mission set determines bunkerage

bunkerage determines projection, persistence, presence

bunkerage determines loadout

projection, persistence, presence impacts upon warfighting effectiveness

loadout determines tactical/strategic employment

I wouldn't have thought that you'd want to downsize in overall dimensions anyway.  new tech means that extant  space usage is improved, hence bunkerage issues are more flexible.  ie, you can improve the extant bunkerage and improve the tanks for aviation fuel, weapons stores etc...  you effectively increase your dismount reach and punch by increasing the bunkerage real estate.

reduce the size of the platform and you start to reduce the aviation component - there's a point of diminishing returns where reduce it to a short squadron and/or a flight and you're wasting space and reducing the effectiveness and flexibility of the platform.

in extremis, thats why ships such as HMS Blake (or hybrids in general) can be a daft idea.  academically they might fit into the sense and logic of whoever is trying to promote them - but as a useful combat asset???  not in a real shooting war.  jeeps are jeeps for a reason.  the US learnt that with the hummers.  u can't turn a sows ear into silk purse and vice versa

It is pretty much an academic enquiry, not a concept or suggestion. How small a hull can support one or two catapults and arrester gear necessary to launch and recover a modern CTOL combat aircraft, discounting fuel, ordenance etc?

 

My personal fave concept would be 275m flush deck 40-50000t similar to the US Stealth carrier concept from a couple of years ago. Just wondering how small you can go and still fly off aircraft.

Minimum dimensions would probably be dictated by the requirements to launch and recover the E-2D's.

 

A couple of questions:

Without deck armor you could probably get down to 20kT, something similar to the HMS Majestic.

 

Without the need for simultaneous operations a single straight deck could be used.  Say 20kT with an armored deck or 15kT without.

Will you need to support simultaneous launch and landing operations?

 

Will there be deck armor?

 

That is pretty much what I was thinking, a very basic straight deck with such a small airgroup that you could have near to but not simultaneous operations.

 

The other thought I had was that with modern flight control and automated landing systems would it be possible to never have a bolter? If the probability of a landing aircraft not being successfully arrested became small enough you could actually have simultaneous operations on a straight deck design with a crash barrier just in case.

 

Another option, that would likely increase size and weight (flight deck width), would be to fit the catapult as far to the left of the sponson as possible, parallel to the centerline. This would allow an aircraft to land down the centre while another (not an E-2D) was on the outboard cat being readied for launch.

Of course if you used a helecopter or UCAV based AWAC the F-35C would be the relevant aircraft dictating the size of the ship. How small could it be then?

the short stroke EMAL development is a direct legacy of some/potential E2 users needing to be punched from short carriers. (obviously not a  USN req, unless they decide to spend up big on their expeditionary assets)

It could be an interesting addition to the LHA(R)

Using EMALS and other new tech how small can a carrier, designed to operate 8 F-35C (or similar), 2-4 E-2D and 3-6 ASW helo's, be?

There are so many things that have to work exactly right in order to successfully land a conventional aircraft on a ship that it is almost amazing that they can do it at all.  Automatic landing systems help a little, but there will always be at least some bolters.

 

Besides, in order for that design to work the ship would have to be longer because the launching and landing operations can not share deck space.

I think you need to at least double the number of F-35C's.  The E-2D's are major strategic asset that an enemy would want to eliminate, so you would probably want to at least a pair of fighters with each one at all times for protection.  You would probably need four E-2D's for reliable around the clock coverage, requiring that at least 6 of the 8 F-35C to be assigned exclusively to this mission.  This leaves you without a strike element.

Outside of that, you're really starting to look at a change in mission set - and with only a percentage of the absolute utility of an autonomous and fully effective battle group/task force.

The reason additional A-4's were bought for the RAN FAA in the 70's was so the Trackers could be landed and Melbourne could be employed as a Strike carrier with an airgroup of 16 Skyhawks and several SeaKings when circumstances required.

 

What is interesting is HMAS Sydney (III) was still in commission at this point and could have been employed as an ASW Helicopter Carrier in support of HMAS Melbourne when she was operating in the strike role, not that it ever happened.

 

This raises the concept of two similar ships being paired, one operating as a CVA and the other as a CVS, they would be able to cross deck in an emergency with each being able to better perform their specialised task.  A further extension on this line would be to include a LPH version as well, three ships, three different but complementry roles.

That is simple

A carrier can be as long as the landing track of actual smallest carriers.

French Cdg CVN use a 195 m landing track and accept F18 or Rafale (and E2).And it is the smallest carrier able to accept such planes.

A carrier can be as long than that so 200 meters, which would be about 20 000 tons carrier (and no angle deck), but it has to be fitted with a stabilisation system to operate at least in 5 sea state.

A landing track in the ship axis, is not a problem if you have only 8 F-35C (or similar) and 2-4 E-2D  to park outside and in the hangar.

However remember E2D cost a lot and it makes few sense to have 4 or them on a small carrier.

4 E2D would cost as much than the carrier it self if you include price of mid life refit.

France paid 1,3 billion US$ 3 E2C with support included.