Aircraft complement for carrier?

[seadude]

Probably in about 2-3 years, I'll be starting to build/convert a 1/350 TAMIYA Enterprise aircraft carrier into a what if future stealth carrier, circa 2020 or 2025 timeframe. I'm preparing now by gathering supplies, writing notes, etc., etc. for how I want to build this project. One thing I haven't decided on is the aircraft complement. Since this is a future stealth carrier in a 2020 to 2030 timeframe, I'm going to need advanced aircraft on the flight deck. I could go with any of the following:

F/A-18E/F
EA-18G Growler
F-35C JSF
A-12A Avenger II  (Found some on Shapeways.)
X-47B UCAV
SH-60 Seahawk
E-2C Hawkeye
F-22  (Found some on Shapeways. Could be painted and decaled to look like naval fighters.)
V-22 Osprey  (To replace the C-2 Greyhound aircraft.)

Any thoughts on which I should use or how many?

[Mr.Creak]

Wot no MQ-8 Fire Scouts?

[seadude]

Wot no MQ-8 Fire Scouts?

I don't think aircraft carriers carry Fire Scouts. At least, I've never heard of or seen any being carried. 

[Captain Canada]

Ya but they're cool  You'd need to stealth your blackhawks as well. Maybe grab the Dragon 144th scale kit to see them shapes and then mod the 'hawks accordingly. I'd like to see a CH-53K on there as well. Maybe do some ASW and mine sweeps for ya 

[pyro-manic]

Nothing older than the Superbug, and probably not even those. I'd say a squadron of F-35Cs, and lots of whatever the X-47 matures into. AQ-13 (the next A-series number available) or AQ-22 (the next Q-series available), or maybe reset the numbers and go for a new designation? Give it a cool name - Marauder, perhaps, or something similar.

Perhaps a modified version as an AEW platform - longer wings, with radar emitters in the wing leading edges and tail fairing?

[FAR148]

I think you should add a squadron of USMC Rafales 

[Thorvic]

If you have Avenger A-12 then you don't need the Super Hornets as they developed the latter after the former got canned.

Combat Squadrons are about 12 aircraft each and carrier airgroups are down to about 64 from the earlier 90+ aircraft

[seadude]

I think you should add a squadron of USMC Rafales  

No thanks.

Combat Squadrons are about 12 aircraft each and carrier airgroups are down to about 64 from the earlier 90+ aircraft

Well, the carrier I plan to build is going to have a "full complement" of aircraft. It's not going to be downsized due to "budgetary cutbacks".     I've partially thought about the following for sure:
4x  E-2C's
4-6x  X-47B's
6x  EA-18G Growler's
2x  V-22 Osprey's
10x  SH-60 Seahawk's

I'm now just undecided about the fighter/attack aircraft and how much.  

[Thorvic]

I think you should add a squadron of USMC Rafales  

No thanks.

Combat Squadrons are about 12 aircraft each and carrier airgroups are down to about 64 from the earlier 90+ aircraft

Well, the carrier I plan to build is going to have a "full complement" of aircraft. It's not going to be downsized due to "budgetary cutbacks".     I've partially thought about the following for sure:
4x  E-2C's
4-6x  X-47B's
6x  EA-18G Growler's
2x  V-22 Osprey's
10x  SH-60 Seahawk's

I'm now just undecided about the fighter/attack aircraft and how much.  

Its actually more about being more efficient all round as well as cost, todays larger, smarter combat aircraft can deliver smart bombs/missiles on to target every time, where a flight of aircraft with conventional dumb bombs might be required to hit a target, possibly with 2nd or third repeat mission if results were ineffective. Its also a matter of space, whilst they are big carriers they are now bigger aircraft and movement to the hangers, and around the flight deck can be problematic with too crowded a deck. The reduction in aircraft types has also made things more efficient as it makes the maintenance & stores somewhat easier as you can have more common parts instead of a more varied but limited spares supply; it also simplifies flight operations as CATOBAR requires both the catapults and arrestor wire be configured for the specific aircraft types. the more variety, the more the deck crew have to manage the launch/landing cycle and adjust their hardware. Yes cost is a big factor but efficiency is a major one, as the more manageable numbers allows for a more effective and sustained operational cycle. Less impressive but a lot more practical.

[seadude]

Its actually more about being more efficient all round as well as cost, todays larger, smarter combat aircraft can deliver smart bombs/missiles on to target every time, where a flight of aircraft with conventional dumb bombs might be required to hit a target, possibly with 2nd or third repeat mission if results were ineffective. Its also a matter of space, whilst they are big carriers they are now bigger aircraft and movement to the hangers, and around the flight deck can be problematic with too crowded a deck. The reduction in aircraft types has also made things more efficient as it makes the maintenance & stores somewhat easier as you can have more common parts instead of a more varied but limited spares supply; it also simplifies flight operations as CATOBAR requires both the catapults and arrestor wire be configured for the specific aircraft types. the more variety, the more the deck crew have to manage the launch/landing cycle and adjust their hardware. Yes cost is a big factor but efficiency is a major one, as the more manageable numbers allows for a more effective and sustained operational cycle. Less impressive but a lot more practical.

Yes, I realise all that. But since I'll be building a fictional WHIF, I therefor can add as much or as little aircraft as I want, and whatever types I want. Remember, modeling is all about having FUN.  Anyway, I've thought of two possibilities:

OPTION 1 -

24x  FA-18E
24x  FA-18F
12x  A-12A
6x  EA-18G
4x  E-2C
2x  V-22
10x  SH-60
4x  X-47B

OPTION 2 -

24x  FA-18E
12x  FA-18F
24x  A-12A
6x  EA-18G
4x  E-2C
2x  V-22
10x  SH-60
4x  X-47B

[sandiego89]

Have fun, and yes you can put on whatever air-wing you want- but if you are asking for opinions there are several paths- You decide if you want neat/interesting or realistic. 

If you lean towards realistic I offer the following thoughts:

I see a bunch of F-35C more realistic than Navalized F-22's.  It would take oodles of money to make the F-22 go to sea and reopen the production line.  The path is pretty well laid for F-35C, and reports seem to be indicating the stealth aspects of the F-35 is going to be pretty good.  Much better than the Super Hornet.  If you have a stealth carrier, you would want a stealth fighter/attack aircraft.  The C will be ready for see by then. 

I also don't see the A-12 as realistic, but indeed would look cool on your flightdeck. 

They will also be E-2D's for your timeframe.  As long as you have the 8 bladed props- the other changes are not visible in this scale.

Super hornets of all 3 versions will indeed still be around.

I'd consider:
12x F-35C
12x FA-18E
12x FA-18F
6x EA-18
4x E-2D
2x V-22 as a COD
8X H-60's, of a few versions. 
6x X-47

 

[seadude]

F-35's are nice, but IMO, they don't have nearly the range, payload, capabilities, etc. that an FA-18E/F does.

Here are a few other options:

36x  FA-18E
12x  FA-18F
12x  A-12A
6x  EA-18G
4x  E-2C
2x  V-22
10x  SH-60
4x  X-47B

24x  FA-18E
12x  FA-18F
24x  A-12A
6x  EA-18G
4x  E-2C
2x  V-22
10x  SH-60
4x  X-47B

24x  FA-18E
12x  FA-18F
12x  F-35C
12x  A-12A
6x  EA-18G
4x  E-2C
2x  V-22
10x  SH-60
4x  X-47B

The first or second options I might go with.

[sandiego89]

F-35's are nice, but IMO, they don't have nearly the range, payload, capabilities, etc. that an FA-18E/F does.

Really?  Perhaps you might be confusing the variants of the F-35?  

Range: The C version, the carrier capable version of the F-35, carries a whopping 19,000+ pounds of fuel internally, and has impressive range. The STOVL B version carries much less fuel. The C can also carry external tanks if more range is needed (but with increased radar signature).  The F-35C will likely have over a 600 miles combat radius vs a 340 mile radius over a Super Hornet with a typical warload.  The Super Hornet carries 13,000 to 14,000 lbs of fuel internally (F the less), and almost always two large external tanks.  It can carry 5 external tanks in the "5 wet" configuration, but only as a tanker or without much ordinance.  

No version of the Hornet or Super Hornet has the payload or range of the long retired A-6 or the long dead A-12.  

Payload depends on configuration.  Yes in clean stealth configuration the C is limited to the internal stores bays so it may not look like a bomb truck.  But that is "first day of war" configuration.  When less stealth is required you can add external stores.  The F/A18 E/F invariably carriers two big extenal tanks, so as with any aircraft there is a tradeoff between fuel and ordinance.  The F-35 C will have an impressive payload capability when compared to the F/A-18 E/F.

Capability?  The latest versions of F/A-18 E/F have improved sensors over the early blocks, mainly the AESA radar and other improvements, but the F-35C with have better sensors, data linking and other capabilties.  A generation ahead of the Super Hornet.  If you mean weapons wise, yes the Super Hornet can carry a wide variety or ordinance, but the F-35 is rapidly expanding their weapons suite, and by your time frame should be quite extensive.  Steatlh capability heavily favors the C.  The E/F has some radar signature reduction features over legacy hornets, but should not be considered a "stealth fighter" by any stretch.  

The capabilites of the two complement each other.  The C gives you first day of war steath and impressive linking/sensor capability.  The F/A 18 E/F can be your bomb trucks and fighters.  

Again, you model, your airwing, but The C is coming to the USN and will very much be part of the carrier air wing in the 2020's and beyond, and I am confident will bring some pretty impressive capabilites.        

 

[pyro-manic]

Why are you looking at only a handful of X-47s? They should be your first choice for strike and interdiction. I'd say at least one full squadron, maybe two....

[PR19_Kit]

An F-23 would look even better.............