Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), light carriers CVL als basis ipv LHD

Gestart door Harald, 13/02/2017 | 14:49 uur

Ace1

I think Zen has alluded to this design, DAW's May 1953 axial deck proposal.

Here is a poor copy of the line drawing from Friedman.

2 by 200ft catapults.

60 by 35ft lifts

Offset deck park behind the island 160 by 30ft.

Offset flight deck (to port)




The obvious flaws are very low sortie rates, and its really only suitable for a trade protection carrier.

Its also too small in terms of pull out and catapult length for the next generation of fighters.

Its also so small that ship motions would shut down flight operations much earlier than larger ships, or VSTOL ships of the same size.

I also suspect that foul deck line is for the Gannet - the Tracker would probably need a deck that's larger or offset further, and a correspondingly larger ship to carry it.

The island seems really small, no doubt to clear the deck, I doubt you could fit much of an electronics suite.

But all in all, still interesting as a way of getting larger and heavier naval jets out to sea in small numbers, and operating in very small groups.

Why hasn't anyone taken this approach (small, minimum size axial deck ship)?

They are, at best a trade protection ship. Big navies don't build new trade protection small carriers, they concentrate on their real carriers.

Medium navies, in the days before VSTOL - wanted small trade protection carriers, but they were only willing to pay second hand costs, or reconstruction only costs. No medium navy built a new CTOL trade protection carrier.

VSTOL came along. Aircraft like the A4 could get off 700ft decks on 112ft+ catapults, and had pretty useful payload range characteristics.

But come the Harrier II, and small CTOL jets are actually seriously outclassed by the Harrier II's payload and range, and there is opportunity there to add good missiles and sensors too. Check out the A4E SAC and compare to the AV-8B.

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/SAC.htm

Small CTOL was pretty much an out of date solution from 1980.

The only CTOL solution that makes sense post 1980 is a Hornet capable ship. Which gets you in the Charlie Big Nose territory right away. You might be able to shave 10% of the size of the ship by going axial deck - at the cost of drastically reduced sortie rates.

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/16000/Smallest-CATOBAR-possible?page=3#.WPYQn4jyiUk

Ace1

Let's not forget Bazan's SAC-200 and SAC-220 designs, offered to Argentina and China in the 1990s. Both were substantially smaller than both Clemenceau and CdG, but still Hornet capable.

- SAC-220 was basically Cavour-sized (220m waterline, 27,000t). Aviation capability was quite good on paper - two 250ft C13-1 catapults as on CdG, 90% of Clemenceau's parking capacity (3,100m2 deck parking, 3,000m2 hangar), and sea state 5 operations (vs. SS4 for Clemenceau and SS6 for CdG). Air group was 21 fixed wing aircraft, including Hornets and E-2Cs (!), which actually seems plausible (crunching the numbers I get 25 fixed wing). Obviously some compromises must have been made to fit all that on such a small hull, e.g. the ramp clearance had to be poor due to the shorter angled deck, which required setting the wires quite far aft (but probably no worse than on the modernized Essexes). Propulsion was also just over half the size of Clemenceau & Cavour, so speed would have been ~26kts (fine by me). When you get to the details though, there are some worrisome compromises such as only one weapons elevator.

- SAC-200 was a shrunk-down SAC-220 and a direct Colossus/Majestic replacement (200m waterline, 24,000t). The larger displacement owes to a modern, beamier hull than the WWII designs (92ft instead of 80ft wl), so in many ways it's closer in capabilities to the Centaurs than to the Colossus/Majestics. Aviation capability was also said to be 24 aircraft - my calculations indicate that 24 A-4s & 4 S-2s would have fit. It's not explicitly stated that it could operate Hornets/Rafales, but common sense would entail that it could (especially with identical  catapults as on CdG and BSAC-220). Certainly no E-2Cs though.

Bottom-line: SAC-200 is probably the best answer to this thread's original question. The only way one could possibly go smaller would be to convert Hyuga to CATOBAR, and I wouldn't have the heart to see the carnage that would cause!

As a bonus, here's my artists' impression of SAC-200, with an airgroup of 16 Rafales and 3 S-2s. AFAIK no drawings of it are available online, so this is a first! smiley: tongue Luckily, the dimensions are known and there are drawings available of its big brother SAC-220, so I'm going to hazard a guess that I'm not too far off. smiley: wink First, a size comparison:



Detailed drawing of SAC-200, with an air group of 16x Rafales, 3x S-2 Trackers and 4 helos:


http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/16000/Smallest-CATOBAR-possible?page=3#.WPYQn4jyiUk

Ace1

Citaat van: Thomasen op 18/04/2017 | 15:00 uur
Ja super interessant, vooral als je het aantal toestellen x het aantal sorties x ordonance doet. Wow wat een indrukwekkende hoeveelheid bombs on  target kun je daar mee krijgen. Of het aantal sorties x maximale sortieduur, ontzettend indrukwekkende CAP cijfers levert dat op. Wow wow wow, houd je vast voor deze strijdmacht.

(disclaimer: er is een kleine kans dat ik wat sarcastisch ben)

Hier heeft Thomasen wel een punt mee omdat de F35B maar een beperkt bereik heeft en daarnaast geen boordkanon heeft en minder bommen en missiles mee kan nemen dan een CATOBAR toestel.

Ace1


Ronald Elzenga

Citaat van: Warisboring op 18/04/2017 | 14:16 uur
U.S. Marines Want to Pack 20 Stealth Fighters on One Assault Ship

Amphibious vessels could become light carriers


.....
Interessant!

Harald

U.S. Marines Want to Pack 20 Stealth Fighters on One Assault Ship

Amphibious vessels could become light carriers


The U.S. Marine Corps plans to load up its nine big-deck amphibious assault ships with new F-35B Lightning II stealth fighters, swapping helicopters for jets and transforming the assault ships into light aircraft carriers.

The plan, which the Corps laid out in the 2017 edition of its annual aviation strategy document, has been under consideration for at least five years, according to the document.

Increasing demands on the U.S. Navy's 10 supercarriers, the entry into service of the aviation-optimized America-class assault ships and the fast-growing numbers of vertical-landing F-35Bs in the Marines' inventory finally makes the light-carrier scheme feasible ... and necessary.

"While the amphibious assault ship will never replace the aircraft carrier, it can be complementary, if employed in imaginative ways," the strategy document notes.

Normally, a Wasp– or America-class assault ship embarks an air wing composed of six-to-eight AV-8B Harrier jump jets or F-35Bs, up to 10 MV-22 tiltrotors and four CH-53E heavylift helicopters. The Corps believes that by eliminating the CH-53s from the air wing and cutting the number of V-22s to just four, it can boost the F-35 complement to at least 16, and as many as 20.

"An amphibious assault ship ... equipped with 16-20 F-35Bs with an embarked, organic aerial refueling capability will create opportunities for the naval and joint force commander," the strategy document explains. A light carrier loaded up with F-35s could support an amphibious task force, complement a supercarrier or operate independently.

In the summer of 2015, the Marines became the first armed service in the world to bring the F-35 into frontline service. The Corps has accelerated its conversion of F/A-18 squadrons and predicts it will operate 185 F-35Bs by 2025 — a number sufficient to equip every deployed assault ship. Of the nine assault ships in the fleet, seven are normally available for frontline operations.


The light-carrier idea is not unprecedented. The Royal Navy and the navies of Spain, Italy, India and Thailand have all operated aviation vessels roughly the same size as the U.S. Navy's assault ships, each embarking Harriers as their main air asset. The Americans, too, have experimented with Harrier-heavy air wings. On five occasions, according to the strategy document, Wasp-class assault ships have sailed with extra Harriers.

Most notably, during the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, USS Bataan and USS Bonhomme Richard embarked 26 and 22 AV-8Bs, respectively. The vessels functioned much like supercarriers, launching strike sorties at targets ashore — albeit less intensively and with fewer support assets than the supercarrier were capable of doing.

But the Wasp-class vessels lacked the hangar and deck space to comfortably handle two dozen or more Harriers. "Real estate is a premium on the flight deck, and this ship was never designed to carry so many Harriers, but we've been able to accommodate them, get the mission accomplished," Lt. Larry Young, Bataan's aircraft handling officer, commented in 2003.

For that reason, the Navy designed the follow-on America-class assault ships with bigger hangars, more weapons stowage and larger tanks for aviation fuel. Expanding these facilities meant removing the ships' floodable well decks, where landing craft launch and recover. USS America entered service in 2014. Tripoli is nearing completion.

Omitting the well-deck has been controversial, so the Navy decided to restore the well deck beginning with the third America-class vessel, Bougainville. That will leave America and Tripoli as the assault ships best-equipped to embark a large number of F-35s and sustain intensive flight ops. The other vessels will still be able to handle up to 20 stealth fighters — they simply won't be able to sustain flight ops of the same intensity.

The F-35s won't operate alone. According to the Marines' strategy document, assault ships doubling as light carriers will also embark V-22s fitted with extra fuel tanks and reelable hoses for use as aerial tankers. The Marines plan to deploy tanker-capable V-22s beginning in 2018. The tiltrotor tankers will extend the F-35Bs' range for deep strike missions.

To be clear, just because the Marines are planning to embark up to 20 F-35s on a single assault ship doesn't mean it necessarily will do so.

"We might never need to employ this way," the Corps stressed in the strategy document. "But to not lean forward to develop this capability, to train and exercise with it, is to deny ourselves a force multiplier that highlights the agility and opportunity only the Navy-Marine Corps team can provide."

http://warisboring.com/u-s-marines-want-to-pack-20-stealth-fighters-on-one-assault-ship/

"Harrier Carriers" gebruikt in de Golfoorlog.


Ace1

Ik heb dit filmpje hier geplaats omdat het in het tweede gedeelte over  light carriers gaat.

Zander

Citaat van: Thomasen op 04/03/2017 | 10:25 uur
Ook absoluut mee eens!
Hoewel het zeker in de koude oorlog taakspecialisatie logisch was dat de VS zich op SSN richtte, en Europeanen op SSK's, is het zeker nu voor de Amerikanen te verdedigen om een aantal SSK's te verwerven. Deze hebben doorgaans zowel lagere exploitatie kosten als lagere aanschaf kosten.
Zou je slechts 3 SSN's schrappen, kunnen ze daar waarschijnlijk 10-15 SSK's voor terug krijgen. En in veel gebieden is juist dat wat ook de VS nodig heeft. Kwantiteit, maar in dit geval zonder kwaliteit te verliezen.

En daarom minimaal 6 subs voor onze marine.
Uitgerust met oa anti-scheeps en luchtdoel raketten.
People are sheep

Ace1


Harald

Citaat van: Sparkplug op 13/02/2017 | 17:12 uur
Niet alleen de schepen, maar ook de vliegtuigen zijn rap groter geworden. De Essex-klasse was te klein voor de F-4 en de Midway-klasse was te klein voor de F-14. Daarentegen kon een Essex-klasse gemakkelijk met 24 x F-8 + 24 x A-7 e.d. varen.

doe ik nu even uit het hoofd, ... in WW2 100 toestellen, Nimitz max 90 toestellen, maar gebruikelijk met 60 stuks, de Ford met 75 toestellen

Sparkplug

Citaat van: Harald op 13/02/2017 | 17:05 uur
raar eigenlijk ...

De laat WW2 en de carriers gelijk na WW2, bijvoorbeeld de Essex klasse, waren allemaal rond de 30.000 ton, lengte 271 meter en breedte 28 meter.
toen kregen we de Midway klasse, 45.000 ton, lengte 295 meter, breedte 38 meter
daarna de Forrestal + Forrestal klasse, 1955-1960,  65.000 ton, lengte 326 meter, breedte 39,4 meter
en de Enterprise klasse (maar 1 gebouwd), 1960,  90.000 ton, lengte 342 meter, breedte 78 meter max   
nu in gebruik ; Nimitz klasse (totaal 10 stuks in 3 sub klasses), 1975-2009,  100.000 ton, lengte 332 meter, breedte 76 meter max
huidige klasse in aanbouw ; Ford klasse, 2017 - ...,   100.000 ton, lengte 337 meter, breedte 78 meter max

even een kort beeld van de opbouw na de WW2, tonnage is snel omhoog gegaan

Niet alleen de schepen, maar ook de vliegtuigen zijn rap groter geworden. De Essex-klasse was te klein voor de F-4 en de Midway-klasse was te klein voor de F-14. Daarentegen kon een Essex-klasse gemakkelijk met 24 x F-8 + 24 x A-7 e.d. varen.
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.

-- Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.

Harald

Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 13/02/2017 | 16:25 uur
Zelfs de QE-klasse ontstijgt deze term maar net...

raar eigenlijk ...

De laat WW2 en de carriers gelijk na WW2, bijvoorbeeld de Essex klasse, waren allemaal rond de 30.000 ton, lengte 271 meter en breedte 28 meter.
toen kregen we de Midway klasse, 45.000 ton, lengte 295 meter, breedte 38 meter
daarna de Forrestal + Forrestal klasse, 1955-1960,  65.000 ton, lengte 326 meter, breedte 39,4 meter
en de Enterprise klasse (maar 1 gebouwd), 1960,  90.000 ton, lengte 342 meter, breedte 78 meter max   
nu in gebruik ; Nimitz klasse (totaal 10 stuks in 3 sub klasses), 1975-2009,  100.000 ton, lengte 332 meter, breedte 76 meter max
huidige klasse in aanbouw ; Ford klasse, 2017 - ...,   100.000 ton, lengte 337 meter, breedte 78 meter max

even een kort beeld van de opbouw na de WW2, tonnage is snel omhoog gegaan

Sparkplug

Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 13/02/2017 | 16:25 uur
Zelfs de QE-klasse ontstijgt deze term maar net...

En om bij de Britten te blijven, was voor hen vroeger een CATOBAR CVL de Colossus-, de Majestic- of de Centaur-klasse vliegkampschepen. Het is maar net wat men onder de L van Light verstaat.
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.

-- Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Citaat van: Harald op 13/02/2017 | 15:28 uur
Idd, in de ogen van de VS zijn carriers zoals de Charles de Gaulle te rekenen tot CVL (light carriers)

Zelfs de QE-klasse ontstijgt deze term maar net...

Harald

Citaat van: Ronald Elzenga op 13/02/2017 | 15:03 uur
vervangen de LSD 41! gebaseerd op LPD 17.
http://www.huntingtoningalls.com/lxr-the-future-of-amphibious-warships/

- LX(R) schepen zijn modernere schepen op basis van de LSD 41 klasse.

klopt wat je zegt, wat ik bedoelde is dat de basis eisen, grootte e.d. is op basis van de LSD 41 klasse

Citaat van: Sparkplug op 13/02/2017 | 14:58 uur
Hiermee wordt de Charles de Gaulle ook tot CVL gerekend  ;D

Idd, in de ogen van de VS zijn carriers zoals de Charles de Gaulle te rekenen tot CVL (light carriers)