Aircraft Carriers II

[bd popeye]

Welcome to the very best Aircraft Carrier thread/forum on the internet:D. Feel free to join in the discussion. If you are not a member>>Membership is 100% free!!. So join on in!

Here is a link to our first Aircraft Carrier thread;

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2255

bd popeye super moderator

[bd popeye]

I found this article in a yahoogroup. It is about HMS Ocean visit to NS Norfolk VA.

The two pics on the bottom show some insight to the Ocean.


http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/04/navy_hmsocean_070419w/

By Andrew Scutro - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Apr 20, 2007 12:54:18 EDT

NORFOLK, Va. — The important stuff first: British sailors are issued
three cans or "tins" of beer after work every day. The snack
machines dispense Cadbury chocolate bars. A normal lunch is curry
and rice. And when a British ship comes into port, the crew's rugby
team goes ashore to scrounge up a game with the locals.

This week and into next, the English amphibious assault ship Ocean
is to be in Norfolk for the city's Azalea Festival, and its crew has
been hosting a variety of visitors during its stay.

At 667 feet long and 22,500 tons, Ocean is the United Kingdom's
largest warship. It can carry up to 22 helicopters; four landing
craft; up to 40 Land Rovers and their trailers; and six 105 mm light
guns for embarked Royal Marines. The ship's company numbers 400
sailors, along with room for 600 Royal Marines and 300 from the air
wing. It was built in 1998 and technically called a landing
platform, helicopter.

Besides exotic food and a daily beer ration, the ship itself differs
from American counterparts in several ways, very noticeably in the
ladder wells. Traffic goes both up and down on double-wide stairs.
Passageways around the hangar deck, known as "assault routes," are
very wide to accommodate Royal Marines in full kit. And the aircraft
elevator travels between the hangar deck and the flight deck from
within the ship, not jutting off the side, as on American carriers.

Berthing for the embarked military force is divided into relatively
spacious compartments with racks stacked three high, weapons lockers
and a small lounge area with a television and plenty of magazines.

The bridge has windows on four sides, making it very well lit from
the outside. It's manned by an officer of the watch, a communicator,
a quartermaster and a boatswain's mate. A corner of the bridge deck
overhangs the flight deck where an air operations element works.

Able Bodied Seaman 1st Class Daniel Heredia-Keay, 24, joined the
Royal Navy when he was 19. A warfare specialist, he said that with
only a few sailors on the bridge watch at a time, "it's nice and
quiet."

The Ocean left Plymouth, England in mid-March. After passing down
the west coast of Africa, it crossed the Atlantic and did an
information-gathering mission in the Caribbean before steaming north
for Norfolk.

Cmdr. Robert Gray, who handles logistics aboard the Ocean, said the
Caribbean mission is done in conjunction with the U.S. Navy and
Coast Guard.

"It's part of our partnership with the U.S.," he said.

The Ocean returns to the Caribbean after leaving Norfolk and is
expected back in Plymouth by July. The Ocean is the sixth ship in
the Royal Navy to bear that name

[Obi Wan Russell]

Apparently the choice of food aboard RN ships these days is so it can be eaten quickly and easily in case of a call to action stations, although that sailor could have been pulling my leg! The extra wide access ways in Ocean have been repeated throughout the Amphibious force (the Albions and the Bays) and I would be surprised if US Amphibs didn't do the same these days. The lifts have an upper level 'stop' at gallery deck level (sandwiched between the hangar and the flight deck) which allows casualties to be taken to sickbay quickly without having to cross the hangar deck itself. She has a loading ramp aft so that vehicles can be loaded at the quayside without the need for specialist facilities. She can operate Harriers (the Harrier family was designed to operate from clearings in woods with support facilities in the back of a truck and maintenance crew in a tent, so suggestions that she is less suitable are somewhat strange. Ski jumps help, but are not essential.) The hull at waterline level was modified a few years ago below the aft landing craft recess so that they can be launched whilst the ship is underway (previously the ships wake tended to push the landing craft back under the overhang aft).

All this, and she was bought for the price of a frigate, illustrating how much of the cost of a modern warship is taken up by Radars, SAM systems, SSMs, ESM, bells and whistles etc. I still don't believe that the CVFs will actually cost £1.9Billion to build, most of that will disappear into 'other costs'. HMS Ark Royal was delivered in 1985 for £220million (inc lots of 'bells and whistles') and the original 1998 quote for the CVFs was £740million each. My guess is that hasn't really changed too much, but a lot of people connected to the project have very nice shiny cars and fat pensions...

Nurse! My medication! I'm starting to feel paranoid again...

[bd popeye]

From the discription the HMS Ocean seems to have many of the atributes of a USN amphib.

In Nov 2001 I worked on a movie called Antwone Fisher. Most of the at sea scenes were shot on board the now sunk USS Belleau Wood LHA-3 over a six day period. That was my first visit on an LHA and I must say the ship is quite spacious. Plenty of room for the Marines to move about. An impressive ship.

That reminds me..Anyone want an LHA?? The USN has now decomissioned another LHA. This upsets me. Because her replacement the Makin Island will not be comissioned until next year.

USS Siapan LHA-2 is now decomissioned. She will be used for some weapons testing. Probally as a target.:(


http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=28980

Decommissioning Ends USS Saipan’s 29 Years of Service
Story Number: NNS070420-18
Release Date: 4/20/2007 2:30:00 PM

By Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Joseph R. Wax, Fleet Public Affairs Center Atlantic

NORFOLK (NNS) -- The Navy bid farewell to the amphibious assault ship USS Saipan (LHA 2), April 20 in a decommissioning ceremony at Naval Station Norfolk.

During its 29 year career, the ship’s primary mission was to transport Marine Corps forces. However, Saipan was also involved in providing evacuation and disaster relief when needed.

“We are here today to honor the history and legacy of this fine ship, but more importantly the people who served on it,” said Saipan Commanding Officer Capt. Richard Fitzpatrick. “The decommissioning signals the end of an era. We honor the men and women who gave their time, service and in some cases, their lives.”

Saipan was commissioned Oct. 15, 1977, and made the first Mediterranean deployment by an amphibious assault ship in 1980. The ship deployed eight more times to the Mediterranean and deployed to the Persian Gulf multiple times in support of operations Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.

In 1990, Saipan participated in the evacuation of approximately 1,600 civilians from Liberia in support of Operation Sharp Edge. Saipan provided a presence in the Adriatic Sea during the 2000 federal elections in Yugoslavia, and gave support to the first ever U.S.-Croatian exercise. In 2005, it deployed to Haiti where it offloaded Seabees from Naval Mobile Construction Battalion (NMCB) One, and nearly 1,200 tons of equipment used to rebuild schools and wells in the hurricane-ravaged country. In December 2006, Saipan returned from its final deployment.

“As the world continues to evolve so too must the Navy,” said Rear Adm. Michael Nowakowski, former Saipan commanding officer and current President, Board of Inspection and Survey. “This evolution of continual change drives the process of commissions and decommissions.”

Saipan was the second U.S. ship to bear the name. Its predecessor, the carrier Saipan (CVL 48), served from July 1946 to January 1970. The name Saipan was taken from an integral WWII battle on the island of Saipan.

Saipan and its Sailors received numerous awards during its 29 years of service, including six Battle “E” awards, three Armed Forces Expeditionary Medals and the Humanitarian Service Medal.

“Without its crew it is just 40,000 tons of welded steel,” said Fitzpatrick. “Saipan’s legacy is going to live on through these fine professionals.”

Saipan will be used for weapons effect testing, providing vital information on structural integrity and survivability which will assist in the designing and planning of future ships. After the tests have been conducted it will be transferred to the inactive fleet.

“You have served your nation and the Navy well,” Nowakowski said during his closing remarks. “The Sailors from your 19 crews will keep alive your legacy; Fair Winds and Following Seas.”

For more news from around the fleet, visit www.navy.mil.

[bd popeye]

I found these pics of the seldom seen Thia CV on the US DoD web site. They were taken in 2001.

The Royal Thai Naval vessel HTMS CHAKRINARUEBET (CVH 911) in the South China Sea. (Released to Public) DoD photo by: PH3 ALEX C. WITTE, USN Date Shot: 3 Apr 2001

[Tasman]

All this, and she was bought for the price of a frigate, illustrating how much of the cost of a modern warship is taken up by Radars, SAM systems, SSMs, ESM, bells and whistles etc. I still don't believe that the CVFs will actually cost £1.9Billion to build, most of that will disappear into 'other costs'. HMS Ark Royal was delivered in 1985 for £220million (inc lots of 'bells and whistles') and the original 1998 quote for the CVFs was £740million each. My guess is that hasn't really changed too much, but a lot of people connected to the project have very nice shiny cars and fat pensions...



Ocean certainly seems to be excellent value and whilst she (like the old USN LPHs) has been criticised by some for not having a dock well she has been designed to operate in company with other amphibious ships so I think the criticism is unfair. Compared with a ski jump fitted Invincible she may not be able to operate Harriers as efficiently but she would still be able to do so if required, albeit with reduced fuel/weapons loads. Her ability to act as a spare deck for Harriers and/or helos operating from other ships would also be valuable

I think this kind of vessel would be a very useful asset to act as a command and support ship for units carrying out the type of mission being performed by Cornwall when its boarding party was captured. It would be able to provide considerable helo support as well as armed response teams of Royal Marines, whilst not being nearly as expensive or crew hungry as a large carrier. Ships of this type can also switch to a sea control role which demonstrates the versatility of ships able to embark aviation assets in reasonable numbers.

It is interesting to see that a number of countries (other than the USA) are now building amphibious ships with helo and VSTOL capability (e.g. the French Mistral and the Spanish BPE, the design of one of which will be selected by Australia which will acquire two ships for the RAN).

Cheers

[bd popeye]

Excellent post Tasman!:)

One thing however;

It is interesting to see that a number of countries (other than the USA) are now building amphibious ships with helo and VSTOL capability (e.g. the French Mistral and the Spanish BPE, the design of one of which will be selected by Australia which will acquire two ships for the RAN).


The US is building one more LHD, the Makin Island. She will be comissioned in May 2008... I believe.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/lhd-8.htm

She will be a cross over ship. That is having many of the systems of the Wasp class but a new gas turbine main propulsion engines, all electric auxiliaries, an advanced machinery control system, water mist fire protection systems, and the Navy’s most advanced command and control and combat systems equipment.

Next up for the USN will be the new LHA(R)..The R is for replacement.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lhx.htm

The LHA(R) will replace the LHA 1 class of amphibious assault ships, and will have the flexibility to operate in the traditional role as the flagship for an Expeditionary Strike Group as well as potentially playing a key role in the maritime pre-positioning force future (MPF(F)). As the Navy's Seabasing plan matures, the flexibility to operate with the Expeditionary Strike Group and as part of the MPF(F) will make the LHA(R) a vital cog in the Sea Base. LHA(R) will be a variant of the gas turbine-powered LHD 8. The one key difference of LHA(R) from LHD 8 is that it will be an aviation-enhanced assault ship tailored for the US Marine Corps future Aviation Combat Element centered on the STOVL F-35B Joint Strike Fighter and the tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey.

I just hope that the USN actually does replace the Tarawas with these ships. However, with todays military budget constraints some ships of this class may be never be built.:( Just my opinion.

[Tasman]

One thing however;


The US is building one more LHD, the Makin Island. She will be comissioned in May 2008... I believe.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/lhd-8.htm

She will be a cross over ship. That is having many of the systems of the Wasp class but a new gas turbine main propulsion engines, all electric auxiliaries, an advanced machinery control system, water mist fire protection systems, and the Navy’s most advanced command and control and combat systems equipment.



You are right, I should have said, 'as well as the USN!"

[QUOTE=bd popeye;61941]


Next up for the USN will be the new LHA(R)..The R is for replacement.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lhx.htm



I just hope that the USN actually does replace the Tarawas with these ships. However, with todays military budget constraints some ships of this class may be never be built.:( Just my opinion.

I agree about the Tarawa's. It would be highly desirable for them to be replaced on a one for one basis. I find it interesting that the design of the LHA(R) seems to have been optimised for aviation operations at the expense of landing craft. However, as they will be part of a balanced amphibious force, I can see the arguments in favour of having some aviation enhanced ships in this force.

Cheers

[IDonT]

The Italian Cavour at sea trials

http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/cavour11.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/cavour10.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/cavour12.jpg

[IDonT]

Japan is building a "DDH" aka flattop

http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/16ddh1.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/16ddh5.jpg

[Tasman]

Japan is building a "DDH" aka flattop

http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/16ddh1.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/16ddh5.jpg

Is there a constitutional reason why this ship is being classified as a destroyer? As far as I can see it is a small sea control helicopter carrier. Apart from its helos its weapons mix comprises ASW systems (Asroc and TT) and self defence systems (Sea Sparrow and CIWS). This doesn't seem to fit the role of a modern destroyer.

Cheers

[Scratch]

Is there a constitutional reason why this ship is being classified as a destroyer? As far as I can see it is a small sea control helicopter carrier. Apart from its helos its weapons mix comprises ASW systems (Asroc and TT) and self defence systems (Sea Sparrow and CIWS). This doesn't seem to fit the role of a modern destroyer.
We've talked about that earlier. This vessel definitely has sea-controll capabilities. And I believe the poltical need to be only defensive in all aspects plays a key role here.
Maybe they want it to be seen as an ASW DD because of the number of helos it can carry. I think four are proposed.

I find it interesting that the design of the LHA(R) seems to have been optimised for aviation operations at the expense of landing craft. However, as they will be part of a balanced amphibious force, I can see the arguments in favour of having some aviation enhanced ships in this force.
Probably a step to aquire sea-controll-capability without the need to deploy a super-carrier. I think there's definitely room for ships that offer a combination of sea-controll and amphib-assault capabilities.

two Harriers taking of from USS Essex: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhowrg-bI5w

[bd popeye]

Moderators note >>. For those of you newer members>>> please browse through our first outstanding carrier thread.:p Excellent discussion and pictures in there!:)

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2255

I find it interesting that the design of the LHA(R) seems to have been optimised for aviation operations at the expense of landing craft. However, as they will be part of a balanced amphibious force, I can see the arguments in favour of having some aviation enhanced ships in this force.

When the LHA(R) program does come to fruition the LHA(R) when operating with the highly capable LPD-17 class will be a very potent amphib force.

I agree with the previous posters in that the new LHA(R) is more avation capable. Perhaps in the future we will see an all F-35 & V-22 air wing on an LHA(R). perhaps 10+ years from now.

I am some what puzzled:confused: by the lack of a well deck. Without a well deck you have a aircraft carrier that can haul vehicles and troops. I envision these ships carrying up to 36 JSF and 6+ V-22. As I mentioned this class will be grouped with an LPD-17 class.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lhx.htm

Anyone agree or disagree?

[bd popeye]

This is a terrfic picture!

Ships from four nations sail in formation during the NATO Southern Region exercise Dragon Hammer '90. In the left foreground is the amphibious assault ship USS SAIPAN (LHA-2). In the background are, from left: the Spanish aircraft carrier SPS PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS (R-11), the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN-69), the Italian light aircraft carrier ITS GIUSEPPE GARIBALDI (C-551) and the British light aircraft carrier HMS INVINCIBLE (R-05). (Released to Public)

[Jeff Head]

[COLOR="Blue"]
I am some what puzzled:confused: by the lack of a well deck. Without a well deck you have a aircraft carrier that can haul vehicles and troops. I envision these ships carrying up to 36 JSF and 6+ V-22. As I mentioned this class will be grouped with an LPD-17 class.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lhx.htm

Anyone agree or disagree?I do not know for sure that the "Aviation Variant" A/V mentioned in the Global Security document has been finalized yet , but I believe it is close if it hasn't already been done.

But, since they are calling it a "variant", then that implies that there will also be some of the LHA(R) that do have well decks. Perhaps only two or three will be the Aviation Variants.

Just the same, for those vessels that have no no well deck, then those particular LHA(R)s will not be able to land any heavy armor (tanks) and will have to depend on the Wasp class or the San Antonio class for that function. Perhaps that is the intent, in which case, with more aircraft capability, particularly JSF, these LHA(R)s will have more strike capability for the US Marines in terms of air support during and after the landing when no airfield or CVN is available.

We'll have to see. Right now if you go to the

US Navy Program Executive Office web site regarding the LHA(R) (http://peos.crane.navy.mil/amphibs/amphibs_lhaR.htm)

...it does not mention the aviation variant and indicates that the specifications for the ships are still yet to be determined.

[Tasman]

I do not know for sure that the "Aviation Variant" A/V mentioned in the Global Security document has been finalized yet , but I believe it is close if it hasn't already been done.

But, since they are calling it a "variant", then that implies that there will also be some of the LHA(R) that do have well decks. Perhaps only two or three will be the Aviation Variants.

Just the same, for those vessels that have no no well deck, then those particular LHA(R)s will not be able to land any heavy armor (tanks) and will have to depend on the Wasp class or the San Antonio class for that function. Perhaps that is the intent, in which case, with more aircraft capability, particularly JSF, these LHA(R)s will have more strike capability for the US Marines in terms of air support during and after the landing when no airfield or CVN is available.

We'll have to see. Right now if you go to the

US Navy Program Executive Office web site regarding the LHA(R) (http://peos.crane.navy.mil/amphibs/amphibs_lhaR.htm)

...it does not mention the aviation variant and indicates that the specifications for the ships are still yet to be determined.

Thanks for posting the link Jeff. One of the great things about this forum is the sharing of links to excellent sites.

I also wonder how strong the commitment is to the aviation variant as the information is vague (perhaps deliberately so at this stage). In an amphibious force as large as that of the USN, I can understand a desire to have a proportion of ships that sacrifice heavy lift (tanks, etc) for a more substantial aviation capability. In a way they are like super LPHs (like the old Iwo Jima class or the RN's Ocean). This variant should also prove to be extremely valuable in the alternative sea control carrier role.

Cheers

[Jeff Head]

Thanks for posting the link Jeff. One of the great things about this forum is the sharing of links to excellent sites.

This variant should also prove to be extremely valuable in the alternative sea control carrier role.

CheersAgreed. In essence, with the Aviation Variant, the US Marines will have a two or three of their own close to 50,000 ton aircraft carriers optimized for air support and air assault. I think three is a good number because it ensures that one or two can always be deployed.

With eight Wasp class, if you add to that three normal well-deck LHA(R) and three Aviation Variant LHA(R), then that will be a very potent amphibious assault capability, including significant air support, particularly when coupled with 12 San Antonio class LPDs.

[bd popeye]

Jeff I read that PEO statement about the LHA(R) before I posted previously and it is pretty vauge.:( No money has be authorized and without money there is no final design..So like the rest of the world, this time, we USN fans gotta wait.:mad::confused:

[Jeff Head]

Jeff I read that PEO statement about the LHA(R) before I posted previously and it is pretty vauge.:( No money has be authorized and without money there is no final design..So like the rest of the world, this time, we USN fans gotta wait.:mad::confused:Amen, until the dollars are authorized for actual construction, it remains a lot of planning and dreaming.

But, they have spent over a hundred million on planning and prep work, and they have decomm'd Tarawa class vessels (Belleau Wood and Saipan, the Saipan just on April 20, 2007) and sunk the Belleau Wood, and I believe may sink the Saipan in weapons tests as well (a real shame and mistake in both cases IMHO)

I am pretty sure they will build the LHA(R), and at this point, it sure sounds like there may well be two versions.

If so, then the US will be getting 2-3 Sea Control capable aircraft carriers, built that way from the ground up.

[Scratch]

Regarding A/V, that PEO statement at least says it will be aviation optimized. Having 20+ JSFs, larger aviation related facilities and so on. So I would guess future LHAs to generally be an aviation variant of amphib vessels, while LPDs/LHDs become the real amphib variants.
With Wasps in service for some time and San Antonios coming online, the aviation part seems to be of a greater need now.
Maybe later we will see LHD(R)s based on the current LHA(R)s for Wasp replacements, otimized to bring forces to the beach in modern ops.

[bd popeye]

Regarding A/V, that PEO statement at least says it will be aviation optimized. Having 20+ JSFs, larger aviation related facilities and so on.

That 20+ JSF by PEO is really a misnomer in my opinion. As long ago as 1981 and as recently as 2003 LHA/LHD's have deployed with a 20 Sea Harrier air wing. And the avation faclities on those ships is not as enhanced as it may be on the LHA(R). Probally 30+ JSF is the truer figure.

[Scratch]

OK, maybe they are even capable of that.
But then I think there may also be V-22 variants for ASW, AEW, ISR ...
And perhaps even some transporter variants stored on these vessels wich are then used to airlift troops from other vessels to the shore.
It would make really sense, IMO. Use a specialized aviation ship to bring aircraft into theater wich then help improve the airborne part of the amphib landing.

[F40Racer]

A larger carrier can have a lot more firepower. Just think how many more aircrafts Nimitz can carry than Du Gaulle. But a larger ship is most likely to be more vulnerable to attacks since it will be a bigger target. Are aircraft carriers even larger than Nimitz-class and the upcoming CVN-21 possible? If so, how large?

[joshuatree]

A larger carrier can have a lot more firepower. Just think how many more aircrafts Nimitz can carry than Du Gaulle. But a larger ship is most likely to be more vulnerable to attacks since it will be a bigger target. Are aircraft carriers even larger than Nimitz-class and the upcoming CVN-21 possible? If so, how large?

Larger carriers are very possible, but at some point, law of diminishing returns apply. How much more use is there with a larger carrier? Also, what if new fighter planes were pilotless? Then you have a plane that can free up a lot of room reserved for the cockpit to use for ordinance. Firepower is increased without needing a larger carrier.

[Jeff Head]

Larger carriers are very possible, but at some point, law of diminishing returns apply. How much more use is there with a larger carrier? Also, what if new fighter planes were pilotless? Then you have a plane that can free up a lot of room reserved for the cockpit to use for ordinance. Firepower is increased without needing a larger carrier.Clearly, larger carriers are possible, and in their sea-basing strategies, the US has been considering various options.

For example, the "Mobile Offshore Base":

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/mob-flex_b_full.jpg

While this particular design has been determined to be feasible, it has also been considered less cost effective than other options, like more super-carriers, or joint capabilities of several large ships operating together.

[bd popeye]

Threads merged. We already have an aircraft carrier thread. Please discuss any type CV here. Discuss the PLAN CV in those threads.

bd popeye super moderator

[Scratch]

Though I believe it to be technically possible to build bigger CVNs, I think at a certain point it's better to have more super-carriers than less mega-carriers.
If you have more carriers, you have a higher readiness-state of the single CVNs and can cover a greater area (disperse forces).
If there's really a need for more firepower than one CVN can deliver, just send two or more.

[Jeff Head]

Though I believe it to be technically possible to build bigger CVNs, I think at a certain point it's better to have more super-carriers than less mega-carriers.
If you have more carriers, you have a higher readiness-state of the single CVNs and can cover a greater area (disperse forces).
If there's really a need for more firepower than one CVN can deliver, just send two or more.
Well, the thought behind the Mobile Offshore Base was just that. It would give you a large, entire base that was actually mobile, with the capability of landing large, non-naval aircraft in areas where you could not secure an onshore base.

You could bring large amounts of men and material to the offshore base to support continued operations onshore, without the vulnerability an onshore base has to even insurgents.

Problem is, that such a base is REALLY big, and can only move a few miles each day. So, in the event of any major hostilities with a major power, it would be vulnerable...even though with enough subs and AEGIS vessels, etc. they thought they could protect it...it's just to expensive to put at any risk like that.

[bd popeye]

Personally I feel carriers have reached their optium size with the new CVN-78 class. There is only so much a crew can handle.

Presently USN CVN's deploy with only about 62 aircraft. Their is certainly enough room aboard for about 30 more aircraft. But whats' the point? With the advent of PGM(Precision Guided Munitions) that help reduce storie rates those aircraft can accomplish the job of a larger CVW of the 1980's & '90's.

By the way. I deployed on board CV-66 in 1981 with an airwing with 92 aircraft.

CVW-11 embarked on CV-66 from Jan'81 'til NOV'81:

14ac= VF-114 Aardvarks F-14A(TARPS)
12ac= VF-213 Black Lions F-14A
12ac= VA-192 Golden Dragons A-7E
12ac= VA-195 Dam Busters A-7E
15ac= VA-95 Green Lizards A-6E/KA-6D
04ac= VAW-123 Screwtops E-2C
04ac= VAQ-133 Wizards EA-6B
06ac= HS-12 Wyverns SH-3H
10ac= VS-33 Screwbirds S-3A
01ac= VQ-2DET. Batmen EA-3B
02ac= VR-24DET. Lifting Eagles C-2A
92 total aircraft!

[joshuatree]

Clearly, larger carriers are possible, and in their sea-basing strategies, the US has been considering various options.

For example, the "Mobile Offshore Base":

While this particular design has been determined to be feasible, it has also been considered less cost effective than other options, like more super-carriers, or joint capabilities of several large ships operating together.

I would consider this as more of a base than carrier. It looks like it's a combo of carrier, LPD, LHD, and AO.

[Jeff Head]

I would consider this as more of a base than carrier. It looks like it's a combo of carrier, LPD, LHD, and AO.Well...it would have been a base. An ocean-going airbase. It also would have allowed for the embarking from the base logistical supply, supplies, material, and personnel onto Amphibious Assault task forces.

Since it would have been ocean-going, and since it would have carried many, many aircraft, it would have indeed been an aircraft carrier, but also much more.

Aircraft carriers would have been a significant part of its defense.

As it is, it was deemd not as economically desirable as the alternatives, so it has been shelved.

[Ryz05]

Well...it would have been a base. An ocean-going airbase. It also would have allowed for the embarking from the base logistical supply, supplies, material, and personnel onto Amphibious Assault task forces.

Since it would have been ocean-going, and since it would have carried many, many aircraft, it would have indeed been an aircraft carrier, but also much more.

Aircraft carriers would have been a significant part of its defense.

As it is, it was deemd not as economically desirable as the alternatives, so it has been shelved.

Besides being air base, the ocean platform can function as artificial islands for houses. It would be nice for people to live on these platforms especially when there's not enough room to built houses on land. I imagine this platform could increase areas for many small island countries like Singapore.

[bd popeye]

Next year sometime the USS George Washington CVN-73 will transfer to Japan. Presently she is in the shipyard in Portsmouth VA under going a re-fit prior to transfer. CVN-73 has been in the shipyard since September 2006.

This link will give you the full size pic of the ship as she is moved from drydock to a wet slip. Check out that work on the flight deck!

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/070425-N-5188B-012.jpg

The USN says..>>>...The Norfolk-based Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is currently undergoing Planned Incremental Availability and Docking (PIA+D). The availability will prepare George Washington to relieve USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) as the fleet's forward deployed carrier in 2008. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Jennifer Apsey (RELEASED)

[Tasman]

Next year sometime the USS George Washington CVN-73 will transfer to Japan. Presently she is in the shipyard in Portsmouth VA under going a re-fit prior to transfer. CVN-73 has been in the shipyard since September 2006.

This link will give you the full size pic of the ship as she is moved from drydock to a wet slip. Check out that work on the flight deck!

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/070425-N-5188B-012.jpg

The USN says..>>>...The Norfolk-based Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is currently undergoing Planned Incremental Availability and Docking (PIA+D). The availability will prepare George Washington to relieve USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) as the fleet's forward deployed carrier in 2008. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Jennifer Apsey (RELEASED)

What sort of work do you think is going on under the canvas bd popeye? It looks as though they are repairing, or rebuilding of catapults!

Personally I feel carriers have reached their optium size with the new CVN-78 class. There is only so much a crew can handle.

Presently USN CVN's deploy with only about 62 aircraft. Their is certainly enough room aboard for about 30 more aircraft. But whats' the point? With the advent of PGM(Precision Guided Munitions) that help reduce storie rates those aircraft can accomplish the job of a larger CVW of the 1980's & '90's.

By the way. I deployed on board CV-66 in 1981 with an airwing with 92 aircraft.

CVW-11 embarked on CV-66 from Jan'81 'til NOV'81:

14ac= VF-114 Aardvarks F-14A(TARPS)
12ac= VF-213 Black Lions F-14A
12ac= VA-192 Golden Dragons A-7E
12ac= VA-195 Dam Busters A-7E
15ac= VA-95 Green Lizards A-6E/KA-6D
04ac= VAW-123 Screwtops E-2C
04ac= VAQ-133 Wizards EA-6B
06ac= HS-12 Wyverns SH-3H
10ac= VS-33 Screwbirds S-3A
01ac= VQ-2DET. Batmen EA-3B
02ac= VR-24DET. Lifting Eagles C-2A
92 total aircraft!

That must have been a very busy flight deck. Historically I've noticed that USN carriers have always carried more of their aircraft on the flight deck than RN carriers. Up until the middle of WW2 RN carriers usually only deployed with an air group that could be stowed in the hangar. Mind you, the shortage of modern FAA aircraft meant that they were hard pressed even to manage that.

I agree with you that carriers have probably reached their optimum size and it seems that the USN is now endeavouring, in the design of CVN21 class, to concentrate on operating the airgroup more efficiently so that more sorties can be generated without increasing the size of the airgroup. In keeping with other new designs the crew will be significantly smaller than on the Nimitz class it will follow.

Janes Fighting Ships 2004/05
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvx.htm
http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/cvn21.htm

Cheers

BTW: Handy website Jeff!

[bd popeye]

What sort of work do you think is going on under the canvas bd popeye? It looks as though they are repairing, or rebuilding of catapults!


Judging from the picture and my experience the catapults are being overhauled. So are the JBD's.(Jet blast deflectors). Actually this is pretty routine work.

On the America the hangar deck seemd to be always crowded. But somehow we did the job. I can't imangine all the room on CVN's now with a reduced air wing. Must be nice....

[Tasman]

Judging from the picture and my experience the catapults are being overhauled. So are the JBD's.(Jet blast deflectors). Actually this is pretty routine work.

On the America the hangar deck seemd to be always crowded. But somehow we did the job. I can't imangine all the room on CVN's now with a reduced air wing. Must be nice....

You mentioned that the EA-3B was part of America's air wing. Even though it was thirty one years ago I still vividly remember the visit of USS Enterprise to Hobart in 1976 and I was impressed by the size of the 2 Skywarriors that were parked on her flight deck. Photos of carrier decks in the 60s and 70's give the impression that these aircraft were always parked on the flight deck rather than being stowed below (especially photos of Modernised Essex and Midway class carriers). Was it possible for the Skywarrior to be stored in the hangar of the smaller carriers or the super carriers (I presume this information would no longer be classified)?

Cheers

[bd popeye]

Was it possible for the Skywarrior to be stored in the hangar of the smaller carriers or the super carriers (I presume this information would no longer be classified)?


I don't think that info was classified.

I checked the demensions. It could have fit in the hangar with the tail folded or open. But I do not ever recall seeing the venerable "Whale" in the hangar deck. Never. On any ship I served aboard. We had them on the Kennedy & America. On the Midway we had RF-4 instead of A-3's. Now, A-3's did occasionaly come aboard on all the ships I was on except the Nimitz in 1991. When they came aboard depended upon the mission we were performing.

On the Midway we had RF-4B's from VMCJ-1 out of MCAS Iwakuni Japan. I think they had only two aircraft.

[Tasman]

I don't think that info was classified.

I checked the demensions. It could have fit in the hangar with the tail folded or open. But I do not ever recall seeing the venerable "Whale" in the hangar deck. Never. On any ship I served aboard. We had them on the Kennedy & America. On the Midway we had RF-4 instead of A-3's. Now, A-3's did occasionaly come aboard on all the ships I was on except the Nimitz in 1991. When they came aboard depended upon the mission we were performing.

On the Midway we had RF-4c's from VMCJ-1 out of MCAS Iwakuni Japan. I think they had only two aircraft.

Thanks for the info Popeye.

Other impressive recce aircraft on board Enterprise during its Hobart visit were a small number of RA5C Vigilantes. Were they in service during your time in the navy? I loved the look of them and they seemed almost as large as the Skywarriors (may actually have been longer).

Cheers

[Obi Wan Russell]

I don't think that info was classified.

I checked the demensions. It could have fit in the hangar with the tail folded or open. But I do not ever recall seeing the venerable "Whale" in the hangar deck. Never. On any ship I served aboard. We had them on the Kennedy & America. On the Midway we had RF-4 instead of A-3's. Now, A-3's did occasionaly come aboard on all the ships I was on except the Nimitz in 1991. When they came aboard depended upon the mission we were performing.

On the Midway we had RF-4c's from VMCJ-1 out of MCAS Iwakuni Japan. I think they had only two aircraft.

I thought the RF-4C was the USAF version, the Navy and USMC had the RF-4B? The F-4C was a minimum change USAF variant on the Navy's F-4B which they followed up with the F-4D (looked the same but more changes internally) and the definitive USAF versin the F-4E (smaller diameter nose radar and gun mounted underneath). F-4F not initially used to avoid confusion later used for Luftwaffe version of F-4E with simplified avionics, '4G used for a small batch of F-4Bs in the sixties (aircraft later reconverted to B standard) and later adopted for USAF wild weasel SEAD aircraft, F-4H not used, F-4I not used, F-4J upgraded F-4B for USN/USMC, F-4K was J model with British RR Spey engines for RN (stolen by RAF) known as FG mk1, F-4L was K model proposed for USN for ESsex class (not adopted due to wooden decks/afterburners not being a good mix), F-4M was K model for RAF without long nose leg and other detail changes known as FGR mk2, F-4N was USN B model upgrade to J standard with extras, O, P, Q, R, not used, F-4S was upgraded F-4J to keep them viable into the 80s. If I remember correctly...

The F-4A of course covered about 45 pre production and trials aircraft which varied in appearance radically across their own production run, only the last 20 or so resembling the B model. Reading about it years ago was where I first heard the phrase 'Never fly the A model of anything' or in English 'beware of anything with Mk1 stamped on the side'!

[FuManChu]

Popeye, do those Nimitz-class carriers that have had the RIM-116 fitted still use Sea Sparrow? I know that Washington has had her RIMs fitted.

If they do still use Sea Sparrow with the newer systems, do you think it's worth it? Should they just remove them?

[bd popeye]

Oh no! All of a sudden I'm an answer man!:D

I thought the RF-4C was the USAF version, the Navy and USMC had the RF-4B? The F-4C was a minimum change USAF variant on the Navy's F-4B which they followed up with the F-4D (looked the same but more changes internally) and the definitive USAF versin the F-4E (smaller diameter nose radar and gun mounted underneath).

Honestly..I was just a "non-rate" on the Midway. All I know as thet we had the F-4s with the pointy nose so they could spy on the Russians ..But once agin you were correct Obi Wan. The USMC did indeed fly RF-4B's. I just looked it up and they flew them until 1990. The only ship I ever saw them on was the Midway.

Other impressive recce aircraft on board Enterprise during its Hobart visit were a small number of RA5C Vigilantes. Were they in service during your time in the navy? I loved the look of them and they seemed almost as large as the Skywarriors (may actually have been longer).


Yes the Vigilante was in service up to 1980. Usally they deployed with 3-4 aircraft per air wing. Those things took up a lot of space. They were huge. Seems like one was always spotted(parked) in the aft(rear) end of the hangar deck..eating up a lot of space.


http://www.bobjellison.com/RA5C_Vigilante2.htm

The RA-5C in the Vietnam war

The RA-5C was first deployed to south-east Asia in August of 1964, initially flying missions only over South Vietnam because the Navy was reluctant to jeopardize the aircraft's sophisticated and very expensive equipment, should the aircraft be lost over North Vietnam.

Eventually, the Vigilantes did go North, suffering the highest loss rate of any Naval aircraft in the war. In all, eighteen Vigilantes were lost in combat.

• 11 were lost to antiaircraft fire.
• 2 were shot down by SA-2 Guideline surface-to-air missiles (SAM's).
• 1 was lost to an Atoll missile fired from a MiG-21 fighter.
• 4 were lost for unknown reasons, over N. Vietnam.
• 1 other aircraft was lost for unknown reasons, not over N. Vietnam.

Of the 11 lost to antiaircraft artillery, the majority were during post-strike reconnaissance missions; North Vietnamese gunners knew that shortly after a strike a Vigilante would be overhead, without supporting flak suppression.

Thirty-one deployments were made to Vietnam by Vigilante squadrons. During the early period of Vietnam operations, Vigilante squadrons deployed with six aircraft. As the war progressed, this figure began declining, first to five, then to four and finally, by 1974/75, to three aircraft per squadron.

Gradual disestablishment of the "Vigilante" force occurred during 1979-1980 with the deactivation of the last RA-5C squadron, and phasing out of the last of the 156 RA-5/A-3Js produced.


Popeye, do those Nimitz-class carriers that have had the RIM-116 fitted still use Sea Sparrow? I know that Washington has had her RIMs fitted.

If they do still use Sea Sparrow with the newer systems, do you think it's worth it? Should they just remove them?
7 Hours Ago 02:13 AM


The USN is gradually as CVN's go through re-fits replacing old Sea Sparrow systems with the RIM-116. In fact the USS Kitty Hawk CV-63 ,stationed in Japan, was the first CV to recieve the system. Also the now sunk USS Belleau wood LHA-3 had RIM-116 fitted. It too was at one time was stationed in Japan.

As far as I know those ships with the old Sea Sparrow system keep them in operation and soon they all will be replaced.


http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=800&ct=2

Features
The RIM-116 RAM is designed as an all-weather, high-firepower, low-cost, self-defense system against anti-ship cruise missiles and other asymmetric threats. Its original Block 0 design was based on the infrared seeker of the Stinger missile, and the warhead, rocket motor, and fuse from the Sidewinder missile. The Block 0 configuration uses Radio Frequency (RF) for midcourse guidance and transitions to Infrared (IR) guidance for terminal engagement. There is no shipboard support required (i.e. no illuminators) after missile launch. While retaining Block 0 guidance modes, Block 1 incorporates the added capability of autonomous IR-all-the-way guidance, thus countering advanced anti-ship missiles that do not employ onboard radar seekers. RIM-116 has been installed or is planned on the following ship classes: CV/CVN, DD-963, FFG, LHA, LHD, LSD, and LPD-17. The Navy expects to procure approximately 2,000 Block 1 missiles.

DD-963?? The USN needs to update that page!! The "Spru-cans" are all decomissioned.

[bd popeye]

The news in this article is a big blow to the Indian Navy. It puts their CV programme two years in the rears. seems their pals the Russians are saying their newly re-fit CV the former and now will be delayed for two years.!! If I were the IN I would be steaming mad!


http://in.news.yahoo.com/070424/48/6eylt.html

Concern in Delhi as Moscow delays aircraft carrier delivery, cost spirals

By IE
Wednesday April 25, 02:02 AM
Admiral Gorshkov or the rechristened Vikramaditya aircraft carrier was slated to be a showpiece Independence Day 2008 gift from Russia. But the arrival of the floating airfield stands delayed to at least 2010 with Russian shipbuilders underestimating the length of cabling in the warship.
Much to the concern of New Delhi - India's sole aircraft carrier INS Viraat does not have many years left with only 12 Sea Harrier jumpjets on deck - the Gorshkov project is now going into cost over-run of over $113 million, provisions of which have not been made in the Indo-Russian contract.

The warship, refurbished at the cost of $1 billion, which includes 16 MiG 29K aircraft, is being built at the Sevmash shipyard in Serverodvinsk City, once home to Russia's Northern Fleet.

Earlier, Russian shipbuilders had estimated 700 km of cabling in the ship but that's been revised to a total of 2,400 km for the carrier to be operational with the Indian Navy for the next two decades. According to official sources, even the sky-jump on the deck of Gorshkov is not completed and work is going at a slow pace.

A team headed by Vice Admiral B S Randhawa, Controller of Warship Production, and Joint Secretary (Maritime Acquisition) is going to Moscow next month to impress upon the Russians to speed up the Gorshkov repairs. On May 15, Randhawa will also inspect Gorshkov at the shipyard in northern Russia.

Adding to concerns here is Moscow's decision to look the other way as Pakistan received Chinese JF-17 fighters last month. These aircraft are powered by Russian RD-93 engines. Pakistan will now get 15 more fighters next year and another 200 by 2015.

[Scratch]

The USN is gradually as CVN's go through re-fits replacing old Sea Sparrow systems with the RIM-116. ..
As far as I know those ships with the old Sea Sparrow system keep them in operation and soon they all will be replaced.
That exchange seems perhaps a little strange to me. I would much more have thought the Phalanx could be replaced with RAMs, since these systems are rather in the same class, but not the sea sparrow.
That's a loss in range, thus the carrier can only engage AShM in it's close vicinity. It shouldn't be that hard to put some ESSM there.
However, in an era were saturation attacks have become really unlikely that reduction and relying on escorts while engaging close-in threats with a higher efficiency may be ok.

The news in this article is a big blow to the Indian Navy. It puts their CV programme two years in the rears. seems their pals the Russians are saying their newly re-fit CV the former and now will be delayed for two years.!! If I were the IN I would be steaming mad!
Probably strains the CV branch, but I think the Viraat was to stay in service until 2012 when the Vikrant enters service anyway.
Now the indians will have to introduce two "new" CVs into the fleet nearly the same time.

[Obi Wan Russell]

I wouldm't worry about the Viraat/Hermes hanging on, she was built tough! The Sea Harriers are being upgraded too with the intention of retaining them beyong Viraat's withdrawal so the IN will remain credible in the CV field for some time yet. Of course they could make a bid for Invincible around 2010, even if they only lease her as a stopgap for say five years.

[bd popeye]

Thanks to one and all for keeping this great thread alive with some new discussion!:)

That exchange seems perhaps a little strange to me. I would much more have thought the Phalanx could be replaced with RAMs, since these systems are rather in the same class, but not the sea sparrow.
That's a loss in range, thus the carrier can only engage AShM in it's close vicinity. It shouldn't be that hard to put some ESSM there.
However, in an era were saturation attacks have become really unlikely that reduction and relying on escorts while engaging close-in threats with a higher efficiency may be ok.


The USN is maintaining the Phalanx CIWS system on all CVN's.

As far as warding off any missile attack. USN CVN's never go to sea without an escort. I'm sure you are aware that a USN CVN would rely on it's Arliegh Burke and Tico escorts to fend off a missile attack.

Of course they could make a bid for Invincible around 2010, even if they only lease her as a stopgap for say five years.

I wish I could find this article I once read that stated the RN was not planning on selling off the Invincible. Do you know if,for certain, they do plan on selling the ship off as you stated?:confused:

[Tasman]

Oh no! All of a sudden I'm an answer man!:D




And a good job you're doing to! Thanks for the info - some of these things you can't get off the net or from books, but you can get it from people who were there (or on board in this case)! :D

Cheers

[Scratch]

The USN is maintaining the Phalanx CIWS system on all CVN's.

As far as warding off any missile attack. USN CVN's never go to sea without an escort. I'm sure you are aware that a USN CVN would rely on it's Arliegh Burke and Tico escorts to fend off a missile attack.

Yes I'm aware that a CVN will have it's excorts to defend against missile attacks. I just wanted to say that I think one or two dozen ESSMs on a Nimitz-class wouldn't really take up valuable space. But it adds another ship to the fleet that carries them making the simultanious engagement capability a little greater.
According to http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/ the CVN-21 will be armed with ESSM and RAM, while Phalanx is not mentioned. I havn't found anything else on the armament of it.

Besides the Invincibles and Principe de Austurias wich only have guns, current and future western (european) CVs have now at least point defence (Aster15 -> up to 30km; Aspide on Gabrialdi->14km)and not only CIWS SAMs.
The de Gaulle has all three types: Aster 15 point-defence, Mistral CIWS and eight 20mm guns.
But then again these vessels have not the same escorsting firepower like USN CVNs.

[Obi Wan Russell]

Quote:I wish I could find this article I once read that stated the RN was not planning on selling off the Invincible. Do you know if,for certain, they do plan on selling the ship off as you stated?

With this government nobody knows anything for certain. They are fond of selling the family silver, so to speak, and even though scrap metal prices are rising again they know they will still get a better price for Invincible as a going concern than as scrap. Warship sales are well established in principle because they lead to lucrative support contracts and follow on sales, and RN ships are only scrapped these days as a last resort.
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/1042/fearintcopyia3.th.jpg (http://img341.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fearintcopyia3.jpg)
The LPD HMS Intrepid was decommissioned in 1991 but is still hanging around Portsmouth harbour with her sister HMS Fearless (paid off 2002) because scrapping would be very expensive due to environmental concerns. There is still talk of preserving Fearless as a Falklands memorial, but Intrepid would not be a candidate as she was stripped for parts (including the massive stern gate) to keep Fearless running for her final 11 years. Recently there was a newspaper story that Intrepid would be 'Recycled' (new 'green' way of saying scrapped) in the UK in order to guarantee Health and Safety concerns would be met, but no details or dates were announced. In the current climate and unless something drastic changes I don't see Invincible going anywhere near a scrapyard anytime in the forseeable future. Part of the British influence on the JSF program has been to insist on keeping the size of the aircraft down so that it would fit on the Invincible class' lifts. Yet they were never scheduled to operate them... could it be a bit of forward sales planning to increse the number of buyers for the F-35B by seeling the Invincible class as cheap second hand platforms for Lightnings (FNS Foch went to Brazil for $15million, but the real money is in support contracts)? Big business has a lot of influence over this Government and I'm sure this thought has crossed a few minds. Just as in the US, scrapping ships here under current environmental and H&S rules is prohibitively expensive and towing them to India to be scrapped small children for a few pennies a month is politically unpopular to say the least. I believe they will sell the class on as going concerns simply for monetary reasons, and money is the only language modern pollies understand.

[Tasman]

Quote:I wish I could find this article I once read that stated the RN was not planning on selling off the Invincible. Do you know if,for certain, they do plan on selling the ship off as you stated?

With this government nobody knows anything for certain. They are fond of selling the family silver, so to speak, and even though scrap metal prices are rising again they know they will still get a better price for Invincible as a going concern than as scrap. Warship sales are well established in principle because they lead to lucrative support contracts and follow on sales, and RN ships are only scrapped these days as a last resort...


In the current climate and unless something drastic changes I don't see Invincible going anywhere near a scrapyard anytime in the forseeable future. Part of the British influence on the JSF program has been to insist on keeping the size of the aircraft down so that it would fit on the Invincible class' lifts. Yet they were never scheduled to operate them... could it be a bit of forward sales planning to increse the number of buyers for the F-35B by seeling the Invincible class as cheap second hand platforms for Lightnings (FNS Foch went to Brazil for $15million, but the real money is in support contracts)? Big business has a lot of influence over this Government and I'm sure this thought has crossed a few minds. Just as in the US, scrapping ships here under current environmental and H&S rules is prohibitively expensive and towing them to India to be scrapped small children for a few pennies a month is politically unpopular to say the least. I believe they will sell the class on as going concerns simply for monetary reasons, and money is the only language modern pollies understand.

Who would be among the potential customers for these ships? South American countries come to my mind but I guess the UK would be reluctant to sell Invincible to Argentina. It would certainly be a bit ironic if they did! ;) Maybe India might be interested!


Cheers

[Obi Wan Russell]

India tops the list obviously, but how about an off the wall suggestion, Pakistan? They are cosying up to the US because of the war on terror so give it another ten years and they may have moved far enough into the American's good books to become approved customers for the F-35B. Chile is also on the list, and she would be very compatible with the T22/23s already in service there. Australia may run into problems with their LHDs and lease Invincible as a stopgap (long shot I know).
Running costs aren't as bad as some may think. The Invincible class require a crew of about 685 (nowhere near the thousands needed for a large deck carrier) so roughly equivalent to a couple of Destroyers, plus about 380 in the air group, doable for most medium sized navies. Most of Invincibles systems (ie propulsion etc) are the same as found in most of the worlds escorts, just on a larger scale (four Olympus GTs instead of two in many DDGs/FFGs). Australia may well not have been able to afford her in 1983 but the cost will be a lot less now and she would provide them with far more 'bang for their bucks' than say a fourth DDG.

I have noticed some anti carrier posters here and elswhere keep suggesting that the CVFs will require a crew in excess of 3,000 each, which seems strange as no one has mentioned steam propulsion for them (that's the only reason you would need so many on ships of this size). The GT plant planned for them will require no more engineers than the Invincibles (still only four engines, bigger and more powerful yes but thirty years more advanced in design so even less maintenance intensive) and the airgroup will be supported by the sqns own personnel (which they would have anyway if they were land based, so their cost cannot be lumped onto CVF exclusively). HMS Ocean has lead the way in this respect.

[Jeff Head]

India tops the list obviously, but how about an off the wall suggestion, Pakistan? They are cosying up to the US because of the war on terror so give it another ten years and they may have moved far enough into the American's good books to become approved customers for the F-35B. Chile is also on the list, and she would be very compatible with the T22/23s already in service there. Australia may run into problems with their LHDs and lease Invincible as a stopgap (long shot I know).
Running costs aren't as bad as some may think. The Invincible class require a crew of about 685 (nowhere near the thousands needed for a large deck carrier) so roughly equivalent to a couple of Destroyers, plus about 380 in the air group, doable for most medium sized navies. Most of Invincibles systems (ie propulsion etc) are the same as found in most of the worlds escorts, just on a larger scale (four Olympus GTs instead of two in many DDGs/FFGs). Australia may well not have been able to afford her in 1983 but the cost will be a lot less now and she would provide them with far more 'bang for their bucks' than say a fourth DDG.My money would be on India...though I would personally love to see the Aussies pick her up.

I have much more doubt about Pakistan because there is still too great a perception here in the US that Pakistan is just one step away form being overturned and becoming much more of a fundamental Islamic state at any given time.

[Obi Wan Russell]

Invincible officially comes on the market in 2010, Illustrious is due to pay off 2012 and Ark Royal 2015, but the latter two dates will probably be put back until the CVFs are ready (more likely to be 2015 for Illustrious and 2018 for Ark) so they will also be potential F-35B platforms, which is around the time production slots for export customers will be more available. The US may make a more concerted effort in the next few years to influence Pakistan into the fold, and arms sales will certainly be a part of any such move. A deal for F-35s may include a deal on one of the Invincibles (America giving Britain a discount on the Lightnings in return for transferring the carrier?). This sort of thing has been done in the past, though not always successfully, but considering India's steadfast intention of remaining non aligned Pakistan may become the US' new best friend in the region. Given a proper SLEP refit an Invincible could last another 25 years in service (no I'm not referring to the 'cut and plug' SLEP proposed for them a few years ago, just a comprehensive renewal and upgrade of existing systems). OK I'd fit a portside flight deck extension to increase deck parking space and free up internal volume by moving the GT downtakes outboard to the new sponson thus increasing hangar space over the current 'dumbell' shape, a modification I believe would be more practical than inserting a hull plug. The latter option was reckoned to increase capacity by only four aircraft, whereas my solution would do that anyway. But they could just be refitted as they are and transferred at very low cost.

[Scratch]

Invincible officially comes on the market in 2010...

With the indians now getting Vikramaditya in 2010 or a little later and Vikrant in 2012, I somehow doubt they would also buy the Invincible in that same timeframe. Could they really incorporate three carriers in such a short timeframe into their fleet?

[Obi Wan Russell]

With the indians now getting Vikramaditya in 2010 or a little later and Vikrant in 2012, I somehow doubt they would also buy the Invincible in that same timeframe. Could they really incorporate three carriers in such a short timeframe into their fleet?

The Russians are having problems delivering on time, and it is quite possible the Indians will have problems delivering on time too. I suggested they might lease Invincible as a stopgap for say a five year period, and may hang on to her after Vikramaditya and Vkrant are delivered allowing Viraat to be retired, and pending delivery of Vikrant's projected sister. Their stated aim is for three CVs and this may be the quickest way to achieve it. Invincible requires far less crew than any of the other carriers scheduled to enter service as well as Viraat, and could simply accomodate Viraat's air group so would be the easiest option for putting a new CV into IN service. Further delays with the new CVs may make it inevitable as Viraat cannot run on forever.

[Tasman]

India tops the list obviously, but how about an off the wall suggestion, Pakistan? They are cosying up to the US because of the war on terror so give it another ten years and they may have moved far enough into the American's good books to become approved customers for the F-35B. Chile is also on the list, and she would be very compatible with the T22/23s already in service there. Australia may run into problems with their LHDs and lease Invincible as a stopgap (long shot I know).
Running costs aren't as bad as some may think. The Invincible class require a crew of about 685 (nowhere near the thousands needed for a large deck carrier) so roughly equivalent to a couple of Destroyers, plus about 380 in the air group, doable for most medium sized navies. Most of Invincibles systems (ie propulsion etc) are the same as found in most of the worlds escorts, just on a larger scale (four Olympus GTs instead of two in many DDGs/FFGs). Australia may well not have been able to afford her in 1983 but the cost will be a lot less now and she would provide them with far more 'bang for their bucks' than say a fourth DDG.

I have noticed some anti carrier posters here and elswhere keep suggesting that the CVFs will require a crew in excess of 3,000 each, which seems strange as no one has mentioned steam propulsion for them (that's the only reason you would need so many on ships of this size). The GT plant planned for them will require no more engineers than the Invincibles (still only four engines, bigger and more powerful yes but thirty years more advanced in design so even less maintenance intensive) and the airgroup will be supported by the sqns own personnel (which they would have anyway if they were land based, so their cost cannot be lumped onto CVF exclusively). HMS Ocean has lead the way in this respect.

Australia was able to afford Invincible in 1983. A decision was made in January, 1982 to purchase her and the name Australia was officially approved by the Governor General. However, when the Falklands war broke out the Australian Government agreed to her staying on in the RN (had they not done this I am certain it would have made no difference). In 1983 the government re-entered negotiations, this time looking at acquiring what would have been a fourth Invincible class carrier, but in March a new Labor government announced that the RAN would not get a replacement carrier and that fixed wing aviation in the FAA would be wound up. This was a political rather than a financial decision.

Whilst Invincible's complement is comparatively low, it is still far more than the RAN could manage, given that there are too few personnel to man the existing fleet.

Cheers

Source: Flying Stations, A Story of Australian Naval Aviation, Australian Naval Museum, 1998

[Obi Wan Russell]

Australia was able to afford Invincible in 1983. A decision was made in January, 1982 to purchase her and the name Australia was officially approved by the Governor General. However, when the Falklands war broke out the Australian Government agreed to her staying on in the RN (had they not done this I am certain it would have made no difference). In 1983 the government re-entered negotiations, this time looking at acquiring what would have been a fourth Invincible class carrier, but in March a new Labor government announced that the RAN would not get a replacement carrier and that fixed wing aviation in the FAA would be wound up. This was a political rather than a financial decision.

Whilst Invincible's complement is comparatively low, it is still far more than the RAN could manage, given that there are too few personnel to man the existing fleet.

Cheers

Source: Flying Stations, A Story of Australian Naval Aviation, Australian Naval Museum, 1998

There is a difference between what a country can affford and what they are willing to afford, and back in the 80s the Australian Government (83 onwards, Labour) was not willing to afford a new carrier. I accept your point though, although on the personnel issue I believe recruitment becomes easier if potential recruits believe there is a bright future ahead of them. Over here there are constant doom laden predictions about not being able to find enough pilots for the Naval sqns for the CVF, but once the orders are confirmed people are more likely to come forward. They have to see there is a real career in prospect before committing to it. The RAN needs to get government approval for increased manning levels then go on a recruitment drive. The prospect of a CV may weel be an enticement to joining up as it would certainly offer more 'Glamour' than a DDG or a Frigate.

Back in 83, I think the RAN would have been better off buying the incomplete Ark Royal (to save on delivery time, as she was at sea from 85 onwards) so that the RN would have been free to order a larger vessel (around 30,000tons, basically an enlarged Invincible without the Sea Dart system) as a replacement for Hermes so that we would have at least one CV large enough to accomodate a large wing of SHARs (30+) in wartime. This would go hand in hand with an further order for SHARS and possibly a transfer of GR3s to the Navy suitable modified for sea duty. The new ship would take the name Ark Royal and also be able to act as LPH if required. For delivery around 89-90, Hermes would be refitted and retained until that date at least.

[bd popeye]

Tasman, you have a keen and appreciated knowledge of CV's. Love that. :)

With your knowledge of the RAN I have a few questions for you.

I once read when the USN was retiring CVA-42 the RAN was offered her but turned her down. However she was in very poor condition. Is there any truth to this at all? I can find no source to back this statement up. Also how may have the RAN outfitted such a large CV?

Also, has the RAN ever inquired to purchased a retire Tarawa as the USN decomissions them? It would be sort of a stop gap if and when the RN ever gets an LHD.

[Neutral Zone]

There is a difference between what a country can affford and what they are willing to afford, and back in the 80s the Australian Government (83 onwards, Labour) was not willing to afford a new carrier. I accept your point though, although on the personnel issue I believe recruitment becomes easier if potential recruits believe there is a bright future ahead of them. Over here there are constant doom laden predictions about not being able to find enough pilots for the Naval sqns for the CVF, but once the orders are confirmed people are more likely to come forward. They have to see there is a real career in prospect before committing to it. The RAN needs to get government approval for increased manning levels then go on a recruitment drive. The prospect of a CV may weel be an enticement to joining up as it would certainly offer more 'Glamour' than a DDG or a Frigate.

Isn't the RAN due to get 2 LHD's in the next decade? I've been thinking that with that in mind it would make sense for them to buy/lease Invincible for a few years and operate her as an LPH. They haven't operated anything bigger than a destroyer since Melbourne was retired and it wouldn't hurt to get some "big ship" experience back.

Back in 83, I think the RAN would have been better off buying the incomplete Ark Royal (to save on delivery time, as she was at sea from 85 onwards) so that the RN would have been free to order a larger vessel (around 30,000tons, basically an enlarged Invincible without the Sea Dart system) as a replacement for Hermes so that we would have at least one CV large enough to accomodate a large wing of SHARs (30+) in wartime. This would go hand in hand with an further order for SHARS and possibly a transfer of GR3s to the Navy suitable modified for sea duty. The new ship would take the name Ark Royal and also be able to act as LPH if required. For delivery around 89-90, Hermes would be refitted and retained until that date at least.

I've always felt that a big opportunity was lost after 1982 to reinvigorate the RN. I know a lot of RN fans think that in the wake of the Falklands, the government should have built a new generation of CTOL carriers, but that would have made no sense, especially as the Falklands had vindicated the "Harrier Carrier" concept and the Invincibles were then brand new and it would have made no sense to dump them. Your idea of a "Super Invincible" to round off the class is exactly what should have happened.

[Tasman]

I once read when the USN was retiring CVA-42 the RAN was offered her but turned her down. However she was in very poor condition. Is there any truth to this at all? I can find no source to back this statement up. Also how may have the RAN outfitted such a large CV?



Hi Popeye,

I'm unaware of any offer of FD Roosevelt (CV-42) and I can't see that the RAN would have had the personnel to man her or support a decent airgroup for a ship this size.

Over the years though, there were several proposals to replace Melbourne (CVL-21) with an ex USN modernised Essex class CV. In 1959 the government of the day decided that Melbourne would be unable to operate the next generation of naval aircraft and that it would operate as an ASW helicopter carrier only after 1963. Wessex helos were ordered but the FAA continued to operate its existing Sea Venoms and Gannets and it looked for ways to get the government to change its mind. During this period the USN apparently offered to make arrangements for Melbourne to be replaced by an American carrier, believed to be USS Hancock. The airgroup for the ex US carrier (too small to call it a wing!) would have been basically an enlarged version of what was eventually embarked on Melbourne (A4G Skyhawks, S2E Trackers and Wessex helos) plus the E1 Tacer to provide an early warning capability. At one stage however, the CNS proposed the purchase of 28 F4B Phantom IIs, 24 S2E Trackers and a number of E1 Tracers for a 'modernised Oriskany' type carrier to enter service in 1968. Doubts were raised about the ability of the Phantom to operate at full load from these ships and it is likely that the Skyhawk would have been operated instead.

Source: Flying Stations, A Story of Australian Naval Aviation, Australian Naval Museum, 1998
The Albatross and the Eagle, Maritime Stance, David Wilson, Defence Force Academy, 2003

This didn't occur but the navy succeeded in convincing the government to allow it to continue fixed wing flying with its existing aircraft and Melbourne operated a composite squadron of Sea Venom fighters and Gannet ASW aircraft plus a squadron of Wessex ASW helos. In 1964 the RAN put forward a proposal to buy a modernised Essex class carrier but it was rejected. The government did approve the purchase of S2E Trackers to replace the Gannets and A4G Skyhawks to replace the Sea Venoms. The airgroup remained small and the last time I went onboard a few years before she decommissioned she had a complement of just 8 Skyhawks, 4 Trackers, 5 Sea Kings and 2 Wessex.

Before the Invincible fiasco the RAN had specifically ruled out a conventional carrier (i.e. catapults and arrestor wires) to replace Melbourne and it looked at the USN Iwo Jima class LPH, the Italian Garibaldi, the Gibbs and Cox design for a Sea Control Ship (similar to the VSTOL carrier later built for the Spanish Navy), A modified Tarawa optimised for aviation, and the Invincible class.


Also, has the RAN ever inquired to purchased a retire Tarawa as the USN decomissions them? It would be sort of a stop gap if and when the RN ever gets an LHD.

This was my 'dream' for the RAN. Unfortunately the RAN has critical manpower shortages. The new LHDs are being designed to have a core crew of only 243 (i.e. approx 500 for the two ships). The crew needed to man a Tarawa (930) would be prohibitive. The RAN plans to order two LHDs around the middle of this year. The Spanish Navantia BPE and the French Mistral are the designs being considered. The BPE is designed to operate up to 20 F-35Bs and a lot of Australians would like to see this selected along with the purchase of F-35Bs (VSTOL version of the JSF) for one of the four RAAF squadrons that it is eventually planned to re-equip with the JSF.

BTW: Australian army Blackhawk helos have taken the opportunity to work from visiting Wasp class LHDs during exercises with the USN.

Cheers

[bd popeye]

Thanks Tasman for that info!

AUS Blackhawks onboard the USS Boxer (LHD-4)

All photos released to the public by the US Navy.

Shoalwater Bay (June 19, 2005) – The amphibious assault ship USS Boxer (LHD 4) prepares to launch Australian S70A-9 Black Hawk helicopters during flight operations in support of the combined exercise, Talisman Sabre 2005. Talisman Sabre is an exercise jointly sponsored by the U.S. Pacific Command and Australian Defence Force Joint Operations Command, and designed to train the U.S. Seventh Fleet commander's staff and Australian Joint Operations staff as a designated Combined Task Force (CTF) headquarters. The exercise focuses on crisis action planning and execution of contingency response operations. U.S. Pacific Command units and Australian forces will conduct land, sea and air training throughout the training area. More than 11,000 U.S. and 6,000 Australian personnel will participate. U.S. Navy photo

[Tasman]

AUS Blackhawks onboard the USS Boxer (LHD-4)

All photos released to the public by the US Navy.

Shoalwater Bay (June 19, 2005) – The amphibious assault ship USS Boxer (LHD 4) prepares to launch Australian S70A-9 Black Hawk helicopters during flight operations in support of the combined exercise, Talisman Sabre 2005. Talisman Sabre is an exercise jointly sponsored by the U.S. Pacific Command and Australian Defence Force Joint Operations Command, and designed to train the U.S. Seventh Fleet commander's staff and Australian Joint Operations staff as a designated Combined Task Force (CTF) headquarters. The exercise focuses on crisis action planning and execution of contingency response operations. U.S. Pacific Command units and Australian forces will conduct land, sea and air training throughout the training area. More than 11,000 U.S. and 6,000 Australian personnel will participate. U.S. Navy photo


Operatiions from Boxer demonstrated just how valuable the new LHDs will be. Whether or not Australia ends up with the F-35B (the RAAF has shown no public interest in it) helo operations will be vastly improved and safer compared with operations from the modified ex USN Newport class LSTs, Kanimbla and Manoora, that they will replace.

Here is a link to the Spanish BPE, one of the two candidates for the RAN:

http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/FichaTecnica.asp?SecAct=050202

Cheers

[Obi Wan Russell]

I still find it somewhat disheartening to hear any reference to Australian F-35B ops as being RAAF and not RAN, as obviously the former has no interest in shipboard activities. It is also a little insulting to RAN FAA officers to suggest they don't have the 'right stuff' to be fighter pilots, since they managed ok until the eighties. Ideally the Australian F-35B sqn should be RAN owned and manned, although support and training facilities would be RAAF for reasons of commonality and economy. This way the shipboard sqn would be available to deploy to either ship as required manned by pilots who actually do want to go to sea and are well adapted to the job already, unlike land based Air Force pilots who on the whole don't think getting their feet wet was part of the deal. In Britain some RAF Harrier pilots (a minority) have grumbled about sea duty and I don't blame them. Carrier ops are a job for Navy pilots because it isn't just about flying from a deck, it's a matter of life at sea, and though some AF pilots adapt well it isn't what they signed up for. If the RAN can offer a career with their FAA as Lightning pilots then recruitment won't be such a big issue, as people will go where they see a future. In parallell, the RNs manning problems of the 70s and 80s stem form the public perception that there wasn't much of a future in a declining service, ie why join when you might be made redundant in a few years. This is probably an element of the RAN's current manpower problems, though by no means the only aspect of them.

[Jeff Head]

Operatiions from Boxer demonstrated just how valuable the new LHDs will be. Whether or not Australia ends up with the F-35B (the RAAF has shown no public interest in it) helo operations will be vastly improved and safer compared with operations from the modified ex USN Newport class LSTs, Kanimbla and Manoora, that they will replace.

Here is a link to the Spanish BPE, one of the two candidates for the RAN:

http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/FichaTecnica.asp?SecAct=050202

CheersTasman, thanks for all of your great info on the RAN and the conditions there.

As to the Spanish BPE, Strategic Projection Vessel, does anyone know or have pics of its actual construction? They've been at it for a good while and I am really anxious to see some pics of its progress.

Also, FYI, you may enjoy this site I have about...WORLD WIDE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS (http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/).

[Tasman]

I still find it somewhat disheartening to hear any reference to Australian F-35B ops as being RAAF and not RAN, as obviously the former has no interest in shipboard activities. It is also a little insulting to RAN FAA officers to suggest they don't have the 'right stuff' to be fighter pilots, since they managed ok until the eighties. Ideally the Australian F-35B sqn should be RAN owned and manned, although support and training facilities would be RAAF for reasons of commonality and economy. This way the shipboard sqn would be available to deploy to either ship as required manned by pilots who actually do want to go to sea and are well adapted to the job already, unlike land based Air Force pilots who on the whole don't think getting their feet wet was part of the deal. In Britain some RAF Harrier pilots (a minority) have grumbled about sea duty and I don't blame them. Carrier ops are a job for Navy pilots because it isn't just about flying from a deck, it's a matter of life at sea, and though some AF pilots adapt well it isn't what they signed up for. If the RAN can offer a career with their FAA as Lightning pilots then recruitment won't be such a big issue, as people will go where they see a future. In parallell, the RNs manning problems of the 70s and 80s stem form the public perception that there wasn't much of a future in a declining service, ie why join when you might be made redundant in a few years. This is probably an element of the RAN's current manpower problems, though by no means the only aspect of them.

I could not agree more. It is disheartening but the reason for it is entirely political.

The RAAF 'whiteanted' the FAA from the moment it was formed in the late 1940's until its demise in 1982 (when the RAAF ensured government it would be able to provide adequate air cover for the fleet) and the RAN knows it has no chance of getting its fixed wing aviation back at the present time. That is why it is ensuring that there is no reference to the LHDs as aircraft carriers. Pushing the amphibious role has won strong army support. The navy knows its only hope of getting VSTOL aircraft aboard the LHDs at present is if they are RAAF manned and it will need army support to get F-35Bs included in the Australian JSF order. The navy has only just succeeded in winning media and public support for large amphibious ships and it would be reluctant to lose that by turning it into an aircraft carrier debate. Suggesting the formation of a naval JSF squadron at this stage might well result in the RAAF trying to get the LHD program cancelled with smaller ships substituted and the present Chief of the Australian Defence Force is the former RAAF Chief!

My hope is that once the big amphibious ships are in service and the RAAF once again demonstrates its unwillingness to deploy aircraft for fleet and army support the navy may win sufficient support from the army to re-establish a small fixed wing component. The army finally won control of battlefield helicopters after the airforce consistently failed to provide the support desired. Hopefully the navy will be able to do the same.

Before my ex RAAF mates stop talking to me I should say that I understand their concerns. The total size of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is only one third that of the United States Marine Corps and the potential loss of 25% of its air combat strength to the navy would be an obvious worry. On the positive side the concept of joint operations has been taken to higher levels in recent times and it may well be that an RAAF or a joint RAAF/RAN squadron might prove workable.

The 'Tasman dream' is that F-35Bs will be ordered by the RAAF as a first stage. Stage two would be the formation of a joint RAAF/RAN squadron. Stage three would be the rebirth of the fixed wing FAA!

Cheers

BTW, I think your comments re the positive impact on recruiting that an RAN carrier and F-35B force would have is spot on.

[Tasman]

Also, FYI, you may enjoy this site I have about...WORLD WIDE AIRCRAT CARRIERS (http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/).

Thanks for the link Jeff. I must say I appreciate the info I've gleaned from your posts in this and other threads (along with your insight into carrier operations in your novel. Lets hope USN carrier groups never have to confront a secret weapon like the LRASD! :D )

Cheers

[Obi Wan Russell]

Tasman, I like your plan. Get the RAAF to pay for the F-35Bs, then persuade them they don't want to fly them after all, reform VF-805 sqn by the back door. Brilliant! Now are you sure we can't interest you in Invincible? Low mileage, one careful owner, all mod cons, and a very reasonable price...

[bd popeye]

Now are you sure we can't interest you in Invincible? Low mileage, one careful owner, all mod cons, and a very reasonable price...

That's funny!:rofl:

How about this for the retired USN CV's

For sale 5 aircraft carriers! High mileage! Need lots of work. Great potential! You tow, you save! Aircraft not included....

[ahho]

save on gas if it is nuclear:roll: somewhat environmental friendly.

popeye if i remember correctly, you said that nimitz would be the optimal size for a aircraft carrier, what about for helicopter and vertical takeoff fixed wing like harrier and f-35

[bd popeye]

save on gas if it is nuclear:roll: somewhat environmental friendly.

popeye if i remember correctly, you said that nimitz would be the optimal size for a aircraft carrier, what about for helicopter and vertical takeoff fixed wing like harrier and f-35

Well a Wasp Class or the Italian Cavour would be perfect. Of course it depends on what you want your air wing to do. If you want them to suppourt an amphibous landing. Well a Cavour would do well out fitted with 12Sea Harriers or JSF. For an light attack role an Wasp or Tarawa class with about 20-24 JSF or Sea Harriers would be perfect. A modified Wasp or Tarawa could carry more aircraft.

I feel that the USN could well modify a Wasp or Tarawa class for an light attack role. Modifications?? Turn that well deck into a second hangar and add a ski ramp.:)

[Tasman]

Well a Wasp Class or the Italian Cavour would be perfect. Of course it depends on what you want your air wing to do. If you want them to suppourt an amphibous landing. Well a Cavour would do well out fitted with 12Sea Harriers or JSF. For an light attack role an Wasp or Tarawa class with about 20-24 JSF or Sea Harriers would be perfect. A modified Wasp or Tarawa could carry more aircraft.

I feel that the USN could well modify a Wasp or Tarawa class for an light attack role. Modifications?? Turn that well deck into a second hangar and add a ski ramp.:)

When the RAN was looking for a replacement for Melbourne prior to the decision to scrap the fixed wing FAA, candidates included a slightly modified LHA which would have carried up to 30 Harriers and helos along with a more extensively modified aviation enhanced LHA. With the aviation version full load displacement would have increased to 53,000 tons, speed would have been 24 knots and it would have had the capacity to operate up to 50 Harriers and helos. Unfortunately I have never been able to find a plan for this version but I imagine that as the length remained the same as in the original LHA, the additional aviation capacity must have come from creating a second hangar.

Source: Wings Across The Sea, Ross Gillett, Aerospace Publications, Sydney, 1988

Re the airwing for a light VSTOL carrier I feel that the ideal mix to support amphibious operations or for light attack duties would be (depending on the size of the ship) 12- 24 F-35Bs, 4 SH-60s or EH101s for ASW/anti FAC, and 4 EH101s or OV-22s fitted for AEW duties. A large VSTOL carrier, like the CVF, could perhaps operate 36 F-35Bs, 6 EH101s for ASW and 4 EH101s for AEW when operating as a strike carrier.

For mid ocean escort duties some of the F-35Bs could be replaced by additional ASW helos.

Cheers

[bd popeye]

Unfortunately I have never been able to find a plan for this version but I imagine that as the length remained the same as in the original LHA, the additional aviation capacity must have come from creating a second hangar.


Obi Wan once posted a drawing he made of a Tarawa class modifed with a ski ramp. I cannot find the picture.....

would have had the capacity to operate up to 50 Harriers and helos.

50 Harriers??!! yikes and gadzooks:eek: I bet you that plan included turning that well deck into a hangar, Because the hangar on an Tarawa class is simply to small to accomdate that many aircraft.

Perhaps an aircraft elevator would have been fitted on the aft end of the ship in some fashion..Ahh this is a hint to out resident artist, Obi Wan, to draw up his version of such ship.:D

[Scratch]

As to the Spanish BPE, Strategic Projection Vessel, does anyone know or have pics of its actual construction? They've been at it for a good while and I am really anxious to see some pics of its progress.

At a spanish forum I found the following three pics dated 24-4-07:
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Kalma_Bucket/CA2RO5A3.jpg
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Kalma_Bucket/CAGHMRWD.jpg
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Kalma_Bucket/CAWHIZ0X.jpg

Another poster said a responsible worker at the yard told him though some modules suffered delays, they look forward to finish the ship at the end of this or in the first month of the coming year and give it to the navy a little over one year of testing after that.

edit: I know you don't see much on that pics, I'm still looking for better ones.
The spanish DoD site on BPE (http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/Galeria_Listado.asp?SecAct=050218) only shows a real pic of the screws.

[bd popeye]

Scratch, you really can't tell from those pictures just what sort of ship that is. We know it is the Spanish ship. They have nothing to hide. If there are any full length pictures could you post the pics or a link? Thanks!

[Obi Wan Russell]

Quote: Obi Wan once posted a drawing he made of a Tarawa class modifed with a ski ramp. I cannot find the picture.....

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3818/lhaupgradeobiwanraym9.th.jpg (http://img150.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lhaupgradeobiwanraym9.jpg)
One modified LHA coming up... Would you like fries with your order?

[bd popeye]

Now that's what I'm talking about!:)

Yes I would like fries with that! I thought you fellows in the UK called them "chips"?? I know you do!..

That ship,as you have drawn, with the new aircraft elevators and increased capacity could probally feild an air wing of 36 or more JSF and an assortment of helos. Or 6 or so V-22 Osprey. This modified Tarawa would be excellent for light attack and other missions.

[Obi Wan Russell]

Now that's what I'm talking about!:)

Yes I would like fries with that! I thought you fellows in the UK called them "chips"?? I know you do!..

That ship,as you have drawn, with the new aircraft elevators and increased capacity could probally feild an air wing of 36 or more JSF and an assortment of helos. Or 6 or so V-22 Osprey. This modified Tarawa would be excellent for light attack and other missions.

I would offer the option of swapping the well deck and vehicle stowage for a second hangar deck, and switch propulsion from steam (manpower intensive) to GT to decrease running costs. I've never been a fan of full width ski jumps (eg Principe de Asturias, Adm Kuznetzov) on the grounds that as flight deck space is always at a premium, a full width ramp swallows up much needed deck parking space. On the spanish ship the forward quarter of the deck is unusable for deck parking, and on a small ship that can mean being able to operate two to four less aircraft due to having nowhere to put them. The installation on Hermes/Viraat always struck me as being the most sensible route to go, as the ramp need only be wide enough for the aircraft using it, and that is the model I used for the Tarawa. I also widened the deck forward over the former 5inch gun positions as this is another wasteful feature of the current ships. The Tarawas have had their guns removed, so why not plate over the positions and 'square off' the deck as in the Wasp class? I'm assuming money is the reason but steel is cheap and air is free...

[bd popeye]

I've never been a fan of full width ski jumps (eg Principe de Asturias, Adm Kuznetzov) on the grounds that as flight deck space is always at a premium, a full width ramp swallows up much needed deck parking space. On the spanish ship the forward quarter of the deck is unusable for deck parking, and on a small ship that can mean being able to operate two to four less aircraft due to having nowhere to put them.

Deck space is at a premium on most aircraft carriers.

Too bad that the US is not willing to "sell off" the Tarawas. I feel they have years of life left in them with the proper modifications as you mention. The best would be getting rid of that labor intensive power plant and installing Gas Turbines as on the soon to be comissioned USS Makin Island LHD-8

Instead the USN may build a new class of LHA's. Which if built will give the USMC their own aircraft carriers. Which I feel they have wanted all along.

[Tasman]

I would offer the option of swapping the well deck and vehicle stowage for a second hangar deck, and switch propulsion from steam (manpower intensive) to GT to decrease running costs. I've never been a fan of full width ski jumps (eg Principe de Asturias, Adm Kuznetzov) on the grounds that as flight deck space is always at a premium, a full width ramp swallows up much needed deck parking space. On the spanish ship the forward quarter of the deck is unusable for deck parking, and on a small ship that can mean being able to operate two to four less aircraft due to having nowhere to put them. The installation on Hermes/Viraat always struck me as being the most sensible route to go, as the ramp need only be wide enough for the aircraft using it, and that is the model I used for the Tarawa. I also widened the deck forward over the former 5inch gun positions as this is another wasteful feature of the current ships. The Tarawas have had their guns removed, so why not plate over the positions and 'square off' the deck as in the Wasp class? I'm assuming money is the reason but steel is cheap and air is free...

I wonder how your concept compares with the modified LHA considered (briefly) by the RAN circa 1980? As I said before I have never seen a plan (or even a sketch), just a list of specifications. It would be interesting to find out if a drawing exists. There is a side on view in Wings Across the Sea of a the proposed gas turbine powered Modified Iwo Jima LPH, as this went to the next stage in the process. It shows a ski jump so I imagine that the RAN would have also wanted a ski jump in the Mod LHA.

I agree re your comments about the ski jump and I notice that the Spanish BPE has a ski jump on the port side only, leaving parking space for F-35s or helos on the starboard side.

http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/CapAerea.asp?SecAct=050207

Cheers

BTW Popeye, in Oz the influence of the American fast food chains has now resulted in 'chips' being called 'fries' on many menus and by most young people.

[Obi Wan Russell]

In Britain too we have the big American fast food chains every where and what they serve we also call fries, as they don't bear much resmblance to the traditional 'chip'!

The Iwo Jima is another design with a lot of unrealised potential, my shopping list for it would include stretching the hull at least 100ft, doubling the installed power by switching to a two shaft layout, reshaping the bow (squaring it off) and adding a portside deck extension for either an angled deck or simply increased parking for helos. I always imagined the proposed variant for Australia would include some of these features, and such a variant would have made a good replacement for the Essex class CVS's form the 70s onwards. had such a class been built, they would have been in the right place at the right time to be offered as replacements for the surviving Colossus and Majestic class CVLs around the world...

Someone at the pentagon missed a trick there. I thought the Americans were good at business, think of all those millions they missed out on...

[bd popeye]

I never really like the Iwo Jima class LPH. They looked "fat" and were to small. They did served the USN very well for 35+ years. I had a neighbor neighbor that was stationed aboard the USS Okinawa LPH-3. He said that ship's nickname was the "Broken-nawa"....

Did you know that two ships with the basic Iwo Jima hulls are still in service?

While not aircraft carriers the USS Blue Ridge LCC-19 & USS Mt Whitney LCC-20 still serve the USN as flag ships of the 7th & 6th fleets. The ships have been in service since 1970 & '71.

Both ships are "foward deployed" overseas in Japan and Italy.

[Tasman]

The Iwo Jima is another design with a lot of unrealised potential, my shopping list for it would include stretching the hull at least 100ft, doubling the installed power by switching to a two shaft layout, reshaping the bow (squaring it off) and adding a portside deck extension for either an angled deck or simply increased parking for helos. I always imagined the proposed variant for Australia would include some of these features, and such a variant would have made a good replacement for the Essex class CVS's form the 70s onwards. had such a class been built, they would have been in the right place at the right time to be offered as replacements for the surviving Colossus and Majestic class CVLs around the world...

Someone at the pentagon missed a trick there. I thought the Americans were good at business, think of all those millions they missed out on...


I've attached a sketch and specifications of the proposed Iwo Jima based VSTOL carrier for the RAN. It is a side on shot but the specs do give a good idea of its capability.

Source: Wings Across The Sea, Ross Gillett, Aerospace Publications, Sydney, 1988

Cheers

[Obi Wan Russell]

I never really like the Iwo Jima class LPH. They looked "fat" and were to small. They did served the USN very well for 35+ years. I had a neighbor neighbor that was stationed aboard the USS Okinawa LPH-3. He said that ship's nickname was the "Broken-nawa"....

Did you know that two ships with the basic Iwo Jima hulls are still in service?

While not aircraft carriers the USS Blue Ridge LCC-19 & USS Mt Whitney LCC-20 still serve the USN as flag ships of the 7th & 6th fleets. The ships have been in service since 1970 & '71.

Both ships are "foward deployed" overseas in Japan and Italy.

Wel I did say I'd stretch the hull by at least 100ft, and that would cure the 'fat' appearance. The two command ships just illustrate the inherent versatility in carrier design. Previously, two members of the Colossus class were completed as aircraft maintenance ships to support the British Pacific Fleet (HMS Perseus and Pioneer), the former vessel was later used as trials ship for the very first steam catapult in the early fifties. Later another sister hams Triumph was converted in the late 50s early sixties to a heavy repair ship to support escort vessels in the far east, her hangar filled with workshops and cranes and deck houses on the flight deck. Unusually the forward flightdeck (rather than the aft) was retained for helo operations and a hangar built on deck adjacent to the island. She was needed in the falklands but had been sold for scrap just a few months earlier.
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/1329/hmsperseusr5101pm6.th.jpg (http://img179.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hmsperseusr5101pm6.jpg)http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/7521/hmspioneer02zw1.th.jpg (http://img404.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hmspioneer02zw1.jpg)http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/8421/hmstriumpha10809xz7.th.jpg (http://img256.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hmstriumpha10809xz7.jpg)http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7765/14hmstriumphatlanticjanih9.th.jpg (http://img179.imageshack.us/my.php?image=14hmstriumphatlanticjanih9.jpg)http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/9084/hmstriumpha10811kc0.th.jpg (http://img179.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hmstriumpha10811kc0.jpg)

[Scratch]

This is what I made of a Tarawa:
Small sky-jump on the port bow. Another elevator at the aft starbord. (Could have removed the central one)
Four Phalanx, one RAM on the front end of the island. One 8cell Mk41 for 32 ESSM. New search and FCR on top.

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/4430/tarawacvfn6.th.jpg (http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tarawacvfn6.jpg)http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/3431/tarawacv2kr1.th.jpg (http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tarawacv2kr1.jpg)

edit: with the remarks of Obi Wan, it now looks like this:
added a small deck extension, moved the Mk41 to the front of it to increase deck area at the aft and avoid debris on the deck.
With SH-60 sized helicopters, it should be able to operate them on the starbord side while launching Lightnig IIs. Additional parking space on the port.
With that sky-jump position, it should be able to even launch V-22s in the STO mode. If I'm to put the sky-jump to the very front I'd have to move it more to the center.
Anyway, should enhance Tarawa hull capability for sea-controll or attack role ...

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/4789/tarawacvzq6.th.jpg (http://img444.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tarawacvzq6.jpg)

[Obi Wan Russell]

This is what I made of a Tarawa:
Small sky-jump on the port bow. Another elevator at the aft starbord. (Could have removed the central one)
Four Phalanx, one RAM on the front end of the island. One 8cell Mk41 for 32 ESSM. New search and FCR on top.

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/4430/tarawacvfn6.th.jpg (http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tarawacvfn6.jpg)http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/3431/tarawacv2kr1.th.jpg (http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tarawacv2kr1.jpg)

Very nice work, but I would point out that you'll have to delete the forward helo spot as the rotor blades will strike the side of the ski jump. That's why the ski jump is normally positioned as far forward as possible (the one fitted to Cavour is a bit of an exception, but the deck adjacent to it is for parking only and helos/harriers will launch/land from the 'runway' to port. I prefer to fit a portside deck extension not just to increase deck area, but because the sponson itself increases internal volume soaking up compartments currently occupying the space needed to extend the hangar forward (the LHAs and LHDs do not currently have full length hangars). On a Nimitz for example the portside deck sponson houses many of the workshops and other compartments displaced by the hangar istelf.

If the well deck is deleted in favour of another hangar deck (for and aviation oriented variant of the class) then the stern lift will have to retained as deck edge liftes cannot service a lower hangar deck (too close to the water). Such a ship would, due to accomodation requirements, most likely have to make do with a half length lower hangar serviced only by the stern lift (eliminating the need for a forward internal lift), so the ships would parallell the wartime HMS Indomitable and Implacable class "Hangar and a Half" carriers, which I always thought were disposed of too soon when they would have been ideal Commando Carriers without any major modification.

[bd popeye]

Nice drawing Scratch. Great observation Obi Wan.

I think the demensions of the well deck on a Tarawa class are 81m(268ft) x 23m(78ft). The height is at least 7.62m(25ft) maybe higher. Now does anyone have the demension of the vehicle storage area? I'm primarliy intrested in the height. I think it may be in the 4m to 5m range(15ft).

Any sort of conversion work on this class ship would be a major and expensive undertaking. But well worth the result if a country had about $2 billion USD to spend on an aircraft carrier.

[harryRIEDL]

Nice drawing Scratch. Great observation Obi Wan.

I think the demensions of the well deck on a Tarawa class are 81m(268ft) x 23m(78ft). The height is at least 7.62m(25ft) maybe higher. Now does anyone have the demension of the vehicle storage area? I'm primarliy intrested in the height. I think it may be in the 4m to 5m range(15ft).

Any sort of conversion work on this class ship would be a major and expensive undertaking. But well worth the result if a country had about $2 billion USD to spend on an aircraft carrier.

a nice idea for a large harrier carrier but if you in ship prices you can afford a CVF [65000-75000]sized carrier which if you use the big is better maxim the CVF would be much better for contreys looking for a bigish carrier 30+ planes and helos

[bd popeye]

a nice idea for a large harrier carrier but if you in ship prices you can afford a CVF [65000-75000]sized carrier which if you use the big is better maxim the CVF would be much better for contreys looking for a bigish carrier 30+ planes and helos

Very true. I was quoting US prices. Which I'm sure are much higher than the rest of the world.

the UK & French CVF or Italian Cavour would be an excellent buy..if it were for sale to the whole world.

[Scratch]

The following concept envisioned for the LHA(R) was an interesting one:
One sky-jump and a lot of space for other activities on the deck. Since all aircraft would land vertically here, the islands in the center of the deck probably won't harm flight ops.
It seems rather big and is perhaps closer to a real CV than to a LHA.

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/9223/lhardualtramfe6.th.jpg (http://img66.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lhardualtramfe6.jpg)http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/6972/lhardualtramlinegg3.th.gif (http://img337.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lhardualtramlinegg3.gif)

BTW: Obi Wan, did you see the edit in my previous post showing the refined version?

[Tasman]

... most likely have to make do with a half length lower hangar serviced only by the stern lift (eliminating the need for a forward internal lift), so the ships would parallell the wartime HMS Indomitable and Implacable class "Hangar and a Half" carriers, which I always thought were disposed of too soon when they would have been ideal Commando Carriers without any major modification.

I agree with you re this. These three ships would have been excellent as commando carriers as they could have accommodated more troops and helos than the converted light fleet carriers Bulwark and Albion. Unfortunately they had been disposed of before the commando carrier concept was proven when two training carriers successfully embarked troops along with navy and air force helos at Suez in 1956.

The reason usually given for their early disposal (they were younger than Victorious which was completely rebuilt) was the fact that they had reduced hangar height (2 feet less than the Illustrious class and 3.5 feet less than the light fleet carriers). This was done to preserve stability when the extra half hangar was added. Unfortunately this severely restricted the types of aircraft that could be accommodated in the hangar. Even the Illustrious class with an extra 2 feet of clearance could only embark Corsairs after the wings had been clipped!

Cheers

[harryRIEDL]

The following concept envisioned for the LHA(R) was an interesting one:
One sky-jump and a lot of space for other activities on the deck. Since all aircraft would land vertically here, the islands in the center of the deck probably won't harm flight ops.
It seems rather big and is perhaps closer to a real CV than to a LHA.

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/9223/lhardualtramfe6.th.jpg (http://img66.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lhardualtramfe6.jpg)http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/6972/lhardualtramlinegg3.th.gif (http