Small carrier concept

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Small carrier concept
french stratege 2/24/2007 6:54:04 AM

I think it is possible to propose a 1/1,2 billion € carrier able to handle STOBAR supersonic fighters : This carrier would be in the 30/33 000 tons area and about 220/240 meters long and would use arrested wire for landing. It would be able to launch E2C has E2C do not need catapult if using the full lenght of a carrier to take off with a sky jump assuming carrier above 20 knts.

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

french stratege 2/24/2007 7:19:32 AM

If we assume a width similar to french CdG with a stabilisation system ( but shorter in lentgh) it should be able to handle plane recovery and take off up to sea state 6.

When I observe existing carrier, we can see that internal hangar are too small.Space is sacrified to comfort of crew which benefit of enormous and unjustified space compared to frigates, subs or WW2 carrier, for no military use.

WW2 carrier have double deck hangar to carry more planes.

Such a carrier could easily have a better internal hangar (larger or double decked) to carry up to 25/30 planes internally plus 10/15 on the deck.for war missions(exemple: 3 E2C, 30 F18E or rafale in STOBAR versions, 3 helos)

People would critize STOBAR concept saying that plane performance is weakened by to low war load.

It is exact so I propose to compensate that by JATO like boosters to let plane to be use at maximum war load.

Indeed I calculate that a jettisonable booster would cost less than 20 000 $ (and probably 10 000) to let planes to be use above 20 tons.The booster would take place in centerline external point and deliver a thrust of likely 10 tons range during few seconds to add to trust engines before being jettissoned once plane reach its flying speed.It would cost only the price of a big dumb bomb since it would be very simple (steel and economic powder).

Those boosters would not need to be used for training as weight of plane is enough to handle AtoA combat , recovery and bombing training.

If we consider that a medium carrier can handle 120/100 sorties per day, a war month activity would likely generate 3000 sorties.

How much carriers has been doing as much war sorties at full load since Vietnam war?

British have done 2400 sorties in Falkland war with 3 carriers only.

A stock of 6000 boosters would be enough for almost all scenari and would cost not more than 60 to 120 m$ so LESS than the service cost life of a SINGLE catapult (crew, procurement price, maintenance..).

And even more if we consider the economy on landing front wheel of planes in mass and price.

Unfortunately , conservatism of navies and decision processes do not allow yet this concept to be implemented.

Quote Reply

EssexBoy Crew comfort 2/24/2007 7:39:37 AM

It's not just the CVF that has much higher planned standards of comfort for the crews - so will the T45s (when they finally enter service). I would think that the next class of frigates will be of a similar standard.

I think the submariners are the only lot who will continue to suffer.

Btw, I've asked before about why the proposed air group for the CVF (40) is so low compared to the size of the ship; do you think accommodation space is that important compared to space taken up by fuel and the magazines?

Quote Reply

Herald1234 RATO 2/24/2007 7:41:13 AM

1. damage to flight deck.
2. alley oop syndrome. Ever seen an aircraft flip over and cartwheel nose over tail, when lofted by RATOs when the flaps were UP? Ski ramp would have a similar effect.
3. Carrier is going to charge into dropped RATOs at 33 kmph? Smart?

Stick to catapults. There is a good reason that solution was adopted.

Carrier is still too small. Figure aircraft carrier rough rule of thumb is one modern 20 tonne aircraft for every 1000 tonnes of ship. Decent sized airgroup starts at 40 aircraft. CdG could actually have been built at 55,000 tonnes and given up a little speed and been a much better carrier at cost procured.

Herald

Quote Reply

Herald1234 Bunkspace 2/24/2007 7:45:39 AM

I think the submariners are the only lot who will continue to suffer.

You need the stowage and the work space. Crew comfort, despite what some think, has always been dead last in the USN list of ship design criteria.

CVF from what I've been able to tell will have a peacetime airgroup of about 40 aircraft; but will have a war reserve compliment of 60-65 potential.

Herald

Quote Reply

french stratege 2/24/2007 8:16:22 AM

1. damage to flight deck.

Not an issue than a PC engine if flow is parallel and not directed doward like classical rato rockets

2. alley oop syndrome. Ever seen an aircraft flip over and cartwheel nose over tail, when lofted by RATOs when the flaps were UP? Ski ramp would have a similar effect

.
Yes, I have seen RATO use in real.Sky ramp have a similar effect but the goal here is to get more acceleration at full load.

3. Carrier is going to charge into dropped RATOs at 33 kmph? Smart?

These RATO rocket are thrown in the sea like old steel cables used with older catapults and do not hurt hull.They are expandable as the cost effectiveness of whole system is OK .

Catapult are a legacy system and USA have money to get big carriers so it is not a concern for them.I was thinking of concept for smaller navies with limited budget which could pool their airforce and aeronaval forces to get a decent and more affordable aeronaval force in case of projecting their power .

On the CdG the two catapult system cost 300 m€.

Quote Reply

french stratege 2/24/2007 8:28:20 AM

Moreover I said that the booster assisted concept would be used only for sorties with full war bombing load.

Since it would complement sky jump and not substitute it.

It would almost not be used in peace time.

On space on board, it is absurd to to give too much comfort to the crew at expense of cost or military capabilities especially on hangar size.

What is achievable in a sub or a frigate, is achievable on a carrier.

Quote Reply

EssexBoy Herald 2/24/2007 8:40:31 AM

Apologies for hi-jacking this thread but..

"CVF from what I've been able to tell will have a peacetime airgroup of about 40 aircraft; but will have a war reserve compliment of 60-65 potential."

Where have you heard of an airgroup of this size? Everything I've read states that 40 is the maximum; normally 30 JSF, 4 AEW (of an undeterimined type) and 6 Helicopters. The plan is that if a larger airgroup is needed the will RN free up space by relying on helicopters on the LPD,LPH or ALSLs in the fleet. The airgroup would then be 36 JSF and 4 AEW. Which still seems crap for a 65,000T carrier.

Back to FS's initial thread.

The RN used to have a carrier (HMS Victorious) which was around 35,000 Tons but found it had a number of liabilities: mainly accident rate & limited airgroup. They weren't even interested in a proposed 40,000 Ton carrier with an airgroup of 24 fixed wing aircraft and a flight of helicopters. They pressed for something more capable, which was then cancelled, and ended up with the Invincible class.

I fear the RN/Mod are once again being overambitious (The saga of the CVF class is eerily close to the sorry story of the CVA of the '60s - right down to the dithering over the proposed aircraft) and I think they are going to be let down again.

I wish somebody in the early 1990s had said to BAE:

" We're giving you a budget of £3.5bn and we want you to build us two carriers. They must be able to fit into Portsmouth and Plymouth dockyards, and you must build them in one shipyard. The ships must operate Rafales or Super Hornets, Hawkeyes and Merlins - what's the best you can do?"

And then either order the bloody things or go to the yank shipyards (politically more acceptable than going to the French - sorry FS).

Quote Reply

EssexBoy 2/24/2007 8:54:24 AM

"On space on board, it is absurd to to give too much comfort to the crew at expense of cost or military capabilities especially on hangar size. What is achievable in a sub or a frigate, is achievable on a carrier."

That may well be true but the problem is recruiting enough men to serve on the ships. I doubt if many 18 year olds today would tolerate the living conditions on the old Ark Royal.

(My old man still has a mattress from the Ark (he bought it from the Army & Navy store when she was decomissioned) which he used when camping. It's tiny)

Quote Reply

french stratege 2/24/2007 9:27:43 AM

I doubt if many 18 year olds today would tolerate the living conditions on the old Ark Royal.

I don't think so .I think it is a quite overestimated problem.In subs or infantry they have even harsher conditions.

Even if space is few like in Ark royal, modern technologies like private flat screen for TV or air conditioning which is standard and nice decoration are still magnitude improvement.

Moreover basic training is done to ruggedized people.

People do not choice to enter in army or navy after having check if they benefit of a king size bed in their private four star room.LOL

Soldier too much accsutomed to comfort are bad soldiers and sailors.It is known for centuries since late Roman empire.

Quote Reply

EssexBoy 2/24/2007 9:42:48 AM

Why are Thales/BAe providing such decent conditions then? Do you think they are complete idiots? I would suggest that recruitment and retention rates are so bad now that the RN want to do everything to keep the troops happy.

Perhaps it's a Thales plot to make the RN buy a white elephant :-)

Quote Reply

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT