How about something like that above, but based on a fleet replenishment ship/RFA type with flight deck and minimal hanger facilities. Anti-piracy, light COIN, disaster relief? A lightweight Sea Control Ship?
Propeller aircraft carriers today?
- Thread starter Shadow Master
- Start date
tallthinkev
Donor
The Ark Royal is still up for sale, as far as I know. As for an aircraft, how about the Piper PA-48? It lost out to the A-10, but as good cheap ground attack plane, maybe the way to go.
Something like the RFA Argus but without the accomadation block sicking up in front of the flightdeck?
Carriers are expensive. Their escorts are expensive. They can only carry a limited amount of aircraft. Hence, you want those aircrafts to be multirole fighters. If you put supertucanos in a carrier, which can only perform COIN, then you are not putting F/A-18s, which can also shoot down enemy planes and sink ships. Sure, you might not need to do it in every mission you send the carrier, but you will still need to have the multirole fighters ready for the moment when you need it. So, while would you train and purchase both supertucanos and hornets?
And you might very well need to keep a carrier away from the coast, and the enemy's more capable airforce (unless you have the USN at your side, I wouldn't bet on the subsonic Harriers in a modern BVR environment without other planes fighting at their side) and missile armed SSKs
And you might very well need to keep a carrier away from the coast, and the enemy's more capable airforce (unless you have the USN at your side, I wouldn't bet on the subsonic Harriers in a modern BVR environment without other planes fighting at their side) and missile armed SSKs
Helicarriers are a more rational investment.
Also, all carriers have propellers
Now an paddlewheeler CV would be an interesting sight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wolverine_(IX-64) patroled the dangerous waters of Lake Michigan
I'm not sure I'd bet on an A/F-18 attacking a Type-45. If you're going to assume BVR kills, then why shouldn't I just bolt a combat radar onto an E-2 hawkeye and hang a few meteors under the wing? You can defeat a fighter with things other than another fighter.
Future light cariers will almost certainly be based on a number of slow Predator style UAVs, a couple of A-10 style UCAVs, a couple of stealth UCAV platforms (which may combine with the former) and a HALE/E-2 UAV which will stay up for months at and time. It will very likely have a compact modular nuclear reactor of some sort for cruising, with other power-source for dash capability. It may not even have a control tower in the conventional sense. It will have a much smaller crew due to automation, and going by historic trends it will never engage another carrier in combat.
Supertucano
Building a new carrier just to operate supertucanos would be wasteful. But if you allready have the carrier, and you can adapt your existing supertucanos, it's another checkbook alltogether.
Why the supertucanos? They're good enough and useful enough for the USAF to select them as winners (though I bet they will end up buying something worst and US made) and they allredy have the hight tech sensor pack that minimizing colateral demage requires. I'm betting it's cheaper to navalize a Propotrainer than to smarten a Skyhawk. If the Brasilian A4 are allready smart enough for the job, I'll go with the props look better on UN missions line, 'cause jets are just too warlike
Building a new carrier just to operate supertucanos would be wasteful. But if you allready have the carrier, and you can adapt your existing supertucanos, it's another checkbook alltogether.
Why the supertucanos? They're good enough and useful enough for the USAF to select them as winners (though I bet they will end up buying something worst and US made) and they allredy have the hight tech sensor pack that minimizing colateral demage requires. I'm betting it's cheaper to navalize a Propotrainer than to smarten a Skyhawk. If the Brasilian A4 are allready smart enough for the job, I'll go with the props look better on UN missions line, 'cause jets are just too warlike
Hyperion
Banned
A P-3 Orion can not safely take off from a Nimitz class carrier or the USS Enterprise, the biggest aircraft carriers in existence. Taking off from a 20K ton ship is impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier
The maximum width of the flight deck of a Nimitz is 257 feet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-3C_Orion#Specifications_.28P-3C_Orion.29
A single P-3C Orion has a wingspan of right at 100 feet across, and is 116 feet long, roughly a tenth the length of a Nimitz class ship. It also wouldn't be able to fit onto the catapults that would be needed for aircraft launches.
That being said, whatever your on, I'll take 10 pounds.
Last edited:
But you can't build a CAG with Supertucanos. So you'll have both Supertucanos and something else: F/A18s, Harriers, or navalized Rafales or Flankers. So, if you already have such aircraft, why would you leave them on the ground and embark supertucanos instead? Remember it doesn't make sense to carry both in a carrier, specially a small one.Building a new carrier just to operate supertucanos would be wasteful. But if you allready have the carrier, and you can adapt your existing supertucanos, it's another checkbook alltogether.
Why the supertucanos? They're good enough and useful enough for the USAF to select them as winners (though I bet they will end up buying something worst and US made) and they allredy have the hight tech sensor pack that minimizing colateral demage requires. I'm betting it's cheaper to navalize a Propotrainer than to smarten a Skyhawk. If the Brasilian A4 are allready smart enough for the job, I'll go with the props look better on UN missions line, 'cause jets are just too warlike
Even the USN, with a history of using 'training-carriers', has pretty much given up on those. If a navy with 10 supercarriers doesn't see the need for a training carrier, then I doubt Britain will.
You have a point however with regards to running cost of a turboprop etc being much more cheaply then a jet. However, the purchase price isn't going to be that much cheaper, whilst you'd be getting a much inferior aircraft.
The British tried that during the Falklands with the Atlantic Conveyor and the Atlantic Causeway. The Atlantic Conveyor - being a merchant ship built to civilian standards - sank after being hit by two Exocets with loss of lives. Something which an Invincible would have survived probably.
The idea wasn't satisfactory as the surviving ship was dumped shortly afterwards. Pretty much a no go.
UAV's are still very limited in the roles they can undertake. For example air-to-air is still a no go for the next several decades. As a result you'd have a carrier only capable of a few roles, such as recon.
Just like with an airwing made up solely of Tucano's, you'd end up with an expensive ship with a limited role.
However, both the RN and the USN plan on operating UAV's alongside conventional manned fighter-bombers on their carriers in the near future. That still doesn't mean UAV's can completely replace manned aircraft (for the next several decades).
Any sources for that?
If you start putting in all the systems the Apache has in a Bronco/Tucano/Texan II, the latter isn't going to be much cheaper then an Apache.
Look for example at the cost of the Super Tucano's to be bought by the US for the Afghan airforce; those aircraft were more expensive to purchase then decent secondhand F-16's.
Those Brasilian birds again
It only makes sense if you have the tucanos, are keen on exporting them, already have the carrier, your current CAG is hopelessly outdated and you just need to drop some ordnance on people without making it look like another Irak. So, Brasilian peace enforcers on Haiti!
It only makes sense if you have the tucanos, are keen on exporting them, already have the carrier, your current CAG is hopelessly outdated and you just need to drop some ordnance on people without making it look like another Irak. So, Brasilian peace enforcers on Haiti!
Well, the Brazilians are considering purchasing newer jets for their carrier. In any case, their Skyhawks can do the same things their Supertucanos can, while the Supertucanos can't do the same things, nor carry the same amount of bombs.
The thing is, once you've put a fleet to the sea (and for the Brazilians, getting their carrier in action means moving their entire navy to escort it), you are not going to save a lot of money by putting a inferior planes aboard the carrier. It works for a land based airforce, were there is plenty of room to keep the planes and logistics are far easier and more flexible. Keep in mind you can only put a single type of fighter in a small carrier. You'll want that to be the best you can afford, because it's the only thing you'll have.
The thing is, once you've put a fleet to the sea (and for the Brazilians, getting their carrier in action means moving their entire navy to escort it), you are not going to save a lot of money by putting a inferior planes aboard the carrier. It works for a land based airforce, were there is plenty of room to keep the planes and logistics are far easier and more flexible. Keep in mind you can only put a single type of fighter in a small carrier. You'll want that to be the best you can afford, because it's the only thing you'll have.
For Haiti?
Why would the brasilians deploy their whole navy just to provide limited CAS in Haiti? The carrier would just be a safe, secure airbase offshore. I don't think the Brasilian A4s have been upgraded to the point were they can deliver the same night/day precision the Supertucanos can, which is a big deal when you're tryin to avoid killing civilians.
Why would the brasilians deploy their whole navy just to provide limited CAS in Haiti? The carrier would just be a safe, secure airbase offshore. I don't think the Brasilian A4s have been upgraded to the point were they can deliver the same night/day precision the Supertucanos can, which is a big deal when you're tryin to avoid killing civilians.
Actually I did mention the AD-1 in my first post in the thread. Utterly remarkable aircraft, maybe the best fixed wing CAS platform ever built, A-10 included. Massive loiter time, heavy weapon load, tough as a $2.00 steak. With a few avionics upgrades it could serve in the CAS role to this day, assuming you have plenty of fast pointy things available to keep some jerk in a Mig-19 from blowing it out of the sky.
The Spad is a lot like the B-52, it can only work in low threat conditions, but if you have that it would be hell on wheels.
Despite the above, sending a carrier into harm's way with a deckload of AD-1, S-2 and E-2C would be one hell of nice way of killing a couple thousand of your sailors.
Ok hypothetically you're head of the navy of a small (in population) country (e.g Australia) and you've just ordered two carriers of aproximately 27 to 28,000 tons (Canberrra Class) and have decided to equip it for conventional as opposed to vstol operations (Stupid Choice just adds extra costs). What do you do for an airgroup?
ASW and AEW can be done with hellicopters, though for AEW you lose alot of coverage, transport again hellicopters.
4 AEW Merlins
4 ASW Merlins + escorts hellicopters (Lynx sized)
4 COD/Utility/plane guard Melins
Defence/Strike aircraft due to size of carrier have to be light attack/fighters.
Options Rafael, Indian Light Combat Aircraft, Refurbished A4s or equivelant.
A4s are ancient with limeted life left in airframe.
Indian Light Combat Aircraft still a paper design.
Rafael In service with French Navy safe option if it can operate from such a small carrier.
A4 Equivelant. Best bet Navalised Hawk 200. Positive Proven design and two seat trainer already operates on US carriers so should work well given a more powerfull engine. Negatives light payload short range sub sonic.
Sugested numbers of fighters 14. Might be able to squeze another 6 on board in an emergency, or add a flight of attack hellicopters.
Total airgroup 26 12 Hellicopters and 14 Strike Aircraft.
My choice Rafaels prefered with SeaHawk 200 as fall back option.
(Come to think of it two of these would make a usefull backup to the two CVFs if you could con the treasury into paying for them, but then again with out having to go through the design process again it might be cheeper just to order two more CVF. I wonder if they could call them through deck cruisers or fleet air arm support ships to slip them past the bean counters. It's worked before.)
ASW and AEW can be done with hellicopters, though for AEW you lose alot of coverage, transport again hellicopters.
4 AEW Merlins
4 ASW Merlins + escorts hellicopters (Lynx sized)
4 COD/Utility/plane guard Melins
Defence/Strike aircraft due to size of carrier have to be light attack/fighters.
Options Rafael, Indian Light Combat Aircraft, Refurbished A4s or equivelant.
A4s are ancient with limeted life left in airframe.
Indian Light Combat Aircraft still a paper design.
Rafael In service with French Navy safe option if it can operate from such a small carrier.
A4 Equivelant. Best bet Navalised Hawk 200. Positive Proven design and two seat trainer already operates on US carriers so should work well given a more powerfull engine. Negatives light payload short range sub sonic.
Sugested numbers of fighters 14. Might be able to squeze another 6 on board in an emergency, or add a flight of attack hellicopters.
Total airgroup 26 12 Hellicopters and 14 Strike Aircraft.
My choice Rafaels prefered with SeaHawk 200 as fall back option.
(Come to think of it two of these would make a usefull backup to the two CVFs if you could con the treasury into paying for them, but then again with out having to go through the design process again it might be cheeper just to order two more CVF. I wonder if they could call them through deck cruisers or fleet air arm support ships to slip them past the bean counters. It's worked before.)
Last edited:
I think one thing that gets missed is that a carrier operating fixed wing aircraft needs a good turn of speed, and the smaller the carrier the greater the speed. A Tarawa class could only do 24kt but had an 820 ft flight deck for Harriers to get up to flying speed on, whereas an Invincible could do 30kt and a ski-jump to make up for it`s 560ft flight deck. And that`s for Harriers, catapult planes are even more demanding of speed; the HMS Hermes struggled to launch Buccaneers at 28kt and the HMAS struggled to launch Skyhawks at 24kt in low wind conditions.
As such you can`t just jam anything onto a carrier, something like a Toucano will need cats, wires and wind over deck just as much as a Super Hornet does. In contrast a STOL light attack plane like a Bronco (which regularly operated from Carriers and LHAs) or perhaps a Pucara could operate from your average 21kt LHA such as the HMS Ocean when all the power of christendom won`t make such a ship operate a Rafale, navalised Hawk 200 or Toucano.
As such you can`t just jam anything onto a carrier, something like a Toucano will need cats, wires and wind over deck just as much as a Super Hornet does. In contrast a STOL light attack plane like a Bronco (which regularly operated from Carriers and LHAs) or perhaps a Pucara could operate from your average 21kt LHA such as the HMS Ocean when all the power of christendom won`t make such a ship operate a Rafale, navalised Hawk 200 or Toucano.
Last edited: