Aircraft Carriers

No problem Jeff. The ship is probally used for "show" only..You know the good looking car at the drag race that never races. It looks like a capable ship. Kinda small. But I really think the PLAN should buy it and use it for training or an active CV. Probally could get it cheap.

That reminds me. Last year I posted an article about the HMS Invincable being taken out of service. we may have previously discussed this but.... Is there any chance that the UK will sell the ship?

Video of Chakri Naruebet

Enjoy



Russian Carrier fleet at sea.

bd popeye said:

H.M.S. Chakri Naruebet leaves port for training once every two months. Each of these exercises costs one million baht. It costs 50,000 baht per day to maintain the ship at dock.

The cost of training pilots, which comes to about 10 million baht per pilot, must also be considered along with the maintenance cost of the aircraft, the Admiral said.

After the demonstration, the ship docked in the afternoon hours. All were invited to gather at the Royal Naval Fleet Club for dinner.

Click to expand...

So, in addition to whatever actual missions she is called upon to execute, she goes out once every two months for a day for training and show? What's that, six days a year? Apparently they get out some to conduct actual operations...humanitarian, joint exercises, etc. But is sure looks like that that do not get much at sea time and just plain training.

My guess is that the PLAN is pretty focused on the Varyag initially, followed by their own designs, which certainly are on the drawing board and may already have had first steel cut.

In addition, I believe they are going to produce some LPDs to augment their modern LST type designs of which they are producing quite a few.

bd popeye said:

Last year I posted an article about the HMS Invincable being taken out of service. we may have previously discussed this but.... Is there any chance that the UK will sell the ship?

Click to expand...

HMS Invincible was paid off purely for financial reasons, as the current government is as addicted to defence cuts as previous ones have been, in order to finance failing and ill thought out social programs. She remains available for further service (officially) until 2010 after which she will very probably be sold to a friendly nation (sources have mentioned India as prime candidate, others may step forward as the time approaches) and British Governments of any political colour have shown no qualms about selling warships to other nations in the past. I saw HMS Invincible laid up in Portsmouth Dockyard a few weeks ago (she is on the northside of Number 3 Basin next to the cross channel ferry terminal) and all her Radar Antennae and CIWS systems have been removed (presumably for maintenance and storage, and possible reuse in other ships) but appears otherwise to be in good condition. She has extensive command and control facilities and would be a bargain to any nation that bought her, and despite her age has been well maintained (the class was designed with the 'upkeep by replacement' principle so are much easier to refit than previous classes), so materially should be considered in 'mint' condition.

British influence on the JSF program has ensured that the F-35B will fit on an Invincible's lifts, an odd requirement as the intention was never to operate the aircraft from these ships but to introduce them into service with the CVFs. Perhaps they were looking ahead to export customers of both the JSF and the Invincibles. Here's a thought, what if Pakistan decides to upgrade to a carrier Navy in order to redress the imbalance with India? Also perhaps Chile, which currently operates several ex RN frigates and destroyers and has a large amount of the Pacific to patrol. An Invincible would meet their requirements very well, if their budget allows. Peru showed interest in buying the Commando Carrier (LPH) HMS Bulwark in the late 70s and Chile was offered HMS Hermes after the Falklands war, not to mention HMS Invincible's proposed sale to Australia as HMAS Australia prior to the Falklands war (perhaps they'll buy her after all, better late than never). Scrap prices are unlikely to rise significantly in the next decade so sale to a friendly foreign power is still the most likely option. The selling price of the ship is nothing compared to the value of the support contracts that would go with the sale, which is always popular with politicians trying to divert attention from their latest scandal.

Back on the subject of the HTMS Chakri Narubet, her sale to China would raise one or two problems not least the loss of face for the Thais if they were forced to give up such a symbol of national pride for financial reasons. That's why even though they are having a hard time paying her running costs the Thai Navy isn't entertaining any thoughts about selling her (publicly, privately things may be different). Should this hurdle be overcome then the question arises as to what aircraft would grace her deck in PLAN service. Other than Helicopters, the only STOVL types in service today are members of the Harrier family, and only the EAV-8As bought by the Thais would be likely to be offered to the Chinese. These are first generation Harriers built in the 70s with little value as front line combat aircraft due to the lack of any radar or nav/attack system beyond the 60s vintage Inertial Navigation System (INS) and the mk1 eyeball. The Thais only bought nine of them plus spares and two two-seaters, and these would mainly be of value to the PLAN as a means of reverse engineering a Harrier type fighter, possibly with the enlarged Sea Harrier style nose to provide space for a radar (from the intakes back the Sea Harrier is identical to the AV-8A structurally and there is plenty of information available to allow them to design their own SHAR style cockpit) and most impotantly to reverse engineer Pegasus engines (which they could then install in as yet undesigned new aircraft types, a twin engined STOVL transport/ AEW/ ASW/ bomber? The Germans tried something similar in the sixties with two pegasus engines...).


The Narubet is too small for CTOL or STOBAR operations and using her as an LPH only would be far from fulfilling her potential (though that appears to be how the Thais are using her when she does occasionally go to sea) but she would provide the PLAN with a second carrier prototype to complement the Varyag, and if Chinese Harrier copies could be manufactured then several of these 'Sea Control' type carriers could be built in a relatively short time to provide an effective ASW escort for the larger Varyag sized strike carriers. The 'Varyags' (by which I don't mean to imply the Chinese will be building carbon copies of the Varyag, I am simply referring to Varyag sized strike carriers, although stranger things have happened...) could then offload any ASW helos to the smaller ships and thus make room for more fighters, a similar idea to the RNs CVA-01/ Invincible class concept of the 60s.

Which is also pretty much what the original American SCS was designed for in the 70s, as a convoy escort and a replacement for the Essex class CVSs which were leaving service at the time. The CVN lobby in Washington saw the SCS as a threat to the 'Big ship' concept but it was actually intended to complement it by allowing the larger vessels to concentrate on the attack mission instead of having to make room for ASW types aboard the CV/CVNs. Eight SCS carriers could be built for the price of one CVN and the proposal was to forego one new CVN on order to buy them, a sensible move which would have boosted the USNs carrier numbers during a period of decline, after which CVN construction would have resumed. Alas politics and paranoia got in the way, the SCS was dropped by the Americans and the plans were bought by the Spanish, modified with a ski jump and built as the Principe de Asturias, later modified again and built for the Thai Navy as the Chakri Narubet (sorry for the history lesson, this is for the benefit of junior members who may not know the whole story, context is everything as my old history teacher used to say).

Thanks for the history lesson Obi Wan. You are indeed wise as Master Yoda has foretold!

I remember when the USN was looking at the SCS(sea Control Ship) concept. I was on active duty at the time. Many of us looked on it as a stop gap measure until the funding reached the proper level. If the USN had built them they would be decomissioning them by now and replaceing them with what? Who knows . Insted of staying within spending limits the US congress under Ronald Reagan went on a defict spending spree on military hardware...

I wonder what the USN would have put on a SCS? Probally 6-8 Sea Harriers and about 12 helos. Probally SH-3G's untill the SH-60's were in full service. And you could probally add 2 heavy lift CH-53's. Just a guess on my part.

I think foregoing the construction of just one CVN (it would have been the USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN71) would have been a price worth paying (as long as CVN production resumed afterwards) as it would have increased the flexibility of the USN to respond to situations and alowed more flightdecks to patrol the oceans. The CV/CVN force could have retained their strike oriented air wings whilst the SCS (most likely to be designated CVS in service, or even CVE with hull numbers in that sequence) would shoulder the ASW role at the centre of ASW hunting groups as their Essex class forebears had been (probably consisting of 1 CVS, 1 Ticonderoga class CG, 2 Spruance class DDs and 4 Oliver Hazard Perry class FFGs backed up by a couple of Los Angeles class SSNs) and would clear the oceans of enemy subs ahead of a CSG. The Harriers in the Air group would provide a degree of long range Anti Ship strike and local air defence beyond the range of the Aegis cruiser (an extra layer, also allowiing visual ID of any bogeys before they enter missile range). A heliborne AEW system similar to the RNs Sea King AEW2/ASAC7 would have been desireable too for deployments where a CV/CVN was unavailable and in the 80s, when these ships would have been first commissioned, amalgamating some of these groups with the SAGs (Surface Action Groups) deployed around the Iowa class BBs would have plugged a gap in the SAGs capability and made a formidable strike force second only to a CSG.

I noticed the USN seems to be interested in the Tailored Air Group concept (as I mentioned in a previous post) pioneered by the RN (they steal all our best ideas!) as this article at Defencetalk. com shows;


The 8 or so CVS (SCS) would have been much more attractive as second hand ships to foreign navies and would have been coming on the market around now. The first four most likely would have been completed to the original design with flat decks and the second batch could have been completed with integral ski jumps like the Principe de Asturias (based on the timeframe of proposed construction and the ski jump proving its value in the Falklands war). The older ships could have been retro fitted with ski jumps (similar to HMS Hermes) as they came in for overhaul, and the vessels existence would allow the Tarawa and Wasp class ships to concentrate on troop carrying without having to make room for Harriers. Whilst a nominal air group of 6-8 Harriers plus a sqn of SH-60s and 3 AEW sea Kings would be embarked normally, the Spanish ship has proved that the design could accomodate up to 20 Harriers plus a few Helos in wartime (about the same as a much larger Wasp class LHD does when deployed in the SCS role), shifting the ASW helos over to any Auxilliaries deployed with the battle group.

Found a pic of the original SCS design showing the flat (no ski jump) deck and original simple bridgework:

and a few of the completed first of class, SNS Pricipe de Asturias.

Obi Wan. thanks for posting that pic of the unfullfilled USN SCS. I have been searching the web for that pic for many a moon. I guess it took a Jedi Master to find it.

The ship certianly looks smaller than a Tarawa or Wasp but none the less a capable ship. Obi Wan do you have the demensions for the SCS? And if you could post a link I would appericate that!

I did find this tidbit at globalsecurity.com. No pictures however.

Sea Control Ship
The question of how to meet military obligations at home and abroad is necessarily answered from many viewpoints: tactical, technical, and financial. As the Navy faced serious cutbacks in its budget, the financial aspect increased in importance disaproportionately over the other factors. Nevertheless, in an attempt to maximize the dollar without sacrificing efficiency, a review of alternative systems was now needed. The sea-control ship was a low-end, low-technology, small aircraft carrier.

Ships of this type came into existence at the beginning of the 20th century. During the World War II era they were used effectively to replace more costly ships. Modern technological developments, notably the VSTOL Harrier, increased its potential, as part of a mixed force with the high-end, high-technology, large- deck carriers.

Because of GUAM's similarity to a conceptual Sea Control Ship, she was selected during the summer of 1971 for the Navy's Interim Sea Control Ship (ISCS) project. After entering an extensive re-fit in Portsmouth Naval Shipyard on 28 October 1971, GUAM began tests and evaluation in conjunction with the ISCS Project on 18 January 1972. As the ISCS, GUAM provided inputs to preliminary design by developing tactical concepts and measuring system performance. Aircraft operated by GUAM in support of this conceptual project included SH-3H "Sea King" helicopters and the Marine Corps' AV-8A "Harrier" Vertical Short Take-Off and Landing (VSTOL) jet. In 1974 the Sea Control Force (TG 27.2) USS GUAM (LPH-9), in company with USS MCDONNELL (DE-1043) and USS MCCANDLESS (FFG-1084), deployed in the Western Atlantic Operating Area. This task group was created to evaluate the Interim Sea Control Ship concept using the SH-3H helicopters and AV-8A Harrier jet aircraft embarked on GUAM. GUAM completed the ISCS evaluation and reassumed her role as an Amphibious Assault Ship on July 1, 1974.

The layout of the Principe de Asturias, an aircraft carrier that has been in service with the Spanish Navy since 1988, was partly derived from the design of the US Navy Sea Control Ship. The hull was laid down in 1979 and the ship was launched in 1982.

Click to expand...

I don't have any exact dimensions for the SCS but as far as I can tell it would have been about the same size as the Principe de Asturias. The plans for the spanish ship were bought 'wholesale' from the designers of the SCS, the American firm of Gibbs and Cox and modified only where necessary, modifications to the design for Spanish service were confined to the Ski Jump at the bow, Meroka CIWS on sponsons port and starboard, and enlarged bridge work due to the ships role as flagship of the Spanish Navy (the SCS model shows only one bridge level). Displacement, length, beam, powerplant speed and range are most likely unchanged. The photo came from my trusty old copy of 'Conways All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1947-82 pt1'. Aesthetically, the SCS always makes me think it is a 'baby Nimitz', and it is easy to imagine one or two sailing in company with a CVN as part of a CSG. Alas, it was never to be...

The Thai carrier appears to be a simplification/ improvement of the original design employing diesel engines for cruising and two shafts instead of one, and would probably be very easy for the Chinese to put into series production if they were to get their hands on her. At 12,000tons they could be built in shipyards currently used for destroyers and frigates without causing too many problems, which just leaves the choice of aircraft to be flown from them. I suggested in a previous post a 'reverse engineered' Harrier type fighter would be my choice, simply to see what alterations they made to the design (enlarged Sea Harrier nose with radar/ laser seeker/ Big Gun?). China has tried to buy Harriers from Britain in the past (mid to late 80s, no prizes for guessing why that deal fell through) and plenty of technical info on the Harrier is in the public domain, enough perhaps for the large numbers of Chinese aeronautical engineers to get their teeth into.

In the sixties the Rolls Royce Spey was proposed as an alternative to the Bristol BS100 engine for the P1154 supersonic Harrier, and producing a vectored thrust version was considered a straightforward task. A few years ago, China bought about a hundred surplus Speys from Britain (spare engines for defunct F-4K/M Phantoms).
I'm not jumping to any conclusions here, sometimes I just turn around and conclusions are right there next to me...

Found a couple of old shots of the USS Guam operating Harriers in the 70s: