Could be done.  Limits carrier's effective range to some distance away from the land base.  How quickly is the effectiveness of the carrier reduced if its deck gets cluttered with broken airplanes that can't be fixed at sea?  If the number of aircraft that can be pushed forward by using the lilypad is dependent on say a 15 or 30 minute turn time to clear the deck for other aircraft, you almost guaranteed to run into the situation where the deck is fouled, some aircraft aren't taking off, and aircraft are either ditching or getting thrown into the sea.

 

My issue with small carriers is that a dozen or so aircraft do not an air force make.  It would only be effective against an opponent with no air force at all.  So you end up with this expensive asset that a) is a huge target, b) not really effective unless supported by land based tactical aircraft, so just buy more land based aircraft.

Take the Australia example. The LHD's its buying could easily hold up to 24 F-35's, each, they have huge hangers nearly as large as the CVF's. Its buying two of them. It hasn't commited to any F-35's (or any mention of B's) but is looking at near 100.

 

 It has plenty of land based aircraft, but limited refueling assets. It doesn't have to project far, just far enough. It could sit between far flung regional bases and the Australian mainland or simular.

 

 Utilising it like this frees up refuelers to allow more aircraft into the combat zone, quicker rearming for atleast the STOVL aircraft. So its not just 12 aircraft operating, but an additional 12 aircraft that can be rearmed quicker. Or stay closer to area than refuelled aircraft so can respond quicker. If Australia is able to refuel say 12-24 additional aircraft thats a pretty strong punch. Including in that is Wedgetails, EA-18 growlers, SH, F-35A' combined with 12 F-35B's.

 

 

No special facilities needed for maintenance for several months. Enough hangar space and movable support equipment will be enough for most situations. Almost everything on a modern aircraft can be changed in field conditions. Battle damage is what needs special (metal and composite working etc) facilities. Jacking up an aircraft on rough seas could be problematic, but I don't know how that is done at larger carriers.

What may be a limiting factor is availability of enough suitable storage space for fuel munitions.

which is what I've been trying to say on other boards.  if you want to have it providing sustained ops as a pretend aircraft carrier, then there are bunkerage design issues.

you could use a hospital ship as a troop carrier, a container ship for ferry etc..... but an LHA design is designed for its primary tasking. to make it effective for a role change immediately raises issues of jet fuel storage, guided weapons separation and storage, armoured weapons bays etc etc..... - and all of those have to be positioned so as to maximise the speed of delivery of the fixed wing combat aircraft to the deck. This is compounded by the amount and placement of available lifts.

 

The primary role changes the internal layout and immediately degrades the layout of any secondary taskings.

 

Thats why the spanish are saying "either - or" at primary build.

gf - am curious about your thoughts on a carrier that carried a high percentage of UAVs.  

curious, just like DB ;)

 

Are they little spy UAVs?  Or are they big unmanned manned aircraft UCAVs?  Are they being launched occasionally or engaging in prolonged surge operations?   If it's a few spy UAVs launched once in a while, they do that now from tugboats.  If it's big high density UCAVs surging, all of the issues of using manned aircraft apply.

Certainly it can't do everything perfectly, and it would really struggle filling more than one role at a time.

 

 Does anyone have how much aviation fuel the BPE can hold? I would imagine temporay tanks could be fitted if the additional pipework was added. Proberly not a bad idea, operating half a dozen Chinooks and Tigers would be pretty thirsty stuff.

sorry for the delay in answering, I'd actually not revisited this post for the last few days so missed your note.

 

the big issue is what UAV's are carried. 

 

eg if we're looking at  strike, then the current crop are close to 3/4's the size of an F-16, and pretty damn close to being as big as a Scooter.   In real terms I'd be really curious as what the launch rate differences would be - I suspect that the manned aircraft would be vollied at a faster rate.

 

the next issue for me is what kind of missions are they likely to be used for, eg long range strike/penetration, or short range.  If they're long range then there is an issue of refueling, and that means dramatic changes in UCAV/UAV weight, software changes, tactics (eg, software enabling them to form up and flock while refueling and then all going off as a strike package rather than dribbling off singly, the problems are not too dissimilar to those faced with delivering manned packages of STOBAR or VTOL manned combat aircraft.  ie forming up and refueling is slower than a CATOBAR, so time is lost to target etc...

 

I agree there is a future for UAVs on carriers, but IMO there are a few doctrine issues to sort out yet.  My view is that flights of UAV's would be "mothered" by a 2 seater such as a Growler or by an AWACs (and that means that AWACs would by association start to have a more complicated role as they would become a different type of battlespace manager (more of a compass or rivet role).  It begs the question (if its a 2 seater fixed wing combat aircraft like the Shornet) what software solution will be available for JSF, as any combat aircraft with a backseater is going to be better at hive management)

 

Too many questions for me though at the moment....