Possible future light carriers

Very likely the exact same number that could afford a 25-30k ton CVL with 14 fast jets and half a dozen support types and rotary’s. The cost difference wouldnt be so great to prohibit the bigger carrier if there was deemed a national requirement to acquire the smaller one.

But how many countries in the real world can afford naval air on that scale?

Normal complement 36:
General-purpose wing:
2 x 12 fighter/attack fixed-wing (10+2 each to cover tanking duties)
1 x 3 AEW fixed-wing or helo
1 x 9 ASW/SAR helos

Surge complement 40:
Strike wing:
3 x 10 fighter/attack fixed-wing (0r 2 x 15 fighter/attack fixed-wing)
1 x 4 AEW fixed-wing or helo
1 x 6 ASW/SAR helos

Escort wing:
2 x 12 fighter/attack fixed-wing (10+2 to cover tanking duties)
1 x 4 AEW fixed-wing or helo
1 x 12 ASW/SAR helos

If you are flying Super Hornets then at least 1/4 of them are fitted for EA-18G kit (as are half the Aussie F/A-18F buy), and at least one aircraft per strike is carrying the ECM pods.

Wonderful I love it ! in fact I’ll take two ! No,no don’t bother to wrap them ! …”Honey, get the car over to the loading dock.

Normal complement 36:
General-purpose wing:
2 x 12 fighter/attack fixed-wing (10+2 each to cover tanking duties)
1 x 3 AEW fixed-wing or helo
1 x 9 ASW/SAR helos

Surge complement 40:
Strike wing:
3 x 10 fighter/attack fixed-wing (0r 2 x 15 fighter/attack fixed-wing)
1 x 4 AEW fixed-wing or helo
1 x 6 ASW/SAR helos

Escort wing:
2 x 12 fighter/attack fixed-wing (10+2 to cover tanking duties)
1 x 4 AEW fixed-wing or helo
1 x 12 ASW/SAR helos

If you are flying Super Hornets then at least 1/4 of them are fitted for EA-18G kit (as are half the Aussie F/A-18F buy), and at least one aircraft per strike is carrying the ECM pods.

Why 36-40 aircraft?

One of the reasons I postulated a 45,000 tonnne CATOBAR carrier is simply with a bit a effort I can probably (with a bit of effort ) carry roughly 36-40 A/C . I just need to provide air cover for a task force or a limited strike capability .I don’t envisage leading a a one carrier assault on the Kola Peninsula ! 😀

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/10234/over-the-horizon-the-transformative-capabilities-of-the-f-35b Could the B realisticaly operate from small CVs?

Only if they make modifications to them and only then for a pretty small airgroup. If the Japanese were ever intending to operate F35bs from a Hyuga why would they build something that would need modifications in the first place? answer: they wouldn’t.

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/10234/over-the-horizon-the-transformative-capabilities-of-the-f-35b Could the B realisticaly operate from small CVs?

I agree that they could, in the future, be modified (& I think the modifications would probably not be great – but I’m no expert) to be very handy UAV carriers, even for CTOL UAVs. A small catapult (maybe the Japanese will buy EMKIT 😀 ) & arresting gear & you’re sorted. This could provide shipborne AEW & recce, out of range of land-based aircraft.

Whilst it is certainly true that history does not always repeat itself. Invincibles were ASW units with their own Area AAW capability. Then an existing technology (STOVL) was seen to offer a longer range counter or at the very least nuisance to an existing threat (long range Soviet land based MPAs).

Having a nice big flat deck helped with intense helo ops and coincidentally allowed them to embark a type of fixed wing asset (which handily had been trialled on bigger vessels earlier).

DDHs have a defined ASW role and are to be used in an environment every bit as potentially interesting as the North Atlantic. If/when Japan decides it has a need to operate advanced naval UAVs what better existing platform? Harrier showed that there are other ways of coming in low and slow than the methods used currently on UAVs. That does not mean that the Japanese decide on the same solution to a similar problem.

As an aside the obstruction to the take off over the bow on the DDHs doesn’t strike me as being any worse than Invincible in her first guise!

But you both may very well be right and Hyuga and Ise will just do a more efficient job of getting lots of helos to sea at the centre of ASW groups than their predecessors. Even so they would coincidentally provide experience with building, maintaining and operating large ships again.

For future light carriers operating Sea Gripen or similar I see the issue being deciding exactly what to include and what to leave off. Nations using such a beast will likely have less escorts than the USN and the uninformed (or underinformed) like to slate flat tops for lacking their own weapons but the more systems added the higher the cost, the easier for costs to escalate and the easier it becomes to kill the project.

Where does one wish to draw the line with semantics though?

The JMSDF call them ‘destroyers‘ not ‘aircraft carriers‘ true but helicopters are ‘aircraft‘ and they certainly carry helicopters so are ‘aircraft carriers‘.

Theoretically this could allow me to discuss OHPs as future light carriers (since they do an efficient job of taking two LAMPS to sea) but I won’t because that would be silly. Semantically correct or nay.

The JMSDF ‘Destroyers‘ are light aircraft carriers and would certainly make excellent launch and recovery platforms for UAVs. Which I SUSPECT is far more the plan than loading up with a few F35bs (although the fanpics do look wonderful and F35 lends itself to Japanese colours very well). This makes them very much in the running for a future light carrier. Admittedly not a Lindorm carrier.

I was using the generally accepted one that aircraft carriers are able to operate fixed wing aircraft 😉

It wouldn’t surprise me if they did operate fixed wing aircraft in the future at some stage, but I’d be pretty surprised if it was the F35b; the new larger class could probably operate it but the Hyuga’s look too small and would require too many modifications for a quite small airgroup.

They’re helicopter carriers. Normal usage is to use ‘aircraft carrier’ only for ships capable of launching & recovering fixed-wing aircraft, not including vertical take offs because they’re not useful except to transfer between ships.

They could operate Harriers with only minor modifications, but as I keep saying, there are no more Harriers to be got.

Without modification (arresting gear), they’d not be suitable for recovering any but light, slow-landing UAVs, & they’d need a minor modification to launch anything – unless you can be sure it’ll take off & climb clear before reaching the end of the deck. Take a close look at some photos, & you’ll see that neither Ise nor Hyuuga has an unobstructed take-off run over the bow.

Surprising as it may seem, they’re actually what they’re supposed to be, i.e. ASW flotilla leaders. Before helicopters, that would have been a role for a jeep carrier, but now it’s a job for a helicopter carrier which can keep up with the frigates.

Not aircraft carriers though so they don’t belong in this thread.

Where does one wish to draw the line with semantics though?

The JMSDF call them ‘destroyers‘ not ‘aircraft carriers‘ true but helicopters are ‘aircraft‘ and they certainly carry helicopters so are ‘aircraft carriers‘.

Theoretically this could allow me to discuss OHPs as future light carriers (since they do an efficient job of taking two LAMPS to sea) but I won’t because that would be silly. Semantically correct or nay.

The JMSDF ‘Destroyers‘ are light aircraft carriers and would certainly make excellent launch and recovery platforms for UAVs. Which I SUSPECT is far more the plan than loading up with a few F35bs (although the fanpics do look wonderful and F35 lends itself to Japanese colours very well). This makes them very much in the running for a future light carrier. Admittedly not a Lindorm carrier.

You have misunderstood me. I didn’t say it is of little use for any country outside NATO. I said that the target market for such carriers is outside NATO, e.g. Brazil. Argentina is another country with carrier ambitions.

For these countries, carriers would only be “Just a bigger target” if they were engaged against a clearly superior opponent. One can imagine uses for them, e.g. in interventions such as the British one in Sierra Leone, where this would not be an issue. Whether such uses would justify their purchase is another matter.

What aircraft would you put on a ship that size? There are no more Harriers. F-35B is bigger & heavier, & needs a bigger ship.

Cruise missiles are, as said, limited in range unless you can build them yourself or are within NATO. The target markets for light carriers are covered by MTCR, e.g Brazil. Also, you’re restricted to what’s in your VLS tubes, until you can send ships home or to a friendly port for replenishment. Stocks of aircraft-launched weapons on a carrier can be (& have been) replenished at sea.

The limiting factor is the “footprint” at first. A peace-time squadron of 10 fighters can be bolstered by a second one during a limited period of a hot conflict should the need arise. Even a “future light carrier” is not a stand alone system and part of a task-force. All present items are much more capable to that of 1982. As you claimed a “future light carrier” is of little use for any country outside the NATO. Just a bigger target around. The Indian ones f.e. will carry nukes too and give any attacker a second thought to engage that.

Any straight-deck carrier longer than 200 meter can operate any carrier aircraft, either with a cat or a ski-jump. Just not simultaneously (and in pretty fair weather only).

I can’t follow the VLS reload argument. That can be solved with a little bit of robotics. Question is rather if it makes sense to have the sensors (incl ISR UAV) mounted on the same platform as the effectors.

What aircraft would you put on a ship that size? There are no more Harriers. F-35B is bigger & heavier, & needs a bigger ship.

A small CATOBAR ship based on the invincible class hull could theoretically be just big enough for Sea Gripen. Not much wiggle room though.

Have future light carriers to carry something like a strike package at all?! For such missions are cruise missiles more than enough. For sea control missions and some CAS something in the size http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Invincible_(R05) was and is still more than enough.

What aircraft would you put on a ship that size? There are no more Harriers. F-35B is bigger & heavier, & needs a bigger ship.

Cruise missiles are, as said, limited in range unless you can build them yourself or are within NATO. The target markets for light carriers are covered by MTCR, e.g Brazil. Also, you’re restricted to what’s in your VLS tubes, until you can send ships home or to a friendly port for replenishment. Stocks of aircraft-launched weapons on a carrier can be (& have been) replenished at sea.

There is no principal difference in the need for replenishment for manned vs robotic attack options. One point is true: The MTCR limit of 300km/500kg severly limits the usefullness of off-the-shelf cruise missile systems.

A light carrier with mostly ISR UAV would be very similar to the first carriers in the 1920’s that were originally designed as scout aircraft launch platforms for the battle fleet.

Have future light carriers to carry something like a strike package at all?! For such missions are cruise missiles more than enough.

Not really, in most cases you can’t replensish vls at sea, 20 aircraft on a light carrier that is in a position to be be be resupplied can do a great deal more than 20 or 30 cruise missiles.