Logan HartkeMy reason is the relative lack of other ASW assets in the South American navies. The US got rid of the S-3Bs (again, a decision of debatable wisdom) in part because its P-3, SSN, and ASW frigate/destroyer screen is so great. US carriers travel with huge entourage of protective assets. Most of its escorts will have their own ASW air assets. A smaller, South American carrier wouldn’t have that luxury, and the guarantee of land-based ASW patrol aircraft isn’t necessarily there for some of those countries. Also, their SSKs would be more limited in endurance than the carrier (even a conventional one) would be, something that a CVN doesn’t have to worry about with SSNs.
Basically, the US got rid of its S-3Bs because it had a plan B. Argentina, Chile, or Brazil really do not. Argentina knows well the threat that undetected enemy submarines pose to a major capital ship.
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeOr, for that matter, what about a carrier-capable L-159? Cheap, rugged, and not subject to British controls. The straight wing lends itself well to low landing speeds and should be considerably cheaper than a Gripen. It’s simple to work on, a threat to all fighters short of a Flanker in South America, goes relatively fast, carries a useful load, and is simple to fly. The straight wing would probably lend itself well to folding, as well.
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeWhat about a CTOL variant of Cavour? Delete ramp, add catapult & angled deck. Should add a bit to the current tonnage, but still come in no more than 30000, which is allowable for the hull. Need less redesign than working up from PdA. 244 metres with 180 metre runway, at present. A more austere version, to save some money, & without the amphibious trimmings.
I’m trying to see if it wouldn’t be possible to do a good CTOL carrier in well under 30,000 tons. Fully-loaded, fully equipped, a modified Cavour would end up right around Scooter’s numbers. I don’t disagree that it would work, I just disagree that you can’t do it for less.
I don’t think there will be a place for such slow-moving naval attack aircraft.
Against modern warships with a good point defence system, a naval Super Tucano would have no chance I believe.
I doubt if it would be capable of taking off with one or two Harpoon-type ASMs. And a podded radar would take up a hardpoint, further reducing the number of hardpoints available for weapons and fuel tanks.
Perhaps except against poorly defended targets on the ground, it would be almost useless. Turboprops are simply too slow to survive in a modern battlefield.
That was kind of the point. You were basically arguing my point for me. The intention isn’t to use these to go after some Aegis cruiser. This is meant to deliver mud-movers to hard-to-reach parts of South America. Have you read about the most recent missions of S-3s? Sea control. They’re basically carrier-based anti-surface patrol aircraft. They target and take out smaller ships if necessary. For a South American country, this would be an ideal anti-drug runner setup (although, I know Argentina doesn’t have the same trouble that Colombia, for example, does). Getting an aircraft that is equally capable of taking on fast boats and light aircraft pretty far out at sea yet is easy to fly and takes up very little hangar space would be ideal.
Also, you could launch them off the angled deck without a need for a catapult while you undertook catapult operations with the Gripens from the forward catapult. They would also make a fine trainer getting pilots trained on making real deck landings without risking a Gripen. You can even slap Sidewinders and Mavericks on a Super Tucano when necessary. I’m sure you could wire it for Harpoons or NSMs as well. In fact, if you had to go against a major enemy surface combatant, you would put the Tucanos ashore and bring aboard (albeit fewer) additional Gripens. Or, if you wouldn’t know about it beforehand, you utilize the Gripen’s excellent datalink and the Gripen’s radar. Let the Gripens do the targeting, the Super Tucanos just bring more missiles to the fight. They don’t need their own radar pod.
Actually, there were proposals for a CTOL version of the Italian Conti di Cavour, and there were the Bazan CTOL carrier designs. All these ships were around the 25-30,000 ton mark, and would probably have been able to operate a reasonable airwing. The main problem would be finding a suitable fighter, since the only carrierborne aircraft on the market (in the west, so not counting Mig-29K and Su-33) are the F/A-18E/F, Rafale, and in the future F-35s and LCAs. The LCA might be a good choice in a few years, but there’s a lot to be proven before then, and assuming it’ll become available risks ending up with a carrier too small to operate anything else. The Rafale could probably operate off a ship around the 30,000 tons mark, especially if the angled deck is long enough.
I was just trying to stay away from the heavier Super Hornet and Rafale types due to their weight. I think if you can find something more like a modern-day A-4, then that would be the answer. That’s why I’d like to see a navalized Gripen. It’s one of the only aircraft in that class, until the naval LCA comes along.
I would actually look more at UAVs, which could be operated off such a small carrier, in good numbers. Something like the Israeli Hermes 900, or Heron UAVs, which could carry not only a surface search radar, but probably some ASW sensors as well. You could also add in AEW versions as well, having them carry a suitable radar, like the Searchwater, or the Italian one used on their EH-101 AEWs.
The airwing on such a 25-30,000 ton carrier would likely be:
– 16 fighters, probably Rafale, LCA or navalised Gripen (which would be costly)
– 8 UAVs, like the Heron, for surveillance, both ASW and AEW
– 4 ASW helicoptersThis is a relatively good airwing, and gives you a good enough balance of types, without taking up all the space. The UAVs should be capable of being folded up, with the wings removed completely, and stored along the fuselage sides. They shouldn’t take up much hangar space, and could even be stored elsewhere.
The UAVs are a necessity in this day and age. For storage of them, I’d do what the US Navy did with dismantled spare aircraft in WW2. Strap them to the ceiling. Do the same with UAVs. Take the wings off, perform any necessary maintenance, then winch it up to the ceiling.
The problem is to find a suitable aircrafts. New generation aircrafts are heavier than the old one. So the new aircrafts need more capable catapults like the new 90mt (lenght).
They are more expensive to operate with catapults, steam production and arresting gears.
For modern aircrafts (F18/F35C/E2D) a carrier like CdG is the minimum. It’s not a case if the angled deck of CdG has been prolonged of 4 mt to opearate the E2C.
Due to electronic equipment and military standards, both necessary if a navy wants to have a strong and secure warship that it’s planned to stay 30 years in service and in war zone capable to protect the crew and the airwing, the final costs of Cavour it’s been 1.5 bilions € 😮 😮
A Cavour or something similar to a carrier of 30000 tons (I suppose 250×45 mt) with angled deck, catapults and arresting gear will be very expensive and not enough cost/effective.
So the minimum will be something as the new indian IDS or CdG.
Agree with most of this. That’s why I was trying to see if it wouldn’t be possible to do it with smaller CTOL aircraft. Then you wouldn’t need such a large carrier.
The point is, could you do it with carrier small than a conventional CdG? If so, could you find appropriate aircraft? I think so. Even if the naval Gripen doesn’t pan out, I think that you could purchase Singapore’s A-4SU’s when they’re done and operate them until the naval LCA becomes available. Round off the group with some turboprops, helicopters, and UAVs, and I think that you could produce a CTOL-configured carrier that would be a threat to a very large number of threats. It would be as good as the Foch at half the operating cost, size, and crew requirements.
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeThey’re there.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=139944
They should be on all but the A-10, at least. I know the F-15 and F-16 definitely have them (at least USAF ones). I’ve heard that the F-117 did internally (it had to retract to maintain stealthiness), so I’d assume that the F-22 has a similar setup. So, you’re not going to find it on the A-10, but it should be there on the rest.
Now, granted, other than the F-4 and A-7 (no longer in USAF service) this isn’t a Navy-style tailhook, so it’s a much smaller arrangement and isn’t designed to be used on a daily basis, so is relatively unobtrusive.
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeAlso, if I remember correctly, in the case of a couple of Warriors getting ripped up by A-10s in the first Gulf War, it was because they had strayed well into a kill box that everyone involved had been warned to stay the heck out of. Get lost in a kill box, get killed. Blue on blue happens. Sometimes it’s all ground’s fault, sometimes it’s all air’s. Sometimes it’s both. Let’s try not to pin the blame on the service or country actually putting boots in combat or planes in the air.
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeAnd why not… CV-61 Ranger, which is noticeably larger than CVF will be, made a port call to Vancouver in 1986, anchoring in the harbor… and did the same at Diego Garcia in 1989!
CVN-70 Carl Vinson visited DG in both 1986 & 1990 as well.
Note that the lagoon of DG is a dredged anchorage capable of hosting USN CVNs… and is the permanent mooring of the 14 ships of the USN’s Military Sealift Command’s Maritime Prepositioning Ship Squadron Two!
Add in the refueling and ship servicing facilities… and an air base with a runway long enough that it is an emergency landing site for NASA’s space shuttle, and a CVF would find DG a welcome base for supporting an extended deployment.
Vancouver was never in question. In fact, I was using it as a contrast to Port Stanley and Diego Garcia, although I was obviously mistaken with the latter!
I knew that DG had the world-class airfield facilities and the deep anchorage, I just never realized that it had the capital ship servicing facilities.
Still, it just reinforces my earlier point that the UK has the facilities to support large numbers of conventionally-powered ships halfway around the world, a capability that goes unmatched by Russia, for example.
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeWe also still have various islands scattered around the world, such as Bermuda, Ascension, the Falklands, & Diego Garcia, where we have a few people keeping an eye on the tenants to make sure they don’t make a mess of our property. 😀
I’m well aware of that, but you’re not going to be pulling a carrier into Port Stanley or Diego Garcia anytime soon like you could Sydney or Vancouver, which was my point. That’s why I stressed “major naval base”.
Thanks for the kind words again, swerve.
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeThere is one scenario in which I can see the utility of a carrier with its own integrated air defence system. That is the case of more of an expeditionary carrier. In other words, a carrier that is expected to operate thousands of miles from the nearest major naval base. I don’t really see that situation in existence today. The are no countries that need that sort of power projection, yet lack the overseas facilities to support it. The UK is currently one of the closest, but its good relations with the Commonwealth and numerous former colonies ensure that it will always have support a long way from home. One possibility might be the emerging Russian Navy. Always lacking the naval bases it needed to support a truly world class blue water navy, Russia (or the Soviet Union) has always had to settle for not being the blue water navy that nations such as Great Britain, the United States, and France have been able to become due to their overseas bases. A resurgent Russia is about the only nation that I can see coming anywhere close to needing and being able to actually produce and man such ships.
In a case such as that, I would actually ague (purely economically) for a CBG consisting of a couple of SSNs for ASW, a couple of CVNs with their own air defence systems, and possibly a very large nuclear-powered amphibious warfare/air defence/replenishment ship.
Basically, what I’d envision is a couple of nuclear-powered Kuznetsov-type carriers with a slightly heavier displacement (~50,000 tons) and their own air defence systems (what they have now, but moreso). The only other surface ship that would regularly accompany them more than 2,000 miles from home port would be a large Kirov/Ivan Rogov hybrid in the area of 30,000 tons. A few SSNs escorting the group at various distances, scouting ahead and around them would round out the group nicely.
The carrier should have some serious, very capable fixed-wing assets, to make up for its complete lack of surface support assets. None of this helicopter-mounted radar junk. Get a real AEW aircraft, like a modernized Yak-44 or An-71 with AESA, some navalized Flanker or eventually PAK-FA aircraft, and some ASW helicopters. Honestly, I think they should have a variant of the AEW platform to use as a fixed-wing ASW aircraft, as well – sort of a Russian S-3B Viking. Something like the following:
24 x Heavy Fighters (Su-33+)
3 x AEW Aircraft (Hawkeye-equivalent)
3 x ASW/EW Aircraft (Viking-equivalent)
4 x Multipurpose Helicopters (Ka-27/MH-60/NH90)
Obviously, the CBG would have double this since there’d be two carriers. Also, I’d have 8-12 multipurpose helicopters on the support ship.
For the support ship, I’d think it should be rather large, capable of carrying at least a fully equipped amphibious battalion with support assets, have a sizable helicopter landing deck, have the replenishment stores for the armament for itself and the two carriers, be nuclear-powered, be fairly well armored, have a good 130mm+ gun battery, possess a very large missile array of anti-ship and anti-air missiles, and a radar array more powerful than AEGIS. Again, sort of like an updated Kirov on steroids with amphibious capabilities.
Total, your CBG would have maybe 6-7 ships (2 CVNs, 1 Heavy Support Cruiser, and 3-4 SSNs). You’d have the total air complement of (using modern aircraft):
48 x Su-33s
6 x Hawkeyes
6 x Vikings
16 x Ka-27s
4 x Ka-52s
As big and expensive as these ships would be, I think that a CBG consisting of these three ships would actually be cheaper to operate and maybe even build than a comparable US CBG (for a nation without the overseas bases).
It allows you to be a better blue water navy, be more flexible, project power better, deploy and redeploy faster, stay at sea longer, and at the loss of little offensive firepower. Going all-nuclear means that you wouldn’t need an oiler, a naval base nearby, or a slow replenishment ship. This is all at the expense of survivability. Your hulls are bigger and stronger than all the little boats, but packed with more dangerous goods and there are a lot fewer hulls.
Other than such a specific scenario, though, defer to my earlier post.
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeHaving said that, Kh-38M is a Zvezda product. It looks a bit like a scaled down Kh-35.
Zvezda was my guess, based on the fact that it’s replacing the Kh-25, another Zvezda product.
Thanks,
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeI don’t know. I’m actually in favor of giving a carrier great CIWS, but putting the rest of the air defence (not including aircraft) on other hulls. That’s for a number of reasons. First of all, it keeps your ship size down. Splitting a CBG’s defences between multiple hulls is, in some cases, the only way to fit 90 aircraft on a hull that will still fit on the slipway or in a drydock.
For all practical purposes, assuming the CBG is under attack, I can see no real advantage to putting your AD systems on the carrier. If it’s trying to get all its planes in the air, then it’s not going to be able to fire off salvos of long-ranged air defence missiles. That’s sort of an either/or situation. You can get the planes off, or try to shoot down incoming missiles. The smoke and blast from missiles is likely to restrict flight operations around the immediate vicinity of the carrier or at least make it hazardous to launch and recover aircraft.
Also, many CVN-hunting techniques home in on a carrier’s radar emissions. It’s standard tactics for a CBG that’s under attack to have the CVN go dead, turning off its radar and such to make it a less inviting target. In the case of a carrier that provides its own air defence, turning its radar off isn’t an option. Well, it is, but then your missiles aren’t going to do any good.
That brings up another issue. Carriers are naturally combustible. The USN has been working since WWII to decrease that as much as possible. That’s the reason why the USN pushed for solid-fuel long-range rockets instead of liquid. There was no way liquid rocket fuel was going on their ships, especially carriers. Now, I know that modern air defence missiles are all going to have solid propellant and far less risky explosives than anything in the early days, but it’s that much less that the Navy would like to pack into their hulls.
Something else, on the issue of multiple hulls. Except for press photos, CBG escorts aren’t usually a stone’s throw away from the CVN. Putting the AD systems on multiple hulls allows you to push the AD umbrella further away from the carrier. The radar coverage, the missiles, the CIWS systems, the countermeasures, they all start further from the carrier.
Finally, if missiles and/or torpedoes start getting through, that many more hulls gives them that many additional potential targets. Sure, missiles are programmed to search for the biggest target, for example, but if it loses the biggest target, it doesn’t keep looking for it, it picks the next closest thing it can find. A CBG commander would rather it pick an escort than the CVN.
So, I see no problem with LERX’s potential setup. Heavy on the autonomous PD weapons. PD SAMs and CIWS systems, but I think that Pioneer’s idea of a VLS system is riskier than it is beneficial.
The only time that I can see it being useful is in the event that most of the escorts in a conventional CBG are eliminated, through air attack, submarines, or surface combat. Then, the carrier would still have a way to protect itself. This, however, is an incredibly unlikely scenario. First of all, if the escorts are picked off by submarines or surface craft, then I would assume that those same assets would be responsible for taking out the carrier. In that event, a VLS would be of little utility in defending against seaborne threats. In the case of air attack, I see little likelihood that air attacks would target all of your dedicated AD ships first. The carrier is going to be the main target, it’s going to be the first to go.
To me, it’s like putting a VIP through special forces training and arming him with a submachine gun in order to better prepare for the possibility of an assassination attempt. It’s kind of silly. If anyone should try to take out a VIP, his best chances are to get down, get out of sight, get behind his bodyguards, and let them take the bullet if absolutely necessary, not get in a running gun battle with the enemy. The same holds true for a carrier. Its best defence is to get the planes off and shut everything else down, making like a hole in the water. Let the bodyguards do the shooting and take the bullets.
When it comes to weaponry, a carrier should be heavy on the PD systems, aircraft, and little else.
You want a modern day Lexington, Ise, or Kiev, go for it. I’ll stick to my Yorktown, Hiryu, and Admiral Gorshkov.
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeI read that, but I just figured that was a government umbrella organization that controls the missile design bureaus and manufacturers. Just like Rosonboronexport handles MiG and Sukhoi and Sukhoi handles Irkutsk and KnAAPO. For example, I was under the impression that all those missiles are being presented by Russia’s Tactical Missile Corp. even though the Kh-31 is a Zvezda product and the Kh-58 is Raduga.
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeDoes anyone know who the manufacturer of the Kh-38M is? Is is Zvezda, Raduga, or Vympel? Also, did anyone else notice the conspicuous absence (at least in the photos I’ve seen thus far) of the Su-39?
Logan Hartke
Logan Hartkeo 2 JetStar – scrap
No! These are classics. Keep in service? No, but hopefully they’ll get sold to a museum, get sold to a collector, or at least put on a pedestal. These need to be preserved somehow.
Logan Hartke
Logan Hartkei see more chances for the AMX than for the aircraft you mentioned, the AMX is one of the best options, however do not discount the JAS-39 Gripen already some mexican pilots have flown it in order to asses it. it was also rumourd the intyerest in the L-150
I certainly don’t. The AMX was never terribly popular, even with the air forces that decided to use it. Only the manufacturers use it. The L-159 is a more likely option than the AMX (I assume that’s what you meant by “L-150”?). The only way I can ever see the AMX happening is if Mexico expresses a serious interest in the ones that were going to go to Venezuela. I really, really don’t see that happening.
Furthermore, no where did I say a Mexican purchase of the L-15, M-346, or Yak-130 was the least bit likely. On the contrary, I doubt it is. I was just saying that I think that it would be one of their best options. My proposal of alternatives wasn’t in any way discounting the JAS-39, either, although I think it’s chances of being chosen are only slightly more likely.
I think that there are a lot of good options for Mexico, I just doubt they’ll spend the money on them. They’re more likely to just go with someone’s hand me downs or do nothing at all. They’ll probably buy a few more MPAs like more C-212, C-295, or ATR-72 type aircraft, then just wait till they need to finally take the F-5Es out of service in 5 or 10 years. After they leave service, they’ll go for a little while without and determine whether they need replaced at all.
Then again, this all depends on politics. Get some politicos in there that think Mexico needs serious combat aircraft, then the US will likely offer something so bargain basement, possibly used, that it’ll be the best deal in town, nobody else will even try, except Russia, just to tick off the US. The US will then apply a bit of political pressure and Mexico will pick some current US aircraft, either used F-16C/Ds or maybe even some new F-18E/Fs. Either way, politics will, like in every major procurement anymore, have far more to do with it than any actual mission requirements or merits of aircraft currently on the market.
That’s why I don’t bother with “likelihood”. That’s 90% politics, and I’m not here to talk politics. I’m here to talk aircraft.
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeAnd thats where the K-8 comes in. The F-5 is no longer produced, and buying 50 K-8s is way more cost effective than 10 Gripens. Youll end up with much better coverage with much lower operating costs.
Buying 50 K-8s is just a good way to lose more pilots. It’s not a bad aircraft, but increase the number of pilots by a factor of 5 is going to lose a lot more airmen. The L-15 might be a good option, however. It has the twin engines that would give the over water reliability (if that was desired), has the speed (Mach 1.4 clean), is advanced, cheap, easy-to-fly, and can be armed with everything that Mexico might need to get the job done.
It’s main downsides will be the fact that it’s made in China (although less politically negative than Russia), it’s not going to have a chance of dealing with anything more than a bizjet, it has even shorter legs than a Gripen with no current IFR capability, it’s not nearly as robust as say a Frogfoot, and it’s relatively untested. I don’t think I’d want to be its first export customer.
On that note, an Aermacchi M-346 or M-346K (or Yak-130, although it’s Russian, again) might not be a bad idea. It has all the capabilities necessary and is a nice platform to upgrade to something a bit tougher at a later date.
Yeah, the M-346 would probably be about perfect for Mexico. Keep everyone happy, get plenty of airframe hours to work with, get something advanced, docile, yet has some teeth. It’s got two engines, yet would have low operating costs. Furthermore, if you decide to upgrade to some Rafales or something like that later, you already have a cadre of modern fast jet pilots and a good advanced training platform. That might be perfect.
Logan Hartke
Sign In
