Aircraft Carriers

Here's my version:

Light aircraft carrier
Design: Similiar to the re-fitted Magestic-class carrier w/steam catapults
Displacement: 16,000 tonnes empty, 20,000 tonnes loaded
Length: ~214 meters
Beam: ~24 meters
Draught: ~7.5 meters

Arament:
2-3 x 30mm CIWS guns
4 x 8-cel VLS SAM
Machineguns
Chaff/decoy launcher

Aircraft: (20, hanger space for 10)
10 x fixed wing fighters
2 x AEW aircraft (fixed wing or helicopter)
8 x helicopters (ASW, ASuW, transport, etc.)

Arament:
2-3 x 30mm CIWS guns
4 x 8-cel VLS SAM
Machineguns
Chaff/decoy launcher

Click to expand...

Ok adeptitus just where are you planning to put those VLS cells? Flight deck? On a speical sponson? Just where? I'm curious.

I see you just have the basics ..Do you have any particular aircraft you would like to have? Thanks!

bd popeye said:

Ok adeptitus just where are you planning to put those VLS cells? Flight deck? On a speical sponson? Just where? I'm curious.

I see you just have the basics ..Do you have any particular aircraft you would like to have? Thanks!

Click to expand...

Off to the side, like this one:


Due to space issue, I'd lean toward 8-cel configuration. If there isn't enough space for 4 x 8 cel units, then less is fine. I had the Aster 15 or Israeli Barak in mind, but you could subsitute it with US or Russian system as well. Western systems are more compact, versus Russian ones, like the SA-N-6 are installed in big rotary VLS cels and may not be suitable:


The Israeli Barak system seems a lot more compact:


As for aircraft, it'd depend on the customer. You could opt for F-35, MiG-29K, Rafale-M, or even navalized LCA when avail. Not all countries have access to US weapon exports, and those that do, are often restricted in munitions (i.e. AIM-120's).

My ideal airwing for a full fledged CVN;
48 Super hornets for attack/airdefense
12 Tomcats for air defense
4 E-2C Hawkeys for AEW
6 E/F-18G Growlers for ECM
6 SH-60R Seahawk ASW
2 V-22A Osprey logistics and heavy lift
4 S-3B Vikings for tankers

Click to expand...

Looks like no one has any respect for diesel subs. With the demise of the USSR the USN has determined they no longer need the S-3 as an antisub platform.
I watched a military simulation on TV. They got the sub useing Helos and land based Orions, but only after it stuck one torpedo in the Carriers GUTT.
Dont know if that was a accurte simulation? However if the carriers are ever to far away from the land based orion-which has a very very long range (granted) they will be in trouble.

DennisDaMenace said:

Looks like no one has any respect for diesel subs. With the demise of the USSR the USN has determined they no longer need the S-3 as an antisub platform.
I watched a military simulation on TV. They got the sub useing Helos and land based Orions, but only after it stuck one torpedo in the Carriers GUTT.
Dont know if that was a accurte simulation? However if the carriers are ever to far away from the land based orion-which has a very very long range (granted) they will be in trouble.

Click to expand...

The USN is quite aware of desiel subs. The ASW mission of the S-3 was taken away from them years ago and given to the CSG escorts and the CV's own SH-60's.

The USN has contraced the Swedish sub HMS Gotland to practice hunting desiel subs. The sub will remain in san Diego for about 10 more months. The USN has had some sucess in hunting this sub.

Bd popeye

I think the USN just made the bad call of a lifetime. Diesel subs have just made a major leap forward. They can now stay underwater for up to 2 weeks and cruise at speeds of 17-22 knots. They may not be able to catch a Carrier- but if you know where its going and can set up a few ambush points you can stick one in its belly.
And hey, its still cheaper then a Nuke sub. Granted all these subs are so far from friendly countrys of the west. They let the USN track their subs and gather sonar data on them.. Then- they will sell them to not so friendly countries, but then they will already be in the USN data base of acoustic signatures and the USN should be able to track the new ultra quite diesels-we hope? Depending on your point of view.

DennisDaMenace said:

Bd popeye

I think the USN just made the bad call of a lifetime. Diesel subs have just made a major leap forward. They can now stay underwater for up to 2 weeks and cruise at speeds of 17-22 knots. They may not be able to catch a Carrier- but if you know where its going and can set up a few ambush points you can stick one in its belly.
And hey, its still cheaper then a Nuke sub. Granted all these subs are so far from friendly countrys of the west. They let the USN track their subs and gather sonar data on them.. Then- they will sell them to not so friendly countries, but then they will already be in the USN data base of acoustic signatures and the USN should be able to track the new ultra quite diesels-we hope? Depending on your point of view.

Click to expand...

I wish the USN had some SSK's. But they don't!
Humm Bad call of a lifetime? Do you know who ADM. Hyman Rickover was?



He was the father of the nuclear Navy. He made the descison long ago that the USN sub force would be all nuclear.

Most desiel boats when submerged have limited speed. About 5 knots. They cannot stray far way from home.

As far as catching a CV in the open sea ..well firsts of all you are counting on not being dected by the USN ASW. Which is, by most accounts, the best in the world. You have to penatrate 2 Arliegh Burkes, 1 Tico and and a LA class sub or two. And USN airborne ASW assets, i.e. P-3's and SH-60's.

Enough said. I do not want to turn this into an "I can sink your carrier" thread.

My revised "Light Aircraft Carrier" specs, with mostly non-US sourced hardware:

Design: similiar to re-fitted Magestic-class carrier (i.e. HMAS Melbourne) with steam catapult & 2 elevators
Displacement: 16,000 tonnes, 20,000 tonnes fully loaded
Length: ~214 meters
Beam: ~24 meters
Draught: ~7.5 meters

Arament: (space permitting)
2-3 x 30mm CIWS system: Goalkeeper, Type 730, or Kashtan CIWS system
2-4 x 8-cel compact VLS SAM system: MBDA Aster-15, VLS Mica, or Rafale Barak
Chaff/decoy rocket launchers
Machineguns

Aircraft: (20, hanger space for 10)
10 x fixed-wing fighters: Rafale-M, MiG-29K, Su-33 (too big?) or navalized LCA (when avail)
10 x helicopters: (type & number to vary by mission)
European source: NH-90, Agusta-Westland EH101 AEW, Super Lynx 300
Russian source: Kamov Ka-28 ASW, Ka-29 combat transport, Ka-31 AEW
Alternate: Denel Atlax Oryx, Harbin Z-9C, Mil Mi-14, Sea King

If fixed-wing AEW aircraft such as the E-2 Hawkeye is avail, you can swap a couple out with fixed-wing fighters or helicopters. However since the Yak-44 was never completed, there's nothing comparable to the E-2. If you cannot source E-2 from the US, then you'd have to rely on Helicopter AEW platforms.

Thanks to all for the intresting post.

I think a CV needs to be 30,000 tons as a minium. With the proper stablizers and blisters the ship will be very stable. I was on the USS Hancock in '74 & '75 and she rode great at 33,000 tons full load. I had a neighbor that was on board the USS Okinawa LPH-3(18,000 tons) with a almost flat hull. It rode terrible. Even in the waters off of S.California. I know I went to sea on a "Dependents day" cruise on there in 1980. How the ship rides is very important when conducting flight operations. You want that deck steady as can be. Makes for safer and smoother operations.

The Smallest viable CTOL strike carrier in recent times was HMS Hermes at about 28,000 tons and 774ft long by 147ft wide, and her design was basically an improved Majestic class brought up to full naval standards (the Colossus and Majestic class were built to mercantile standards to speed construction, it was WW2 at the time and they were meant to be finished in two years). The hull was enlarged to improve hangar capacity and installed power was doubled to increase speed from 25knots to 28knots, and the increased size of the flight deck allowed two catapults to be fitted (the Colossus and Majestic class only had room for one cat at the bow and later only had enough steam power for one steam catapult when they were modernised). Once your ship moves into this size range it becomes as Popeye said stable enough for safe operations and the range of aircraft you can fly from the deck increases greatly. Most of the 'C and M' class ships that were modernised were still limited to flying aircraft like the A-4 Skyhawk (max takeoff weight 24,000lbs) and the S-2 Tracker (mtw 26,000lbs), both capable types but not in the same league as F-4 Phantoms (mtw 56,000lbs), F-14 Tomcats (mtw 72,000lbs), F-18 Hornets (mtw 47,000lbs) and S-3 Vikings (mtw 52,000lbs). A ship in the 30,000tons+ category will be big enough to accomodate the longer catapults needed to launch these types (perhaps not the F-14, but F-4s were launched from Hermes in the 60s and her normal airgroup consisted of Sea Vixens (mtw 41,000lbs) and Buccaneers (mtw 62,000lbs).
Countries operating the smaller C and M class carriers had gotten themselves good ships at bargain prices but the rise in aircraft sizes and weights limited their choice of aircraft to be flown from their decks and if it wasn't for 'Heinemann's Hot rod' (the A-4) they would have had to switch to ASW ops exclusively much sooner and in it's turn the Sea Harrier gave the small carrier a reprieve too. The C and M class Carriers were a godsend to many Navies wanting to join the Carrier club potwar, as they were mostly about 70% complete languishing in shipyards for some years waiting for some one to buy them (sounds familiar...), were economical to operate and easy to modernise due to their basic and uncomplicated layout. Their armament was simple, mostly 40mm Bofors guns and it is worth rmembering when specifying a new carrier design that the only weapons that really matter are the Aircraft in the airgroup and beyond that only self defense weapons are necessary (something the Russians didn't quite grasp, the Kuznetzov design carries a large missile battery but at the expense of aircraft capacity) and long range missiles both offensive and defensive are more usefully deployed aboard her escorts. It's easy to get carried away with defensive armament on a carrier but as the RN learned with the Invincible class missile systems eat up space that could be better used for aircraft, so the Sea Dart SAM systems were removed and they are now only armed with 3 CIWS (Phalanx in Ark Royal and GOALKEEPER in Invincible and Illustrious).

Above: ARA 25 de Mayo (ex HMS Venerable), HMAS Melbourne (ex HMS Majestic), HMCS Bonaventure (ex HMS Powerful) operating with USS Essex in the 60s, INS Vikrant (ex HMS Hercules) and HMS Hermes in her CTOL configuration.