AHC - Smallest carrier possible with ability to operate F/A 18
- Thread starter La Rouge Beret
- Start date
NothingNow
Banned
I don't know about that. V/STOL aircraft have some pretty serious upfront costs, to the point that it can be significantly cheaper to spring for the extra machinery and either a ramp and arrestor cables, or a full cat-and-trap system. Lord knows it is with the F-35.
$4 billion USD will get you a 45,000 ton Carrier these days (as the America-class LHAs certainly demonstrate,) and one that's definitely suitable for STOBAR ops at a minimum. Cut that down to the size of an Essex-class, (~30,000 tons, on a 260-270m hull,) and you could still maintain a reasonably effective fixed-wing capability, for maybe a $5 billion dollar development and building program, (roughly the same cost as Four Arleigh Burkes.
The Brazilians manage to do it just fine on the Sao Paulo, flying Skyhawks and Turbo Trackers. If the Sea Gripen ever does see production, it'd thrive on such a carrier.
What upfront costs? A small CTOL carrier can be refitted for STOVL readily enough once the CTOL aircraft reach the end of their lives, the Indians did it with Vikrant. Building a STOVL carrier from scratch is vastly cheaper than a CTOL ship, angled decks have fixed design requirements that push up the price even before you add the cats and wire machinery and the requirement for steam and speed.
La Rouge Beret
Donor
We are looking at a Frigate with a flight deck in most cases for a STOVL carrier.
La Rouge Beret
Donor
After further thought I think we need to rephrase the question.
If a medium power navy is equiped with a STOVL carrier, to retain their fixed wing capability. How can we make the Sea Harrier or derivative more capable in a fleet defence and air - ground role - or are they mutually exclusive?
If a medium power navy is equiped with a STOVL carrier, to retain their fixed wing capability. How can we make the Sea Harrier or derivative more capable in a fleet defence and air - ground role - or are they mutually exclusive?
The AV8B+, GR9 and F/A-2 are about as far as you can take the Harrier design, which is firmly subsonic and designed around the Pegasus engine centre of gravity.
If you want to go beyond this you have to go to something like the P1154-RAF, which was bigger, longer ranged, heavier payload and supersonic, and navalise it like the Sea Harrier was with the GR3.
If you want to go beyond this you have to go to something like the P1154-RAF, which was bigger, longer ranged, heavier payload and supersonic, and navalise it like the Sea Harrier was with the GR3.
There were various proposals for the Pegasus, none of which ran, having a larger diameter fan. A 2-2.25" increase in fan diameter lead to a 25% increase in thrust and 4" increase gives a 75% increase in thrust, to about 35,000. Such a Harrier would still be subsonic, but inside that limitation would have a very fat performance envelope, fitting it with lots of fuel and weapons wouldn't slow it down the way loading up slows a supersonic fighter.
La Rouge Beret
Donor
Just to assist my understanding, what would that equate to in performance and carrying capacity in aircraft terms. Are we looking at a Jaguar equivalent?
The Harrier is hard to pigeonhole, especially since its stats tend to be skewed because of its unique capabilities. Harriers are immensely powerful aircraft for their size, a Jaguar has about 16,000lb thrust and an A7 about 14500lb, but an AV8B has 23,500lb of thrust with a maximum weight less than either. Also a lack of range isn't as important with a Harrier as it is with other aircraft since its basing options are vastly wider. But overall I'd equate the AV8B/Harrier II with the Jaguar, or maybe the Corsair which is subsonic but carries more weapons.
So I don't know what a plane with a 26,000lb or 35,000lb non afterburning Pegasus would be like, but it wouldn't be supersonic and would have very healthy high subsonic performance especially at lower levels.
So I don't know what a plane with a 26,000lb or 35,000lb non afterburning Pegasus would be like, but it wouldn't be supersonic and would have very healthy high subsonic performance especially at lower levels.
Last edited:
WILDGEESE
Gone Fishin'
The former R.N Invincible class could easily have had F-18's operated from it's deck if it had a normal CATOBAR arrangement.
The limiting factor for the ships in question wasn't the size but the deck lifts which where of a sissor design and took up vital space because they where situated in the middle of the lower aircraft deck.
Due to this and a lack of an overhanging sponson, as on normal US and other CATOBAR carriers (they were originally heli-carriers with no fix wing aircraft) they only had the space for 22 aircraft at most.
If the money was given for conversion to a normal CATOBAR carrier, with possibly 2 catapults, a overhanging sponson, an angled flight and standard deck lifts there would have been room for around 50 aircraft although it would have been a tight squeeze.
The best bet would be for the re-worked carriers to carry no more than 30 aircraft like the earlier Majestic/Colossus classes.
Victorious and Hermes both carried 28 to 30 aircraft before they were made into Commando carriers, this was despite they being only slightly larger than the Invincible's and carrying Buccaneer, Sea Vixen and Scimitar jets.
The limiting factor for the ships in question wasn't the size but the deck lifts which where of a sissor design and took up vital space because they where situated in the middle of the lower aircraft deck.
Due to this and a lack of an overhanging sponson, as on normal US and other CATOBAR carriers (they were originally heli-carriers with no fix wing aircraft) they only had the space for 22 aircraft at most.
If the money was given for conversion to a normal CATOBAR carrier, with possibly 2 catapults, a overhanging sponson, an angled flight and standard deck lifts there would have been room for around 50 aircraft although it would have been a tight squeeze.
The best bet would be for the re-worked carriers to carry no more than 30 aircraft like the earlier Majestic/Colossus classes.
Victorious and Hermes both carried 28 to 30 aircraft before they were made into Commando carriers, this was despite they being only slightly larger than the Invincible's and carrying Buccaneer, Sea Vixen and Scimitar jets.
Depending on what decade we're talking about if you're going to the trouble of massively upgrading the Harrier then you might be better off just going with the P.1216 instead. Granted it's a new design versus working on an old proven one but the expected increase in performance would be tempting.
Did you read the rest of the thread? A 20,000 cannot operate an aircraft as big and fast as an F/A18 safely and reliably.
Since it's a handy table but not that great thanks to the forum's formatting here's a slightly clearer version. Hopefully got everything right.
