Propeller aircraft carriers today?

[Hyperion]

Maybe not an Orion, but you can operate a C130 from a carrier.

Landing

Takeoff

It also required all other aircraft onboard to either be put in the hanger, or launched so they would be out of the way.

It also required JATO rockets to help take off.

It would also be too big to fit inside the hanger deck, and wouldn't have access to the workshops and machine shops located below deck that would be necessary for maintaining and repairing the aircraft.

 

[Riain]

It also required all other aircraft onboard to either be put in the hanger, or launched so they would be out of the way.

This is especially important for the USN big carriers since they can only stow about half of their CAG in the hangar, the rest are kept in the moveable deck park when not in the air.

 

[MattII]

I believe they were investigating the C-130 for Carrier Onboard Delivery service, but it ultimately proved too large.

 

[tallthinkev]

Can heat seaking missiles lock onto a piston powered aircraft?

 

[Riain]

Yes, not as well as a jet exhaust but modern IR missiles are very sensitive.

 

[Shadow Master]

Well, this thread has a life of it's own.

I have to admit that I was not thinking so much of the 'prop' carrier as a combatant, but as something else. I can see such ships being made far to expensive if we were to try to have it serve as a poor man's CV, what with all the expensive electronics and weapons systems and such.

On the other hand, if such a ship were deliberately kept 'cheap' then I wonder if it could serve as a force modifier? Take the Iraq and Afganistan theaters the US is fighting in right now. Could something like a P-51 not still serve in the CAS role? Do we really to use an F/A 18 in such a role? Couldn't a P-51 be be made night capable by the simple expediant of wearing night vision goggles? Are there not places where a jet, even flying just above it's stall speeds cannot go, but where a P-51 type aircraft could operate with ease?

Steep, narrow mountain passes come to mind.
Also, wouldn't it be good for the guys on the ground to be able to have those flying guns orbiting overhead (and constantly be in communication with them, so the pilot know eaxctly where the friendlies are), so that they never have any wait time to get an immediate airstrike? Sure, the jets can go from carrier to target much faster, but can they orbit for hours and hours until the best possible moment to strike? And how much would it cost to have jets in such a role?

OTOH:

In todays world if one wants a pilot that can land a plane on a ship, you really need someone with a past background in naval aviation. But what if...

Say the technology advances to the point where we have off-shore platforms way outside the range of today's choppers, and they want crews to be able to have their weekends off (back home) and they need pilots that can land on a flight deckdeck? Or what about tourism via private seaplane to some remote, tiny island paradise? Could a 'prop' carrier be built to allow for a stern elevator so that a seaplane could land either on deck or on the surface and be lifted to the flight deck? The same might be a good deal for S&R seaplanes to.

Basically, I am looking for any commercial reasons that someone might have (or be able to come up with), that could creat a demand for prop carriers to exist, other than for CAG training.

 

[Dilvish]

I think an aircraft carrier oriented towards anti-submarine warfare and patrol could have a prop plane air group. Carriers don't have to operate fighters in order to be carriers.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Well, this thread has a life of it's own.

I have to admit that I was not thinking so much of the 'prop' carrier as a combatant, but as something else. I can see such ships being made far to expensive if we were to try to have it serve as a poor man's CV, what with all the expensive electronics and weapons systems and such.

On the other hand, if such a ship were deliberately kept 'cheap' then I wonder if it could serve as a force modifier? Take the Iraq and Afganistan theaters the US is fighting in right now. Could something like a P-51 not still serve in the CAS role? Do we really to use an F/A 18 in such a role? Couldn't a P-51 be be made night capable by the simple expediant of wearing night vision goggles? Are there not places where a jet, even flying just above it's stall speeds cannot go, but where a P-51 type aircraft could operate with ease?

That role can be better met with attack hellicopters, and as they take off vertically all you need is a container ship loaded with containerised support equipment. Both the US and Britain have experimented with this and found that it works, though admitedly not as well as a purpose built ship, hence all the Harrier/Hellicopter Carriers that have been built. I suppose you could build one able to support small counter insurgency aircraft and Vstol. Build it with an angled deck with a light wieght catapult and arrestor wires, as well as a ski ramp over the bow. It adds to the cost of the ship and increases the number of crew needed to man it.

There's no technical reason a medium sized frieghter couldn't be converted to a deck landing training ship for navalised Tucanos to use for carrier qualification. I don't think any Navy would go down this route how ever as they would tell their governments that if you are going to have a carrier you might as well build on with the potential to be used operationaly, as no matter how rudimentary it is it's going to be a prime target for any enemy.

 

[Riain]

Well, this thread has a life of it's own.

I have to admit that I was not thinking so much of the 'prop' carrier as a combatant, but as something else. I can see such ships being made far to expensive if we were to try to have it serve as a poor man's CV, what with all the expensive electronics and weapons systems and such.

On the other hand, if such a ship were deliberately kept 'cheap' then I wonder if it could serve as a force modifier? Take the Iraq and Afganistan theaters the US is fighting in right now. Could something like a P-51 not still serve in the CAS role? Do we really to use an F/A 18 in such a role? Couldn't a P-51 be be made night capable by the simple expediant of wearing night vision goggles? Are there not places where a jet, even flying just above it's stall speeds cannot go, but where a P-51 type aircraft could operate with ease?

Steep, narrow mountain passes come to mind.
Also, wouldn't it be good for the guys on the ground to be able to have those flying guns orbiting overhead (and constantly be in communication with them, so the pilot know eaxctly where the friendlies are), so that they never have any wait time to get an immediate airstrike? Sure, the jets can go from carrier to target much faster, but can they orbit for hours and hours until the best possible moment to strike? And how much would it cost to have jets in such a role?

As odd as it sounds an F18 would probably be cheaper than an upgraded P51 in the CAS role. It`s performance is so much greater that it is far less vulnerable to defences such as ManPADS and light AAA, whereas the P51 would be much closer to the ideal target for these weapons, so considerably increasing the loss rate. What`s more the sophisitcated sensors and weapons system further increases both effectiveness and survivability of the F18, it can to blind-first-pass attacks with one-shot-one-kill weapons. In contrast the upgraded P51 will have to loiter with intent until it finds its target and then repeatedly attack it with dumb weapons until the weapons are expended, all of which is risky and prolifigate with ordnance.

I think the only way to get/keep propellor driven combat aircraft on aircraft carriers post say 1960 is to have them fit into niches on existing force structures without upsetting the primary tasks of the main force structure. Propeller planes are just too limited in capability to properly displace fast jets from the decks of carriers.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

As odd as it sounds an F18 would probably be cheaper than an upgraded P51 in the CAS role. It`s performance is so much greater that it is far less vulnerable to defences such as ManPADS and light AAA, whereas the P51 would be much closer to the ideal target for these weapons, so considerably increasing the loss rate. What`s more the sophisitcated sensors and weapons system further increases both effectiveness and survivability of the F18, it can to blind-first-pass attacks with one-shot-one-kill weapons. In contrast the upgraded P51 will have to loiter with intent until it finds its target and then repeatedly attack it with dumb weapons until the weapons are expended, all of which is risky and prolifigate with ordnance.

I think the only way to get/keep propellor driven combat aircraft on aircraft carriers post say 1960 is to have them fit into niches on existing force structures without upsetting the primary tasks of the main force structure. Propeller planes are just too limited in capability to properly displace fast jets from the decks of carriers.

If one was to study the vulnerability of modernish single-engine propeller aircraf against light AAA I'd look at the First Indochina war between France and the Vietminh which featured F6F's, F4U and the F8F against HMG, 37mm AA guns etc.

It has been a while since I read Martin Wilson's "The last valley", but IIRC the French Aéronavale lost quite a few of those aircraft against light AA(A).

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

If you want lots of 'cheap' planes, fly them off of land strips. The moment you introduce an aircraft carrier, the price of the planes is, well not irrelevant, but not a major worry. Not only do you have the capital cost of an aircraft carrier, but the operational cost. They require a lot of people.

 

[Nicola]

Propeller driven aircraft are used at sea.

The Grumman E2 Hawkeye & Grumman C2 Greyhound turbo prop aircraft.
If you mean piston aircraft there's no reason they can't fullfil the same roles. Infact the E2 and C2's predecessors were piston powered.
The Grumman E1 Tracer and S2 tracker served in these roles and as an anti submarine aircraft. With up dated avionics they could still do the same job now, though having to have a seperate fuel supply from the jets would complicate things. So would the fact that petrol is more volatile than jet fuel.

also look at armed Tucanos etc as a far cheaper than the A10 or a Harrier Close air support aircraft ...

 

[Questerr]

I wonder if the Afloat Forward Staging Base concept could operate Tucano's.

 

[Nicola]

I wonder if the Afloat Forward Staging Base concept could operate Tucano's.

get ready for people to rehash all the p51 arguments with tucano copypasta'd ...

 

[BigWillyG]

What about somehow retarding helicopter development? As another has posted helicarriers can do everything a prop carrier can do but cheaper so without helicopters I could see commando or asw carriers using prop planes which can take off from shorter runways and have a higher loiter time than jets for things like ASW or patrol work.

 

[MattII]

Retarding helicopter development is virtually impossible, the only reason they weren't around earlier was due to not having powerful enough engines.

 

[AdA]

Soviet navy

How about a Soviet Navy dedicated ASW light carrier operating an AirWing of Tu91 aircraft?

 

[Pangur]

How about a small carrier operating only drones with the drones all having props? They would have to operate with large flat top for defense. The idea being that you have say two maybe three of these little ones for ground attack

 

[MattII]

With a decent design you could possibly do that, although it would end up a mixed drone/helicopter carrier in all probability.

 

[Pangur]

With a decent design you could possibly do that, although it would end up a mixed drone/helicopter carrier in all probability.

Agreed - being a bit cheeky and bending the definitions bit time - a helicopter has its propeller on top!