WI: European Nations Operated Fleet Aircraft Carriers

[Delta Force]

Both France and the United Kingdom had plans for fleet aircraft carriers during the 1960s. The Verdun class would have been France's first class of fleet aircraft carriers, while the CVA-01 class would have complemented or replaced the Royal Navy's two Audacious class fleet aircraft carriers. If those programs had been completed and continued to the present day, what kind of impact might it have had on NATO and United States Navy operations in the Mediterranean, especially on the United States Sixth Fleet? Might the United States Navy become a more Pacific and Southwest Asian oriented force earlier on?

 

[Riain]

These 3 carriers would enter service just as the USN was running down from its peak, post Vietnam. By 1975 the USN had decommissioned all of the Essex class and the FDRs days were numbered, dropping USN carrier numbers to 12. This would artificially increase the importance of these 3 carriers in global terms, with a subsequent increase in the diplomatic importance of Britain and France.

In addition, 'proper' fleet carriers complete with all-weather, high-performance aircraft and AEW pretty much automatically make the owning country a world power as there are few countries with the capacity to contain, let alone damage or sink one. Sure, this doesn't enable global presence like the USN, but there is always the ability to put together a Falklands type operation with a fleet carrier.

 

[Delta Force]

Would the Soviets build more conventional aircraft carriers to counter the French and British ones, perhaps something closer to the Project 1153 OREL or Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carriers instead of the hybrid Kiev class? Alternatively, since the Soviets were historically moving towards their naval redoubt strategy, would they simply have gone for more anti-ship aircraft or something else in an asymmetric response?

 

[Riain]

The Kiev was laid down in 1970 when the USN had 15 strike carriers the British still had Eagle, Hermes and Ark Royal and the French had Clem, Foch and Arromanches. If this isn't enough to change the Kiev's design then Verdun and CVA01 being under construction won't cause it to change.

However I have seen the missile batteries described as a replacement for the strike squadrons on a regular carrier, so perhaps the Kiev isn't doing too badly after all.

 

[Usili]

These 3 carriers would enter service just as the USN was running down from its peak, post Vietnam. By 1975 the USN had decommissioned all of the Essex class and the FDRs days were numbered, dropping USN carrier numbers to 12. This would artificially increase the importance of these 3 carriers in global terms, with a subsequent increase in the diplomatic importance of Britain and France.

In addition, 'proper' fleet carriers complete with all-weather, high-performance aircraft and AEW pretty much automatically make the owning country a world power as there are few countries with the capacity to contain, let alone damage or sink one. Sure, this doesn't enable global presence like the USN, but there is always the ability to put together a Falklands type operation with a fleet carrier.

Uh... The Lexington, an Essex-class was still in service till 1991, operating as a training carrier just to point out in regards to 'decommissioning' all the Essex carriers.

 

[Riain]

Uh... The Lexington, an Essex-class was still in service till 1991, operating as a training carrier just to point out in regards to 'decommissioning' all the Essex carriers.

True, but even when Reagan wanted to boost carrier number the Lex wasn't sent on an active deployment. IIUC it just steamed around the Gulf of Mexico with Buckeyes and two seat Skyhawks during the 80s.

 

[Delta Force]

The Kiev was laid down in 1970 when the USN had 15 strike carriers the British still had Eagle, Hermes and Ark Royal and the French had Clem, Foch and Arromanches. If this isn't enough to change the Kiev's design then Verdun and CVA01 being under construction won't cause it to change.

However I have seen the missile batteries described as a replacement for the strike squadrons on a regular carrier, so perhaps the Kiev isn't doing too badly after all.

Unless it's for helicopter aviation, I think that hybrid designs result in ships that can't really fill either role they are intended for well. With missile technology things aren't quite as bad as they were with the gun ships that tried to do both, but the role of the Kiev probably would have been best handled by a light aircraft carrier (something like Invincible) and a guided missile cruiser, something like the Kara class or perhaps even on the scale of the Kirov.

 

[Riain]

Unless it's for helicopter aviation, I think that hybrid designs result in ships that can't really fill either role they are intended for well. With missile technology things aren't quite as bad as they were with the gun ships that tried to do both, but the role of the Kiev probably would have been best handled by a light aircraft carrier (something like Invincible) and a guided missile cruiser, something like the Kara class or perhaps even on the scale of the Kirov.

I think that a lot of the time Westerners don't understand what the Soviets were trying to do. I'm saying that I do, I don't really get it either, but the Soviets could have done whatever they wanted pretty much and chose to do the Kiev so I'd have to assume they had some notion of what they wanted. Perhaps they knew they couldn't design anything that could both fit on a ship and fight a Tomcat on equal terms, so they lowered their expectations and designed a ship accordingly. Also the Kiev fits into a force structure that includes RORSats, Bear recon aircraft and Backfire strike aircraft, reducing the need for shipborne attack squadrons somewhat.

 

[Delta Force]

I think that a lot of the time Westerners don't understand what the Soviets were trying to do. I'm saying that I do, I don't really get it either, but the Soviets could have done whatever they wanted pretty much and chose to do the Kiev so I'd have to assume they had some notion of what they wanted. Perhaps they knew they couldn't design anything that could both fit on a ship and fight a Tomcat on equal terms, so they lowered their expectations and designed a ship accordingly. Also the Kiev fits into a force structure that includes RORSats, Bear recon aircraft and Backfire strike aircraft, reducing the need for shipborne attack squadrons somewhat.

It could be a lack of catapult technology too, but is it really that difficult of technology as it is made out to be? The Royal Navy and USN had it during World War II in various forms, and the French Navy's Clemenceau class had them as well.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

As I understand it, the challenge with catapult technology is with reliability. Designing, manufacturing, and maintaining it so that it doesnt fail at an inopportune time requires a bit of a learning curve. Or so I read somewhere.

As I understand it, the Soviets designed their carriers with two missions in mind. One, they wanted to be able to project force. While certainly not capable of matching the Nimitz, it could project force in the third world. More importantly, they wanted them to protect the SSBN's. The YAK-38's werent supposed to fight Tomcats. But they could knock down ASW planes and helicopters. And provide additional recon. Its a role it could fulfill somewhat well in the Barents Sea or off the coast of Kamchatka where it would have also had land based air assets to reinforce it.

 

[Riain]

It could be a lack of catapult technology too, but is it really that difficult of technology as it is made out to be? The Royal Navy and USN had it during World War II in various forms, and the French Navy's Clemenceau class had them as well.

The RN and USN had hydraulic catapults in WW2 up until the early 50s. The RN and USN then developed steam catapults, the British developed the BS4/A and BS5/A and the Clems used the 145' BS4A that was also fitted to the Hermes and Victorious.

Neither the Soviets, nor the French developed steam catapults successfully in the Cold War, although I don't know what CdG has.

 

[JudgeKing]

The RN and USN had hydraulic catapults in WW2 up until the early 50s. The RN and USN then developed steam catapults, the British developed the BS4/A and BS5/A and the Clems used the 145' BS4A that was also fitted to the Hermes and Victorious.

Neither the Soviets, nor the French developed steam catapults successfully in the Cold War, although I don't know what CdG has.

The CdG uses a pair of 75 meter long C13-3 steam catapults.

 

[Delta Force]

The RN and USN had hydraulic catapults in WW2 up until the early 50s. The RN and USN then developed steam catapults, the British developed the BS4/A and BS5/A and the Clems used the 145' BS4A that was also fitted to the Hermes and Victorious.

Neither the Soviets, nor the French developed steam catapults successfully in the Cold War, although I don't know what CdG has.

It still just seems unusual that the Soviets and Russians never developed steam catapult technology. Is it more that they didn't see a need for the technology with their naval aviation doctrine, or are steam catapults a deceptively difficult technology? I mean it seems like something that wouldn't be that difficult to do compared to everything else the Soviets were able to accomplish in naval architecture and other fields, and it would have allowed aircraft to carry more fuel and munitions when operating from aircraft carriers.

 

[Riain]

It still just seems unusual that the Soviets and Russians never developed steam catapult technology. Is it more that they didn't see a need for the technology with their naval aviation doctrine, or are steam catapults a deceptively difficult technology? I mean it seems like something that wouldn't be that difficult to do compared to everything else the Soviets were able to accomplish in naval architecture and other fields, and it would have allowed aircraft to carry more fuel and munitions when operating from aircraft carriers.

Its hard to say, but perhaps the number of carriers and the amount of war experience with operating was a prerequisite to developing hydraulic and steam catapults. France had a single carrier before WW2 ended so never got the impetus to develop catapult technology nor improve on it, thus relied on the vastly more experienced British for the catapults for the Clems and the even more experienced Americans for the cats on the CdG.

The Soviets were in an even worse position than the French, and not helped by their geography which drove the naval doctrine.

 

[GarethC]

The Soviets progressed from Moskva (ASW helos) - to Kiev (ASW helos plus a few Yaks to keep Nimrods and P-3s away from the Kara & Barents Seas) to Kuznetzov as was, and so their seaborne aviation establishment didn't come from the same global-power-projection beginnings as the USN and RN. US carrier design and construction is a pretty constant activity since 1941, and catapult use was driven by necessity in the postwar years where power:weight ratios were nowhere near those enjoyed by the K-versions that MiG and Sukhoi looked at for the CV.

A catapult puts even more stresses on the airframe than the already grim tailhook-and-wire landings do, which would mandate a heavier aircraft with decreased performance.

So, lacking the historically-driven institutional familiarity with the design and operation of a mechanically-complex piece of mission-critical gear which also imposes a performance penalty on any airframe that uses it, you can see that there's a decent argument for not bothering. That's even more accurate for an afterthought force like the seaborne part of Naval Aviation, where there was not going to be the consistency of construction and operation that the USN enjoyed.

 

[fester]

CDG has steam

The RN and USN had hydraulic catapults in WW2 up until the early 50s. The RN and USN then developed steam catapults, the British developed the BS4/A and BS5/A and the Clems used the 145' BS4A that was also fitted to the Hermes and Victorious.

Neither the Soviets, nor the French developed steam catapults successfully in the Cold War, although I don't know what CdG has.

CdG has US steam catapults (a buddy of mine was on the integration team and he normally works out of New Jersey)

 

[Delta Force]

Anyone know how much a ski-jump reduces aircraft takeoff weights relative to a steam catapult? I've read that the Soviet/Russian fighters operating from such aircraft carriers can barely carry a useful fuel and munitions load, essentially only a few minutes of fuel and a few AAMs. Some of that might be because the Su-33 is a heavy aircraft even by the standards of land based aircraft, which would explain why the MiG-29K is given higher performance figures for carrier operations.

 

[sloreck]

Ski jumps are for VSTOL aircraft so they don't need to take off in vertical mode which severely limits payload. High performance aircraft or aircraft carrying substantial payloads don't get enough assist from a ski jump. Compared to aircraft that are catapult launched ski jump aircraft are definitely second place - what you have for carriers and aircraft depends on what you need and what you can afford.

 

[Delta Force]

How would a STOBAR fleet carrier such as the INS Vikramaditya (a modified Kiev class aircraft carrier) fare against a CATOBAR fleet carrier of similar tonnage? It does seem like an interesting approach for nations that want to use more conventional aircraft on their carriers, as many land based aircraft are designed to use arresting cables and would require minimal modification for STOBAR operations. I don't know how high the power to weight ratios have to be for STOBAR aircraft, but I would imagine rather high, in which case hydraulic or steam catapults and more heavily modified aircraft might be needed anyways, at least for certain aircraft.

 

[Riain]

The USAF did ski jump tests in 1983, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a237265.pdf, and concluded that F15 and F16 at gross combat weights would reduce take off run by 50% with a 9% ski jump. The USN also did ski jump tests and I think found a ski jump beneficial, but obviously not enough to make the switch from catapults.


The SU33 had thrust vectoring nozzles and canard foreplanes so can make better use of a ski jump that a teen series fighter. I've also seen it written that a Eurofighter if fully controllable at 90kt, so could conceivably land on a carrier without wires, presumably with thrust vectoring it could make use of a ski jump as well.