SinoDefence Forum

Obi Wan Russell · 03-05-2009

I have a lot of respect for Richard Beedall and his Navy Matters site, though I find him a little pessimistic at times (understandably so). At no time was the CVA-01 project ever allowed to drop below three ships for one thing, as three was the minimum viable number to ensure one at sea at any given time. Denis Healy himself has said this, that the proposal in front of him in 66 was for three carriers built over a protracted period. That is why Only one firm order (CVA-01) was on the table along with long lead items for CVA-02. A government in 1966 would have no reason to give further consideration to the third ship as she wouldn't be ordered until the mid 70s. This, combined with the RN's plans to up grade just two of the existing carriers (Eagle and Ark Royal) to operate Phantoms has lead many to the wrong conclusion that a two carrier fleet was the plan. No. The plan was that Ark and Eagle would hold the line ALONGSIDE CVA-01 until her two sisters were complete, allowing a three carrier (Phantom equipped) fleet to be in service from the early seventies. I based my scenario on this analysis of projected events.

The Invincibles grew out of the associated Escort Cruiser project, which sought to increase the number of fixed wing aircraft aboard a strike carrier by offloadin the ASW helos to an accompanying Cruiser sized missile armed escort. I think even if the CVAs had gone ahead the escort cruiser would have evolved into Invincible anyway, the 'through deck/hangar below' concept was unavoidable to carry more than six helos, and these ships would have been justified to the Treasury as replacing both the Tiger class cruisers (which I would not have converted, saving a small fortune in the process) and the Commando Carriers. The latter requirement itself would have pushed the ship's size/capacity up to their historical size.

In practice, the intention would be to operate each carrier group with a CVA and an Invincible, With the CVA loaded to the max with CTOL Fighters and Bombers (Phantoms and Buccaneers, 18 of each) as well as Hawkeyes, and just a couple of helos for SAR. This give the group it's offensive potential; The Invincible is the centre of the defensive capability. It's 9 Sea King ASW Helos provide round the clock coverage supplemented by helos from the escorts, whilst the 8-12 Sea Harriers provide the standing CAP over the group, releasing any Phantoms from the task for offensive duties.

As to the aircraft of the FAA in this period, Ican confidently predict 'Tooms and Buccs for the seventies, probably Tomcats and Bucc NG for the eighties along with first generation Sea Harriers, a Possible move to Hornets in the mid 90s (or a British lead upgrade of the Tomcat which could filter back to the USN) before moving to the F-35C in the next decade (with some Bs to operate from CVS/LPHRs alongside the 3CVFs).

bd popeye · 03-05-2009

Russ, Do you have a drawing of an CVA-01? I seem to remember one but I can't find it? If you do have one would you please post that? Thanks!!

Obi Wan Russell · 03-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Russ, Do you have a drawing of an CVA-01? I seem to remember one but I can't find it? If you do have one would you please post that? Thanks!!

I have several lurking on my hard drive: Probably a few more lying around as well.

bd popeye · 03-05-2009

Thanks Russ. What I'd like to see in that design is that elevator(lift) in front of the island should be a deck edge lift. ..And I don't like the way the fantail is exposed. The RN was just asking for a ramp strike in that configuration. And of course the weapons should have been added later.

You should re-fit the ship with your MS paint

Obi Wan Russell · 03-06-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Thanks Russ. What I'd like to see in that design is that elevator(lift) in front of the island should be a deck edge lift. ..And I don't like the way the fantail is exposed. The RN was just asking for a ramp strike in that configuration. And of course the weapons should have been added later.

You should re-fit the ship with your MS paint

As requested, here's three variations on a theme: I have heard from some sources that the Parallell deck concept meant there was insufficient bouyancy aft to support the flight deck all the way to the stern, hence the position of the Sea Dart Launcher. To port of the launcher the deck drops down to hangar deck level where there is an opening into the hangar itself to be used for engine testing, exhausting out into the open air. US carriers also test aircraft engines at the stern, though usually after they have been removed from the aircraft. In CVA-01 the aircraft itself is positioned in the bay and flexible trunking is fitted over the engine intakes leading from the outside of the ship so that the risk of FOD ingestion from the hangar (or even the odd maintainer!) is eliminated. In my mods this feature would be retained, as the aft flight deck extension would be a lightweight structure similar to the fore and aft flight deck extensions on ww2 US and Japanese carriers simply supported on pillars rather than plated into the hull. Also most specs for CVA-01 list the armament as including four close range Sea Cat SAM launchers, though these do not usually appear on artists impressions. HAd they been installed, I'd imagine in the 80s they would have been replaced by a pair of lightweight Sea Wolf launchers and two or three Phalanx.

bd popeye · 03-06-2009

Great job Obi wan.

I like the drawing in the middle best. Was it the intention of the RN to taxi aircraft behind the island? If so where would the ordnance destined to be loaded on aircraft be stored? Behind the island is where the USN CVs store ordnance waiting to be loaded.

As far as engine testing is concerned the USN also test engines in the aircraft. It's called a "maintenance turn". Usually this is done on the flight deck but I've seen it infrequently on the hangar deck.

Obi Wan Russell · 03-06-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Great job Obi wan.

I like the drawing in the middle best. Was it the intention of the RN to taxi aircraft behind the island? If so where would the ordnance destined to be loaded on aircraft be stored? Behind the island is where the USN CVs store ordnance waiting to be loaded.

As far as engine testing is concerned the USN also test engines in the aircraft. It's called a "maintenance turn". Usually this is done on the flight deck but I've seen it infrequently on the hangar deck.

The area outboard of the island was known in the RN as the 'Alaska Highway', and during the 60s the in service carriers (apart for Centaur) had this fitted so that towing tractors and flight deck personnel could move fore and aft without passing through the deck park on the other side of the island. In CVA-01 this idea was expanded to include aircraft movements, the Idea being aircraft could be brought up on the aft lift and moved to the bow catapult without interefering with aircraft parked next to the island, or indeed interefering with landing operations, as seen in this artists impression:

Also you may notice at the base of the island a pair of 'tunnels' leading from one side to the other, this was for deck tractors and personnel to move quickly from one side to the other. It is a remenant of the original 1950s concept of having two islands (following from the 1940s Malta class as well) which merged into a single island to accomodate the ever growing radar systems.

Obi Wan Russell · 03-06-2009

Here's a diagram from the early studies into the deck layout for CVA-01; The difference in usable deck area between the angled and parallell deck layouts is noticeable. Also of note are the original catapults with CALE aircraft positioning gear, non watercooled JBDs and no Bridle catchers. These drawings date from around 1962-63 (enhanced for clarity), and also included below are some of the 1950s carrier studies. The twin island idea is included.

Neutral Zone · 03-06-2009

Thanks for all that Obi Wan!

Interesting to see the twin island design there, some 50 years before it was selected for the CVF's! Obviously hindsight is the most wonderful thing, but would it have been more cost effective to have built an all new carrier such as the 1952 Carrier rather than have spent the money on modifying/rebuilding the RN's existing carriers? Fine ships as they were, Eagle, Ark Royal, Victorious and Hermes were designed during WW2 as axial deck carriers and it cost a lot of money to get them up to the requirements of the jet age. Even then they were on the small side and Hermes in particular struggled to operate jets like the Sea Vixen and Scimitar. So perhaps it would have been better in the long run to have not bothered with them and have gone for a new purpose built ship?

Jeff Head · 03-06-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

Here's a diagram from the early studies into the deck layout for CVA-01; The difference in usable deck area between the angled and parallell deck layouts is noticeable. Also of note are the original catapults with CALE aircraft positioning gear, non watercooled JBDs and no Bridle catchers. These drawings date from around 1962-63 (enhanced for clarity), and also included below are some of the 1950s carrier studies. The twin island idea is included.

And now, finally, after all of these years, the UK will get her large carrier.

Should have had them 50 years ago, IMHO, but it is interesting to see the dual island design from back them turned into reality today.

Obi Wan Russell · 03-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

And now, finally, after all of these years, the UK will get her large carrier.

Should have had them 50 years ago, IMHO, but it is interesting to see the dual island design from back them turned into reality today.

http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideair...rs/UKQE-a3.jpg

I'll wager those French designers at THALES have been patting themselves on the back for being so innvative with the two island desiign... only for the likes of us to point out the British invented the idea 60 years ago! I'm enjoying all the naysayers fighting a rearguard action now grumbling that "they'll never be built! (they are being built as we speak), "They'll only build one" (The contract is for both) "They won't have any aircraft" Yes they will. No government would authorise the carriers and not buy aircraft for them. Political suicide. The Navy has allowed Frigates and destroyers to be traded for the carriers, but I think that was on the belief that when escort numbers drop too low, the public/political backlash would force the government to address the situation (probably in the next few years), by which time the carrier would be too far along to cut anyway.

Here's some plans for the Malta class carriers from around 1945: For scale the 4.5 inch turrets are basically the same as fitted to numerous destroyers and frigates postwar (4.5 inch mk 6). The second island was originally to house all the extra radar equipment coming in to service, and the idea was retained for the next generation of carriers that were designed in the early 50s (though not built).

With hindsight, yest the RN would have been better off investing their resources in building new ships instead of completing the refit of Victorious or fitting out Hermes, but the former was never expected to be so costly and the latter was two thirds finished. It would have been hard to convince those with no knowledge of naval matters or ship construction that starting from scratch would ultimately be a better choice. Victorious was expected to be in refit for only four years (not eight as it turned out) and the final cost was four times the original estimate. In the 50s the only limitation a small carrier would have would be in overall numbers of aircraft carried, not in the types it would be able to carry. Had Victorious and Hermes entered service just a few years earlier they would have had very impressive looking air groups numerically, during the era of Sea Hawks, Sea Venoms and Skyraiders both ships would have carried over 50 aircraft each and that was seen as more than adequate. The following generation of Sea Vixens and Scimitars were basically twice the size of the aircraft they replaced (and twice the capability) so the carrier were percieved to be less capable based on the numbers they carried to a degree.

bd popeye · 03-07-2009

Thanks for all the info on the proposed RN CVs of yesteryear. If I could change RN naval history I would have them with 6 CVs operating with the interest of the United Kingdom. With assignments with NATO and the USN.

The Falklands War may have never happened if the RN had real CTOL CVs to deploy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On to a different subject.

Italy is planning to build an LPH/Sea Control ship.

The ship is similar in size to an old USN Iwo Jima class PLH. But has the look of an Tarawa or Wasp class.

All in all an excellent design.

The only thing I would be concerned with is this;

Quote:

In principle the ship will be designed and built in accordance with merchant ships regulations and
standards, pursuing high reliability and easy maintainability.

Naval standards should be used in my opinion. Using merchant standards is probally a cost cutting move.

Quote:

"The renewal of the Italian Navy Fleet in the 2010-2020 time-frame" by Admiral Tortora, head of the italian navy new constructions department.

The need for new, more performing LHDs is strongly perceived as one of the higher priorities of the
Navy. As far as the operational scenarios are concerned, missions and tasks will be carried out
mostly in the proximity of coastal waters and/or in narrow and shallow basins.
Threat is considered mostly asymmetrical, deriving from small terrorist groups, equipped with
medium-low technology off-the-shelf weapons. Recent events call for the necessity to keep a clear
tri-dimensional maritime and coastal picture against a wide spectrum of threats available to the
counterpart (i.e. fast boats, explosive pontoons and fishing boats, conventional or improvised naval
mines, radio controlled explosive aircraft and vessels, rockets, light artillery, etc.).
Less likely, but still possible, threats might be performed by air and naval conventional assets, such
as aircraft, frigates and destroyers or submarines.

- Operational Capabilities

The perspective tonnage of the ship is 16.000-17.000, large enough to accommodate 600 marines,
plus about 120 crew members and about 130 add-ons for the flight and medical components. On
the whole, the accommodation capacity required is 850 berths, with different accommodation
standards.
It is considered that a low cost active defence systems should be sufficient to provide a limited selfdefence
capability to counter fast boats and UAV.
It is also required to include passive and active measures in order to ensure the survivability of the
ship in case of a mine or torpedo explosion, as well as to adopt torpedo detection or deception
systems on board.
In principle the ship will be designed and built in accordance with merchant ships regulations and
standards, pursuing high reliability and easy maintainability.
Although the type of propulsion is not yet defined, it is deemed necessary to be able to maintain a
continuous speed of at least 20-22 knots with sea state 3, even though a NATO requirement for this
type of unit foresees a speed in excess of 24 knots. The ship shall have an endurance up to 7000
nautical mile at 16 knots.

- Macro-function “Amphibious Warfare”

The ship shall be able to transport, launch, support and withdraw a Landing Force and the related
assets. Therefore, she shall have:
⇒ capability to transport, land and re-embark a CLF Brigade Command Post;
⇒ accommodation for the landing forces for up to 5 combat days;
⇒ capability to launch – through 5 spots3 – up to 8 helicopters, 6 capable of carrying out a
company’s assault operations and 2 capable of close air support;
⇒ capability to recover in hangar up to 5 helicopters;
⇒ capability to launch and recover amphibious personnel and assets (for a total of 1.200
linear meters, equivalent to about 180 vehicles including tanks and armored vehicles)
using also the ship’s dock and the 50% of the flight deck4;
⇒ a ship’s dock made of suitable structure to carry 4 LCM (Landing Craft, Mechanized)
and to allow vehicle loading and unloading activities of 2 LCM inside the dock
simultaneously (the possibility to make the ship interoperable with Landing Craft Air
Cushion and/or Partial Air Cushion has to be evaluated);
⇒ a rail trolley system over the dock deck capable to move at least 30 tons of materials;
⇒ adequate flexibility for shipload reshaping (vehicles and materials) also at sea, thanks
to rail trolley/moving palette system/supply elevators, foreseeing possible use of the
hangar if necessary.

- Macro-function “Command Control Communications” (C3)

The ship will be fitted with a C3 integrated system, including wide-band satellite systems and local
area networks for information delivery inside the ship. The possibility to board and operate a
Composite Warfare Command tasked as CATF/CLF has to be defined.
However, the ship will be provided with adequate C4I capabilities in order to be able to maintain a
local air/maritime picture for the co-ordination of the naval and land assets in the operational
scenario.

- Macro-function “Defence”

The ship shall be provided with self-defence capability (artillery and machine-guns systems) against
asymmetrical threats coming from all the directions and filtered in through the security framework
provided by the escort combat ships.
Besides, the ship shall have the capability to operate under CBRN threat and, in case of this
occurrence, to provide collective defence to personnel and on-board equipments/systems, in order
to permit:
⇒ the recovery and reclaiming of personnel and vehicles;
⇒ the manoeuvre of the ship, in safeness, outside the contaminated area.

- Macro-function “Medical Support”

The active role that this ship must be able to play in disaster relief situations is a design constraint
of high relevance. As far as the possible missions are concerned, the medical arrangements should
be able to ensure at least a “ROLE 2 PLUS”5 for managing the following events:
⇒ surgical reception and treatment of casualties evacuated from the combat areas;
⇒ management of a massive medical emergency (crash on the flight deck, reception of
personnel evacuated by another attacked or burnt down ship);
⇒ surgery management of the embarked personnel;
⇒ radiological and laboratory diagnostics,
⇒ routine or emergency medical assistance;
⇒ dental treatment.
At least 50 beds for in-patients and an adequate number of beds for intensive/semi-intensive care
patients (with at least 15 days autonomy) shall be provided, as well a modern hospital area
equipped with a triage reception to select casualties from the battle field and the ships. Telemedicine
equipments will be available to increase the treatment capabilities.
In order to arrange the above mentioned medical structures, an area of approximately 700 square
meters is required. In case of disaster relief event, the ship’s medical capabilities shall be increased
through a system of modular medical shelters.
In order to meet the requirement specifically related to disaster relief activities, the ship will be
equipped with:
⇒ a fresh water desalinization system capable of supplying up to 150 tons per day through
pumping pipelines;
⇒ emergency power system to supply shore buildings accommodating up to 1000 people.

Landing Helicopter Dock:

Length Over All 165,0 m
Length Between Perpendicular 147,0 m
Beam max 31,0 m
Full Load Displacement abt. 16.000 t
Corresponding Draft abt. 6,3 m
Flight deck height abt. 24,5 m
Main Garage Deck height 8,5 m
Speed: 22 n
Range: 7.000 nm at cruise speed
Accommodation: up to 900 (150 crew+700 troops)
Command & Control: up to 300 m2 available
Flight deck: 5 spots for EH 101 or 7 smaller helos
Helo hangar: parking area for 5 EH 101
Vehicle deck: up to 1.200 metric lanes
Hospital area: 700 m2 + 1.000 m2 convertible area.
Floodable dock: 50 x 15 m
Vehicle ramps 1 stern 1 side (60 t)

Obi Wan Russell · 03-07-2009

Looks like a follow on to the San Giorgio class. They have had interesting rebuilds, to increase the available/usable flight deck space, something I have advocated for just about all the 'through deck' ships around. At sea, on any aviation oriented ship, you can never have too much flight deck space to spot and operate aircraft.

bd popeye · 03-18-2009

The JMSDF takes possesion of it's "DDH" JDS Hyuga. I think the actual capacity of the ship is closer 24-30 helos rater than the 14 helos the JMSDF claims. However knowing the luxurious crew accommodations required by the JMSDF as compared to other navies perhaps there would not be enough room aboard for support personnel to maintain that many helos. And the fully loaded displacement of the ship is closer to 22,000 tons.

Jeff..do you have any fresh info on this ship??

Quote:

13,950-ton JDS Hyuga (16DDH) is handed over to Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force from its builder IHI Marine United Inc. in Yokohama, southwest of Tokyo, Wednesday, March 18, 2009. The newly-built helicopter-carrying destroyer, similar in design to a small aircraft carrier, is the the largest Japanese warship since World War II, deploying three helicopters on the flight deck while carrying up to 11 others on the hangar deck inside, Kyodo News said.

Jeff Head · 03-18-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

[I]Jeff..do you have any fresh info on this ship??

Just that the second is well under construction and is supposed to be launched this year.

Here's my favorite pic so far of the Hyuga (take a look at the full size image).

SinoDefence Forum

Aircraft Carriers II

Aircraft Carriers II

DefenceTalk Military Pictures

LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/aircraft-carriers-ii-3125.html

vBulletin Tweet Poster