Aircraft Carriers

[rickshaw]

Interesting video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUdzVnZBaoY#t=240

I am unsure what the practical value of it might be but it shows what is possible.   Reminds me somewhat of films I've seen of landing onto the first aircraft carriers, where the deck crew would grab the plane and haul it down onto the deck.  Obviously you need a fair wind over the bows and a very light aircraft.  If they removed the bow mast they might not be quite so load limited as they obviously are.  It'd also make landing-on much easier.

[PR19_Kit]

To quote John Farley 'It's a lot easier to stop and land than it is to land and stop.. Talk about heart in mouth time! 

[zenrat]

I love how the voice over guy appears to keep a straight face as he says "of course the C130 wasn't designed for carrier landings".
Really?

The solution to all our huge carrier requirements may be Pykrete.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk

[NARSES2]

There's a very interesting photograph in my recently acquired Bookazine of British WWII aircraft carriers of possibly the first Ski Jump fitted to an aircraft carrier.

A heavily laden Barracuda taking off from HMS Furious with the aid of an additional wooden ramp fitted to the flight deck during attacks on Tirpitz.

Same publication has a photo of Lt Cmdr Eric "Winkle" Brown doing the first deck landing by a Mosquito FB VI on HMS Indefatigable in March 1944.

[MAD]

No chance, tbh. The Lancaster needed way too much distance to take off (4650ft according to THIS SITE). Look at something smaller. What's your timeframe? The Mosquito is an obvious choice for a later-war option, or perhaps the Beaufighter...

I'm fairly sure I've seen photos of a Manchester set on a rocket powered launch cradle (looks like it ran on railway tracks IIRC), I seem to remember that was one of the requirements when first designed.  So a Lancaster to the same spec isn't too far fetched --

EDIT:  found a pic.

Yeah, the plan was to launch heavily laden Manchesters from the then smaller airfields that were in existence.  While they trialled it they found it was easier to just extend the runways.  I'm sure that early Lancaster I's, converted from Manchesters still had the catapult attachment points.   I'd think catapulting such a big aircraft would have been rather an interesting and dangerous experience, especially at AUWs.

Agreed Rickshaw!!
There must be film footage of these trial cat-launches out there somewhere 

M.A.D

[Bryan H.]

Sorry for the thread resurrection guys... But I've seen article regarding the vulnerability of American carriers to attack from land based defenses and also that US naval air has become much more short ranged with its current strike forces (primarily Super Hornets & legacy Hornets).  I've thought for a while that the US and NATO would benefit by having a medium/light carrier of a common design that could be built (or assembled from large prefab components) in shipyards throughout the NATO nations and the US.  An important aspect of the design is commonality to hold down cost so that more nations can afford the carriers and afford more of them as well.  Another important goal is use of automation to keep the crew levels lower.  Of course, there's some flexibility of the design so that each nation can customize armament, electronics fit, aircraft, and possibly even the engines (gas turbine, diesel, nuclear or combination).  I'm thinking something of the size of a modernized Essex (SCB125) or CVA-01 in size with a 50-60 aircraft air group and the ability to handle aircraft up to F-14 sized fighters or E-2 AEW aircraft. It seems that the large size and expense of the Nimitz sized carriers (along with the short ranges of current naval strike fighters) limits their utility.  and happy modeling, Bryan

[PR19_Kit]

Thread resurrections are good, there's no problems in doing it at all I'm sure.

But when was the USN last 'long ranged' from the land attack point of view? It must have been in the Viet Nam era with the A-6 Intruder, which makes you wonder why the F-18 has such a short range.

[Gondor]

Cost and crew size are the main constraints to building a carrier, operational requirements will also be a factor as in why would we build/buy a carrier.

It also takes one heck of a long time to design and build a carrier even if everyone that wanted one used a basic set of parts as you suggest Bryan H. Everyone will have their own design input to meet their own requirements so getting a common list of parts would be difficult. I know, ideal world and all that but it's not unfortunately, but if it was, who's?

Gondor

[sandiego89]

Agree on the cost and the crewing- even for smaller carrier.  Not many navies can afford something the size of a carrier battle group, the "50-60" aircraft in the air wing.

The retirement of the A-6, and the failed A-12 to replace it, has indeed reduced long range carrier strike in the USN.

A good read on the "retreat from range" with some neat graphics:

http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-CarrierAirWing-151016.pdf

-Dave

[scooter]

USN played with the idea during the Carter Administration of the CVV- Aircraft Carrier, Medium, along with the Sea Control ship.  I had a wild arse idea of a nuclear powered Midway, the Revolution-class (CVL(N)-76, and including the USS Serapis)

[albeback]

Sorry for the thread resurrection guys... But I've seen article regarding the vulnerability of American carriers to attack from land based defenses and also that US naval air has become much more short ranged with its current strike forces (primarily Super Hornets & legacy Hornets).  I've thought for a while that the US and NATO would benefit by having a medium/light carrier of a common design that could be built (or assembled from large prefab components) in shipyards throughout the NATO nations and the US.  An important aspect of the design is commonality to hold down cost so that more nations can afford the carriers and afford more of them as well.  Another important goal is use of automation to keep the crew levels lower.  Of course, there's some flexibility of the design so that each nation can customize armament, electronics fit, aircraft, and possibly even the engines (gas turbine, diesel, nuclear or combination).  I'm thinking something of the size of a modernized Essex (SCB125) or CVA-01 in size with a 50-60 aircraft air group and the ability to handle aircraft up to F-14 sized fighters or E-2 AEW aircraft. It seems that the large size and expense of the Nimitz sized carriers (along with the short ranges of current naval strike fighters) limits their utility.  and happy modeling, Bryan

Sensible idea but, the biggest obstacle to any such "common" approach would be that while the partner nations might all agree on "commonality", each of the individual nations  would insist that the "common" design chosen would have to be theirs and nobody else's

Allan

[KJ_Lesnick]

Bryan H.

I've thought for a while that the US and NATO would benefit by having a medium/light carrier of a common design that could be built (or assembled from large prefab components) in shipyards throughout the NATO nations and the US.

Well I prefer nations to be responsible for their own national defense as it effectively otherwise leads to a few nations that end up with massive defense budgets that not only cost the taxpayers and go to other nations, but also lead to massive military-industrial complexes as have indeed happened.

An important aspect of the design is commonality to hold down cost so that more nations can afford the carriers and afford more of them as well.  Another important goal is use of automation to keep the crew levels lower.  Of course, there's some flexibility of the design so that each nation can customize armament, electronics fit, aircraft, and possibly even the engines (gas turbine, diesel, nuclear or combination).  I'm thinking something of the size of a modernized Essex (SCB125) or CVA-01 in size with a 50-60 aircraft air group and the ability to handle aircraft up to F-14 sized fighters or E-2 AEW aircraft. It seems that the large size and expense of the Nimitz sized carriers (along with the short ranges of current naval strike fighters) limits their utility.

What I was thinking would be useful is either

• Non-Nuclear and Gas Turbine powered: They can be started rapidly, probably more efficient than boilers and overhauls don't require one to gut the whole ship as on a nuclear carrier
  
• Something between the size of the Essex & Midway or the Midway: Big, but not too big
  
• Angled-deck length, arrester hooks, deck elevators, and catapults able to operate planes in the Enterprise or Nimitz range
  

[sandiego89]

• Non-Nuclear and Gas Turbine powered: They can be started rapidly, probably more efficient than boilers and overhauls don't require one to gut the whole ship as on a nuclear carrier
  
• Something between the size of the Essex & Midway or the Midway: Big, but not too big
  
• Angled-deck length, arrester hooks, deck elevators, and catapults able to operate planes in the Enterprise or Nimitz range
  

Steam power from boilers has some advantages for a big carrier:
- supplies steam to the catapults.
- good, flexible, power control for the multiple power cycles a carrier goes through.  A carrier spends a surprising amount of time throttling up and down for flight operations.  Gas turbines are most efficient at higher rpm's.
- efficient.

dis-advantges:
- space and weight requirements for the plant and trunking.
- would need to re-constitute the expertise to run and overhaul steam plants.
- separate fuel for the boilers and the air-wing. 

[KJ_Lesnick]

sandiego89

Steam power from boilers has some advantages for a big carrier:
- supplies steam to the catapults.
- good, flexible, power control for the multiple power cycles a carrier goes through.  A carrier spends a surprising amount of time throttling up and down for flight operations.  Gas turbines are most efficient at higher rpm's.
- efficient.

More than a gas-turbine in what ways?

dis-advantges:
- space and weight requirements for the plant and trunking.
- would need to re-constitute the expertise to run and overhaul steam plants.
- separate fuel for the boilers and the air-wing.

Good points

[Hobbes]

dis-advantges:
- space and weight requirements for the plant and trunking.

ISTR trunking is more of an issue with gas turbines, since they require high-volume unrestricted airflow in and out. For a boiler you can get away with using fans in the intake to mitigate a suboptimal intake design, for a gas turbine you can't.