Conversion of V/STOL aircraft-carriers for CAT/STOBAR operations ?

[carvalho2008]

 

[carvalho2008]

 

[BlackBat242]

CV-10 Yorktown catapult athwart hangar deck 1943:



Hellcat spotting on hangar deck catapult CV-10:



Hellcat departing hangar deck via catapult CV-10:



CV-12 post-cat shot:

 

[carvalho2008]

Why not...?

This model is only 212 meters long.

Even so, its upper landing deck is much longer than the deck of the Clemenceau class.

Another point, in the hypothesis of a lower deck takeoff with Ski jump, you solve the problem of landing and takeoff operations at the same time

It is necessary to study how to resolve the blast on the lower deck.

I reiterate that an auxiliary catapult based on the SATS CE-2 concept can be organically implemented in the model and work to assist the ski jump for that lower percentage of missions with aircraft at Max MTOW.

A step further than a Stobar, halfway to Catobar but with much less complexity.

 

[carvalho2008]

 

[Scott Kenny]

It is necessary to study how to resolve the blast on the lower deck.

That's definitely the challenge.

A minor detail is how high the lower deck is above the water. The US has had carriers take waves over the bows even on the Nimitz class, 90ft above the nominal waterline.

 

[carvalho2008]

That's definitely the challenge.

A minor detail is how high the lower deck is above the water. The US has had carriers take waves over the bows even on the Nimitz class, 90ft above the nominal waterline.

 

[carvalho2008]

 

[Foo Fighter]

When it comes to modifying the ships, does it make sense (I know stoopid from the start) to adapt them for Autonomous airframe deplouments even to work ut how they can be done properly in the future?

Sorry, I realise I jinxed it with word 11.

 

[F.L.]

@carvalho2008, I wonder to what extent landing and launch operations can be carried out at the same time. It would be interesting to see a similar double-deck configuration on the Atlantico. However, I think this would probably destabilize the ship significantly.

 

[carvalho2008]

@carvalho2008, I wonder to what extent landing and launch operations can be carried out at the same time. It would be interesting to see a similar double-deck configuration on the Atlantico. However, I think this would probably destabilize the ship significantly.

Yes, adding an extra deck will pay more attention to the center of gravity. But I think of a more square hull in the style of an LHD....this reduces speed. Another possibility would be to implement cheeks or side protrusions on the hull, in order to simulate a trimaran...hull bubbles perhaps...

 

[F.L.]

Yes, adding an extra deck will pay more attention to the center of gravity. But I think of a more square hull in the style of an LHD....this reduces speed. Another possibility would be to implement cheeks or side protrusions on the hull, in order to simulate a trimaran...hull bubbles perhaps...

Yes, but then it becomes unthinkable to convert an existing vessel.

 

[carvalho2008]

Sim, mas torna-se impensável converter uma embarcação existente.

Yes, but then it becomes unthinkable to convert an existing vessel.

Yes, but the Zumwalt itself initially proposed also exists....so we are not just talking about conversion according to the proposed models, but also about composing unique models

 

[F.L.]

I hadn't mentioned it yet, because the Italian navy has AV-8B+ Harriers and F-35Bs, but I think that in a very hypothetical scenario where the Cavour is sold to another country, it might be possible to convert it to STOBAR configuration relatively easily. It would be easier to add an angled deck, given that it is 244m long.

 

[F.L.]

Yes, but the Zumwalt itself initially proposed also exists....so we are not just talking about conversion according to the proposed models, but also about composing unique models

1° Please look at the thread title.
2° The Zummwalt is a sea control ship, a type of vessel not built in the USA, but in Spain, the PdA and the Chakri for Thailand. The Zummwalt era SCS is therefore an interesting comparison for a possible conversion of the Chakri into a STOBAR.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I hadn't mentioned it yet, because the Italian navy has AV-8B+ Harriers and F-35Bs, but I think that in a very hypothetical scenario where the Cavour is sold to another country, it might be possible to convert it to STOBAR configuration relatively easily. It would be easier to add an angled deck, given that it is 244m long.
View attachment 707897

The extras on the hull like the missile systems make a traditionally angled hull the likely mod there.

 

[F.L.]

In relation to a possible S/VTOL aircraft carrier conversion, China's 076 project is quite interesting. Although it's a construction project, not a conversion, it illustrates the concept well, notably the absence of an angled deck.

 

[carvalho2008]

 

[F.L.]

...

It's another concept of the 076 amphibious assault ship, but with angled deck.

 

[carvalho2008]

It's another concept of the 076 amphibious assault ship, but with angled deck.

Correct. And I believe that it will be the big trend for the future for multitasking amphibious ships, using catapults or ski jumping in Stobar mode.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In relation to a possible S/VTOL aircraft carrier conversion, China's 076 project is quite interesting. Although it's a construction project, not a conversion, it illustrates the concept well, notably the absence of an angled deck.
View attachment 708001

That particular layout is not very good. Unable to launch and land fixed-wings at the same time, and I don't think recovered aircraft will be able to easily move off the wires to an elevator due to the size of the island.

That's a pretty sharply angled deck...

 

[F.L.]

Unable to launch and land fixed-wings at the same time.

This is the case for many aircraft carriers, especially those whose catapults are located at the inclined deck level.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This is the case for many aircraft carriers, especially those whose catapults are located at the inclined deck level.

And yet it's literally the reason for the angled deck in the first place...

 

[F.L.]

The main reason for the inclined decks is to allow fast jets to land without the risk of colliding with aircraft parked at the front of the ship. As the speed and weight of jets increased, so did the need for aircraft to be able to make a bolter more easily.

 

[helmutkohl]

That particular layout is not very good. Unable to launch and land fixed-wings at the same time, and I don't think recovered aircraft will be able to easily move off the wires to an elevator due to the size of the island.



That's a pretty sharply angled deck...

yeah there's not enough distance for landing either.
its just amateur fan art and nothing official.

 

[carvalho2008]

yeah there's not enough distance for landing either.
its just amateur fan art and nothing official.

We must remember that the concept above is an LHD versioned for drone carriers.

At this moment, drones have a profile and flight pattern that is still similar to WWI and WWII planes. So, I don't see this difficulty being highlighted.

Another point, The Angled Deck has already been discussed here. It serves two things:

1) Inhibit or prevent the collision of an aircraft landing with others parked on the line or close to the landing line

2) Allow simultaneous operation of landings and takeoffs at the same time.

Note that in both situations, aircraft congestion on the deck is necessary. For there to be aircraft congestion, you need to have a large number of aircraft. Small aircraft carriers or LHDs do not or would not carry more than 20...the Chackri Naruebet for example, could at most carry 8 of them...how many flights occur at the same time? There is a direct correlation between air operations (quantity) and the need for simultaneous landing or takeoff operations, including parking. Discount 20% of the air wing as a reducing factor on the total embarked, as there is a fraction of planes undergoing maintenance and overhaul.

 

[Scott Kenny]

We must remember that the concept above is an LHD versioned for drone carriers.

At this moment, drones have a profile and flight pattern that is still similar to WWI and WWII planes. So, I don't see this difficulty being highlighted.

Another point, The Angled Deck has already been discussed here. It serves two things:

1) Inhibit or prevent the collision of an aircraft landing with others parked on the line or close to the landing line

2) Allow simultaneous operation of landings and takeoffs at the same time.

Note that in both situations, aircraft congestion on the deck is necessary. For there to be aircraft congestion, you need to have a large number of aircraft. Small aircraft carriers or LHDs do not or would not carry more than 20...the Chackri Naruebet for example, could at most carry 8 of them...how many flights occur at the same time? There is a direct correlation between air operations (quantity) and the need for simultaneous landing or takeoff operations, including parking. Discount 20% of the air wing as a reducing factor on the total embarked, as there is a fraction of planes undergoing maintenance and overhaul.

Well, what jobs are these baby carriers supposed to be doing?

• Maintaining AEW coverage? That's one flight every 4-6 hours, unless your AEW can refuel inflight. Takes 3 birds.
• Combat air patrol? That's cycling about every 2 hours back to a tanker, and then rotating aircraft every 4-6 again. IF you have a tanker, otherwise you're rotating CAPs every 2 hours. (Noted absolute minimum squadron for a 2-plane CAP 24/7 is 8 birds, and you want a couple more for maintenance losses)
• Anti sub work is likely to be large helicopters, which don't clog up your flight deck traffic pattern the same way. But if you are running fixed wing MPA off your carrier, that's another flight every 4-6 hours unless the MPA can refuel inflight, and you're still running one ASW helicopter for close in defense of the carrier.
• Any time you have planes in the air, you will have one helo either in the air or on 30 second alert to rescue downed pilots, and you will have at least one spare for that job. I'm not sure if the USN CVS carriers used their close in ASW helo or had a separate helo for SAR.

 

[carvalho2008]

Well, what jobs are these baby carriers supposed to be doing?

• Maintaining AEW coverage? That's one flight every 4-6 hours, unless your AEW can refuel inflight. Takes 3 birds.
• Combat air patrol? That's cycling about every 2 hours back to a tanker, and then rotating aircraft every 4-6 again. IF you have a tanker, otherwise you're rotating CAPs every 2 hours. (Noted absolute minimum squadron for a 2-plane CAP 24/7 is 8 birds, and you want a couple more for maintenance losses)
• Anti sub work is likely to be large helicopters, which don't clog up your flight deck traffic pattern the same way. But if you are running fixed wing MPA off your carrier, that's another flight every 4-6 hours unless the MPA can refuel inflight, and you're still running one ASW helicopter for close in defense of the carrier.
• Any time you have planes in the air, you will have one helo either in the air or on 30 second alert to rescue downed pilots, and you will have at least one spare for that job. I'm not sure if the USN CVS carriers used their close in ASW helo or had a separate helo for SAR.

But this is exactly it! Have you already done the math on the air wing needed to carry out the types and quantities of missions you described? These smaller ships do not perform all of these missions. They only perform a fraction of them. An LHD, a Stovl operations ship, is smaller and there is no way to demand from it the full range of missions of an authentic ctol... there is no magic. This does not mean that the smaller range of operations is unnecessary in smaller navies, as proposed in the statement. What I discussed is that these smaller ships do not have the same need for decks as supercarriers because they do not even exist for these requirements. These are vessels that, when configured in this way, only seek to cover the role of naval air defense in their small fleets, even if there may be residual attack or asuw capacity.

 

[Scott Kenny]

But this is exactly it! Have you already done the math on the air wing needed to carry out the types and quantities of missions you described? These smaller ships do not perform all of these missions. They only perform a fraction of them. An LHD, a Stovl operations ship, is smaller and there is no way to demand from it the full range of missions of an authentic ctol... there is no magic. This does not mean that the smaller range of operations is unnecessary in smaller navies, as proposed in the statement. What I discussed is that these smaller ships do not have the same need for decks as supercarriers because they do not even exist for these requirements. These are vessels that, when configured in this way, only seek to cover the role of naval air defense in their small fleets, even if there may be residual attack or asuw capacity.

That was aimed around the tasks of a convoy escort carrier.

AEW, to look for the incoming bombers and to give more warning for submarine launched antiship missiles.
CAP, to have planes already in the air to respond to the bombers, because it is better to shoot down the bombers before they can launch missiles; and because supersonic AShMs will arrive before the Ready-5 fighters will be in position to shoot down the AShMs.
ASW, because the threat of submarines is enough to force convoys together.

And the others are facts of operating a carrier.

 

[carvalho2008]

That was aimed around the tasks of a convoy escort carrier.

AEW, to look for the incoming bombers and to give more warning for submarine launched antiship missiles.
CAP, to have planes already in the air to respond to the bombers, because it is better to shoot down the bombers before they can launch missiles; and because supersonic AShMs will arrive before the Ready-5 fighters will be in position to shoot down the AShMs.
ASW, because the threat of submarines is enough to force convoys together.

And the others are facts of operating a carrier.

It would be nice to have, but there is no or rare stobar ship that exists today and that fulfills the functions listed with planes... at most, with its own helicopter or with escorts.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I mean, we're looking at 3 AEW birds, 8-10 VSTOL fighters, and probably 6-8 H60 or larger helicopters as the air wing to do all that.

That's it.

 

[F.L.]

I mean, we're looking at 3 AEW birds, 8-10 VSTOL fighters, and probably 6-8 H60 or larger helicopters as the air wing to do all that.

In fact, after conversion, such a ship should have similar capabilities to the Invincible class, but with CA/STOBAR aircraft.
In fact, the main aim is to enable countries (Thailand, Turkey, Brazil, etc.) that cannot purchase F-35Bs (the only VTOL on the market) to convert their carriers so that they can continue to operate fixed-wing aircraft.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In fact, after conversion, such a ship should have similar capabilities to the Invincible class, but with CA/STOBAR aircraft.
In fact, the main aim is to enable countries (Thailand, Turkey, Brazil, etc.) that cannot purchase F-35Bs (the only VTOL on the market) to convert their carriers so that they can continue to operate fixed-wing aircraft.

Right, could have/should have deleted the "VSTOL" out of that statement.

With the baby carriers, we're talking about 20-30 aircraft. (Yes, I know spotting factors complicate things, but saying 20-30 is enough for rough ballpark work)

So the air wing looks like:

3x AEW birds (fixed wing or rotary wing),​

8-10x fighters,​

6-8x ASW helicopters.​

Maybe 1-2x tankers,​

definitely 2x COD types (if those are different from the tankers).​

Air wing of about 25, could be as low as 19.

Question becomes, what fighters are available to fly from these carriers? Legacy Hornet is out of production, Super Bug is on the way out. MiG29K, but can you trust Russia? Rafale M? Anything else?

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

In fact, after conversion, such a ship should have similar capabilities to the Invincible class, but with CA/STOBAR aircraft.
In fact, the main aim is to enable countries (Thailand, Turkey, Brazil, etc.) that cannot purchase F-35Bs (the only VTOL on the market) to convert their carriers so that they can continue to operate fixed-wing aircraft.

I they can't afford F-35B, then they're not going to be able to afford the training for CATOBAR, nor are they going to afford new aircraft carriers. The F-35 is probably one of the cheapest strike fighters on the market right now, if you can't afford them you can't afford any fighter.

If they can afford new aircraft carriers and F-35Bs, then they would probably design something like the QEs, a conventionally-powered STOVL Carrier, STOVL to save on CATOBAR training costs, relatively automated to keep the personnel costs down, and of course conventionally-powered to keep down ship costs. The size of the ship has a relatively limited effect on price, it's just steel and air, but the amount of volume available will have a considerable impact on airwing size, ordnance and fuel, and so will have a significant effect on capability.

There's a reason why the Colossus/Majestic classes ceased to be viable carriers as soon naval aircraft became more capable than an A-4 Skyhawk, and why various navies with them either left the carrier club, brought Harrier or simply let their carrier airwing's capability atrophy with obsolete aircraft.

 

[F.L.]

what fighters are available to fly from these carriers ?

We've already discussed this earlier in the thread, and there are many possibilities.

 

[F.L.]

I they can't afford F-35B.

It's not a question of countries that don't have the financial resources, but of those that don't have export authorisation for F-35B from the US government.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

It's not a question of countries that don't have the financial resources, but of those that don't have export authorisation from the US government.

Those countries will cease to have carrier airwings then (at least beyond helicopters and drones).

 

[F.L.]

Those countries will cease to have carrier airwings then (at least beyond helicopters and drones).

Well, the point of the thread is if these countries decide to keep a naval air group with STOBAR or CATOBAR aircraft & to convert their V/STOL carrier for operationg them.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Well, the point of the thread is if these countries decide to keep a naval air group with STOBAR or CATOBAR aircraft & to convert their V/STOL carrier for operationg them.

If they can't keep a STOVL Carrier running, they will be incapable of keeping a STOBAR or CATOBAR carrier running especially with the extra cost of the conversion, finding a viable aircraft to use in the airwing, and extra cost of training their aircrews to make arrested landings.

 

[F.L.]

If they can't keep a STOVL Carrier running, they will be incapable of keeping a STOBAR or CATOBAR carrier running especially with the extra cost of the conversion, finding a viable aircraft to use in the airwing, and extra cost of training their aircrews to make arrested landings.

It's not a question of countries that don't have the financial resources, but of those that don't have export authorisation for F-35B from the US government.

Given that the F-35B is the only VTOL aircraft on the market and that the Harrier is no longer in production and none are on the second-hand market.
Certain countries do not have the authorisation of the US government to acquire F-35Bs. The aim of this thread is to consider whether they could convert their carriers to operate aircraft available on the market : Rafale M, MiG-29K, perhaps in a short future Sea Gripen...