Aircraft Carrier Ideas and Inspiration

[GTX_Admin]

The problem with relying upon land based patrol for a sea based combat group is transit time. A 4 or 6 plane element on a carrier can keep 1 or 2 aircraft on patrol pretty continuously. To do that in the middle of the Atlantic (much less the Pacific) with land based P3 or P8s wold require a lot more aircraft as they would be spending an inordinate amount of time transiting to the patrol area. Not only does it drastically increase the number of aircraft required in the fleet, but those assets are very vulnerable if transiting, all alone, anywhere near the bad guys, which they probably would be.

This is where the MQ-9C Triton as developed under the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program comes in.  It's 30 odd hr endurance and capabilities allow it and other platforms such as P-8s to complement each other to ensure the necessary surveillance coverage is provided.

Moreover, please don't fall into the mistake of thinking that these platforms are primarily ASW platforms.  These platforms (like the P-3 and others) probably spend more time doing ASuW.

[tankmodeler]

This is where the MQ-9C Triton as developed under the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program comes in.  It's 30 odd hr endurance and capabilities allow it and other platforms such as P-8s to complement each other to ensure the necessary surveillance coverage is provided.

As long as you're not expending anything like sonobouys as part of the oversight, then a 30 hr endurance is good, but these things don't have a lot of payload capability, by and large.

Moreover, please don't fall into the mistake of thinking that these platforms are primarily ASW platforms.  These platforms (like the P-3 and others) probably spend more time doing ASuW.

Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that old S-3s were not primarily ASW or are you talking about the current plans for using P-8s? Certainly at the moment the P-3s and P-8s do a lot of ASuW/recce patrolling, but in s a wartime situation, CVBGs need a ton of ASW support and this is where I think that a dedicated wing of ASW aircraft is bot lacking and needed by the USN (and most other navies, for that matter).

Paul

[kitnut617]

Now that the F-35 is beginning to strut it's stuff, the current Canadian Government is now trying to welch on another campaign promise (IMHO). Seems that the ongoing spat between Boeing and the Government means that the F-18E/F deal is quickly going sour. This brings me to something I thought back some months ago would be a good idea. The RCN need a bunch of new ships and I thought the route Australia has taken with HMAS Canberra and Adelaide would be ideal for Canada too, but swap some of the F-35A's Canada is supposed to be signing on to, for some F-35B's and take the Spanish route with their similar carrier.

But what is wrong with these carriers ?

[GTX_Admin]

But what is wrong with these carriers ?

One could comment "Is there anything wrong...".  That aside though, it depends upon your context:

• Are we talking about technical aspects of the designs themselves?
• Are we talking about their size?
• Are we talking about their suitability for role - need to define target role(s)?
• Are we talking about their suitability for Canada?
• Other?

[kitnut617]

But what is wrong with these carriers ?

One could comment "Is there anything wrong...".  That aside though, it depends upon your context:

• Are we talking about technical aspects of the designs themselves?

Well I read a while ago, both the Australian ones have some sort of engine problem. Googling it doesn't reveal very much except the Spanish one also has problems, although not the same problem.  But there seems to be some design flaw in them -----

The whole concept of the ship would suit a Canadian role very well I think, the RCAF have got their C-17's to get the response teams to wherever quickly without going to the 'neighbours' to ask for a ride. Having your own support ships to take your own people for same said response (with military aircraft if needed) seems to me to follow the same line.

[tankmodeler]

Well, neither of the Aussie ships are carriers, to begin with. They are LHDs, amphibious assault craft designed to support a landing with helos only. They are not equipped for fixed wing aviation either organic or visiting. The decks, to be specific are not up to the F-35s exhaust as a start. In addition there is significant internal volume given over to the carriage of a battalion of troops and their vehicles plus the well deck to operate up to 4 LCMs.

As to what's wrong with them it appears that they have engine problems, I believe partially caused buy the wrong lubricants being used on both of them. So it seems like an institutional rather than individual issue. Not sure if the wrong lubricants were specified by the maker, were specified by the maintenance operator, were supplied incorrectly by the lube maker or it was just a training/usage error.

But apparently the damage is significant requiring reasonably significant repair time on each ship.

As for Canada operating an F-35 capable version of this sort of ship, I don't see it as being remotely needed. Our doctrine does not have us putting troops in over contested beaches in an amphibious assault, ever. When we land troops on an operation it's always in to secure ports/airports. In which case normal sealift is a much better/cheaper choice.

Add to that that we can't find the crews to man what ships we have and further add the exorbitant costs of training and operating an even smaller number of a different version of the F-35 (one that will have, no doubt, a higher rate of accidents) and it's a total non-starter.

[GTX_Admin]

a different version of the F-35 (one that will have, no doubt, a higher rate of accidents)

Based upon what??

[GTX_Admin]

As for a Canadian need for such ships, it really depends on the proposed role etc.  Please note the RAN's official roles for these ships:

 - To embark, transport and deploy an embarked force (Army in the case of the ADF but could equally be an allied Army or Marines), along with their equipment and aviation units, and
 - To carry out/support humanitarian missions.

Both would be equally useful to the Canadian interest I would imagine.

More info on the RAN ships here

[kengeorge]

Questions, what is the deck width of an angled deck? Are all the US Navy carriers have the same width or are they different and is there a limit on wingspan for carrierborne aircraft?
At the moment all I can find out with any confidence is the angled decks vary from 9deg to 14deg but not the width of them, although they must be wide enough to accept a C-2 which has a span of 80 ft 7 in (24.60 m).
Could anyone shed light on this or guide me towards the relevent websites?

[tankmodeler]

a different version of the F-35 (one that will have, no doubt, a higher rate of accidents)

Based upon what??

A combination of known higher than average accident rates with Harriers when operated in the vertical mode coupled with the fact that the F-35 B doesn't have a 2 seat trainer version for transitional training, both of which suggest an eventual problem rate higher than equivalent conventional aircraft. The Harrier did have 2 seaters and still have a higher than average crash rate. Couple that with the very small buy and you're looking at a potential issue with proficiency and the rate of pilot training.

If we only buy 8-12 Bs, we're going to lose some and given the very small total buy, that's not really a sensible way to spend money.

You don't need much of a problem at very low altitude and zero knots to have to punch out.

But those are my opinions and everyone's got one. Doesn't really matter, we're not getting Bs.

Paul

[tankmodeler]

Questions, what is the deck width of an angled deck? Are all the US Navy carriers have the same width or are they different and is there a limit on wingspan for carrierborne aircraft?
At the moment all I can find out with any confidence is the angled decks vary from 9deg to 14deg but not the width of them, although they must be wide enough to accept a C-2 which has a span of 80 ft 7 in (24.60 m).
Could anyone shed light on this or guide me towards the relevent websites?

If you go to the likes of Wikipedia and look up a carrier's beam, you will frequently get two numbers. The larger is the maximum width across the flight deck and the smaller one is the width of the hull at the widest point.

Paul

[GTX_Admin]

known higher than average accident rates with Harriers when operated in the vertical mode

Comparing to a completely different design that used technology some 40odd yrs older....hmmm  hardly a fair comparison.

coupled with the fact that the F-35 B doesn't have a 2 seat trainer version for transitional training, both of which suggest an eventual problem rate higher than equivalent conventional aircraft.

Or one could accept the fact that modern simulators are far, far more capable than what they used to be.  Coupled with the more modern technology of the platform itself I think people are overplaying the two seat trainer issue.  Sounds a bit like the old argument of open cockpits...

https://youtu.be/uHkpfc4gGX8

Couple that with the very small buy and you're looking at a potential issue with proficiency and the rate of pilot training.

Once again, people are looking to the past when it comes to things such as the pilot training issue.

[GTX_Admin]

Putting things in perspective...

[kitnut617]

What was the occasion Greg, there's an F-35 on the ski jump

[GTX_Admin]

I believe it was from the official HMAS Queen Elizabeth naming back in 2014.

[Old Wombat]

I believe it was from the official HMAS Queen Elizabeth naming back in 2014.

We-ell, she should be!

[kitnut617]

I believe it was from the official HMAS Queen Elizabeth naming back in 2014.

We-ell, she should be!

I spotted that too, must be a 'seniors' moment 

[GTX_Admin]

Doh!  I let out an international secret...forget what you saw.  Nobody is supposed to know about the sale of the carrier to Australia yet...

[tankmodeler]

known higher than average accident rates with Harriers when operated in the vertical mode

Comparing to a completely different design that used technology some 40odd yrs older....hmmm  hardly a fair comparison.

It's not that, it's due to the higher workload managing the extra things that have to happen in the cockpit in a VTOL situation. Automation has taken care of a lot, but not everything.

coupled with the fact that the F-35 B doesn't have a 2 seat trainer version for transitional training, both of which suggest an eventual problem rate higher than equivalent conventional aircraft.

Or one could accept the fact that modern simulators are far, far more capable than what they used to be.  Coupled with the more modern technology of the platform itself I think people are overplaying the two seat trainer issue.  Sounds a bit like the old argument of open cockpits...

https://youtu.be/uHkpfc4gGX8

Simulators are great and get you a lot of the way there, but several air forces that have been cutting back on actual flying time as budgets are reduced, including the USAF, are starting to see an uptick in accidents. Actual stick time does matter.

Couple that with the very small buy and you're looking at a potential issue with proficiency and the rate of pilot training.

Once again, people are looking to the past when it comes to things such as the pilot training issue.
[/quote]
No, as I said above, actual stick time does matter. Simulators don't do everything.

But, in the end, we'll see how it all works out. Maybe I'm wrong.

Paul

[Volkodav]

Wow, just wow!

I just came across a cabinet memo in the Australian national archive referencing a report I am reading referencing the defmins inquiry into the way forward after the UKs decision to retain Invincible post Falklands.

NAA A10756, LC3015
Replacement Aircraft Carrier for HMAS Melbourne [Submission Nos. 4305, 5234, 5318, 5322, 5333, 5338 and 5354 refer]

Invincible, Garabaldi, modified LPH, SCS, modified merchant ship options etc. I knew existed, but didn't realise we were revisiting all of them and I had no idea a conventionally powered CdG and a Ctol LHA/LHD (Tarawa/Wasp) existed let alone were being looked at!  The CTOL option were expected to offset their greater acquisition cost by saving money operating existing types, including F/A-18s.

[GTX_Admin]

Hmmm...a RAN FAA F/A-18A would be a nice subtle whiff.

[Volkodav]

Hmmm...a RAN FAAF/A-18 A would be a nice subtle whiff.

How freaky to discover the axle deck CTOL LHA derived CVS we were speculating about was actually a genuine proposition!

[GTX_Admin]

Was aware of - it is mentioned in this book I believe:

[Volkodav]

Was aware of - it is mentioned in this book I believe:

I have that book but it doesn't mention the cat equipped LHA just a "modified" one with 50 helicopters and harriers.  There may have been an earlier mention of an LHA derived CVS with cats in the text from prior to the 1980 decision to shortlist V/STOL carriers only but I don't recall it.

I find it interesting that the US is now looking at an axle deck cat equipped CVS, most likely based on the America class LHA.

[GTX_Admin]

Ah, maybe my mind is playing tricks on me - unfortunately, my copy is packed away at the moment so I can't check.

Are you able to post the Reports (or parts thereof) that you have found?