Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Lower cost alternative
ambush    11/23/2004 10:24:03 PM
It is acknowledged that not every country can afford a Carrier Strike Group based on the Nimitz class carriers, like the US can. Even the mid-sized carries of the UK and France may make this out of reach for many countries particularly when you factor in the cost of high performance aircraft. I have come up with what I believe is a low cost alternative that would give you a Naval aviation capability that would mount a credible Naval Air Capability. The costs I give are only approximations as it could vary with number of units orderd. A Nimitz class Carrier costs for $ 4.5 Billion with 80 aircraft at $3.6 billion if you figure median aircraft cost of about $45 million each. You can reduce that cost a little if you go for a medium sized carrier like the British are building which will be about $2.5 billion each and will have fewer but still high cost aircraft such as the F-35. My lower cost alternative, which no doubt many will find fault with, but is just a suggestion is the following as is the equipment chosen Your new carrier be base on the LHD Wasp Class amphibious assault ship. The ship if converted to a pure carrier role will have a larger internal volume. You can convert the Vehicle storage deck and well deck into hanger and storage space. Troop spaces could be converted to needed electronics and control spaces for the biggest cost saving measure on our new Carrier control of the UAVs. Since we are still doing this on the cheap our choice of manned Aircraft is about 24 AV-8B Harrier II plus (about $25 million each) with the JHC system and AIM ?9X and AIM -120 for Air Defense mode and everything from dumb bombs to Anti ship missiles for surface attack. But that is not all there as there is space for about another 30 to 40 (If not more)UCAVs either assembled or stored partially unassembled. The two main UCAVS of choice will be the Predator and the Dark Star. The wing span of these UCAVs permit them to be used on our flight deck. However they will need some modifications. There take of run is tool long for our flight deck of about 840 feet so they will need to be modified to accept JATO to shorten their take of roll as well as a ski ramp on the ship. Recovery can be with arresting nets. Also or UAVS wil need folding wings The Predator UCAVs will be capable of carrying Hellfire missiles. The Dark Star UAVs will be also be the ships AWECs . The Dark Star can be equipped with a variety of sensor pallets and there is no reason why a limited air search radar version is not possible. Granted it will not be as effective as an E-2 Hawkeye but if you figure if you get 4-6 Dark Stars in the air with its 8 hour endurance it will give you OK coverage. Figure UCAVS with modifications will cost between $5 million and $15 million median cost at $7.5 million each. The major problems I see with the design is possibly with the sortie rate for the UCAVS due to their launch and recovery methods but proper prior planning should make up for that. Carrier of $1.5 billion, $600 million for Harriers and $245 million for UCAVS Total $2.3 billion
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2
fitz    RE:Lower cost alternative   11/25/2004 11:48:28 AM
While your idea is very far from being new, essentially the same thing could be accomplished, at much lower cost by scaling up the Princepe de Asturias design, as BAZAN/IZAR has been actively marketing for a number of years.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:Lower cost alternative   12/1/2004 3:39:12 PM
I don't think that carrier are out of reach for France or UK: it is problem of arbitrage between services(army/airforce vs navy) and politic (leftist think them as colonial tools). France could easily afford 3 or 4 of them in today budget if we reoganise and throw out some costly civilians in support services and close some units and bases.
 
Quote    Reply

blacksmith    RE:Lower cost alternative   12/4/2004 1:33:25 PM
When you talk about using the Wasp hull form, you're basically talking about an Essex class carrier (WW II) from which the Helicopter carriers evolved. It's still a big ship and your analysis only adressed acquisition cost. The greater cost is operation and support (O&S) the bulk of which is people and fuel. Big ships use lots of people and gas, hence cheap big ships are still expensive. I would say forget the Harriers. Go for a smaller ship with ISR UAVs and UCAVs. The catamaran based fast ferries like the HSV-1 Joint Venture combines high speed with huge internal volume. There are proposed catamaran designs (by INCAT) that go up to 120 meters and 5000 tonnes able to sprint at 40 to 50 knots. Two things require addressing. One is Airborne Early Warning (AEW). The other is outer air defense. Despite what some people may claim, none of the current crop of UAVs has a viable air search radar. The outer air defense may have to be conducted by medium range A-A missile toting UCAVs. Current UCAVs are subsonic, but then so is the Harrier.
 
Quote    Reply

rayott    RE:Lower cost alternative   12/21/2004 11:23:48 PM
I also thought that this system sounded similar to what the British have been doing since the Falklands war, using light carrier or ?Harrier carriers?; carriers so small they can only use harriers and helicopters. I?ve also heard about the Spanish and Italians building small, light carriers like this. Regarding the use of Unmanned Aircraft for AEW, wouldn?t helicopters work just as well (or better) but be easier to operate? However, if you want to go really cheap, why not get rid of the large, fuel inefficient and costly carrier all together. I read an idea in a book about harriers taking off and landing from the back of a destroyer, just like a helicopter would. ASW destroyers have been using helicopters for a long time to drop sonar buoys, torpedoes and such. I know this is pure speculation/science fiction, but its fun to think about, and way back when the idea of a carrier was also just speculation. What if you had a heavy destroyer or light cruiser that gave up some of its guns and rockets in order to have a couple of extra landing pads on the front of the ship, as well as the rear end. That way you could get one helicopter for ASW and 2 or 3 sea harriers. Of course a squadron of ships like this wouldn?t have anywhere near the bombing capacity of something like one of the Nimitz carriers; but they would be helpful for fleet air defense. Also, if the harriers outfitted to be ground attack as well, they might be able to provide some light Close Air Support for a small battles, or small amphibious assaults. Of-course this wouldn?t be what the USA would want to do, but for some smaller countries might just give them a small leg up on their neighbors. If a number of nations formed a consortium to pay for a group of them at one time (to take advantage of economies of scale) then the price wouldn?t be to bad (the more contracted to be build at one time the lower the per unit price). The Spanish and French shipbuilders like to make ships and subs and sell them to other countries, maybe they should design a class of vessels like this and try to market it. Maybe some nations that might consider this would be Greece, Turkey, Australia, India, Canada Pakistan, Israel Japan, and maybe some others in SE Asia and Scandinavia.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Lower cost alternative   12/22/2004 12:17:54 AM
Its an excellent alternative if you arent fighting the USN. The Soviets used the Kiev Class that way. But the benefit of the USN carriers is the principle of mass. A single USN carrier can wage a sustained bombing campaign and influence foreign policy. The light carriers are useful for small regional conflicts. But they cant conduct sea control for sustained periods. And they certainly cant survive the USN. If you can live with that then its a good alternative.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:Lower cost alternative-rayott   12/22/2004 1:39:25 AM
Its probably more cost efficient and effective to have a LHD and a flotilla of air warfare destroyers and ASW ships. Its more practical for amphibious operations as the escorting ships don't have to worry about launching and recovering fighters. Air power can only provide effective defence once you reach a certain number. Example, 6 harriers would not be able to maintain a round the clock CAP for a small task group. However, those 6 harriers would be better put to use supporting a troops on the ground or providing escort and SEAD for your helicopters.
 
Quote    Reply

HJ    RE:Lower cost alternative   12/22/2004 9:12:10 AM
If you want a lower cost carrier; size matters and you get what you pay for, but big decks rule in so many ways (if you can afford them). It allows a lot of power projection and other critical support like AEW and AEA platforms as well as tankers. Dark Star is a non starter as it was canceled in favor of Global Hawk (maybe that's an option...AEW from ashore). BTW, Predator and Dark Star are UAVs; UCAVs are designed to be survivable "strike" type UAVs (ie X-45, X-47).
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    A medium size aircraft carrier is 25 air force plane!   12/22/2004 3:27:33 PM
If you want to fight USN navy you don't need carrier (unless you can afford 3 big).What you need is smart mines (like CAPTOR) , SSN/K and steath corvette (like Visby) with powerfull antiship missiles (like Yakhont). For amphibious capacities and force projection a medium 30000 to 50000 tons with CTOL planes are the best choice. You can pay the CTOL plane by dimishing air force numbers! A carrier is about 2.5 billion $ on 40 years only (with refit at midlife) So 60 million $ per year.And double of that with operating cost (without airwing crews) A single airforce plane is about 5 million $ per year (acquisition plus training). A medium size aircraft carrier is 25 air force plane! An amhibious ship (LSD) is at least 30 million $ per year. 2 LSD +12 aircraft = a medium aircraft carrier without planes I prefer the medium carrier and to take the plane budget from airforce. At harbour , navy plane defend airspace like air force. When you project force , you have a mobile base you can use as a LPH also.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:A medium size aircraft carrier is 25 air force plane!   12/22/2004 4:06:36 PM
French, That still doesnt hold a candle to the USN Super Carriers. AEGIS will handle Yakhont, especially if launched in small numbers. Combined with the TLAM, large fixed wing compliment, fleet air defences, nuclear weapons. Nothing projects force better than CVN. A light or medium carrier is good for amphibious operations support or punitive airraids on lightly defended targets. But the have no sustainability and are highly vulnerable to attack from land based fighters and submarines. Super Carrier is not invincible. But it is designed to deal with these threats. And it does so with much greater stand off. So light medium carrier is not suitable for Super Power requirements.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:A medium size aircraft carrier is 25 air force plane!   12/22/2004 4:14:36 PM
The French carrier have exactly half capabilities in number of raid per days and cost half. So 24 CDG like medium carrier is equal to 12 US Nimitz size carriers. Which is not the case of a small 20000 tons carrier without AEW and CTOL aircrafts. 48 of these carrier will not equal 12 supercarriers! If you want to fight US, unless you have a battle group of 3 medium carrier against a US battle group of 2 carriers (others at harbour or in other ocean), you have no chance. "AEGIS will handle Yakhont, especially if launched in small numbers" yes but no a 200 salvo. Never forget that a single US DD51 destroyer is 1500 Yahkont price!
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy