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: Light carrier and cheap fleet air arms solution
YelliChink    4/5/2011 12:29:47 PM
Could an Independence-class be any useful to deal with weak enemy or interventionist operations? Will it cost less than maintaining and operating full size carrier battle group? There's an article on USNI Proceedings recently, calling for the revival of light carriers (around 20,000t). The problem is that, to make a viable carrier today, the full displacement would still be around 30,000t, which is exactly the size of CDG. That is not "light" at all. So the viable alternatives are: Use smaller and much less-capable aircrafts such as A-4SU and something similar to navalized F-20. Or use a fleet of UCAV. Light carriers will not be able to operate E-2, and air-refueling capability will be limited. Thus this concept requires land-based aircraft such as E-3 and KC-135 to provide support. Is it really a viable option at all?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
YelliChink       5/24/2011 8:59:24 PM
 
Saab has described its Sea Gripen as an "ideal replacement for existing fleets and new [aircraft] carrier nations", and named Brazil and India as possible future customers. The concept was first explored around five years ago, and sources have said that the aircraft would be suitable for use on vessels with a displacement as low as 25,000t. Deliveries could be made from 2018.
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    That 25,000 Ton Limit...   5/25/2011 11:02:43 AM
Refers to the capacity to accommodate the aircraft, on deck or in a hangar, and the volume to support an engine capable of moving the ship to provide wind-over deck, is my bet...
 
You put a "Sea-Gripen" on a 25,000 Ton ship and you have a small number of aircraft, on a ship with limited endurance and survivability, with a very limited ordnance capacity...which drive up costs, because the ship needs a larger number of oilers, and ammunition ships to keep it "topped up"...I believe the Nimitz can operate 2 Alpha Strikes per day for  a week...smaller carriers generally operate 1-2 days on station and 1 day off....
 
Lastly, "Sea Gripen?"  Really??? Will it be as useful as the Seafire?  UNLESS an a/c has been designed from the outset for carrier operations the history of speaks poorly for them.  A Sea Gripen is going to heavier, slower, and less capable than it's Gripen counter-part.  All things being equal, I'd sure choose an F/A 18 or a Super Hornet before a Gripen.
 
Quote    Reply

AThousandYoung       5/26/2011 2:30:07 AM
I don't think the F-18 (or F-4) was designed for carrier ops.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       5/26/2011 5:05:14 AM

I don't think the F-18 (or F-4) was designed for carrier ops.
The F-4 was developed for the Navy and Marine Corp, then adopted by the Air Force.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Dood....   5/26/2011 12:10:17 PM
the F/A-18 and the F-4 were DESIGNED for the US Navy and Marines Corps...their performance warranted their acquisition by land-based forces.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

AThousandYoung       5/26/2011 2:01:54 PM

the F/A-18 and the F-4 were DESIGNED for the US Navy and Marines Corps...their performance warranted their acquisition by land-based forces.
Oops about the F-4.  What I meant about the F-18 was that it is a modification of the Air Force Light Fighter competitor for the F-16.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    And....   5/26/2011 3:13:47 PM
Oops about the F-4.  What I meant about the F-18 was that it is a modification of the Air Force Light Fighter competitor for the F-16.
 
Built for the US NAVY and US Marine Corps...it was a NAVALIZED YF-17.  The F/A-18 was built, purposefully, for a NAVAL role...it is true it's genesis was the Lightweight fighter competition between the YF-16 and the YF-17.  It was decent enough multi-role platform that a number of Air Forces purchased it.   Just like the F-4.
 
Quote    Reply

scholar    UCAVs   5/26/2011 4:48:47 PM
UCAVs and drones make smaller carriers more feasible, esp. as they might replace AWACS and Prowler requirements and clear up badly needed space. Even the old Invincible would be awfully useful right now off the coast of Libya.   Of course, the question of cost effectiveness is different.  Remember that while the UK clearly wants to build bigger ships than its old CVs, it finds that it is struggling to afford to.  Maybe, in the end, a smaller vessel would have been more affordable, and maybe a carrier with limited capabilities is better than no carrier at all.
 
An interesting note: the French are working on an anti-mine project in which an unmanned mother ship operates unmanned underwater vehicles.  This is the future.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/26/2011 5:30:19 PM

An interesting note: the French are working on an anti-mine project in which an unmanned mother ship operates unmanned underwater vehicles.  This is the future.

US, UK have been trialling similar for the last 6 years.  The US started in 2004

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Scholar   5/27/2011 9:41:47 AM
What the Lord gives, the Lord takes away....True, an UAV AEW would be smaller than it's manned counter-part, but how much smaller?  The E-2C is fairly large because of it's radar, power systems, processing systems, and fuel requirements, not simply because it carries 5 crew....AND though the plane may be smaller, and hence a smaller hangar/deck foot print, the SHIP will be larger.  What those 5 crew do is PROCESS INFORMATION, in the air, with the finest computer we have-the human brain.  No UAV can do that, so the UAV will be sending it's data back to the ship for processing, via Battle Management Systems and humans, and so now the carrier will have to have a work space for the crew, rather than the aircraft.  One way or another an AEW craft will have to have room for 4-5 people, either on the carrier or on the E-2C...
 
 
And the same applies to ECM/Growlers....humans decide what to target and how...so even if the receiver/transmitter is unmanned there will be humans in the loop, and the best place for those humans is on the ship, not Nellis AFB...
 
Are UCAVS coming yes, are they useful, yes, do they replace human flight crews, no...and hence provisions have to be made for human crew, on board. 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics