Light carrier and cheap fleet air arms solution

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

WarNerd 4/9/2011 3:43:16 AM

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?

Only if the enemy is too weak to have an air force, navy, or ASMs. The Somali pirates would be about right.

Helicopters and CV-22 would be enough then.

Yes, a single ship will cost less to maintain than a battle group.

Frankly, the ship's capabilities sound a lot like a Iwo Jima class LPH, or a Tarawa class LHA with the marine compliment deleted.

Quote Reply

ker 4/9/2011 5:21:17 AM

Improvements in land based aircraft most importantly range are reducing the usefulness of smaller cv. Posible improvements in helocopters and tiltrotter options take another bite out of the mission set of a smaller jet launching ship.

Any ship desighn deadecated to use against enemys with out anti-ship missles can not be used if a third party actor in the area has anti-ship missles and a desire to make trouble. The range of anti-ship missles or missle boats determines the size of the that must be safe. You are left with very few missions that can be done by the ship that can not be done by land based forces.

New helo like UAV desighns that could increase the number of Air craft oporating from ships that carry one or two helos now could be a better use of resources.

Quote Reply

Shawnc 4/9/2011 12:07:29 PM

Why would the USN need light carriers when they already have 9 LHA/LHD amphibious assault ships in service?

I'd rather consider if there was a chance that the two retired Tarawa LHAs could be sold to another navy and refitted. In this regard, lets assume that the F-35B is either cancelled or too expensive, what would a navy's options be?

How about an extensive refit similar to that of the INS Vikramaditya that includes a ski-jump, angled flightdeck and arrestor gear - there's certainly plenty of space in a Tarawa LHA that could be used for the arrestor machinery. This would then create a 40,000 ton carrier/dock ship that's capable of operating light fighters like the navalized Gripen and possibily UCAVs that do not need to be catapulted off a deck.

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?

Only if the enemy is too weak to have an air force, navy, or ASMs. The Somali pirates would be about right.

Helicopters and CV-22 would be enough then.

Yes, a single ship will cost less to maintain than a battle group.

Frankly, the ship's capabilities sound a lot like a Iwo Jima class LPH, or a Tarawa class LHA with the marine compliment deleted.

Quote Reply

heraldabc 4/9/2011 2:03:53 PM

Quote Reply

heraldabc 4/9/2011 2:04:44 PM

NOT worth the cost to modify.

Quote Reply

JTR~~ Royal Navy UCAV carrier 4/9/2011 2:42:59 PM

In the future, UCAV might change the game.

If so the UK appears to have the head start. BAE systems have had designs out in the open for some time now concerning the UXV combatant project. Only recently however notions have been circling that this ship (as i had hoped) will indeed go into production and will see service with the Royal Navy around the 2020 period (same time frame as the FCS project and Type 26 Frigate derivatives).
For all those unaware of this project as of yet is conceptualised to be a UCAV/USV/and unmanned land vehicles. i will have a V shaped runway possibly utilising EMAL catapults. it is also rumoured to feature some form of moon pool for the launch of USV. The hull itself is that used on the Type 45 to allow for commonality and reduced costs. The crew compliment will be around 60 personnel with adequate space for housing an amphibious compliment (Royal Marine detachment)

I?m terms of power (the paper design at least) packs a heavy weight punch, the list is as follows:

1 X 155mm AGS

2 X Mark 110 CIWS

4 X Missile based CIWS (possibly a RIM variant)

Unknown number of TLAM missiles

ASROC

20 X Mk 57 VLS (totalling 80 missiles of various compositions as of yet unconfirmed)

admittedly as of yet all of this is speculative, however it will be a UCAV carrier, it will be multi role, it will be able to support small scale independent amphibious operations and it will be in service at some point, most likely candidate as mentioned is the Royal Navy, and if all is as it seems the RN will be the first to have the form of dedicated capability and with it I would assume a world leading edge. However, this being a MoD project it will either enter service late, or will not be accepted at all, or will enter service in either small numbers or most likely with a severely reduced capability.

would be interesting to hear some of your thoughts on this concept

here are some links i could find for all those interested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UXV_Combatant

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2008-02/warships-tomorrow

http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/Newsreleases/autoGen_107810163127.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/09/18/216843/bae-systems-stealth-ship-concept-to-operate-unmanned-systems.html

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2007/09/mothership-design-for-royal-navy.html

here are some pictures too:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cys2T5FgJdo/RunWKMA0trI/AAAAAAAAAmY/ig3Xp7RdTIQ/s1600/readramp.jpg" />

http://f00.inventorspot.com/images/UXV2.img_assist_custom.jpg" width="425" height="283" alt="" />

Quote Reply

AThousandYoung 4/9/2011 5:35:07 PM

And the runways provide lift!

Well, it looks like they do. They look like wings.

Quote Reply

heraldabc 4/9/2011 6:49:20 PM

And the runways provide lift!

Well, it looks like they do. They look like wings.

Again perceptive. Cross wind launch recovery operations are things that those idiots never conceived as a design problem?

Quote Reply

LB Not Realistic 4/10/2011 3:46:38 AM

That thing will never be built. There's too many design problems to count. Nations that begin with that graduate to through deck or full deck and that's just for helo operations. See pattern of Japanese asw destroyers to full deck and Moskva class to Kiev and finally full deck.

Just to point out one issue unless those UCAV are landing vertically the whole thing is a non starter to begin with.

The USN plans to have a fighter sized UCAS in service in 2018 with carrier trials in 2013. It could beat the F-35C into service. See UCAS-D and X-47B.

Given how expensive development is it would be surprising if Europe developed a similar carrier UCAS. One should expect to see the UK and France purchase this aircraft in small numbers at some point. This is not to say Europe can't do it, it's just too small a production run to be economical. See France operating E-2's and UK F-35. Rafale is the last French only fighter they're going to build.

Quote Reply

WarNerd 4/10/2011 5:29:35 AM

Just to point out one issue unless those UCAV are landing vertically the whole thing is a non starter to begin with.

There is also no room in it for a aircraft hanger and the stern launch bay and the moon pool. They just kitbashed every possible thing into it. Expect some major volume and weight growth.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT