Aircraft Carriers

[GTX]

The Tejas was another contender I had thought of for such a ship (especially considering there is already a Naval variant in consideration) as well as maybe the JF-17.  Looking at their spec for comparison with the Gripen and A-4:

HAL Tejas:

# Crew: 1 - 2
# Length: 13.20 m (43 ft 4 in)
# Wingspan: 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in)
# Height: 4.40 m (14 ft 9 in)
# Wing area: 38.4 m² (413 ft²)
# Empty weight: 5,500 kg (12,100 lb)
# Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (18,700 lb)
# Max takeoff weight: >12,500 kg (>27,558 lb)
# Powerplant: 1× General Electric F404-GE-F2J3 turbofan, 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf); or 1× General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan, 83.2 kN (18,700 lbf); or 1× GTRE GTX-35VS Kaveri turbofan, 89.9 kN (20,000 lbf)



JF-17:

   * Crew: 1 pilot
   * Length: 14.97 m (49 ft 1 in)
   * Wingspan: 9.46 m (31 ft 0 in)
   * Height: 4.77 m (15 ft 8 in)
   * Wing area: 24.4 m² (ft²)
   * Empty weight: 6,320kg (14,220 lb)
   * Loaded weight: 9,100 kg (20,062 lb)
   * Max takeoff weight: 12,700 kg (27,337 lb)
   * Powerplant: 1× Russian-made RD-93 turbofan (49.4 kN)(81.3 kN) 1, 8,290 kgf (18,277 lbf
   * Production version to have further improved RD-93B with 10% more thrust. For the long term, TVT or thrust vectoring nozzle to enhance maneuverability will also be an option in the future upon customer's request.)


Regards,

Greg

[elmayerle]

Let me throw out another idea, a navalized KAI A-50 in either standard two-seat or redesigned single-seat configuration.

[GTX]

Another good suggestion - which brings of course another platform into the mix:  a modern CVE (I figure such a sized carrier would have to be an Escort Carrier - maybe to help escort South Korean shipping) based upon the ROKS Dokdo class:



Ship displacement:    14,300 tons (empty) / 18,800 tons (full)
Length:    199 m
Beam:             31 m
Draught:      7 m

Maybe a compliment of 6 - 8 F/A-50Ns (my designation) plus some helicopters for AEW/ASW.

T-50 Specs:

# Crew: 2
# Length: 42 ft 7 in (12.98 m)
# Wingspan: 30 ft 1 in (9.17 m)
# Height: 15 ft 8.25 in (4.78 m)
# Empty weight: 14,200 lb (6,441 kg)
# Max takeoff weight: 26,400 lb (11,985 kg)
# Powerplant: 1× General Electric F404 afterburning turbofan

Regards,

Greg

[anthonyp]

Somewhere on the net is info on the old Spanish SAC220 design.  I forget most of the details, but it was a CTOL carrier that could handle Hornets (and I think Rafales).

Then there's the old CVV design from the 70's that could have been a decent small carrier had it cost a lot less than it was projected to.

I must update The Manifesto one of these days...  Well, first I have to find it again, then update it.

Somewhere on this site, there was a thread on naval Whif designs.  In that thread, someone went about converting either a Tarawa or Wasp hull into a CTOL carrier design.  I picked up a Wasp kit in order to try out the conversion, just haven't gotten back to my ships yet.

EDIT:  Found this while looking for SAC-220 pics on the net (looks more like a modded CVV than not to me):


EDIT II:  And here's the SAC-220 I was looking for!


EDIT Part Tres:  Forgot to link to the site I got them from.  There's more CGI of the SAC-220 there:
Spanish Language forum on SAC-220

They've got speculative modernized S-2's for use off the carriers as well.

[dy031101]

How much heavier would a fighter be to convert from land use to carrier-borne?

I'm torn between naval Tejas and single-seat naval A-50 (my favourite isn't either of those, but if you need something that has a basis already flying, those two would be it).

[elmayerle]

I'd say the best bet would be to compare the weights of the F-35A and F-35c and establish a ratio from there.  That'd probably give you a minimum weight increase ratio 'cause we're shaving the weight where ever we safely can.

[GTX]

It would also largely depend upon the nature of the land based fighter - a Gripen for instance already has a very strong landing gear and so would require less strengthening.  In fact, I do remember reading a while back that there was a real world proposal for a naval Gripen - possibly for India.

hen there's the old CVV design from the 70's that could have been a decent small carrier had it cost a lot less than it was projected to.

Except the CVV was around 50000t if I remember correctly - not exactly small.

Regards.

Greg

[Zen]

There where two smaller CV studies in the 70's, one at 35,000tons with a 6 degree angled deck and a reverse angle design of 30,000tons.
F14 and Hawkeye where said not to be operable from them but I'd have to check the latter.

[Joe C-P]

Some late model A-4s might still be available out there.

Countries friendly to the US might be able to purchase F-35Bs or Cs, which would be a benefit to that program.

The carrier MiG-29 and Su-33 are not candidates, because they used a long rolling takeoff and a ski-jump, which wouldn't work on a small carrier.

JoeP

[dy031101]

The carrier MiG-29 and Su-33 are not candidates, because they used a long rolling takeoff and a ski-jump, which wouldn't work on a small carrier.

IIRC, Russians tried promoting MiG-29K (probably not the new configuration that India will get) for Thailand's carrier.

I wouldn't imagine it'd be as much of a stretch as, say, a Su-33......

[GTX]

One possible reason for a CVA/L - what if the Harrier never existed.  That is, what if Michel Wibault and Bristol Aero-Engines never had that spark of ingenuity that eventually led to the Kestral and Harrier?  Given that most other VTOl concepts weren't really that viable up until this point, the removal of the Harrier and related effectively removes the concept of the VTOL/STOVL "Harrier Carrier".  In such a situation, would the nations that have since used these need a small CV of some description:

* UK,
* Spain,
* Italy,
* India,
* Thailand, and
* USMC?

What small aircraft might they use - Naval G-91s perhaps?  AMXs? Naval Folland Gnats???

Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

Hi folks,

An interesting picture that gives a good comparison between the various new 'light Carriers':



Please note that the new RAN LHDs that started this thread are basically the same as the Spanish Strategic Projection Ship in this.

Regards,

Greg

[roughneck06]

With the advent of the F35 JSF ( especially the STOVL version) who do you see aqurring CVs in the next 10 to 20 years?

Could Argentina be in the running along w/ Brazil replacing the San Paulo? Other Latin American Navies? ( Chile? ). Would it be possible that Argentina and Brazil might be able to aquire early versions of the F/A 18?

My nominations-

Canada (  F35B )
Netherlands ( F35B)
Austraila ( F35B- especially w/ the 2 LHDs)
Argentina
Brazil
Chile ( maybe- just maybe )
South Africa ( looking at LHD lately )

I suspect we'll see a couple of Chinese CVs and a couple of new Russian CVs too.

Thoughts/ideas?

Thanks!

[Mossie]

Well, Brazil haven't had the Sao Paulo long & judging on how old the Minas Gerais they'll probably be keeping hold of for more than another 10 years.

Argentina may look to buy one, but I'll bet the British government tries hard to block any deal, seeing as there have been some political machinations towards the Malvinas once again.  Now if Argentina gets hold of one, Chile might want one too.  They've been getting on well recentley, but if Argentina acquires a carrier, Chile might get nervous.

Britain of course are building the two Queen Elizabeth class carriers to replace their three Invincible class.  The contract was eventually issued earlier in the year, but a lot of people are doubting wether HMS Queen Elizibeth & HMS Prince of Wales will actually enter service.

[dy031101]

Canada...... has the exact configuration of Joint Support Ship been changed (or even published in the first place)?

All available data seem to suggest a hybrid LPD/AOE with a large helopad...... well unless someone could squeeze a skijump......

I suspect we'll see a couple of Chinese CVs and a couple of new Russian CVs too.

I was kinda hoping PLAN would aquire a Sino-ized version of Su-33 to go with their carrier instead of navalizing J-10...... time will tell.

Nothing against Chinese hardwares, it's just I think that a ship might be able to carry more of smaller planes, but larger and more powerful aircraft are more capable and versatile.