Planeman: well this certainly is due its accolades but as you did expect, someone out here did find a few faults with the data mentioned, it is a long and drawn out comparison but worth the read. I was disappointed by the lack of an outcome which would have been in my humble writings something along the lines of:-

In summing up a comparison of this nature, it would be basically remiss of any person to say that the options of a Carrier of this nature entails any user some measure of power projection is the simple fact of it’s shear presence and what it is capable of doing rather than what it has deployed with- this is certainly the case of the Sao Paulo (which regularly deploys simply to help the Argentinian Navy keep it’s carrier qualifications up to date, this bringing more Skyhawks and returns the Super Etendards back to this vessel), or in the case of the new British carriers who will deploy with air groups relivant to the missions empossed on the vessel.

It should also be reminded that even if a carrier is deployed on a mission, it may not be on a peace keeping or show of force mission, as with the case of Sao Paulo deploying to Haiti. Carriers of this size represent a lot of space and this space doesn’t need to be filled with planes and associated equipment, they do make ample space for relief supplies urgently needed in disaster zones such as the hurricane ravaged Caribbean. So while a carrier can flex the muscles of a nations might, it can also be the mercy bringer to people in need anywhere around the world with supplies coming in 24/7 (lets face it, there is very little civialian traffic or population around to complain about the noise, so supplies can come in all night and be sent out all day).

Like I said, that’s just a rough sum up of what I’d say.

Now for the few mistakes I did find and should point out.

Nimitz class aircraft carrier
Most of this class are still fitted with the 20mm Phalanx CIWS. I can’t remember which one or ones it is, but I know there is a multi layer defence system incorporating ESSM’s (using the same Sea Sparrow launcher but with four ESSM’s in one cell giving more shots per launcher, RAM’s and Phalanx as well (these systems are mounted with the Phalanx lower on the rails and the RAM’s behind them in opposing quarters with the ESSM launchers on the other corners.

070709-N-9079D-007 PACIFIC OCEAN (July 9, 2007) – One of three close-in weapons systems (CIWS) aboard Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) fires test rounds during a routine training exercise. Lincoln departed her homeport of Everett, Wash., for a scheduled work-up after spending a week in port following sea trials and a nine-month dry-dock planned incremental availability. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Ronald A. Dallatorre (RELEASED)

Atlantic Ocean (Nov. 3, 2005) – The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), foreground, sails alongside the Military Sealift Command (MSC) fast combat support ship USNS Artic (T-AOE 8) as it conducts an underway replenishment with USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75). Truman and Eisenhower are currently underway in the Atlantic Ocean conducting ammunition offloads and underway replenishments. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 3rd Class Kristopher WilsonIf you look carefully at this pic you can see the the dual inner system I was talking about on the Ike with the Phalanx tilted almost vertically just below the RAM on the aft Starboard quarter.

ATLANTIC OCEAN (March 19, 2008) The Combat Systems Department aboard the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) fires the ship’s Phalanx close-in weapons system (CIWS). Theodore Roosevelt and embarked Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 8 are conducting tailored ship’s training availability and final evaluation problem (TSTA/FEP). U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Christopher Mason (Released) Note the Sea Sparrow launcher behind the Phalanx.

NAe São Paulo
As mentioned in my version of a conclusion, Sao Paulo is regularly deployed with elements of the Armada Argentina to keep that services qualifications up to a modest level, the last two joint excercises were ARAEX and TEMPEREX.

Argentine Navy Grumman S-2T Turbo Tracker onboard brazilian aircraft carrier NAeL Sao Paulo, during exercise TEMPEREX 2002, off the brazilian coast.Photo taken and donated by Rob Schleiffert.

HAL Tejas
In your summary of India’s future carrier, you mention that she will deploy with Mig-29K’s, while this is pure speculation as only one batch of 12 Fulcrums have been ordered, one has to ask where the Naval Tejas has gone from your article? Considering that this aircraft will include a high degree of Air to Ground capability, it might come as a logical conclusion that future IN carrier opps could include deployment of 6 Fulcrums and 6 Tejas N’s giving a true multi role capability. Though another more probable conclusion is that the IN will follow suit and deploy aircraft as needed on it’s carriers.

This brings me to my final point, the indigenous carrier program was meant to be for at least three vessels allowing for one on each coast and one in dock (this assumes that the last carrier to be built will replace the Vikramaditya which will have just about run out of time by then).

Anyway mate again it is an interesting article and well worth the read given the time spent going over it.

Where are you getting this about Osprey as a support jammer for a fastjet strike package?

Logical conclusion- I know I’d at least try to make a system like this. Sure there is a speed difference but given that the Osprey can change flight modes think of what it can mimmick- Charter turbo prop flights, SAR helo on station, news chopper- the point I am making here is that on radar, it fits the profile (sorta like a B-52 flying a Civilian 747 route- on radar who can tell the difference)?

Where did you hear that TOSS was going to demand a pressurised cabin for V-22. It was my understanding that the whole concept of TOSS is that its a rapid-fit pallet to a stock V-22 for organic ISTAR support as and when required. Hardly tracks with having specialised airframes?.

I hadn’t heard that the TOSS was going to be a “Quick fit”, I had however heard that this was being proposed as part of a package to find a replacement for the Hawkeye and Greyhounds as well as the Viking (in both Tanker Support and Fixed Wing ASW roles). Given that the Hawkeyes need to be pressurised due to the height that they fly at, my assumption came as logic (remember the Hawkeye equation- Height equals distance, logice dictates that the same equation would apply to the TOSS system)!

How many EV-22 would be needed on a carrier for 24/7 ops, taking into account the Osprey struggles to achieve 60% mission capable rate?

Given that this is a new type of system and that it is still being refined this is actually a very high missions rate success, the nextgen of V-22, the V-X will be far superior when it comes because we’d have a better understanding of how the system works- Look at the Bell P-59 Airacomet, how bad a performance did it have- compare that now with Jets today and you see what I mean, give technology time to mature and then things work!

As for how many would be needed, depends on size of the carrier and operational profile! France are doing it with three E-2C’s.

The main thing I wish to point out here is that my EV-22 is a theoretical, but logical adaption for a small carrier such as what is being proposed here in this thread.

Merchant ‘carrier’ conversion studies were carried out in the US and in the UK. The British program was called SCADS and the US had their ARAPAHO concept.

This is not actually a new idea- During WW2 Merchant vessels were converted into emergency carriers called Merchant Aircraft Carrier (MAC) ships. The British converted 19 vessels to this standard.

Actually the whole thing is based on two points, one which is covered already: Could the Hawkeye handle the stress of a rocket launch- answer= not really.

It’s not so much the stress on the airframe you have to consider but rather the stress on the supports holding the radar on to the frame. These attachment points are actually kinda weak compared to the rest of the aircraft. The question of weather the electronics could handle the stress is another point stemming from this question.

The other point I wish to make here is cost. Having these rockets is ok but they do cost a fair bit, here is a break down of their standard operation and then I’ll let you work out the costs involved:

[INDENT]

[/INDENT]

As you can imagine, Rockets do become cost prohibative after a few uses.

It’s a nice idea but feesably unrealistic.