Aircraft Carriers

[Jschmus]

Hmm, don't the Japanese also have a modern LPH with a through-deck and a well-deck?  Those operating with this DDH could give you quite an assault force.

Yeah, the Osumi-class "LST".

Osumi LST

Tamiya offers kits of both of those in 1/700.  One of them has a see-through flight deck so you can see the hangar and well decks.  From the Wiki article:

"the program originated in a proposal for a small carrier for defensive and mine countermeasures (MCM) purposes, but this was deemed politically unacceptable, and the project was reworked as an amphibious ship".

On a similar note, I discovered this morning the similar Dokdo-class LPH, from South Korea.

Dokdo LPH




The article notes that the ship is larger than both SCS-derived carriers (Principe de Asturias and CHakri Naruebet), and was designed from the get-go to handle VSTOL aircraft.  It lacks only a ski-jump.

[Joe C-P]

These are actually logical extensions of the earlier DDHs. Even if they never acquire STOVL aircraft, having the through deck makes helo operations much easier - more space to operate a proper deck park, and easier take-offs and landings with wind-over-deck to assist and without the turbulence of the superstructure.

The Osumis cannot carry a STOVL. Their forward decks aren't reinforced sufficiently, and their aft flight decks aren't heat-protected.

[dy031101]

The Osumis cannot carry a STOVL. Their forward decks aren't reinforced sufficiently, and their aft flight decks aren't heat-protected.

I once heard that even if she could, her island would have been too wide to permit rolling takeoff.

[elmayerle]

Hmm, a fleet of Osumi-class and Hyuga-class ships plus some ASW and ASUW vessels would make a good start toward a greater "presence" for the JMSDF.  I could just see them exporting some Osumi-class to South Korea where they'd operate together with their Dokdo-Class.  Anyone for some AV-8K variants of the AV-8B+ in South Korean markings?  Maverick?  Here's an idea for you.  Possibly with suitable variants of the V-22K, too?

[Joe C-P]

I'm not certain if the Osumi's are rated to take the V-22, but the new DDHs almost certainly will be.

JoeP

[GTX]

Hi folks,

An idea I just had whilst considering the proposed South African LHD buy (see here).

What if some navies wanted a new light carrier but didn't necessarily want to use VTOL type aircraft - they still wanted conventional fixed wing aircraft (for what ever reason - I can think of quite a few reasons)?   Therefore, what if something like the new Australian (Navantia) LHD was modified with an angled deck and maybe catapult or ski-jump (for STOBAR ops)?

For a comparison - the HMAS Melbourne's (Majestic class light fleet carrier) specs:

Displacement:    20,000 tons full load
Length:    214 metres
Beam:    24 metres
Draught:    7.5 metres



The new Canberra class LHDs:

Displacement:    27,851 t
Length:    
 - Overall     230.8 m
 - Waterline    207.2 m
Beam:        32.0 m
Draught :   7.18 m





As you can see, the new LHDs will actually be a bit larger than the Melbourne.  Therefore, it isn't necessarily inconceivable.

As to aircraft - something like a navalised Gripen maybe?

Your thought, additions etc.

Regards,

Greg

[Hobbes]

Interesting thought. With modern weapons, a smaller aircraft can pack a decent punch: ASRAAM and AMRAAM are not that heavy, and bombs like the SDB can be carried in multiples even on a light aircraft. You might even be able to design an effective fighter that's smaller than the Gripen and Harrier.
Catapults would be hard to fit on a small ship. Steam catapults are huge beasts (>100 m, IIRC) and they require a steam plant. Electromagnetic catapults would be an alternative, but have never been tried.  

[tinlail]

Turboprop COIN aircraft is what I would go for.

A small carrier couldn't carry enough jets to have any hope on taking on land based jets airfield. in all likelyhood they should not operate any where near such a field. The only country to attempt such a operation in resent times was the UK, and they were carefull to keep their carriers out of harm way.  

[Maverick]

Tinlail,

Given the type of vessel we're talking about, I don't seriously think that anyone would consider it as an offensive 'strike' carrier in the US sense.  I would expect that it would be more of a USMC type 'assault carrier' support amphibious operations and thus not directly in harm's way when it came to enemy air ops.

I'm assuming by your reference to the UK, you're talking about the Falklands?  

Realistically, the only reason they kept their carriers out of harm's way was due to effective air defence and the short legs of the Argentinian attackers.  Had the Argentinians had either a more effective strike package with support aircraft, etc, or their range was longer, the use of Exocet would have put an end to the RN carrier's just as easily as it did to those ships attacked.

Mav

[tinlail]

I would expect that it would be more of a USMC type 'assault carrier' support amphibious operations and thus not directly in harm's way when it came to enemy air ops.

Exactly, and troops don't have a great desire for ground support from jets.

[GTX]

team catapults are huge beasts (>100 m, IIRC) and they require a steam plant. Electromagnetic catapults would be an alternative, but have never been tried.

Yes - but the Melbourne (to keep using the same comparison) did actually have a steam catapult (added along with angled flight deck and mirror landing system in 1952) so a new slightly larger ship should be able to as well (assuming the necessary steam plant is available).  Alternatively, the EM option is a good one too given the way modern warships are going.

A small carrier couldn't carry enough jets to have any hope on taking on land based jets airfield.

Depends upon what you hope to do really.  For reference again, the airwing of the Melbourne later in its career was:

-  8 A4G Skyhawk fighter bombers,
-  6 Grumman S2E/G Trackers, as well as
-  Westland Wessex anti-submarine helicopters and Sea King anti-submarine helicopters.

See also the following pics:





I actually think the Gripen and Skyhawk make an interesting comparison:

A-4F:

   * Crew: 1 (2 in TA-4J,TA-4F,OA-4F)
   * Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.22 m)
   * Wingspan: 26 ft 6 in (8.38 m)
   * Height: 15 ft (4.57 m)
   * Wing area: 259 ft² (24.15 m²)
   * Airfoil: NACA 0008-1.1-25 root, NACA 0005-0.825-50 tip
   * Empty weight: 10,450 lb (4,750 kg)
   * Loaded weight: 18,300 lb (8,318 kg)
   * Max takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,136 kg)
   * Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney J52-P8A turbojet, 9,300 lbf (10,000+ USMC A-4M and OA-4M) (41 kN)

Performance

   * Maximum speed: 585 knots (673 mph, 1,077 km/h)
   * Range: 1,700 nm (2,000 mi, 3,220 km)
   * Service ceiling: 42,250 ft (12,880 m)
   * Rate of climb: 8,440 ft/min (43 m/s)
   * Wing loading: 70.7 lb/ft² (344.4 kg/m²)
   * Thrust/weight: 0.51

JAS-39A/B:

   * Crew: 1–2
   * Length: 14.1 m (46 ft 3 in)
   * Wingspan: 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)
   * Height: 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in)
   * Wing area: 25.54 m (274.9 ft)
   * Empty weight: 6,620 kg (14,600 lb)
   * Loaded weight: 8,720 kg (19,200 lb)
   * Max takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (31,000 lb)
   * Powerplant: 1× Volvo Aero RM12 (GE F404) afterburning turbofan, 54 kN dry, 80 kN with afterburner (12,000 lbf / 18,100 lbf)
   * Wheel track: 2.4 m (7 ft 10 in)

Performance

   * Maximum speed: Mach 2
   * Range: Combat radius 800 km, (500 mi), (430 NM). ()
   * Service ceiling: 15,000 m (50,000 ft)
   * Rate of climb: m/s (ft/min)
   * Wing loading: 341 kg/m² (70,3 lb/ft²)
   * Thrust/weight: 0.94

You will see they are actually very similar in size.  Now what would make a good Tracker equivalent - would you even need one?

Regards.

Greg

[dy031101]

A small carrier couldn't carry enough jets to have any hope on taking on land based jets airfield. in all likelyhood they should not operate any where near such a field.

Realistically, the only reason they kept their carriers out of harm's way was due to effective air defence and the short legs of the Argentinian attackers.

The STOVL jets are IMHO an extension of ship-based surface-to-air weapons, taking out over-the-horizon targetting assets and all.

Turboprop COIN aircraft is what I would go for.

Exactly, and troops don't have a great desire for ground support from jets.

There probably is also the survivability issue- facing modern air defense weapons, one has to be either fast (to dodge fire) or tough (no choice but to take hits after all).  Evolution of technologies should be able to make the problems with close air support using jets not as bad they they were before.

[AeroplaneDriver]

With SAAB expecting to fly the next-gen Gripen in a few years I think that would be the way to go for a non-STOVL aircraft.  A few more years down the road and EMALS may become a realistic option for a small CATOBAR carrier.

Still, I think a STOVL carrier in the Invincible size range (about 20k tons) with 6-10 F-35B and a similar number of helos is likely the way to go for a small carrier by 2015-2020.

[GTX]

Still, I think a STOVL carrier in the Invincible size range (about 20k tons) with 6-10 F-35B and a similar number of helos is likely the way to go for a small carrier by 2015-2020.

I actually do agree and actually prefer VTOL/STOVL designs, but still...

Another option of course would be a Carrier of this size totally dedicated to UAVs.

Regards,

Greg

[Zen]

In terms of steam catapults Melbourne had a single 103ft BS mkIV catapult.

She was slow when operating the catapult because of the steam it took to operate comming from the boilers used to power the engines.

Colossus type CV's lacked the power, but raise the full load to 24,000tons and use say 60,000shp machinary and it might be achievable.

France felt the 18,000ton PA.75 was a decent CVL-N, using 64,000shp from a single submarine reactor.

LCA Tejas was going to be flow as a naval machine, quite whether India ever will go that far now (the pace of progress is very slow) is open to question.