that path- I have my own ideas about what we should have should the RAN FAA ever regain it’s fixed wings, but for now I’m sitting out!
By: Arabella-Cox - 22nd February 2010 at 01:23
(A note, considering the missions on the “low-end” of the conflict spectrum, OOTW would probably be a better moniker than COIN. I only make this point because it would be a very rare and tragic situation where a power was involved in such operations ashore in another country where they could not maintain enough security to operate a fully capable FOB with an all-weather 10,000 foot airfield either in country or within a “very” short flight time from a neighboring friendly territory.)
The conversion pathway to a CVL/CVE/CVS/CVV/AVS for many navies (either a “fast” container, RO/RO ship or an existing T-AOE), particularly for COIN/ OOTW, and multi-role “sea control” is still a viable alternative. The question gets into how “full service/multi-role” a ship you want to come out of the other end. Is it air operations only, half fixed wing air operations/commando carrier or more emphasis on amphibious operations and less for sustained fixed wing air operations. Getting that through the budget process is likely going to be more arduous that carrying out the modifications to the ship and getting it and its air wing up to speed.
As an example, right now in the USN James River Reserve Fleet are two +85% complete T-AO Henry J. Kaiser-class ships, the USNS Benjamin Isherwood (T-AO-191) and the USNS Henry Eckford (T-AO-192).
This class of ship could be converted a la the CVE Commencement Bay/T3 tanker conversion. With a length of 677 ft and a beam of 97 feet and a full load displacement of over 40,000 tons gives some options as to whether you’re going to look at CTOL, V/STOL or UAV/UCAV operations and the kind of deck layout. (On this note, UAV/UCAV operations IMHO shouldn’t be considered without an angled deck. The best option for such operations would be a turbofan, like the General Atomics Avenger/Predator C. No tail end propeller and is meant for a variety of threat situations.)
If the USN were to go the route of expanding the capabilities of the LHAs/LHDs, the additon of a small sponson to allow for the installation of an extra segment of flight deck and arrestor gear/capture net of some kind for UAV/UCAV or light fixed wing turboprop operations could be done with minimal expense if deemed appropriate.
To go along the lines of a commercial ship conversion, you’d want to look at a vessel that was no more than “Panamax” in size (Length: 965 ft (294.13 m), Beam (width): 106 ft (32.31 m), Draft: 39.5 ft) with performance similar to that of an AOE. As an example, either options would give the USN the flexibility of additional coverage in areas such as off the Horn of Africa where the additional air coverage for surveillance would be handy without pulling heavy units out of other higher priority missions. (As a side note, another example of this is the use of Burke DDGs in anti-piracy operations off Somalia where even the new LCSs or the Perry FFGs would be overkill except for the issue of endurance in the area. In my mind that would be the mission for a CVE/SCS with a couple of LCSs/FFGs and a bunch of PCs would make more sense.)
For most regional powers to get a political nod to go this route or new construction they’re going to need to be more than a one trick pony or the local/regional situation is about to get a lot hotter. A good example of this are the proposed Japanese 19000 ton through deck “destroyer” and the RoK Dokdo class amphibious assault ship.
In those cases you’re probable going to the next step that Stan_hyd brought up along the lines of the BSAC 220 or the VSS 3 or the Indian ADS/USN CVX Small.
In the case of Brazil, adding SSNs to her fleet along with the Sao Paulo/ex-Foch, it kind of makes you wonder what’s their next upgrade.
By: Arabella-Cox - 15th February 2010 at 23:12
Umm…you realise that this is the job of the CVN’s right? and that if there are not enough of them they should build more (IMO, with the LHD’s and CVN’s that they already have, USN actually has more then enough flat tops for what they are doing). I wouldnt be surprised if pulling an old carrier out of reserve and giving it s SLEP (which is what would be required) would probably cost more then half as much as a new CVN, would cost more to run and would only have a short service life.
Remember these are all 50 year old ships you are talking about.
Yes I do realize what you’re pointing out. It was suggested someplace on-line (IIRC it was a RAND Report) that such a ship need not be brought up to “full CV” capability to fulfill a mobile base role. I picked the last two conventional CVs that were in commission just for the reason that they’d be the least deteriorated.
If you really need more carriers, and want to pay for then (including personnel, air wing, escorts and fleet train), then we get into the findings from the CVX/CVNX study from the 1990s where the final designs came out to “small”, “medium” and “large”. “Large” nuclear powered won out based on the difference in initial cost vs the life time capabilities that choice bought.
The Congressional Research Service report on Navy Force Structure: Alternative Force Structure Studies of 2005, suggested an X-AVS aviation support ship/CV of about 57,000 tons built on a common merchant like hull based on another design from a 2004 Maritime Prepositioning Force study (that would also be used for an arsenal ship, a “mother ship” for PCs, and an LHD). (That was the same tonnage and air wing size as the CVX/CVNX “small” design came out to be.) Building to those standards would be the only way to get the pricing down. The problem is keeping such a vessel in a support role and not get it pressed or substituted for a “full service” CV (which has been one of the USNs concerns whenever these suggestions for small support carriers come up).
By: StevoJH - 15th February 2010 at 22:02
One option here in the case of the USN would be to take out of “mothballs” the JFK or the Kitty Hawk and re-condition them (big dollars) to operate as afloat forward operating bases. That would give you the space and tonnage to cover the full range of COIN/OOTW missions without pulling a CVN out of some other high priority area. That being said, any ship with that much mobile sovereign acreage is a strategic asset and would still require a quality escort force.
Umm…you realise that this is the job of the CVN’s right? and that if there are not enough of them they should build more (IMO, with the LHD’s and CVN’s that they already have, USN actually has more then enough flat tops for what they are doing). I wouldnt be surprised if pulling an old carrier out of reserve and giving it s SLEP (which is what would be required) would probably cost more then half as much as a new CVN, would cost more to run and would only have a short service life.
Remember these are all 50 year old ships you are talking about.
By: Arabella-Cox - 15th February 2010 at 21:34
A more sensible route than a dedicated COIN carrier is a normal aircraft carrier that can carry and reasonably operate aircraft that are ideal for COIN. Yes I know that I’m almost certainly stating the blindingly obvious.
One option here in the case of the USN would be to take out of “mothballs” the JFK or the Kitty Hawk and re-condition them (big dollars) to operate as afloat forward operating bases. That would give you the space and tonnage to cover the full range of COIN/OOTW missions without pulling a CVN out of some other high priority area. That being said, any ship with that much mobile sovereign acreage is a strategic asset and would still require a quality escort force.
As for the OV-10/PC-9|T-6/Tucano debate, I’ll throw another option into the hat, a militarized BA-609 tilt-rotor. The USMC has already suggested this as an escort gunship for their MV-22s. In its current guise it has a usable payload of about 5500 lbs with a range of 750 nmi. With the added flexibility of range, speed and hover, and the smaller size, the utility of this airframe in other roles, like ASW, SAR and small team insertion, shouldn’t be discounted either.
FYI, Boeing at the Singapore Air Show on 3 Feb 10 said that there was enough overseas interest in restarting production of the OV-10, that even if the USAF 100 plane order didn’t materialize, they’d be working on the program themselves.
By: Wanshan - 11th February 2010 at 21:29
The SAAB System 21- lovely- first production fighter with a working ejector seat! Now are you after the Prop model (J-21A)
Fokker D-23
By: MadRat - 11th February 2010 at 14:45
Seems like the Predator already has that role pretty well taken. What do you gain by a pilotless Bronco?
By: matt - 6th February 2010 at 20:18
I heard recently that they Black Hawk will soon fly remotely without pilot. Could you not use a similar method to control the Bronco or even the Cobra?
By: Distiller - 6th February 2010 at 18:32
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/Legends-of-Vietnam-Broncos-Tale.html
By: Ja Worsley - 4th February 2010 at 00:14
Well if you want to get into theoretical- What about the ATG Javelin then?
Notice the military style codes on the tail!
I subscribe to the ATG Javelin news letters and I have known for some time that a military customer has bought the Mk-20 version- no specifics have been reveled except that the customer is in Europe. Some think it’s the French Navy as they lost their training capabilities back in the early 90’s with the retirement of their Zephyer jets.
The Mk-30 is said to be a full spec military jet trainer while the Mk-40 has the capability to take ordinance.
By: Nils - 3rd February 2010 at 11:27
another possible low-cost carrier based COIN aircraft could be a navalised version of Bert Rutan’s ARES.
By: Distiller - 3rd February 2010 at 11:22
I don’t like the Garrett engine of the OV-10, mainly because it requires a new line of parts to manufacture and supply. Rather you would want something common to the helicopters or aircraft already in the inventory of the USN or USMC. I’m thinking something based upon T700-GE-401 (approx. 1900hp; UH-60), T58-GE-16 (approx. 1900hp; CH-46), Lycoming T53-L-703 (1800hp; AH-1), Allison T56-A-14/425 (overkill at approx. 4600hp/4800hp; P-3/C-2), T64-GE-413 (approx. 4000hp; CH-53; another overkill), or some variant of the T700/CT7 in the 2500hp range. The engines for the presidential eh101 fit the bill the best imo.
The reason the AH-1 wouldn’t really work is that its supply line isn’t tenable. The engine is too labor intensive anymore and the parts aren’t exactly at the local napa. You’re better off with something already out there, or at least close to something out there. That is why the T700/CT7 option appeals to me. The 900-mile range Enforcer program was right up this alley. If they couldn’t navalize something like that then a layout like the Focke Wolfe 281 or Saab 21 would look pretty fearsome.
On the other hand one could argue for using something more in the Allison T56-A-425 powered and 2200-mile range A-2 Skyshark mold. The Skyshark was the turboshaft-powered A-1 Skyraider descendant. The skyshark was developed specifically for 500-foot deck CVE operations.
The MQ-9 uses the TPE331, so it wouldn’t be a stand-alone engine.
Also PT6 would be an option, as it’s already on the T-6, C-12, and the M28 (SOCOM).
PS: It’s Focke-Wulf. 😀
By: Ja Worsley - 3rd February 2010 at 10:27
I don’t like the Garrett engine of the OV-10, mainly because it requires a new line of parts to manufacture and supply. Rather you would want something common to the helicopters or aircraft already in the inventory of the USN or USMC. I’m thinking something based upon T700-GE-401 (approx. 1900hp; UH-60), T58-GE-16 (approx. 1900hp; CH-46), Lycoming T53-L-703 (1800hp; AH-1), Allison T56-A-14/425 (overkill at approx. 4600hp/4800hp; P-3/C-2), T64-GE-413 (approx. 4000hp; CH-53; another overkill), or some variant of the T700/CT7 in the 2500hp range. The engines for the presidential eh101 fit the bill the best imo.
Mate if you want a common engine in a turbo prop power class- then why not settle for the PT6A-68, a very common engine on the market in both civilian and military sectors- it powers the T-6A Texan II and you know how many of those there are. It also powers many other aircraft and I’d rather this engine over an adapted helo engine!
The reason the AH-1 wouldn’t really work is that its supply line isn’t tenable. The engine is too labor intensive anymore and the parts aren’t exactly at the local napa. You’re better off with something already out there, or at least close to something out there. That is why the T700/CT7 option appeals to me. The 900-mile range Enforcer program was right up this alley. If they couldn’t navalize something like that then a layout like the Focke Wolfe 281 or Saab 21 would look pretty fearsome.
On the other hand one could argue for using something more in the Allison T56-A-425 powered and 2200-mile range A-2 Skyshark mold. The Skyshark was the turboshaft-powered A-1 Skyraider descendant. The skyshark was developed specifically for 500-foot deck CVE operations.
Hmmm Skyshark- Nah too ugly!
The FW-281- Interesting but production would be nasty to set up and too many refinements would need to occur before you get a decent working platform!
The SAAB System 21- lovely- first production fighter with a working ejector seat! Now are you after the Prop model (J-21A)
Or the Jet powered J-21R
But I’ll see your collection there and raise you the PZL-230 Skorpion!
I wish I could find the pics of the original Turbo Prop powered version!
By: MadRat - 3rd February 2010 at 04:16
I don’t like the Garrett engine of the OV-10, mainly because it requires a new line of parts to manufacture and supply. Rather you would want something common to the helicopters or aircraft already in the inventory of the USN or USMC. I’m thinking something based upon T700-GE-401 (approx. 1900hp; UH-60), T58-GE-16 (approx. 1900hp; CH-46), Lycoming T53-L-703 (1800hp; AH-1), Allison T56-A-14/425 (overkill at approx. 4600hp/4800hp; P-3/C-2), T64-GE-413 (approx. 4000hp; CH-53; another overkill), or some variant of the T700/CT7 in the 2500hp range. The engines for the presidential eh101 fit the bill the best imo.
The reason the AH-1 wouldn’t really work is that its supply line isn’t tenable. The engine is too labor intensive anymore and the parts aren’t exactly at the local napa. You’re better off with something already out there, or at least close to something out there. That is why the T700/CT7 option appeals to me. The 900-mile range Enforcer program was right up this alley. If they couldn’t navalize something like that then a layout like the Focke Wolfe 281 or Saab 21 would look pretty fearsome.
On the other hand one could argue for using something more in the Allison T56-A-425 powered and 2200-mile range A-2 Skyshark mold. The Skyshark was the turboshaft-powered A-1 Skyraider descendant. The skyshark was developed specifically for 500-foot deck CVE operations.
By: vajt - 2nd February 2010 at 16:59
I like the idea of a small UCAV aircraft carrier. UCAVs can be a great option for COIN and low-intensity warfare.
Check out BAE’s proposal:
—–JT—–
By: Ja Worsley - 2nd February 2010 at 15:38
Ja Worsley –
Good information. Ja Worsley’s idea of a catamaran would fill the role nicely.
Thanks mate, I had a friend serve on Jarvis Bay in Blue crew, he said it was odd having a ship that had two crews and was always at sea- given the events of the day (East Timor) you can understand why they did that, and now it’s becoming the norm for all ships!
Bring in the OV-10X
I remember this- Boeing launched it about 18 months ago, lets have a quick look at some of the competition while we are at it 😉
OV-10X
AT-6B
But seriously, if you want to go retro, why not bring these back :diablo:
At least they are already carrier capable 🙂
Oh and finally, here is a pic showing what I mentioned before about the paras in the back
Sign In
January 26, 2010 at 4:27 am