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
JFKY    Yellichink   5/28/2011 1:08:43 PM
And the Argentines operated a light carrier in 1982 versus a Harrier Carrier.....and wait for it....LOST.  My point is oriented more towards the idea of an OLD, light carrier operating fixed wing a/c a la Brasil....the track record isn't that great.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       5/28/2011 2:14:32 PM

And the Argentines operated a light carrier in 1982 versus a Harrier Carrier.....and wait for it....LOST.  My point is oriented more towards the idea of an OLD, light carrier operating fixed wing a/c a la Brasil....the track record isn't that great.


That's playing foul. First RN had more light carriers, and they have better assets for the light carriers. Nevertheless, the deciding factor of Sea Control around the Falklands is RN's SSN that sank ARA Belgrano, which reduce Argentinian carrier from fleet of existence to fleet of uselessness.
 
Quote    Reply

earlm       5/28/2011 5:46:18 PM
It's not foul at all.  The Argentine experience in '82 says a lot about light carriers.  They couldn't launch a strike because there wasn't enough wind.  A larger carrier has these options:
 
1.  Go faster
2.  Put more power into the catapult
3.  Launch the planes light and have them fuel from tankers
 
The light carrier is stuck slow with weak catapults and not enough planes to have dedicated tankers.  Larger planes make better tankers anyway.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/28/2011 6:06:57 PM


Please execuse my ignorance, but what is legal eagle?



is an officer from legals who has experience in military and international law.  he'll basically giving advice and  covering commitment that the strike is within international law, that its not going to breach the Havana Conventions etc...
 
a pilot has direct situational appreciation and ultimately makes the call as to whether to proceed, a UAV doesn't have direct situational appreciation hence why everyone is in the room.  eg are there civilians there or unarmed combatants, is there latent threat, non state actors don't abide by geneva or havana, so do they have any friendly forces impounded near the strike area, have they weaponised facilities protected under Havana, because even though they forego international protection once they breach the conventions, they will still create problems etc....
 
the volatility of that decision making involves different types of oversight, whereas legal advice for pilots will be at briefing the nature of the UAV ops will have greater dependancy on legal input during the final stages of the op etc.....
 
UAV's are also not direct one for one replacements for a mission, the nature and opportunity of those ISR or strike missions has also changed.
 

 
all strikes require blessing before release
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       5/28/2011 6:54:46 PM

It's not foul at all.  The Argentine experience in '82 says a lot about light carriers.  They couldn't launch a strike because there wasn't enough wind.  

Yes it is, and the point you brought up is double foul.

ARA Veintincinco de Mayo had some boiler problem even prior to the war, not to mention that the weak boiler and catepult is the result of being modified from early WW2 British design. Lack of speed and boiler power is not intrinsic to light carrier designs. It is essence of poor engineering decision.

The tactical choice they've made is to wonder around the Exclusion Zone. Even the super carriers of the USN can't launch aircraft at that wind, so they have to reverse course to the west, and that'll give only 1 hour window to launch aircraft. The USN super carriers have to make the same decision. Having old boilers that can't get the ship over 20kt only get things worse.

 

 
Quote    Reply

LB    Falklands    5/29/2011 4:03:21 PM
That's entirely true that the Arg's got their carrier in range for a planned strike and couldn't launch due to freak weather conditions resulting in a dead calm.  It's also worth noting the RN subs couldn't find the carrier mostly due to operational control not transferred to the task force commander, at least in the opinion of Adm Woodward.
 
The operations of the Argentine Navy say a lot more about their total lack of asw training and equipment rather than the utility of light carriers per se.  A light carrier could be viable if the requirement was for 20 small aircraft, say 16 small fighters and 4 helicopters but the question is whether that capability is worth the cost and how much more cost effective a larger carrier would be with more ability to sustain operations as well as carry a few more aircraft.
 
Moreover, an important requirement is AEW.  Right now the main carrier choices are an E-2, requiring a medium sized or larger carrier or a helicopter AEW with less capability.  It's questionable whether anyone would want to rebuilt rather old Trackers to carry modern systems but that sized aircraft could operate off a small carrier.  That sized aircraft doing AEW paired with say 16 light fighters (Gripen or smaller) might make for a viable 25,000 ton carrier but one would probably be better off for a variety of reasons going 30,000 tons with more av gas and say 24+ vs 20 aircraft.  Again the main thing is done it fill requirements, assuming anyone actually produces a light naval fighter.
 
 
It's not foul at all.  The Argentine experience in '82 says a lot about light carriers.  They couldn't launch a strike because there wasn't enough wind.  A larger carrier has these options:

 

1.  Go faster


2.  Put more power into the catapult

3.  Launch the planes light and have them fuel from tankers


 

The light carrier is stuck slow with weak catapults and not enough planes to have dedicated tankers.  Larger planes make better tankers anyway.



 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics