What if….?

Ah yes that makes sense, it could mean they have used their numbers of cat launch and traps, but still have life in them.

But then it’s strange that more F18C/D don’t show up in USMC land based squadrons or offered for export?

Nic

The reason is tied up in the fact that the USN and Marine Corp are trying to get the maximum value and life out of their lagacy Hornets. All the A/B Hornets that could be sold abroad have been shifted years ago! As for the ramaining A/B and C/D to ensure that they meet their OSD they are doing some rather nifty fleet management, in effect when a Hornet uses up its cat and trap life it gets parted out to keep the remaining fleet alive.

Land based Marine Corp squadrons still need to be able to deploy to a carrier when needed to, so hornets that have used up their carrier cycles are useless to them! It should also be noted that Marine Corp squadrons do form a normal part of a carrier air wing these days.

As I have said before I feel it was a mistake for Boeing to cease legacy Hornet production. Certainly countries who purchased the F16 in recent years might well of looked favorably on the Hornet if it had been available.

The USMC regularly operates from carriers* (they just gave in to the USN and agreed to outfit enough USMC squadrons with the F-35C to allow 4-5 USMC squadrons to be permanently assigned to carrier air wings).

Thus, all USMC carrier-capable aircraft squadrons need aircraft with carrier cycles available.

* in the second half of 2007:
VMFA-251 was part of CVW-1 aboard USS Enterprise;
VMFA-232 was part of CVW-11 aboard USS Nimitz; and
VMFA-323 was part of CVW-9 aboard USS John C. Stennis;

Ah yes that makes sense, it could mean they have used their numbers of cat launch and traps, but still have life in them.

But then it’s strange that more F18C/D don’t show up in USMC land based squadrons or offered for export?

Nic

as they were offered to the air force not navy – could it be they are expired airframes regarding carrier ops

It’s true. Some of the things being turned down make me want to shoot myself. The Hornets were for the Air Force though, not the navy.

Its curious because every time I mentionned the RN anyine getting hornets, everyone would reply that the US had no spare F18 to sell, should it be SH or vanilla hornets, and now I learn that the US had at least 24 F18C+ to spare.

Nic

Sounds nice, but unrealistic. Where’s the money to come from?

Don’t think about them as carriers for Argentina, but as a CVF alternative like the topic adresses. For the RN, if you can fit Rhinos, you can certainly fit F-35Cs. They are 3 meters shorter, and have the same folded wingspan.

That would necessitate a huge increase in the defence budget.

It currently is so low, that even a small increase is huge. Plans are calling for an increase from U$D 3.600M (FY11) currently to U$D 13.500M by 2016, in constant value currency (FY11). Whether that happens or not, is up to the congress and this year’s presidential election, but since a reelection is at hand, it’s a foregone conclussion the defense spending increase will get the go ahead. It will be a threefold increasse in PBI percentage. The carriers wouldn’t be funded until 2024, a time when defense spending is expected to stabilize in 2,3% PBI. Money shouldn’t be a problem.

Would fixed wing ASW be necessary for a Brazillian/Argentine Navy carrier?. Brazil I cant see a bluewater ASW threat emerging that they would have to cope with?. Argentina’s Armada has had the ‘problem’ of British SSNs to cope with for decades. I suspect there is little, theoretical, about blue-water ASW that has not been studied at length at Puerto Belgrano!.

It’s a theoretical issue for the moment. If a twin engined, ~24.000kg comon support aircraft is abailable by 2030, then they will want them. If not, then rotary solutions are at hand.

That clarified it very well, thanks.

You are wellcome.

What threw me is that most people’s proposals are for the specific aircraft to be operated.

I know, I should have clarified it better. Keep in mind that for the ARA, aircraft types would only be selected by 2024 or so. For an IOC by 2030, the most likely airplane will be the F-35C I guess.

In a way, basing the hangar/flight deck parking schemes with the E-2 spot factor for all “support aircraft” roles is good, as it is the largest carrier aircraft anybody has operated… any alternatives are likely to be smaller, and thus take up less space.

Precisely.

Edit: just realised there were only 2 AEW E2… but then I think two C2 below deck is too much. You’d have one at most and maybe one either on deck or on its way to some land base and it could be turned around there.

Nic, think of 9 big wing support planes. 2 always flying, 3 above deck, and 4 in the hangar.

BTW if it is true that Argentina got an offer for 24 F18C+,

It’s true. Some of the things being turned down make me want to shoot myself. The Hornets were for the Air Force though, not the navy.

What we should be looking at doing is beginning deck training with the French. Send crews to train as they do. Hell Jonnie wilkinson was fluent after 3 months, we’ll have deck crews who can work along side the French for the future. Would gain a lot of respect from the French also for doing it.

You’re training the pilots, but not the support personnel. Use the Argie model. Single squadron to do CARQUALS and FLPs to keep the skills up. You’ll have a generation of squadron ready when people QE arrives and not have to waste half a decade.

BTW if it is true that Argentina got an offer for 24 F18C+, and turned it down, what are the odds that the RN would want them? A F18C MLU would be nothing to sneer at and buy the RN some time to decide whether they want the F35C or not, and it would allow them to train pilots and crew for the QEII.

Nic

What Kev says, & we’re training crew by seconding them to the USN & MN, at much lower cost.

Costs money that the MOD doesn’t have. It was decided that the Harrier force and carriers should be binned to save money while we wait for the F35s and QE class to become available, buying an interim fast jet solution requires new budgets to be assigned from the same pot of cash. To be honest it would of made more sense to keep the Harriers in service, almost certainly would cost less money as well.

BTW if it is true that Argentina got an offer for 24 F18C+, and turned it down, what are the odds that the RN would want them? A F18C MLU would be nothing to sneer at and buy the RN some time to decide whether they want the F35C or not, and it would allow them to train pilots and crew for the QEII.

Nic

Here’s what normal operations could look like in a 32.000t BSAC 240. Use of deck parking would see only 9 Rhinos in the hangar. The CVW would still be made of 18x F-18E, 9x E2 (3x AEW&C), and 9x NH-90.

I would think that during normal operations at least one of the E2 would be in flight with one more on the flight deck, so this would allow for considerably more room in the hangar as is shown in your drawings.

Edit: just realised there were only 2 AEW E2… but then I think two C2 below deck is too much. You’d have one at most and maybe one either on deck or on its way to some land base and it could be turned around there.

Based on your airwing with 3 AEW E2, then I’d think 1 is below deck, 1 is on deck and 1 is in flight?

Nic

I hope this clarified it a little.

Sorry for my spelling mistakes, (I’m sure there’s plenty).

That clarified it very well, thanks.

What threw me is that most people’s proposals are for the specific aircraft to be operated.

In a way, basing the hangar/flight deck parking schemes with the E-2 spot factor for all “support aircraft” roles is good, as it is the largest carrier aircraft anybody has operated… any alternatives are likely to be smaller, and thus take up less space.

I thought the USN retired the S-3 because it decided it didn’t need fixed-wing carrier-borne ASW, not because it was expensive. A pity they’ve been allowed to deteriorate to the point where the ARA thinks they’re not worth adopting. Very nice aircraft, IMO, & enough in storage (plus stocks of spares bought but never used) that there shouldn’t be any problems with keeping them running.

That ws my understanding as well and was why they got the carrierborne marpat/ISTAR job for a while until that dried up. Operating the aircraft wasn’t all that much of a hardship, but, offloading strings of sonobuoys and stooging around monitoring them, with the occaisional low-alt MAD run to spice things up, became quickly unnecessary as most of the targets were more readily detectable on satellite imagery of Zap Litsa and Vladivostok than on a buoys output. Story goes that the acoustic kit onboard the S-3’s would have needed a costly upgrade to keep up capability against the later Russian SSN classes so, when they largely went away, there was little support to spend money that could get better return elsewhere.

Would fixed wing ASW be necessary for a Brazillian/Argentine Navy carrier?. Brazil I cant see a bluewater ASW threat emerging that they would have to cope with?. Argentina’s Armada has had the ‘problem’ of British SSNs to cope with for decades. I suspect there is little, theoretical, about blue-water ASW that has not been studied at length at Puerto Belgrano!.

Problem is that blue-water ASW is a heavily technical game and one that involves lots of funding requests. A modest detachment of, say 4, S-3’s is not going to find a T class SSN that doesn’t want to be found without offboard cueing. Where I in the Armada’s position I’d look sincerely at long-line passive VLF towed-array technology and trying to convert that to an analogy of SURTASS capability before looking at the prosecute-shoot end of the ASW equation. Until then heavy choppers with dipping sonar are far more flexible and much easier to embark/operate.

From the “Libro blanco de defensa” meetings. Consensus has been reached on the need for 2 (two) midsized carriers, like this thread is debating. Ship displacement considered went from 32.000t to 45.000t in max load.

Sounds nice, but unrealistic. Where’s the money to come from? That would necessitate a huge increase in the defence budget. I reckon that those two carriers, their air groups, the other ships to support them, crews, & upgrading & maintaining infrastructure would cost a lot more than your entire current defence spending – and you’d still need an army, air force, & some more navy.

We recieved a proposal for 24 HornetC+, 10 Hercules and 8 S3 Vikings this last December, for about 600 million. The S3 were in a very bad condition, and were rejected again. A pity, for it is such a nice plane, but if even the yankees considered them expensive, it’s a no brainer for a smaller navy.

I thought the USN retired the S-3 because it decided it didn’t need fixed-wing carrier-borne ASW, not because it was expensive. A pity they’ve been allowed to deteriorate to the point where the ARA thinks they’re not worth adopting. Very nice aircraft, IMO, & enough in storage (plus stocks of spares bought but never used) that there shouldn’t be any problems with keeping them running.

I would say that the idea is better but I think that Ocean is a better LPH as she can carry Landing Craft on Davits adding capabilty.

I also think it would have been worth keeping even a handful of carriers for Libya type senarios……

Nick

What if…..

The current ops concerning libya have got myself thinking that once again the sdsr is already unrealistic and in need of adjustment particuarly with regard to our ability to maintain a deployable amphibious capability. With the 10 yearcapability gap of fixed wing air power from RN ships should the sdsr have created 2 amphibious groups to maintain an at sea capability? Whilst its good to see AAC apache flying from Ocean, what happens when the ships and crew need to return to port? How will UK be able to maintain a presence in the region? How about retaining Illustrious post refit, maybe to 2020 and use it as LPH with 10 seaking hc4, 3 seaking asac 7 and 6 apache Ah 1. This could sail with Albion that has a RM commando embarked with possibly 3 or 4 lynx ah7/9a, and one of the RFA Bay class as well as an RFA Fort class, possibly using the flight deck to embark 3 merlins. Add a type 45 and a type 23 both with naval lynx. This could then be relieved by the other LPH, Bulwark, bay class and fort class with type 45 and 23. This would have a different RM commando and its own aircraft. How about retain both illustrious and ARk Royal, but pay off Ocean when it returns, saving the immediate cost of a refit now. Retain it, possibly with a view to using it in the future to replace RFA aviation training ship? Any thoughts?

9x E-2 (3x AEW&C)?

As I explained in a previous post, don’t think in terms of specific aircraft models, rather in aircraft types. I only had the E2 in my CAD library, (same for the NH-90 and F-18E I made), so I used those.

Where did you get that bizarre load?

From the “Libro blanco de defensa” meetings. Consensus has been reached on the need for 2 (two) midsized carriers, like this thread is debating. Ship displacement considered went from 32.000t to 45.000t in max load. The CVW for single carrier operations in the max load configuration would be made of 24x fighters, 4x AEW&C, 6x ASW, 2x KC, and 12x Rotary.

When both carriers work together, each CVW will have 18x fighters, 3x AEW&C, 4x ASW, 2x KC, and 9x Rotary. This is also the regular single carrier opps dessired air group.

There was no mention of specific aicraft models, other than logical remarks, like the fighter being the same model the FAA (airforce) chooses, from traditional providers; or that the AEW&C, ASW and KC types must be variatons of the same plane if possible, in the 24.000t range and common to the FAA medium cargo, AEW&C and AGS requirements.

What are the non-AEW&C E-2s for… cargo? Or are you proposing an ASW variant?

Both, a cargo/tanker (mostly tanker), and an ASW variant. They don’t even need to be Hawkeyes (those are for illustration purposes only), turbotrackers would do just fine.

S-3s would do better… they already existed, where SE-2s would require a full development/integration process.

We recieved a proposal for 24 HornetC+, 10 Hercules and 8 S3 Vikings this last December, for about 600 million. The S3 were in a very bad condition, and were rejected again. A pity, for it is such a nice plane, but if even the yankees considered them expensive, it’s a no brainer for a smaller navy.

If you really need a fixed-wing ASW aircraft, S-2s (a completely different, earlier design) are available… they can be easily turbopropped.

I know, we have eight of those. The ARA loves them, and they have been deeply modified, but the are not ethernal. When they die, (and I can’t see S2-T living in the 2050’s) what comes after? Fixed wing, embarcable ASW are wanted, but if they are prohibit expensive a compromisse will be reached for more helicopters.

USN CVNs only have 4 E-2C, no permanently assigned C-2, and no more S-3… all ASW is carried out by helos.

Because they are the NAVY. They can do with so little, because they operate in huge groups. A smaller CVBG would need to be more autonomous.

The French CVN carries 3x E-2 AEW&C and no fixed-wing ASW or cargo aircraft (they are currently being supplied off Libya by USN C-2s).

That tells you a lot, when in the middle of an attack war (sorry I ment “kinetic action”), you need to depend on third party assets. Why would they need long range ASW in the Mediterranean? It’s not the same scenario for the 4 millons km2 of sea down here.

Why on earth would a smaller carrier use up more hangar/flight deck space by shipping twice the E-2 of a much larger USN CVN?

I hope this clarified it a little.

Sorry for my spelling mistakes, (I’m sure there’s plenty).

9x E-2 (3x AEW&C)?

Where did you get that bizarre load?

What are the non-AEW&C E-2s for… cargo? Or are you proposing an ASW variant? S-3s would do better… they already existed, where SE-2s would require a full development/integration process.

If you really need a fixed-wing ASW aircraft, S-2s (a completely different, earlier design) are available… they can be easily turbopropped.

USN CVNs only have 4 E-2C, no permanently assigned C-2, and no more S-3… all ASW is carried out by helos.

The French CVN carries 3x E-2 AEW&C and no fixed-wing ASW or cargo aircraft (they are currently being supplied off Libya by USN C-2s).

Why on earth would a smaller carrier use up more hangar/flight deck space by shipping twice the E-2 of a much larger USN CVN?

Here’s what normal operations could look like in a 32.000t BSAC 240. Use of deck parking would see only 9 Rhinos in the hangar. The CVW would still be made of 18x F-18E, 9x E2 (3x AEW&C), and 9x NH-90.

Thank you very much to the engeniers, for the input.