Aircraft Carriers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Jeff, in the "ideal chinese carrier" thread, you mentioned this huge naval off-shore air-base thing. I thought here might be a better place to discuss it in general. Could you imagine this thing being forward deployed as a constant, or at least long term base in remote/hot-spot areas?
I mean it seems to be pretty slow and it not suitable for quick reaction forces. But it can offer support for larger ops than even a CVN (more, and most important heavier aircraft). Especially at places where no land base is available.
In short, you just stated the basic reasons why those who advocate such a base give for its creation. In a place where you do not have the capability for an on-shore air base, this gives you that type of option.

Problem would be defending it, it can't really hide in the ocean. Probably easy to detect such a big thing and it can't really manuever. Plus you'd loose a lot of assets with it.
On the other hand the US seems to be able to cover most of the world in sufficient strength right now.
These are also the reaons why other people are against it, and they are very critical issues.

I would say that it is mobile, even if it could only be moved five or ten miles in a twenty four hour period, that is much more flexable than an absolutely stationary air base on the ground. Also, you do not need to worry about ground attack, overrunning, or so much about infiltration.

Finally, with AEGIS and with BMD, you can argue that you could protect it as well or better than land based missile defense. On something this size, there would be room for all sorts of defensive systems, both hard and soft kill systems.

I would want to have two or three very good attack subs stationed around it at all times, plus a surface escort task force larger in size than what you would dedicate to a CSG to defend it at range along the primary and secondary threat axis.

For those who have not seen it, what Scratch and I are discussing is the US Mobile Offshore Base (MOB) concept as depicted below:

mob-flex_b_full.jpg
 

Scratch

Captain
I would say that it is mobile, even if it could only be moved five or ten miles in a twenty four hour period, that is much more flexable than an absolutely stationary air base on the ground. Also, you do not need to worry about ground attack, overrunning, or so much about infiltration.
Ok, I accept that it's mobile, but once it is on station I'm pretty sure it can be detected rather fast. And then it's difficult to disapear again. Not saying it's really a big problem, just you cannot really hide with that thing.

Finally, with AEGIS and with BMD, you can argue that you could protect it as well or better than land based missile defense. On something this size, there would be room for all sorts of defensive systems, both hard and soft kill systems.
I could imagine in the future it is a platform to use new systems like DEWs (THEL) or perhaps even railguns. So, yes I too think you can mount a sufficient defence on it.

I would want to have two or three very good attack subs stationed around it at all times, plus a surface escort task force larger in size than what you would dedicate to a CSG to defend it at range along the primary and secondary threat axis.
Agreed, you need a large fleet defence to defend it. The escorts in turn can use the MOB as a off-shore in-theater port.

In the end it comes to the point if it's all worth the effort. You have to dedicate many resources to defenc it properly. On the other hand, it's really hard think of a conflict where perhaps 3 CSGs plus land based long-range bombers wich cover huge areas aren't enough.

But planeman (I think) came up with the max size of a CVN in generall. Super carriers already carry an enormous amount of firepower, and to built those monsters just for the sake of accelerating air-ops due to a second laning grid isn't worth it. A Nimitz has already 4cats, do you really need more? I don't really think so. And, how big can you make a CVN that's still able to maintain 30+ kts with a proportional propulsion. Because if it's slower, you could just skip that size and go to the MOB all the way.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Ok, I accept that it's mobile, but once it is on station I'm pretty sure it can be detected rather fast. And then it's difficult to disapear again. Not saying it's really a big problem, just you cannot really hide with that thing.
If I were commanding such a facility, as a matter of course, I would want to move it twenty or so miles every so often to confuse and counter any GPS or other precision guided munitions that would otherwise have its precise location already dialed in.

Same thing for any air strike. If they thing could be "somewhere" within a forty mile diameter, then your strike aircraft are going to have to get within firm electronic ID or physical site of the thing to be able to target it effectively. In a war time ECM environment, and particularly with the powerful ECM packages and potentially large CAP a beheamouth like that could bring to the party, that would not be as easy as it sounds.

Now, if it just sat fifty miles off a particular place on a particular coast at the same location for weeks on end...that would be a different matter. I for one would not want to risk such a huge investment in that manner.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
This is why it so dangerous to work on the flight deck and training is paramount because do accidents happen.

This link will take you to an article about an F-18 crash on CVN-76 last year off AUS.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


There is an awesome video of the crash. The link is on the right side of the page.

Pilot blamed in jet's crash on carrier

Hornet was too low, a Navy report says
By Steve Liewer
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
January 30, 2007

U.S. Navy
The F/A-18C can be seen striking the deck in this still image taken from U.S. Navy video.

A pilot's mistake caused the crash of an F/A-18C Hornet fighter jet on the deck of the carrier Ronald Reagan a year ago near Australia, according to a Navy investigative report.

The crash occurred as the aircraft tried to land on the Reagan at 11:15 p.m., Jan. 28, 2006. The 33-year-old pilot, whose name the Navy excised from the report, ejected safely into the sea as the burning jet skidded across the flight deck. A helicopter rescued him 17 minutes later.

The pilot didn't recognize quickly enough that he was approaching the carrier too low and too slow for the Hornet's tailhook to catch an arresting cable that would yank the jet to a sudden stop, concluded the unidentified author of the Judge Advocate General Manual report.

The San Diego Union-Tribune obtained a copy of the report under the federal Freedom of Information Act.

The jet's pilot, from Strike Fighter Squadron 25 out of Lemoore Naval Air Station in Central California, had logged 242 hours in the Hornet, including 24 nighttime carrier landings – considered by Naval aviators to be perhaps the most difficult flying skill to master.

He had developed a habit of crossing the approach ramp too low and had flown little since the Reagan left San Diego on its maiden combat deployment Jan. 4, 2006, a factor the investigator said may have contributed to the crash.

But, the report said, the pilot was qualified to fly the F/A-18, was rested and not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The investigator did not recommend disciplinary action.

A video of the failed landing shows the jet as a fast-growing ball of light zooming toward the ship, clearly too low, according to the artificial horizon visible in the video frame.

“Jesus Christ!” a male voice shouts when the aircraft slams with a fiery explosion into a ramp just short of the carrier's angled runway. The voice yells, “Eject! Eject! Eject!” while the camera pivots to follow the burning Hornet. It slides into the ocean five seconds later.

In July, the Reagan completed a six-month cruise to the Persian Gulf and returned to North Island. Saturday, the carrier left for a mission to the western Pacific Ocean. It is expected to return in late spring.

The Navy's decision to leave the aircraft where it sank in 1,100 feet of water, more than 160 miles east of Australia, stirred controversy among environmentalists in that country.

The report said recovering the Hornet would cost $1 million and delay the Reagan's scheduled arrival in the Middle East. It said the amount of hazardous material, such as fuel, oil and battery acid, wasn't likely to cause environmental harm.
 

Neutral Zone

Junior Member
This is why it so dangerous to work on the flight deck and training is paramount because do accidents happen.

This link will take you to an article about an F-18 crash on CVN-76 last year off AUS.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


There is an awesome video of the crash. The link is on the right side of the page.

Ouch! Good to see that no one got hurt in that!

I'm all for looking after the environment but do some people not have better things to do than to be complaining about a wrecked Hornet at the bottom of the sea? I doubt it's going to kill off the ecosystem in that area and in due time it will probably become an artificial reef!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
This is why it so dangerous to work on the flight deck and training is paramount because do accidents happen.

This link will take you to an article about an F-18 crash on CVN-76 last year off AUS.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


There is an awesome video of the crash. The link is on the right side of the page.
Really glad to see that F-18 go right on off the end of the deck through the landing zone. Could have been a real disaster had it veered to the right into those other parked aircraft.

Also VERY glad that the pilot was able to eject safely. Looked like (and maybe my eyes were just deceiving me) that he ejected late, after the aircraft had already hit and was careening down the deck.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Really glad to see that F-18 go right on off the end of the deck through the landing zone. Could have been a real disaster had it veered to the right into those other parked aircraft.

Also VERY glad that the pilot was able to eject safely. Looked like (and maybe my eyes were just deceiving me) that he ejected late, after the aircraft had already hit and was careening down the deck.

To me it appeared he ejected after impact with the deck.

In 1981 on board Nimitz an USMC E/A-6B crashed in a similar manner but did not clear the flight deck. 14 sailors were killd and several other aircraft were damaged.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


On May 15, 1981, Nimitz departed Norfolk for the final phases of her workup schedule for an upcoming Mediterranean Cruise. On the night of May 25, an EA-6B Prowler crash-landed on the flight deck, killing 14 crewmen and injuring 45 others. The carrier returned to port to repair damaged catapults and returned to sea less than 48 hours later to complete its training schedule.

Please note. As a testimony to the American sailors and the workers at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard Nimitz returned to fully mission capable in 48 hours.
 

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot
I hope this is a new article for all! What would they do with the older UK CV after it retires?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Feb 7, 2007
By Christina Mackenzie/DTI

There was a sense of urgency in early December at the offices of MO-PA2, the temporary company formed by French shipbuilder DCN and electronics giant Thales to handle France's second full-deck aircraft carrier (PA2) project, as a design submission deadline of Dec. 25 loomed.
The U.K. and France are collaborating on the design and planned construction of three aircraft carriers to be delivered in 2013-15, the PA2 and two Queen Elizabeth-class Future Aircraft Carriers (CVFs) for the Royal Navy. An enormous amount of political pressure has been put on both the French and British aircraft carrier teams to get the strategic project signed and sealed before French elections this spring and expected political changes in Britain after Tony Blair steps down as prime minister.
The PA2 project is not only necessary to ensure that France has a carrier available when the Charles de Gaulle comes into dock for lengthy maintenance in 2015, but is also considered a vital step in consolidating Europe's naval industry.
Huddled in shirtsleeves around a large table strewn with paper and coffee cups at MO-PA2, French and British project directors strived to produce a common baseline design for the three ships, down to such details as the size of bunk beds and wet spaces. They ultimately met their target of turning in the final results to the French defense procurement agency (DGA) five days early.
"It may sound absurd to go into such details at this stage," explains Alex Fabarez, director of MO-PA2, "but accommodations aboard British and French ships are totally different, and we are talking about the environment for 1,720 people spending up to seven months at sea."
One of the differences is that there will be about 300 more sailors permanently berthed on the French PA2 than on the British CVF. The additional personnel have to be billeted comfortably and not on convertible sofa beds, as is planned on board the British carriers for accommodating extra personnel in times of crisis or combat.
The impact on shipbuilding costs of having commonly designed accommodations is not insignificant. "It could save us tens of millions of euros," Fabarez says.
The small team of about 40 people at MO-PA2 had to work flat out from the end of September to meet the deadline, because they had to make major modifications to the PA2 design after presenting it in July to DGA and the French navy. "The British reaction to the French design was spirited, because it diverged too far from the British one," says Fabarez. As a result, on Sept. 21, "a decision was made that the French PA2 would be 90% the same ship as the British CVF, and there is an expressed will to cooperate to the maximum with the British," Fabarez says.
Five major differences were taken into account in the joint baseline design, primarily to allow French conventional-takeoff-and-landing Rafale fighter jets to operate from the PA2. The French carrier must be fitted with catapults and arresting gear; the steam-powered catapults need boilers to produce the steam; the PA2 will have more space for fuel because the French navy does not refuel at sea as frequently as does the Royal Navy; the lifts from the aircraft hangar up to the flight deck will be slightly wider to accommodate the wider wingspan of the Rafales; and the ship will be fitted with the same list compensation system used on the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier.
The French navy, for its part, made concessions in the traditional layout of its ships. For example, the personnel on a French ship normally are accommodated by function--everyone in radio communications, from senior officer down to sailor, is billeted in the same area of the ship. On British ships, on the other hand, accommodations are by rank, so all officers reside at the back of the ship. On the PA2, the French officers will be at the back of the ship.
The French navy also agreed that the air wing operations room will be situated at the back of the ship away from carrier operations and the admiral's staff. On French carriers, they are all located in the same area of the ship.
The engine rooms and their command post will be the same on all three aircraft carriers, Fabarez says, "because the propulsion system is the same." It consists of two gas turbines, four electric propulsion engines, four diesel alternators and two propellers.
Michele Alliot-Marie, France's defense minister, said at the Euronaval show in Paris last October that her "ambition is to render this program as irreversible as possible." She not only sees the project as vital to "ensure that our overseas deployment capacity remains permanent," but also as a foundation for constructing "a consolidated European industry and a solid European defense." French naval chief of staff Adm. Alain Oudot de Dainville also has said, "If the European Union wants a defense capacity, it must do so around structuring programs such as the aircraft carrier."
Alliot-Marie sees the joint aircraft carrier program as an opportunity "to develop full and complete cooperation" between France and Britain and has made it clear she is "expecting from all industries involved an effort equal to the strategic importance of this project."
 

Neutral Zone

Junior Member
I hope this is a new article for all! What would they do with the older UK CV after it retires?


Do you mean the Invincibles?

Well there's rumours that India would like to buy Invincible as a replacement for Viraat before their indigenous carriers enter service. Illustrious and Ark Royal are scheduled to carry on in service until the second of the CVF's enter service after which they'll be disposed of. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them ends up being sold to another navy, they're still both very capable ships and can even serve as LPH's or as pure ASW helicopter carriers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top