Aircraft Carrier Ideas and Inspiration

[Volkodav]

For countering MiG-21's, Northrop's N-285B would be perfect.  It was designed as a trainer/light fighter for the USN to deal with their criticisms of the F-5/T-38 for carrier duty and would serve admirably.

Just reading back over the thread and saw this post again which has given me an idea.   

When CVA01 was cancelled and the RN started evaluating their existing carriers for Phantomisation.  It  rapidly became clear that two of the RNs three most recently modernised carriers, Hermes and Victorious were too small for Phantom and were already marginal for Buccaneer, leaving only Eagle and Ark Royal. 

One study I have read about had recommended that Hermes would be a far more capable proposition with a homogenous air-group of three squadrons of A-4 Skyhawks than she would ever be with Phantom, or Sea Vixen and Buccaneer.  This got me thinking along the lines of not only the A-4 but the Etendard, Super Etendard, Jaguar, even a navalised Mirage F1 for both Hermes and Victorious.  That the Phantoms and Buccaneers could be transferred to the RAF and Eagle could simply operate the same aircraft as the smaller carriers and Ark could be retired.

Then on re-reading this it occurred to me, imagine if the RN was looking at the N-285B as a trainer to support the new Phantoms to be operated from CVA01 and upon the cancelation of the new carrier the RN engaged Northrop to develop / co-develop the N-285B as a more capable fighter attack aircraft to serve on the RNs existing modernised carriers through the 1970s and possibly into the 80s?

This would remove the need for the Invincibles and perhaps see the RN operating surplus USN Trackers and Tracers in-addition to the Northrop fighters, re-tasking their carriers as CVS.  Possibly, just possibly the RN could then justify a new class of CTOL CVS in the mid 80s while Northrop develops an improved F-404 powered version of the N-285B.

[dy031101]

I've thought about it just a little bit more......

Actually another thought comes to mind.  Realising that the opening salvo in any war with the mainland would result in the destruction of all their military airbases Taiwan takes the decision to base the majority of their airpower and a substantial part of their high end offensive land forces off shore in carrier battle groups, amphibious groups and sea bases, supplemented by as many high end SSGs as they can lay their hands on.  What remains on Taiwan is protected by a multi tier defensive missile shield bought from Israel and offensive, retaliatory systems including dozens of land based AGS (155mm gun mounts used on DDG 1000), and thousands of converted ER Standard ARMs to attack PRCs land based radars.  Everything on the islands would be hardened to survive a first strike and retaliate, while the CBGs would launch pin point strikes against targets of opportunity in the PRC.

One question would be a successor carrier fighter to the Harriers.  The US might still not have been thrilled at the idea of selling the F-35B or assisting the ROCN in transitioning to STOBAR unless some evidence is there suggesting that if they don't make that money, someone else will.

PRC's ability to threaten Taiwan (or anything else beyond its own shores, for that matter) without the use of nuclear weapons did not become anywhere near significant until the beginning of the 2000s.  Granted, other items that could work in your scenario would fall into places around that point as well.

Assuming ROCN did acquire an ex-RN commando carrier with Sea Harriers (like I said, it'd have to start early), would such a change of defense strategy have meant expansion of Sea Harrier fleet or outright replacement with Harrier II?  Maybe the ROC and the UK could have jointly funded the Harrier II + Blue Vixen combo.

As for the aviation cruisers themselves, expect the ROCN to pick the cheapest Harrier carrier template for the job and then try to cram as many weapons on it as possible.  I was initially thinking a Sea Control Ship a.k.a. Principe de Asturias derivative...... how much more heavily-armed could this template be though......

[dy031101]

The thought continued......

By early 2000s, the ROC would have access to SM-2MR, tactical-length Mk.41 VLS, and maybe 5" Mk.45 gun...... VL ASROC should be available if requested as well.

I've always been under the impression that an adequate fleet defense airwing has to be at least between nine to 12 fighters.  Existing CVS and CVL designs can do that, but their expansion potential into the role of a cruise missile carrier would be fairly limited.

A configuration similar to former-Soviet Kiev class or American Strike Cruiser Mk.II would be IMHO more easily-adaptable.  Important, since there is hardly any other major surface combatant class- modified O.H. Perry, modified La Fayette, Knox, or even the abortive 1980s PFG-1 project- that can split the cruise missile load of the battle group.

The PFG-1 project would IMHO have played an instrumental role in even making the idea of such a missile cruiser possible- a warship meant to be more versatile than the O.H. Perry on a 3200-ton displacement would be a development that's both difficult and expensive, and there would have been no O.H. Perry or La Fayette (since they are the replacement for the PFG-1 project) in ROCN service as well, but it would have opened up the ROCN's mindset to the idea of a blue-water navy.  It would also have meant that more ships within the battle group could contribute to the group's collective protection.

[Volkodav]

Could the Tarawa Class LHA have been adapted with a steam catapult, arrester gear and a CVA01 style parallel deck to have become a viable replacement for the USNs Modernised Essex class CVS ASW Carriers from the late 70s early 80s?  Designed specifically to embark Viking, Hawkeye and F/A-18A? (probably a stretch for a 250m hull) it would have entered service initially with Trackers, Tracers and Skyhawks.  It would have had a full length hanger in place of the LHAs smaller one and troop accommodation and much of the vehicle deck could be used instead for magazines, spares and fuel.

The dock could be deleted or retained, maybe used for rapid replenishment using modified LCUs to move palletised ordinance and stores.  The ships could retain a secondary LHA or LPH role.

[GTX_Admin]

I am sure they could have been...provided someone was prepared to wear the cost.

[Volkodav]

Part of my thinking was that by being able to retain the existing air groups and then to move to a common fleet there would be cost savings but whether these would be enough to offset the cost of designing and building a new platform is the question.

For instance Australia buying one off the shelf and retaining Melbourne's air group may have been cheaper than buying a STOVL carrier and Harriers.  Just come down to whether it was economical for the US to design the new CVL/S in the first place.  If they were looking at replacing two ships each for Australia, Canada and the Netherlands the sums may have worked out better.

The standard LHA and a Modified LHA were offered as possible replacements for Melbourne.  I don't have any details on the modified design other then displacement was up from 39900tons to 53800tons, draft was increased from 7.9 to 9.9m and air group from 30 helicopters and Harriers to 50, speed reduced by a knot to 24kt and bean down from 38.4 to 32.2m which sounds like the deletion of a deck edge lift to me.  I imagine the mod was increased hanger size at the expense of troop and vehicle accommodation, increased aviation fuel bunkerge, stores and magazines for ordinance.  No idea what so ever about whether the dock was deleted or retained. 

With the LHA Mod as your starting point you have all the assumed aviation mods plus a steam propulsion plant so the additional costs would be related to the design out fit of the CTOL deck layout, Cats Traps, flight deck and island structure.  With the US experience with their Essex upgrades I imagine designing the CTOL mods wouldn't be too much of a challenge.  Like you said it would come down to cost and part of that cost is the idle Trackers and Skyhawks.

[Volkodav]

Looking through photos online I notice that many of the USNs CVS were the straight deck configuration operating Trackers and helicopters.  I haven't noticed any fighters on any of them though except one with Banshees and Cougars in the late 50s. 

Making some assumptions here,
- the H8 cats and arrester gear were unsuitable for Skyhawks, Furies, Crusaders etc. but fine for Trackers;
- the Trackers usually operated at low tempo so launch and recoveries were less frequent and frantic on a CVS;
- Fighters would have been too difficult to integrate into flight operations along with the Helos and Trackers.

I am wondering if steam cats and appropriate arrester gear were fitted whether a fighter squadron or detachment could have been worked in without too much difficulty.  push the fight deck as far out to starboard as possible, offsetting the arrester gear as well with the deck park on the port, fore and aft the island permitting limited simultaneous launch and landing ops using the port cat only.  Possibly move the helos off onto a supporting platform. 

Same principle applied to a modified Tarawa with a single port cat and offset parallel arrester gear.  Operates a squadron of Trackers then Vikings and a squadron of F-8 then F/A-18 and a detachment of Hawkeyes, Helos are carried by an escorting DDH based on the Spruance Hull.

[GTX_Admin]

Interesting little diagram I just came across:  2014 Carrier Decks of the World

[Volkodav]

Thanks Greg, the comparison of America to Cavour is interesting.

[Volkodav]

Invincible Class carriers recast as Strike Cruisers as counter for Kirov Class battle cruisers as RN has no battleships to reactivate.

Possible back story, because of Falklands experience RN realises that Hermes is a far more satisfactory and capable design than the Invincibles and designs, builds, commissions three new 30000ton carriers in the late 80s.  This leaves the Invincibles surplus to requirements as aircraft carriers but still very useful hulls otherwise.  Initially as the new carriers are commissioned the Invincibles are employed with minimal changes as Commando Carriers but then with the decision to acquire cruise missiles from the US they are refitted as strike cruisers while retaining their commando carrier role.  With the new generation of quiet soviet submarines appearing in the late 80s it is decided to also retain the ASW helo role as well.

At about this time the RAN seeing the need for a capable escort for their new Tarawa CVS decides to adapt the Invincible Class Strike Cruiser into a multi role Command Cruiser to support the new carriers.  The Australian ships differ from the UK ones in having many US systems installed, including changing from Olympus to LM2500 GTs, Mk26 GMLS, NATO Sea Sparrow, etc. The RAN ships are also designed for reduced crewing to save costs and have no facilities for Harriers and the ADF doesn't have any STOVL aircraft.  Although there are only two new CVS the RAN builds three Strike Cruisers intended to act as task force flagships.
 
Extra guns, missiles, no ski jump helos only or harriers only a secondary not primary consideration.

Tomahawk, Ikara(?) Harpoon, Seadart and Seawolf, or Standard and NATO Sea Sparrow. 

Mk45 5" or Mk8 4.5" in the bow, Oto Melara Super Rapido, Phalanx or Goalkeeper layered to provide 360⁰ coverage

ASW Helo Sqn, AEW Helo flight, Marine assault helo Sqn, Attack Helo Flight, plus a re enforced company of marines, maybe a detachment of 6 Harriers if space permits but not a priority.

Armament will depend on whether RN or RAN

[GTX_Admin]

Interesting proposition for a dedicated UAV Mothership (click on image to download pdf of the proposal):

[GTX_Admin]

Australia's first new LHD of the Canberra class:

[kitnut617]

what aircraft will operate from it Greg ?

[GTX_Admin]

ARH Tiger



MRH-90 Taipan



CH-47



Maybe F-35B



Maybe USMC AV-8B



The second of the class, to be HMAS Adelaide, is in construction too.

[Diamondback]

Still waiting for a SHIELD Helicarrier to show up in this thread... LOL

[kitnut617]

Harriers ? F-35B ?  I wasn't aware that Australia were lining up those ---  But the ski ramp had to be for something didn't it ?

So is the hanger lift right at the back there ?

[finsrin]

Ramp should work for Hellcats, Bearcats, Corsairs, others.   But then needs arresting gear.

[GTX_Admin]

Harriers ? F-35B ?  I wasn't aware that Australia were lining up those ---  But the ski ramp had to be for something didn't it ?

So is the hanger lift right at the back there ?

Here are some detailed specs on the ship, its role and its capabilities:  There are two aircraft elevators – one aft of the flight deck and one fwd of the island on the stbd side - that can accommodate medium sized helicopters, with the after one able to accommodate larger helicopters such as CH 47. Both aircraft elevators service the hangar and light vehicle/cargo deck and the fwd elevator is dual roled for stores and personnel.


Australia is not looking at Harriers, as mentioned there is the possiblity of USMC Harriers using the ship though...maybe.  As for the F-35B...well, nothing at this stage but maybe as I said.

[Volkodav]

Unfortunately the Australian government made a deliberate decision not to operate STOVL aircraft from the LHDs, ever.  Accordingly, I believe, internal arrangements, fuel, ordinance stowage etc. are completely inadequate to operate fixed wing aircraft.  JCI the Spanish original on the otherhand is specifically designed to operate AV-8B+.

But for the cost Australia would have deleted the ski-jump as well.

No Australian government has appeared keen on carriers since the 1950s, in fact it came out in cabinet papers recently that, although the incoming Hawke Labor Government cancelled the carrier replacement project in 1982 / 83 that the preceding Frazer Liberal Government which had deferred the project prior to the election was intending to cancel it if they had been re-elected.  Basically Australian politicians saw carriers as too expensive and unnecessary.

[kitnut617]

Was doing some reading on it, what's the difference then between the Australian ones to the Spanish ones.  I see the Spanish will be using fixed wing aircraft on theirs.

[Volkodav]

Was doing some reading on it, what's the difference then between the Australian ones to the Spanish ones.  I see the Spanish will be using fixed wing aircraft on theirs.

I believe internal arrangements such as bunkerage for aviation fuel and ordinance with the RAN ships also having very extensive command control and communications set ups.  The Spanish ship is also fitted with to ability to refuel other ships at sea the RAN ones are not.  Different roles and different internal configurations accordingly.

[mrvr6]

why would australia need aircraft carriers? its not like theyr an island or anything

[kitnut617]

So why is the Australian Government so skittish about calling an aircraft carrier - an aircraft carrier ?

[kitnut617]

why would australia need aircraft carriers? its not like theyr an island or anything

Well I would say a recent world event would explain that, imagine if they had the carrier out west of Australia right now --- you know, a little northwest of Perth ---

[GTX_Admin]

So why is the Australian Government so skittish about calling an aircraft carrier - an aircraft carrier ?

Politics…not much different from the way the iInvincible class were "through-deck" cruisers or the Izumo class (which is about the same size as the Canberra class) and Hyūga class are both Helicopter Destroyers...

Technically the Canberra Class are a LHD - Landing Helicopter Dock with a significant amphibious capability:



BTW, here is the competing design: