How small can a CTOL carrier be?

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: How small can a CTOL carrier be?
Volkodav 10/14/2009 7:50:46 AM

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? I know steel is cheap and air is free, that large airgroups are more effective / flexible than small ones, but this is how small can a carrier go. Think of this as a neo Colossus / Majestic.

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

gf0012-aust 10/14/2009 3:47:42 PM

its mission set will determine its size - irrespective of the tech.

mission set determines bunkerage

bunkerage determines projection, persistence, presence

bunkerage determines loadout

projection, persistence, presence impacts upon warfighting effectiveness

loadout determines tactical/strategic employment

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/14/2009 4:08:38 PM

as an addit.

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

Quote Reply

Volkodav 10/15/2009 6:55:59 AM

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.

Quote Reply

WarNerd 10/16/2009 5:45:29 AM

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

A couple of questions:

Will you need to support simultaneous launch and landing operations?

Will there be deck armor?

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.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 10/17/2009 2:28:53 AM

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

A couple of questions:

Will you need to support simultaneous launch and landing operations?

Will there be deck armor?

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.

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.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/17/2009 2:46:57 AM

It is pretty much an academic enquiry, not a concept or suggestion.

Its already being looked at. the US is looking at reducing the launch stroke to make smaller EMALs suitable for smaller carrier reqs (non US carriers, requested by interested parties)..

Also, the power generation side of EMALs is modular. so it would also mean that a decent energy solution (if not nuclear) would have to be in place. (and thats an issue of how heavy the aircraft are, combat load etc..... then the usual stuff needs consideration, placement, bunkerage, integration etc....

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain 10/17/2009 5:51:26 AM

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

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?

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/17/2009 5:59:17 AM

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)

Quote Reply

Volkodav 10/17/2009 6:37:08 AM

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

Quote Reply

WarNerd 10/17/2009 11:01:30 AM

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?

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.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 NEXT