Light carrier and cheap fleet air arms solution

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: Light carrier and cheap fleet air arms solution
YelliChink 4/5/2011 12:29:47 PM

Could an Independence-class be any useful to deal with weak enemy or interventionist operations? Will it cost less than maintaining and operating full size carrier battle group? There's an article on USNI Proceedings recently, calling for the revival of light carriers (around 20,000t). The problem is that, to make a viable carrier today, the full displacement would still be around 30,000t, which is exactly the size of CDG. That is not "light" at all. So the viable alternatives are: Use smaller and much less-capable aircrafts such as A-4SU and something similar to navalized F-20. Or use a fleet of UCAV. Light carriers will not be able to operate E-2, and air-refueling capability will be limited. Thus this concept requires land-based aircraft such as E-3 and KC-135 to provide support. Is it really a viable option at all?

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

YelliChink 5/27/2011 11:21:50 AM

Lastly, "Sea Gripen?" Really??? Will it be as useful as the Seafire? UNLESS an a/c has been designed from the outset for carrier operations the history of speaks poorly for them. A Sea Gripen is going to heavier, slower, and less capable than it's Gripen counter-part. All things being equal, I'd sure choose an F/A 18 or a Super Hornet before a Gripen.

SAAB/BAe team are not trying to sell this to USN, UK and France. SAAB just declared that they will open a defense-related research facility in Brazil, which gives us a clue about what their business plan is.

If Japan wants to build a new ship and name it as Akagi, Shokaku or Zuikaku, then they might be interested in getting those as well, depending on how large those will be. Same with Turkey.

Not everybody has the money and manpower to run even one 100,000t ship.

Quote Reply

JFKY Yellichink 5/27/2011 12:59:26 PM

Well yu can get a REAL CVA for about 50,000 tons...but if Brazil wants to keep on with a fake CVA, drive on...and if the Swedes can sell them a teeny-tiny aircraft to go on that make believe CVA more power to them.

Turkey isn't building a VA, and IF Japan does it won't be flying a Gripen, it'll be flying a SHornet or F-35, having the money to purchase a REAL CVA.....my poiint being that whilst you can get A/c to sea on 25,000 tons, and the Sea Gripen might fit, the price you pay for what you get, is not going to make you happy.

Quote Reply

YelliChink 5/27/2011 4:06:28 PM

There is no disagreement on what 25,000t carrier can do. The only difference is perspective on whether it is meaningful option, and it all comes down to what type of aircraft and how many can be operated. Frenchh operated the Foch with 23 Etendards and Crusaders. Replacement them all with Sea Gripen, and that is still a potent fire power when your adversary have problem putting together more than two dozen 4th Gen fighters. What Brazilians are doing is maintaining capability. Carrier operation is not the kind of skill you can pick up and re-estabilish in a couple of years.

Quote Reply

JFKY And Brasil... 5/27/2011 4:33:40 PM

needs a carrier capacity, WHY? I mean why waste the money on a new carrier and the Sea Gripen, I'm not arguing they won't, just asking WHY? Brasil off the coast of Libya? No didn't think so...a Brasilian 25K CVA and Sea Gripen makes you a threat to...Argentina? Certainly doesn't make anyone else tremble.

Quote Reply

YelliChink 5/27/2011 5:00:10 PM

They are currently operating ex-French Navy carrier Foch as Sao Paulo with Skyhawks.

Even you have to admint the combination of 25kt CVL with Sea Gripen is more powerful than Mediterranean style Harrier carriers.

Quote Reply

JFKY Old carrier 5/27/2011 8:45:07 PM

and A-4's...weren't better than a Harrier carrier, in 1982....

Quote Reply

YelliChink 5/27/2011 9:39:31 PM

and A-4's...weren't better than a Harrier carrier, in 1982....

French were operating Crusaders and Entendards on that small carrier as well, in 1982......

And Italians and Spanishmen have updated their tiny Harrier carriers with F-35B carriers in the past few years. Both were around 27kt to 30kt.

However, it seems that a carrier smaller than 40kt would not be able to operate CATOBAR aircrafts heavier than 40klb.

Quote Reply

LB Crew 5/27/2011 11:31:54 PM

This below is quite correct; moreover, as the endurance of some UCAS increase, some are 24+ hours, one actually requires more sensor operators than an aircraft. One set of operators is required for an AEW or EW aircraft aircraft that flies once a day multiple sets are required for 24 hour operations.

Some of the next generation of UCAS will be fighter sized with fighter class engines. The X-47B, testing for the USN carrier UCAS role, has an F100. The electrical generation requirement alone will mean a hypothetical AEW UCAS is going to be fairly large. Don't expect the E-2 to be replaced any decade soon nor dedicated EW aircraft. UCAS can supplement an airborne EW but to take one example we're nowhere near one doing escort jamming.

In any case you don't simply stick any UCAS on a carrier. It has to be developed for naval applications- the sea eats everything especially ordinary aircraft. Assuming the first carrier UCAS in service is a derivative of the X-47B that's an aircraft with a max takeoff weight of 44,000+ lbs which is more than F-16. They'll be getting bigger not smaller.

What the Lord gives, the Lord takes away....True, an UAV AEW would be smaller than it's manned counter-part, but how much smaller? The E-2C is fairly large because of it's radar, power systems, processing systems, and fuel requirements, not simply because it carries 5 crew....AND though the plane may be smaller, and hence a smaller hangar/deck foot print, the SHIP will be larger. What those 5 crew do is PROCESS INFORMATION, in the air, with the finest computer we have-the human brain. No UAV can do that, so the UAV will be sending it's data back to the ship for processing, via Battle Management Systems and humans, and so now the carrier will have to have a work space for the crew, rather than the aircraft. One way or another an AEW craft will have to have room for 4-5 people, either on the carrier or on the E-2C...

And the same applies to ECM/Growlers....humans decide what to target and how...so even if the receiver/transmitter is unmanned there will be humans in the loop, and the best place for those humans is on the ship, not Nellis AFB...

Are UCAVS coming yes, are they useful, yes, do they replace human flight crews, no...and hence provisions have to be made for human crew, on board.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 5/28/2011 2:05:31 AM

larger UAV's actually have more people involved in real time than with a manned asset.

eg driver, relief driver, analyst, legal eagle, event commander, watch officer etc...... on a long mission you have to rotate the drivers, they burn out - esp if its a complex op. they reallly can only do a few hours at a time, and that means on transoceanic, transcontinental and persistence ops you could have 4-6 drivers available. even though they have "nn" hours in a mission shift, they rotate multiple times within that shift.

they're a resource intensive capability, far more "expensive" than some manned assets

Quote Reply

YelliChink 5/28/2011 11:54:36 AM

eg driver, relief driver, analyst, legal eagle, event commander, watch officer etc......

Please execuse my ignorance, but what is legal eagle?

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT