Tarawa Lha As Basis For A Cvs?

[jcf]

One of the early sixties CVS, designed in 1963 for 1968 construction.




Creating and building a truly modern CVS would be more logical than either modding the Tarawa class or building a new Essex. The cost would probably be a wash as hulls are relatively cheap, its the systems and fitting out that kill ya. Rework can be extremely expensive.

From a model-building standpoint, however, there is no reason not to use the Tarawa as a foundation.

Cheers, Jon

[RLBH]

No matter what you do, you'll incur the costs involved in producing a new class, so there's no real excuse for modifying something that already exists unless it is very close to what you want already, or the politicians believe that it will be cheaper. The latter is probably more common. Of course, the extent of work that Chicken's v2.0 Tarawa mod involves is probably more accurately called a new design using some Tarawa features. If approached that way, it shouldn't be too dear.

What's the source for that 1963 CVS sketch? I'm intrigued.

[jcf]

Page 349, 'U.S. Aircraft Carriers', Friedman, Naval Institute Press.


Cheers, Jon

[RLBH]

Thought it might be a Friedman. Have to add that to my shopping list...

[Bryan H.]

The CVA-01 Queen Elizabeth-class would also be a good small multi-role carrier for a variety of nations, especially NATO nations.  I'm not sure how far the planning/engineering had gone but I think there were drawings made up to the point that building could have started (except for the politics & funding).

Bryan

[Archibald]

All told, it's probably easier to design a CVS from scratch or to wholly update the Essex class than to try converting an LHA.

I've always thought that a moderized (from the keel up-to year 2000 standards) Essex class would be a good solution for the US and it's allies.  Not too big not too small.  The basic design & deck plan are good.  Using modern techniques (computer aided drafting, etc...), the internal structure could be modified without the massive engineering effort of the 1940's era.  The hanger could be raised, providing room for E-2's and other tall aircraft.  The powerplant could be modernized.  The defensive armament, electronics, C3, etc... could all be modernized.  

The whole package could be 'mass produced' to lower individual unit cost by exports to interested 'friendly/allied' nations (ie. UK, France, Italy, Australia, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Japan, Korea).  The US would need a certain number of it's own.  I'm sure an Essex (part deux) would be useful in many areas where a full size Nimitz is too big.  They could also be produced faster and in greater numbers than Nimitz carriers; 'quantity has a quality all of it's own.'  They'd be great for convoy escort duties and as and adjunct to the Nimitz's.  Additionally, they'd spread the risk of loss since they'd be more numerous than the Nimitz's.  

Of course, a small multi-role carrier would revive interest in compact fighter/attack aircraft (ie. F-8's, A-4's, A-7's, navalized Mirage F.1's, navalized SEPECAT Jaguars, etc...)

Bryan

Modern Essex Vs Clemenceau is one of my favourite alt-history scenario.  

Why not a kind of non-nuclear CDG in the 60's ?
Basically a 40 000 tons Clemenceau improved thanks to the British savoir faire
Both countries benefits from cooperation, France correct Clemenceau's defaults (already mentionned earlier  in this thread) GB preserve its carrier fleet (even if a Clemenceau is much less ambitious than CVA-01).

On the other side of the pond, modernised Essex are build (maybe using some hulls left in 1946, think the USN wanted a fleet of 32, but only 24 were build...)

A 30 000 tons, 1900 crew, unexpensive carrier could have sold quite well in the 70's... Netherlands, Canada, Australia (among others)  needed a replacement for their WWII vintage carriers.

Mirage F1M / Crusader IV
A-4 / A-7s
E-1B
Tracker /S-3
Helicopters

That's a complete air group    

[Bryan H.]

In the end, I think a CAG needs to have about 50-60 total aircraft to have a good mix of type & mission capability.

Carrier Air Groups - 'the Manifesto' thread

Here's my two proposals from back in tha' day...

Liberty class CVN(medium):

• A modified & (slightly) enlarged "CVA-01" class carrier w/nuclear power
• ~ 55000-60000 tons displacement; ~50-60 aircraft air group; 2 catapults & 3 elevators
• other ships in class "Independence", "Federation", "Congress"
• carrier air group (ca. 2000)

24x (2 sqdns.) A-4Tx Super Skyhawk
12x (1 sqdn.) F/A-14E Super Tomcat
12x (1 sqdn.) A-6F Intruder II
3x (1 det.) E-2C Hawkeye 2000
3x (1 det.) EH 101 Merlin ASW/ASuW version
3x (1 det.) EKS-3B Viking tanker/EW-ELINT combo x2 + US-3B Viking COD x1
3x (1 det.) EA-6F Prowler II

60 total aircraft

Republic class CVN(heavy):

• Similar to a modernized SCB-211 design or modernized "Forrestal" class w/nuclear power
• ~65000-75000 tons displacement; ~70-80 aircraft air group; 3 catapults & 3 elevators
• other ships in class "Constitution", "Union", "Enterprise", "Sovereign"
• carrier air group (ca. 2000)

18x (2 sqdns.) F/A-14E Super Tomcat
24x (2 sqdns.) A-4Tx Super Skyhawk
20x (2 sqdns.) A-6F Intruder II x16 + EA-6F Prowler II x4
3x (1 det.) E-2C Hawkeye 2000
4x (1 det.) S-3B Viking x3 + ES-3B Viking ELINT x1
3x (1 det.) EKS-3B Viking tanker/EW-ELINT combo x2 + US-3B Viking COD x1
4x (1 det.) EH 101 Merlin ASW/AsuW version x3 + EH 101 Merlin Armed Utility version x1

76 total aircraft

In the Texas Navy, the Liberty class would have been a replacement for older Essex class carriers.  Being a modern design, the Liberty's would have lower manpower requirements than comperably sized carrier of an earlier era; likewise, the Republic class carrier.  Although, the Republic class would be a large carrier it would not be as big as Nimitz class carrier; they would also have been designed to minimizing manpower requirements.


Bryan

[royabulgaf]

Always the problem is you lose capacity and usefulness faster than you reduce cost.  They would have been of some use in the cold war perhaps, but I can't see that much use for an export carrier.  One is tempted to think of use in the western pacific from say India to Japan.  However:  Russia seems to be willing to sell state-of-the-art Flankers to all interested parties.  Against such opposition, could barely defend themselves much less carry on operations.  

Kim M

[Lawman]

I think you have to look at a lower figure than 60 though, which would really require something more like a 65-70,000 ton carrier. A more modest wing of:

24 F-4 Phantom
12 A-7 Corsair
 4 S-3 AEW
 4 S-3 ELINT/Jammer (with two AN/ALQ-99 pods externally, and one in the weapons bay, as with the EF-111)
 4 Sea King ASW

This is a total of just 48 aircraft, but still yields a reasonably potent airwing, and in due course, the Phantoms and Corsairs could be replaced by Hornets. This could have been a realistic airwing for a British CVA-01 in the 55,000 ton displacement range. It would similarly have been able to replace not only the Essex class carriers (substituting Hawkeyes for AEW, and losing the Corsair unit in favour of a Viking ASW squadron, and a few more ASW helicopters), but also the Midway class. Even in the late '60s, it was recognised that the Midways were far from ideal, with stability problems etc, and a replacement design might have been possible.

Similarly, there might have been a small carrier program launched under Reagan, when they realised the Essex class could not be brought back for service in the 600 ship Navy. The US thus could have launched a crash program to build around four medium sized carriers (50-60,000 ton), with the UK joining the project in the early '80s immediately after the Falklands war reinforced the need for carriers. The first two hulls are being laid down (based on a design study from the Carter regime for a cheaper Nimitz design) in '81, with two more hulls in '83, and a final two in '85. The UK, with great need for carriers, manages to get one of the first pair, and one of the second pair, to go with a Hornet procurement. Having abandoned the Tornado air defence variant, the UK agrees a joint procurement with Canada and Australia, buying 200 Hornets for the RAF, and 100 for the RN, to go with 150 for Canada, and 75-100 for Australia. The US, wanting Australia to stay in the carrier business, agrees to expedite delivery of these medium carriers to the UK, in exchange for the UK giving Australia an Invincible class. The two carriers are in service just in time to be around for Desert Storm, launching Hornet strikes in support of ground forces, and flying CAP in RAF service.

The US buys a common design with the UK and France, with the basic hulls all to a common design, then completed with each customers systems. The French, feeling the need to project power (being behind in nuclear deployment during the '60s) buys two, to operate alongside their Clemenceau class cousins (the basis for this new class being the PA-58 crossbred with a Kittyhawk). The UK manages (somehow) to actually buy four, to operate as lead ships in any task force, with a baby amphib carrier in place of commando carriers, on the same hull design as the Fearless class LPD. This gives the UK four proper carriers, and a more helicopter friendly LPD/LPH (i.e. keeping the full amphib capability of the LPD, but with a flat top). The US ends up buying 12, to replace Essex and Midway class carriers. As such, the total number built is 18, with France still leaving NATO, but not being as anti-NATO as it was under de Gaulle, and possibly returning into the fold a few years later.  

[GTX]

The US, wanting Australia to stay in the carrier business, agrees to expedite delivery of these medium carriers to the UK, in exchange for the UK giving Australia an Invincible class.

Stuff the Invincible - give us one of those Medium Carriers too!

Regards,

Greg

[dy031101]

The whole package could be 'mass produced' to lower individual unit cost by exports to interested 'friendly/allied' nations (ie. UK, France, Italy, Australia, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Japan, Korea).

Speaking of "mass production carriers"......

I kept on thinking Colossus/Majestic/Centaur classes, designed for rapid production in even merchant yards and yards without combatant-building experience...... could the designs mentioned in this thread so far fit that criteria?  Would there have been anything like that in Europe?

I need something to put my MAKO on.  Those WWII CVLs are very likely not going to last beyond the '90s.  

[Archibald]

The whole package could be 'mass produced' to lower individual unit cost by exports to interested 'friendly/allied' nations (ie. UK, France, Italy, Australia, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Japan, Korea).

Speaking of "mass production carriers"......

I kept on thinking Colossus/Majestic/Centaur classes, designed for rapid production in even merchant yards and yards without combatant-building experience...... could the designs mentioned in this thread so far fit that criteria?  Would there have been anything like that in Europe?

I need something to put my MAKO on.  Those WWII CVLs are very likely not going to last beyond the '90s.  

What, do you plan a naval Mako ?        

[dy031101]

What, do you plan a naval Mako ?

That one in ARA marking already is (I just forgot to put the name of its mothership on the tailfin).

Another one in DM marking is at the bottom of this page.

[Archibald]

Didn't realised that!! Brilliant!!!    

[dy031101]

When Geriatric military thread came up, I was thinking: quite a few of the newly-built European carriers are going multi-purpose, usually incorporating the capability to operate as a troop transport as well.  If we stick with, say, refurbished A-4 (since they can be catapulted off ex-RN CVLs) for the airwing, would we have been able to reconstruct the Tarawa class into a CATOBAR counterpart to these new Harrier carriers?

Like having the flight deck expanded over the now-empty gun sponsons, a single catapult, a set of jet blast deflector, an angled deck for landing operation, and other support equipments (arrestor wires, signal lights, and etc.)...... I'd be happy with the sort of CATOBAR facility just comparable to those of modified Colossus/Majestic class CVLs and still hoping to perserve the troop carrier capacity of the original Tarawa.  Six to eight radar-equipped A-4s would be embarked for fleet air defense.

Would such a reconstruction be technically do-able?