And from memory the UK has already announced the QE is going to do a tour in Asia once she's worked up (still no planes though).
AHC: African aircraft carriers
- Thread starter RogueBeaver
- Start date
And from memory the UK has already announced the QE is going to do a tour in Asia once she's worked up (still no planes though).
I can tell you from first hand experience how difficult and expensive it is to operate an aircraft carrier. Sloreck said it all very well above. I will add two items to consider:
1. You don't just get a carrier and an air wing and be instantly proficient at using it. You have to have a naval aviation culture to be able to use it effectively, and that takes a long time to develop, and a lot of effort to maintain. Look to the example of the USN and the RN. It took decades to get into the right mindset and develop the right techniques. The USN really didn't get proficient at operating carriers integrated into the battle fleet until 20 years had passed. For another example look to how the Russians and Chinese are struggling, and they have a tremendous advantage in economy and in industrial capacity.
2. Once you have everything in place you have to work really hard at maintaining proficiency. Flying an airplane off the deck of a carrier and efficiently operating a floating air base is a highly perishable skill. If you don't do it all the time the skills quickly erode and bad things happen. You can not have a carrier and an air wing and have it partially mobilized. You either operate it all the time or not at all. There is no middle ground.
With that and everything that sloreck so ably stated above, without a massive POD way upstream in the timeline, this scenario is a non-starter.
1. You don't just get a carrier and an air wing and be instantly proficient at using it. You have to have a naval aviation culture to be able to use it effectively, and that takes a long time to develop, and a lot of effort to maintain. Look to the example of the USN and the RN. It took decades to get into the right mindset and develop the right techniques. The USN really didn't get proficient at operating carriers integrated into the battle fleet until 20 years had passed. For another example look to how the Russians and Chinese are struggling, and they have a tremendous advantage in economy and in industrial capacity.
2. Once you have everything in place you have to work really hard at maintaining proficiency. Flying an airplane off the deck of a carrier and efficiently operating a floating air base is a highly perishable skill. If you don't do it all the time the skills quickly erode and bad things happen. You can not have a carrier and an air wing and have it partially mobilized. You either operate it all the time or not at all. There is no middle ground.
With that and everything that sloreck so ably stated above, without a massive POD way upstream in the timeline, this scenario is a non-starter.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
Wasn't word on the Street that a USMC squadron was going to cross deck for the duration?
I did notice when QE was 'floated out' there was a lot of USMC Brass in the stands
I think that's the intent but given the timeframe (at least 2-3 years from now) who knows what commitments the USMC might have for their 35's at that stage, but yes the USMC has shown interest in using the RN hulls, think they used do so for HArrier training as well when most of their Amphibs were deployed for "War on Terror" operations back in the mid 00's.
I agree that the CDG has operated out of the Med, IMHO that is more of a "we have it so let's find a way to use it" rather than having a need (or perceived need) and building a carrier to fill it. The UK is going to have 2 carriers at some point, which gives you a shot at having at least one available full time. Carriers are good for fighting a peer nation at sea, or power projection where you have no bases/access. If you don't have a need/strategy for these things you don't need a carrier. DaveJ576 is spot on, even once you have gotten to the point where you are good at carrier ops, if you don't practice the skills go away quickly. Ask yourself, would you be happy with a surgeon, no matter how good their reputation or past history who had not done any surgery for a couple of years walking in to do your complex and difficult operation? Speaking as a surgeon, I'd get off the OR table and run naked down the hall.
Would it be more possible if the definition of "Carrier" is stretched from Fast Jet to Anti sub/Amphib units, I mean Algeria has bought a modernised San Giorgio class, and Qatar is planning a a different variant of it for their LPD/Air Defence unit and capable of carrying up to 5 NH-90's
@sparky42 : If you go from "full service" carriers to small decks/amphibs carrying just helicopters or tiltrotors for ASW or amphibious operations the entire picture changes. Nations that have no need for power projection and/or simply cannot afford what it takes to have a carrier force, may very well have use for these ships. Using South Africa as an example, they have (and had Cold War) a need to keep the sea lanes around Southern Africa open for trade. You could argue the ability to land a MEU size force at some distance from land borders to either deal with an enemy or a humanitarian crisis. This opens up the number of countries that might actually find such craft useful, and potentially affordable - as far as Africa goes, still a very small number.
IMHO Algeria operating a vessel that big is a penis size exercise probably in response to what Egypt bought.
IMHO Algeria operating a vessel that big is a penis size exercise probably in response to what Egypt bought.
Yes, carriers are very hard to operate and require a great deal of training and a broader naval aviation culture and landing on the deck of a ship is a perishable skill, that's why France sends its pilots to the US to train when the CDG is in the shop. Heck, Brazil's pilots occasionally practiced on US decks that were in the area because the Sao Paulo rarely left port.
However, all of this assumes the African country in question actually plans to do anything with its carrier other than have it sit in port and look cool and occasionally go to sea. If Thailand didn't have a carrier and somebody on this board started a TL where Thailand gets a small carrier, I have no doubt that some of you would be making the same arguments that the whole notion is so next to impossible that it is practically ASB. Except Thailand does have a carrier. It doesn't do much, but they have one:
http://www.businessinsider.com/thailand-aircraft-carrier-has-no-aircraft-2015-2
However, all of this assumes the African country in question actually plans to do anything with its carrier other than have it sit in port and look cool and occasionally go to sea. If Thailand didn't have a carrier and somebody on this board started a TL where Thailand gets a small carrier, I have no doubt that some of you would be making the same arguments that the whole notion is so next to impossible that it is practically ASB. Except Thailand does have a carrier. It doesn't do much, but they have one:
http://www.businessinsider.com/thailand-aircraft-carrier-has-no-aircraft-2015-2
@Zheng He : I agree that anybody who wants to spend the money can get a carrier (new or used, flat or ski deck). For another large chunk of change they can get naval aircraft, then go about training the pilots for them, the maintenance crews etc. The costs of keeping one carrier and an airwing going in 2018 are higher in relative terms than they were in 1948 or 1958, as are the costs of acquiring the ship itself. That is why when the "used" WWII carriers that many smaller naval powers had wore out they were not replaced. With the possible exception of South Africa having a small deck ASW/amphib unit, no African country has any conceivable use for any aviation ship except as something to brag on. Obviously a PoD that creates an African country with Great Power aspirations, significant overseas territories or large maritime trade changes the "need" part of the equation.
So I notice this thread mostly talks about an African nation getting a WW2-era carrier from USA or UK... but what if an African state decides to buy a Soviet Kiev-class ship in 1990s?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev-class_aircraft_carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev-class_aircraft_carrier
Hammerbolt
Donor
Assuming they could aford it, they'd still need to buy fighters and helis for it, plus build the harbour infrastructure to support it. Not to mention getting the escorts for it...
As already rightly said, carriers don't operate in a vacuum and need escorts. When the Royal Navy commissions its new carriers, they will be stretched to provide a proper escort group for them whilst maintaining commitments elsewhere. I can't see African nations being able to support both a carrier and the escort group. Carriers without the right support are just large targets.
If we look at early post WWII, then yes, a few nations might have managed to acquire one of the surplus CVL/CVE types at a decent price, but those would soon wear out and replacing them wouldn't be cheap. operating them would bankrupt most nations and be done only at the expense of the rest of their armed forces/presidential guards etc. Even if they kept going, they lose the ability to operate effectively as the aircraft they can carry become increasingly obsolete. As we creep into the more modern era, operating a carrier in somewhere like the Mediterranean becomes harder and harder. Even in WWII carrier operations in the Med were risky, but with the speed and range of modern aircraft and their ordnance it becomes worse. Even a few high speed attack aircraft with quite simple missiles is going to cause major problems for a small ex WWII carrier with a limited air wing and few escorts. Yes, the Americans and French do operate there, but they have the full escort group around them, a mix of very modern aircraft on deck, modern defensive systems, SSN's below them and land based friendly assets within range. They virtually own a huge bubble all around the carrier. Could any smaller state operate a carrier in that environment? Few if any of the East or West coast African nations need a blue water navy, and apart from the ego boost of having a flat top, the only likely use for them will be against insurgents or other African nations. That puts them operating within a known area, in range of land based aircraft. Realistically only South Africa, as part of a Commonwealth or Pro-NATO effort, could come close to justifying a flat top.
If we look at early post WWII, then yes, a few nations might have managed to acquire one of the surplus CVL/CVE types at a decent price, but those would soon wear out and replacing them wouldn't be cheap. operating them would bankrupt most nations and be done only at the expense of the rest of their armed forces/presidential guards etc. Even if they kept going, they lose the ability to operate effectively as the aircraft they can carry become increasingly obsolete. As we creep into the more modern era, operating a carrier in somewhere like the Mediterranean becomes harder and harder. Even in WWII carrier operations in the Med were risky, but with the speed and range of modern aircraft and their ordnance it becomes worse. Even a few high speed attack aircraft with quite simple missiles is going to cause major problems for a small ex WWII carrier with a limited air wing and few escorts. Yes, the Americans and French do operate there, but they have the full escort group around them, a mix of very modern aircraft on deck, modern defensive systems, SSN's below them and land based friendly assets within range. They virtually own a huge bubble all around the carrier. Could any smaller state operate a carrier in that environment? Few if any of the East or West coast African nations need a blue water navy, and apart from the ego boost of having a flat top, the only likely use for them will be against insurgents or other African nations. That puts them operating within a known area, in range of land based aircraft. Realistically only South Africa, as part of a Commonwealth or Pro-NATO effort, could come close to justifying a flat top.
Hammerbolt
Donor
A related issue happened/is happening to Brasil. While they did buy a CV post war, they never had the escorts for it, and it's air group was pityfull. And then they bough the old french Foch, and the costs nearly broke the navy.
Russia disposed of them pretty cheaply to China (where they serve as floating hotels), didn't they? One of those would make a nice presidential yacht, if nothing else. Unfortunately, the cheap cost of those was probably due to the fact that they were all in poor condition and the cost of repair and refit would be more than it was worth. So if you want anything more than a floating hotel for some African leader, it's probably best to go the route Thailand did and procure a ship like the Chakri Naruebet which would be a brand new ship instead of a patched over Soviet hulk.
Although most African nations would be lucky to get even the limited use out of their carrier which Thailand has with the Chakri Naruebet.
Since we agree that its going to be SA can I suggest,
1914 The German East Asia Squadron doesn't all go to the Falklands but splits and sends one of its ship to bombard "British military" targets in South Africa.
1914 Gneisenau opens fire at night to avoid the coastal batteries at a SA city to hit the docks and warehouses it unsurprisingly ends up missing and the shells land in (white expensive) residential areas.
WWI Not much change apart from SA anger at Germany and slightly larger local build up of SA forces.
1919 With strong domestic support the SA government forms the South African Division of the Royal Navy with two D CLs donated by GB along with a handful of smaller craft
1924 SADRN orders a County class CA
1926 The unpopular name is replaced with RSAN fully independent of GB and RSAN orders second ship
1928 HMSAS South Africa commissioned
1930 HMSAS Cape Town Commissioned, due to economy the two old ships are mothballed
1935 Replacement Town class cruisers for the D class ships are ordered
1938 HMSAS Durban and HMSAS Johannesburg commissioned but due to the situation the old D are kept and worked back up into service.
WWII as OTL ish
1943 HMSAS Pretoria, a Ruler class CVE LL from USA
Then add a post war light fleet to replace the old counties in late 40s......
1914 The German East Asia Squadron doesn't all go to the Falklands but splits and sends one of its ship to bombard "British military" targets in South Africa.
1914 Gneisenau opens fire at night to avoid the coastal batteries at a SA city to hit the docks and warehouses it unsurprisingly ends up missing and the shells land in (white expensive) residential areas.
WWI Not much change apart from SA anger at Germany and slightly larger local build up of SA forces.
1919 With strong domestic support the SA government forms the South African Division of the Royal Navy with two D CLs donated by GB along with a handful of smaller craft
1924 SADRN orders a County class CA
1926 The unpopular name is replaced with RSAN fully independent of GB and RSAN orders second ship
1928 HMSAS South Africa commissioned
1930 HMSAS Cape Town Commissioned, due to economy the two old ships are mothballed
1935 Replacement Town class cruisers for the D class ships are ordered
1938 HMSAS Durban and HMSAS Johannesburg commissioned but due to the situation the old D are kept and worked back up into service.
WWII as OTL ish
1943 HMSAS Pretoria, a Ruler class CVE LL from USA
Then add a post war light fleet to replace the old counties in late 40s......
Last edited:
POD British ships are banned from the Suez Canal
.... maybe the canal never reopens after 1956 .....
forcing British merchant ships to sail the long way round, past the southern tip of Africa. RN maintains a “coaling station” on the South African coast. As the British Empire shrinks - after WW2 - RN and RAF transfer more and more responsibility to RSAN and RSAAF. Their duties including patrolling shipping lanes, long range search and rescue, keeping an eye on pesky Russian submarines, etc.
Britain gives plenty of aircraft and a few ships to SA. They share training facilities. Eventually the RAF grudgingly admits that SA has better weather and quietly cooperates in training SA aircrew.
.... maybe the canal never reopens after 1956 .....
forcing British merchant ships to sail the long way round, past the southern tip of Africa. RN maintains a “coaling station” on the South African coast. As the British Empire shrinks - after WW2 - RN and RAF transfer more and more responsibility to RSAN and RSAAF. Their duties including patrolling shipping lanes, long range search and rescue, keeping an eye on pesky Russian submarines, etc.
Britain gives plenty of aircraft and a few ships to SA. They share training facilities. Eventually the RAF grudgingly admits that SA has better weather and quietly cooperates in training SA aircrew.
Operating an aircraft carrier requires aircraft.
Only a half dozen nations manufacture the medium to large helicopters needed to patrol the middles of oceans. They include EH101, Kamov, NH-90, SH-60 Seahawk, etc.
The list of different types of fixed-wing aircraft is even smaller: Alize, Gannet, Tracker, S-3 Viking, etc. I am thinking of triple-role aircraft that patrol, chase submarines, COD and tanker roles. Many nations prefer CV-22 Osprey tilt-rotors, to avoid all the hassles of catapults and arrester cables, but V-22s are only available from one source and it will be another decade until civilian tilt-rotors enter service
Also consider how expensive it is for a medium-sized navy to train a handful of pilots every year.
And you can count on one hand the next number of VSTOL jet fighters capable of operating from short-deck carriers: F-35, Harrier, Yak 38 and Yak 141. The Russian fighters were scary to fly. Only the F35 VSTOL is still manufactured and it is only now entering service.
Another factor is the complex, expensive and fragile links back to the manufacturer. Any political friction and the supply chain dries up.
Only a half dozen nations manufacture the medium to large helicopters needed to patrol the middles of oceans. They include EH101, Kamov, NH-90, SH-60 Seahawk, etc.
The list of different types of fixed-wing aircraft is even smaller: Alize, Gannet, Tracker, S-3 Viking, etc. I am thinking of triple-role aircraft that patrol, chase submarines, COD and tanker roles. Many nations prefer CV-22 Osprey tilt-rotors, to avoid all the hassles of catapults and arrester cables, but V-22s are only available from one source and it will be another decade until civilian tilt-rotors enter service
Also consider how expensive it is for a medium-sized navy to train a handful of pilots every year.
And you can count on one hand the next number of VSTOL jet fighters capable of operating from short-deck carriers: F-35, Harrier, Yak 38 and Yak 141. The Russian fighters were scary to fly. Only the F35 VSTOL is still manufactured and it is only now entering service.
Another factor is the complex, expensive and fragile links back to the manufacturer. Any political friction and the supply chain dries up.
Another POD occurs in 1918, when General Letow-Vorbeck fights the Brits to a draw. Britain is too exhausted to care about 4 unprofitable colonies. Letow-Vorbeck quietly negotiates a seperate peace allowing German colonies in Africa (Cameroon, Namibia, Tanganyika and Togo) some autonomy.
Zeppelins connect colonies on the east and west coasts (see the novel “Ghosts of Africa” by Stephenson).
I have also written a few scenes for my alt-history novel about the Deutsche/Afrika Luftschiff Gazelleschaft. Eventually they need the speed of heavier-than-air planes, But early airplanes are too limited in range, so the German/Afrikan aircraft carrier(s) alternate between the east and west coasts.
Zeppelins connect colonies on the east and west coasts (see the novel “Ghosts of Africa” by Stephenson).
I have also written a few scenes for my alt-history novel about the Deutsche/Afrika Luftschiff Gazelleschaft. Eventually they need the speed of heavier-than-air planes, But early airplanes are too limited in range, so the German/Afrikan aircraft carrier(s) alternate between the east and west coasts.
Last edited:
The Kiev-class could carry only about ~10 Yak fighters — the African state might even entice their ex-Soviet pilots to join them (it’s said that Ukrainian and Russian pilots served as mercenaries during the Eritrea-Ethiopia War in 1990s and IIRC there were reports of Eastern European pilots working with the Libyan forces during the Libyan Civil War). In theory, the Kiev ships don’t need as much escort vessels as comparable Western carriers since they have a heavy missile armament of their own. Honestly not sure what port infrastructure the Kievs need so can’t comment on that.
Given how long it took to refit that one ship the Indian Navy bought, this is likely true (though it also had to undergo substantial upgrades like the addition of a second runway and ski-launch so if the African state wants the “standard” model, it might not take as long/cost as much money).