Have you SEEN how they reload those 8-round launchers? 😮 Basically useless for all intents and purposes. Better to have 32 at the ready but then I guess they’d prefer to jump over a twenty to pick up a penny.

I think it is more the fact that the Mk29 is already fitted, and fires away from the ship before going upwards, hence a little more carrier-friendly than a VLS. Otherwise a VLS needs to be put somewhere it can fire vertically, without upsetting air operations, which is quite limited on a ship that packs aircraft wherever possible!

I too yearn for the good old days, when they embarked about 80-90 aircraft on the Nimitz types. I seem to remember the mix was: 24 Tomcat, 24 Corsair/Hornet, 12 A-6 Intruder, 4 KA-6D Intruder, 4 EA-6B Prowler, 4 E-2 Hawkeye, and 6-10 S-3 Viking, plus 6-10 SH-3 Sea King. The Viking and Sea King numbers played around a bit, but overall, it was a total of around ninety aircraft. My hope is that we might see increased Super Hornet numbers boosting the current airwings, perhaps to three Rhino squadrons, plus two F-35 squadrons, and perhaps more than the currently planned four EA-18Gs. Similarly, we might, in time, see some maritime patrol UAVs embarked, e.g. General Atomics Mariner (it lost the BAMS contract, but there might still be hope).

Overall, the piece is well done, though I’m not sure I agree with all the conclusions drawn.

Beedalls website pretty much draws the same conclusion about CA-01 if it had been smaller around the 45,000 ton mark (he says 30-40,000 tons) it probably would of been built.

That size is big enough (Just) to safely operate Phantom and Buccaneer. As for the future if it had been built well the Phantoms and Buccs would probably have operated until the early 90’s with the E2B Hawkeye being purchased in the early to mid 80’s to replace the Gannet AEW. In the early 90’s I think we would of been looking at a F/A18 C/D purchase to replace both the Phantoms and Buccs (I know people love the Tomcat but I think the navy would of been put off by the size, cost and operational problems of operating the type off a carrier that size). That then takes us up to the late 90’s and CVF.

I agree, though I would expect the Gannets to be replaced a little earlier, hopefully! Even by the late sixties, they were quite limited, so a replacement might have been forthcoming. I would ideally have liked to see the RN getting some nice ‘extras’ for the Buccaneers, e.g. ability to carry some jammer pods, and a laser designator (perhaps a TRAM type turret, a la A-6). If the carriers were built in the ’60s, they would probably undergo a SLEP in the ’80s, and still be in service today, though replacements would probably need to be ordered in the late ’90s or early ’00s. I would hope for an interim upgrade of the Phantom and Buccaneer in the ’80s, with more modern radars and avionics.

Ideally, I would like to see a Falklands experience demonstrating to the government the value of the carriers, and spur them into funding the BAE P.110, both as a land-based and a naval fighter. The P.110 had the potential to give Britain a world class fighter, and a lot faster than the Eurofighter project we ended up with. A naval P.110 could have replaced the Phantoms on the carriers, and possibly seen off the Tornado ADV project.

As for the size issue, I think we need the baseline set at a minimum of 40,000 tons; any smaller than that, and you’re compromising compatibility with Phantoms. One question is how many aircraft you need; even if we figure on a helicopter carrying cruiser to carry the ASW and plane-guard helos, you still need fighters, strikers and AEW on board. Four AEW aircraft, either Gannet or Hawkeye, plus sixteen each of Phantoms and Buccaneers seems likely. This means a total of thirty-six aircraft, including the AEW aircraft, which is pretty reasonable on a 40-50,000ton carrier, perhaps more if we accept the American-style deck parking.

Sealord: My proposals for the escorts was longer term, hence my mentioning the T22 and T42. For Ikara, I would have preferred to see an ‘inline’ arrangement, slimmed down a fair bit, so that it could use a smaller launcher. Ideally, I would have loved to see Ikara slimmed down to be more like the ASROC, ideally allowing the new missile to be launched from a common launcher with other missile types. Ideally, this might have allowed use of a single launcher type for this slimline Ikara, an anti-ship missile (possibly based on Martel, a la Sea Eagle, or Exocet). The Leanders, T21s and then T22s would all get these launchers, giving them all dual capability, rather than needing separate Ikara and Exocet armed versions.

Ideally, all the new frigates and destroyers would be compatible with the Sea King, given the massive benefit of carrying a good ASW helo. I raised the Iroquois as an example because it exemplifies the good helo facilities possible on such ships. An Iroquois-sized destroyer and frigate would have boosted the valuable ASW capability, while the smaller Leander and subsequent Type 21s would have more limited, but still Sea King compatible facilities.

I understand the requirement to b*tch on the CVA-01, but she was designed for a very different time compared to CVF. The ship had armour as well as Sea Dart and early designs had Ikara as well. They were intended to be escorted by Type-82’s, also with Ikara and Sea Dart and a slightly larger vessel carrying multiple ASW helos and Ikara and Sea Dart. the RN expected such a group to operate in an extreme threat environment where they would be engaged by ships, planes and submarines as part of a wider naval action. CVF on the other hand is intended simply as a floating air base. Also remember that the navy that was planning for this armageddon vision was the same that had been scarred by the war in the Med (including the blood bath at crete and the Malta convoys), the loss of the Prince of Wales and Repulse, and the slog in the Atlantic.

These ships were designed to fight, while the Sea Dart installation was an awkward one it was the most effective SAM in the RN arsenal at the time.

The intent is not to belittle the CVA-01’s design effort, but it is fair to criticise design characteristics that even at the time were of questionable merit. The US Navy was fitting Tartar launchers to it’s carriers, but the reality is that fitting a long-range system to the CVA-01 simply compromised it too much. I fully understand the concept behind arming the carrier to the teeth, but arming it with Ikara and Sea Dart was a step too far. Also, it is worth noting that the armour was cut back to the point were it really defended little more than the CIC and the magazine.

I do agree that the carrier needed good defences, though, I just feel that the best defence is by airpower. This is especially true by the 1960s, when the carriers were not facing just the prospect of a 6in armed Sverdlov, but rather the worrying prospect of nuclear-tipped missiles!

As for the escorts, I would argue that, with the modifications to the design I outlined, it could actually have carried out at least some of the role intended for the helo-carrying cruisers. With a slight stretch, this sort of modified T82 conceptual design should have been able to take as many as four Sea Kings, so with two assigned to escort the CVA-01, you have plenty of aviation capacity.

Another possible benefit would have been to build the Type 22 with the aviation facilities of the Canadian Iroquois class, i.e. a pair of Sea Kings. This wouldn’t be much of a stretch, since the Iroquois class was only slightly beamier, at 15.2m versus 14.8m. An escort fleet made up of Sea King carrying Type 82s and Type 22s would have been pretty impressive! An obvious alternative might have been a common base-hull, perhaps slightly smaller than the Bristol class, used for both the ASW role (without the AAW gear) and AAW role (without some of the ASW gear). The common design would then be pursued instead of all of: T82, T42 and T22, which then gets the benefit of commonality, and a longer construction run.

It was, unfortunately, a ‘ship too far’; I say this not because it wasn’t needed, but because it was designed too late, and was too big a political target. If the CVA-01 had been designed five to ten years earlier, it might have worked. By the mid ’60s, too much had been spent on the rebuilds of the older carriers (Victorious, Ark and Eagle all having gone through very expensive rebuilds in the preceding few years) to allow funds for new carriers. Equally, by being pushed at a time when the Royal Navy had lost it’s most ardent supporter, Lord Mountbatten, yet facing staunch opposition from the RAF (who ‘needed’ the TSR-2 funded) it was a no-hoper.

A much better plan would have been to build something a bit more modest, probably something a bit bigger than the French Clemenceau, but not as large as Ark or Eagle. By going for a carrier a little smaller than Eagle/Ark, but in the mid to late ’50s, with Mountbatten’s support, a lot more could have been achieved.

Design-wise, the CVA-01 had a lot of flaws, partly as a result of trying to put too many things on the same hull.

– Remove Sea Dart (it takes up valuable deck and hangar space)
– Eliminate the ‘Alaskan taxiway’ (it took up valuable deck space, for dubious gains)
– Stretch the flight deck all the way aft, into a more normal layout
– Shrink the island down to more normal size (again, it takes up valuable deckspace)
– Fit more sensible armament, better suited to self defence, e.g. a fast-firing Bofors 40mm L/70, or even the RN’s 4.5in guns if necessary! Also fit Sea Cat, to be replaced with Sea Wolf on the same mount (discussed below)

At the same time, I would change the Typ 82 requirement, though this is based on a heck of a lot of hindsight! Put the Sea Dart forward, in the ‘B’ position, behind either a Mk6 twin 4.5in or the new Mk8 in the ‘A’ position. This then leaves the aft clear (unlike on the County or T82) for a hangar and flight deck; a hull this sort of size should be capable of carrying a hangar sized for two Sea King ASW helos minimum. Also add a pair of Sea Cat launchers, to be switched to Sea Wolf (again, discussed below).

For defensive purposes, the carriers, without their Sea Dart launchers, would still have needed some form of defensive anti-air capability. This should have been provided by means of the Sea Wolf, but not quite the version that emerged. The Sea Wolf was intended as a replacement for the old, and quite limited, Sea Cat system; but what emerged didn’t really fit the bill, since it was quite a bit larger, and incompatible with the Sea Cat’s launchers. If, on the other hand, they had stuck with the original plan, and made it backwards compatible (though with the necessary directors added), then things are a lot brighter! Sea Cat was in service on many of the RN’s existing frigates, plus the County class destroyers, probably the new Type 82s, as well as the carriers, amphibs and other types. Switch them to using Sea Wolf, and they gain a pretty good self defence capability!

A more likely outcome, in my opinion, would be for the Typhoon force to reach eight to ten squadrons, with four or five ‘joint’ F-35B squadrons, and four or five son-of-Taranis GR-4 replacement squadrons. Frankly, I would rather see the RN get their own air wing, with around five squadrons, plus an OCU. This would allow them to maintain one squadron deployed overseas (a la Afghanistan deployment), one squadron assigned to the active carrier, and the rest on training duties, but in an emergency, available to swell the CVF’s decks. This would mean ~100 aircraft (i.e. 5+1 sqns at 15 assigned airframes each, plus a modest margin for attrition). The RAF would then field twice this number of Typhoons, plus an extra few aircraft to equip detachments, e.g. 1435 Flight in the Falklands. The RAF then also get ~100 of the Son-of-Taranis, to replace the remaining Tornado GR-4s.

One major benefit to switching the new carriers to CTOL would, of course, also be that it would allow them to embark UCAVs. This could help solve some of the issues, if we can simply spec out the Son-of-Taranis as being carrier compatible, i.e. equivalent to the Northrop X-47. That way, the carriers can boost their airwing with (hopefully) cheaper unmanned aircraft. Even putting existing UAVs on board would just about be possible if the carriers are switched to CTOL; General Atomics have proposed carrier-capable Predators/Reapers/Mariners before, and might do again…

The idea of canning naval airpower would be the worst imaginable outcome; history has proven that conducting any opposed operation needs airpower, even if it is just limited ‘show of force’. During Sierra Leone, the Harriers prove themselves, and had a major effect on the rebels. The Falklands goes completely without saying, since without naval airpower, it would have been a no-show. Even during Allied Force over Kosovo, carrier-borne aircraft were able to operate even when everything else was grounded by weather. Scrapping the carriers in favour of a couple of amphibs would put the RN behind the Italians and Spanish in capability, something that would result in more than a few resignations!

Harry

Its 138 as a final purchase though. By the time that airframes 130-138 are actually delivered airframes 1-12 could be next to exhausted etc.

As I understand it the Joint Force structure is fixed. That is 36 airframes for the four frontline sqdns, presuming that images of F-35B’s leaping airborne off carrier decks gives us enough pilots to reconstitute 801 by that point!. Plus the aircraft available from the OCU/2nd line sqdn.

I dont know – perhaps the individual squadron size could be crept back up to 12 airframes over time if we see the jets getting a lot of use. That would see 48 in the frontline ‘group’ and 3 sqdns, instead of four, deploy to form the active carrier airwing as dictated by the operational scenario.

Jonesy,

It was my understanding that the ’36’ figure for JFH was more to do with the limited number of Harriers being upgraded than any reasons of doctrine? I understood that they had just been reluctant to pay up for the upgrades, especially in light of the JCA/JSF being ‘just around the corner’ (beginning to sound like the ‘hydrogen is the fuel of the future, and it always will be!’ argument!). I would hope to see, at the very least, a return to 12 aircraft squadrons, though frankly I don’t hold out too much hope.

Arguably the Absalon wouldn’t necessarily be a bad option for basing it on. Take the Absalon and:

– put on the the Thales S1850M radar
– install a pair of 8-cell Sylver A43 launchers, quad packed with CAMM
– switch to the British main gun, i.e. either the 4.5in Mk8, or the new 155mm
– install Sonar 2087, as used on the T-23 (and probably C-1 in future)
– put in a full Flag command facility

All of this should combine to produce a pretty good command ship, at a relatively modest cost. Granted, it lacks the AAW and land attack capabilities of the originally proposed ship, but it would probably end up costing less than a T45-based C-1 (since it is basically much the same kit, plus the S1850M and command facilities; but all on a cheaper hull). In practice, you would probably use the Danish patrol frigate derivative, i.e. basically an Absalon, minus the vehicle deck, and with four instead of two diesels. This would make it capable of keeping up with the normal fleet, and capable of acting as an ASW taskforce leader (though ideally for that, I would want a bit more than just CAMM…). Four or so of these might be a good way to round out the fleet, e.g. eight each of T-45 and C-1, plus four of these for the ‘high’ end of the fleet.

For that matter, the Danish patrol frigate concept might not be an insane basis for the C-2 and C-3, albeit probably scaled down a bit. The idea of a cheap, spacious hull could be worthwhile, providing ample space for a load of MCM and maritime interdiction/patrol gear. A long production run of these ships would then allow a common C-2/-3 line, potentially using the previously mooted modular weapons/systems fit. I know these Danish ships are a lot bigger than we had discussed, but it should be possible to go scale them down a bit. A 4,000 ton scaled down version, with a pair of Wartsila 16V38 (11kW each, i.e about 15,000hp each) diesels, as used on the CVF, should be pretty darned capable.

Indeed, although the F-15 angle is mainly interesting from another point of view: Japan was reported to be considering a major avionics upgrade for their Eagles years ago, including an IRST. Nothing more was heard for a long time, but recently a photo of one fitted with said IRST has surfaced along with others of different airframes showing new EW antennas.

Needless to say, the JASDF F-15s will have to be replaced eventually, but such a comprehensive upgrade indicates that this moment could be further off than many are anticipating today. By which time all current bets regarding the F-22, F-35, Typhoon and Super Hornet may be off – there is the ATD-X in the works and who knows what will happen regarding the US stance on Raptor exports a few years down the road.

Actually, the Japanese procurement is for the replacement of their F-4 Phantoms, which are now getting very long in the tooth. Ultimately the F-15s will also need replacing, but the F-4s need a replacement very soon. It would make a lot of sense to buy the Typhoon, if nothing else, then because it makes a point to the Americans (i.e. that they will not just continue to buy American, as they have done for decades). Also, due to the urgent need to replace the Phantoms, they can’t really wait for F-35s (which would be nearly ten years before they could fully replace the Phantoms); this basically means it is a toss-up between more F-15s, Super Hornets, or Typhoons.

As for the nonsense about the Typhoon being a flop, it patently hasn’t been. The fact is that the JSF project has made selling Typhoons a lot harder, since many nations that would have seriously considered it have held back. The next couple of years will tell how things will go – it has been put on a very high pedestal, and any slip now will cause real embarassment. A delay, or reduced US order, or an even higher predicted price, or a major customer pulling out; any of these could hurt the F-35, and potentially help Typhoon.

Overall, though, several hundred aircraft, in modern defence procurement terms, is a pretty impressive tally anyway!