The Centaur carrier fleet - a better fate...

GK Dundas said:
An RCN Centaur would be operational say roughly around 1973. Looking at three to five escorts plus an AOR depending on the threat and assignment.
Two DDG based a lengthened Tribal.
Name them after lakes or mountains or possibly even cities.
And DDHs for ASW .
Twelve sparrow equipped super tigers, twelve trackers and three to four E 1 Trackers. Four to five Sea Kings plus a twin huey for SAR and utility use.
I think it's possible to cram all that into improved Centaur. I suspect that assuming you can that do that. You pretty much exhausted the limits of the design.
Much the ways both Ark Royal and Eagle were mixed out with the Phantom/Buccaneers. Both in number's and capabilities.
Click to expand...
In 1973, Super Tiger is not an option. Grumman stopped offering it about 10 years earlier. At this point, Grumman was busy building Tomcats and Intruders. The only fighter options are Phantoms or refurbished Crusaders.
 
Who said manufactured by Grumman, How about under license starting roughly around 1964.
Around that time both the Air Force and the Navy were looking for a fighter. The The Air Force was tinkering with the idea of a replacement for the Sabres and the Navy desperately need something to help provide protection for the fleet.
The trick will be actually getting both services to even sit down and talk. Even Unification didn't solve that .
 
GK Dundas said:
Who said manufactured by Grumman, How about under license starting roughly around 1964.
Around that time both the Air Force and the Navy were looking for a fighter. The The Air Force was tinkering with the idea of a replacement for the Sabres and the Navy desperately need something to help provide protection for the fleet.
The trick will be actually getting both services to even sit down and talk. Even Unification didn't solve that .
Click to expand...
Canadair was awarded a 200 aircraft order for F-104s to build under license in 1959 specifically to replace the Sabres. The first one flew in May, 1961. They also built subassemblies for F-104s sold to Germany. In that competition, Canada chose the Starfighter directly over the Super Tiger (it had been offered by Grumman, but was eliminated by the RCAF).
 
SSgtC said:
In 1973, Super Tiger is not an option. Grumman stopped offering it about 10 years earlier.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the Super Tigers could have been acquired in the early 60s for use on the Bonnie, replacing the Banshees.
(Ps : Given that Super Étendards could operate aboard the 25 de Mayo, Super Tigers on the Bonnie seem to me very realistic.)
 
I suspect the Super Tigers were a bit much for Bonnie. That's ones of the reasons Some naval historians have lamented that we didn't take up the British offer of I believe Hermes just before she came out of her 1959 refit.
 
F.L. said:
Perhaps the Super Tigers could have been acquired in the early 60s for use on the Bonnie, replacing the Banshees.
(Ps : Given that Super Étendards could operate aboard the 25 de Mayo, Super Tigers on the Bonnie seem to me very realistic.)
Click to expand...
The issue is, no one else has them. And if they're only bought for the FAA, you're talking, what? 20-24 airframes? I don't think Grumman would even build it if that was their only order. You'd need Canada to choose the Super Tiger over the Starfighter in 1959 in order to make it worthwhile for Grumman
 
GK Dundas said:
I suspect the Super Tigers were a bit much for Bonnie. That's ones of the reasons Some naval historians have lamented that we didn't take up the British offer of I believe Hermes just before she came out of her 1959 refit.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the stock F-11A Tiger came in at 23,899 pounds MTOW with two Sidewinders and two 150 gallon drop tanks. The Super Tiger would probably be around 24,500-25,000 pounds. And Bonnie's deck could only take 24,000 pounds. Not to mention, the Tiger came in hotter than the Banshee did. The two aircraft have almost identical max landing weights, but the Banshee came in at 94 knots, while the Tiger came in at 107. And the Super Tiger, without BLC, would probably be in the 110-115 range.
 
F.L. said:
So why not F-11 Tigers ?
Peharps modernized with Sparrows in the late 60s, like the F-104S.
Click to expand...
Because they weren't any better at their job than say, an A-4 Skyhawk. In real terms, the Tiger was only marginally faster (IIRC, it could only go supersonic if it was clean or in a dive) and had roughly the same range. They were retired from front line service by 1961 (to really blow your mind, the Navy was starting to retire the type even before Grumman delivered the last airframe), a few were used as trainers until 1967, and a few more were flown by the Blue Angels until 69. So if you want Tigers, you need to either order them prior to 59 when the line closed (incidently this is why Grumman first developed and then subsequently offered the Super Tiger to Canada in the first place), or you need refurbished ones from out of the Boneyard. Keep in mind, Grumman stopped making parts for the Super Tiger around then as well. So spares will be an issue as the USN will have been cannibalizing the retired airframes for their own needs to keep their trainers and Blues aircraft flying.
 
SSgtC said:
Because they weren't any better at their job than say, an A-4 Skyhawk. In real terms, the Tiger was only marginally faster (IIRC, it could only go supersonic if it was clean or in a dive) and had roughly the same range. They were retired from front line service by 1961 (to really blow your mind, the Navy was starting to retire the type even before Grumman delivered the last airframe), a few were used as trainers until 1967, and a few more were flown by the Blue Angels until 69. So if you want Tigers, you need to either order them prior to 59 when the line closed (incidently this is why Grumman first developed and then subsequently offered the Super Tiger to Canada in the first place), or you need refurbished ones from out of the Boneyard. Keep in mind, Grumman stopped making parts for the Super Tiger around then as well. So spares will be an issue as the USN will have been cannibalizing the retired airframes for their own needs to keep their trainers and Blues aircraft flying.
Click to expand...

This sort of thing is so important but so underappreciated. There's no point in getting a super dooper plane on the cheap if you can't fly it for lack of a support system. This is why I consider the Super Tiger a paper plane for anyone other than the US, they didn't adopt it so no export customer will.
 
If the Centaur class can handle them. The French versions were modified to reduce their approach (and stall?) speed by 15kts and the Clems had 151' BS5 catapults. The Centaur had (I think) 139' BS4C catapults and the Hermes after the 1964-66 refit had a 145' BS4A and a 103' BS4. I can't recall if these can launch F8s.
 
Rule of cool said:
This sort of thing is so important but so underappreciated. There's no point in getting a super dooper plane on the cheap if you can't fly it for lack of a support system. This is why I consider the Super Tiger a paper plane for anyone other than the US, they didn't adopt it so no export customer will.
Click to expand...
I think if Grumman could have landed one of the major export contracts with either Germany, Canada, or Japan it would have been viable. Those three countries would have placed a big enough order to make it practical to produce and support. Especially if Grumman was willing to license production to those countries.

GK Dundas said:
So it looks like the only alternative is the F 8 Crusader as used by the Americans and the French Navy.
Click to expand...
Yes, but. The Crusader faces a similar issue the Tiger. The last one was built in 1965. And the US Navy tended fly the piss out of them until they were retired. Now, they do have a better support system, but I'm just not sure there's enough airframes available for Canada. France ordered theirs right at the end of the production run. So maybe Canada could do the same. But if they wait beyond that, it's probably going to be 1977 before they get any (the type was retired by the US in 76).
 
Is there any great need for a carrier which can carry a single jet sqn to have a supersonic fighter? Its not as if its powerful enough to take on any serious fighter opposition or supersonic AShM bombers. A4, A7 or Etendard would be enough to shoot down shadowers, take on coastal land targets with medium defences and attack ships at sea.
 
Rule of cool said:
Is there any great need for a carrier which can carry a single jet sqn to have a supersonic fighter? Its not as if its powerful enough to take on any serious fighter opposition or supersonic AShM bombers. A4, A7 or Etendard would be enough to shoot down shadowers, take on coastal land targets with medium defences and attack ships at sea.
Click to expand...
Without AEW I'd say there is a need for supersonic fighters for CAP.

You would need the speed to get in front of any bombers that weren't coming in square on your predicted threat axis.

With AEW, probably not, you'd have enough warning to get in the way and shoot at either bombers or AShMs.

But then you're asking ugly questions like "What AEW can you stuff into a Centaur?" Gannett?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Without AEW I'd say there is a need for supersonic fighters for CAP.

You would need the speed to get in front of any bombers that weren't coming in square on your predicted threat axis.

With AEW, probably not, you'd have enough warning to get in the way and shoot at either bombers or AShMs.

But then you're asking ugly questions like "What AEW can you stuff into a Centaur?" Gannett?
Click to expand...
E-1s, maybe
 
At the time I'm looking at early 1963 to roughly 1980. I suspect the E 1 Tracer is the most probable solution .
And most likely the only one available.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Without AEW I'd say there is a need for supersonic fighters for CAP.

You would need the speed to get in front of any bombers that weren't coming in square on your predicted threat axis.

With AEW, probably not, you'd have enough warning to get in the way and shoot at either bombers or AShMs.

But then you're asking ugly questions like "What AEW can you stuff into a Centaur?" Gannett?
Click to expand...

Its hard to think of examples, maybe the British in the Falklands when the 2 carriers were down to 17 SHars. I don't think small carriers operating independently would go anywhere they would have to mount a 24hr CAP or supersonic DLI because realistically its beyond their capability.

Canada in the NATO context would be operating in the North Atlantic in conjunction with Strike Fleet Atlantic and land based assets rather than swanning around on its own awaiting AVMF bombers. Australia (or other other potential operators) could likely have more independent missions, but the likely air threats to the carrier would also be facing F111/SAS attacks and whatever else Australia could throw at it, reducing the direct threat.
 
SSgtC said:
E-1s, maybe
Click to expand...
Was there something the French were working on before they decided on Hawkeyes? AEW version of the Alize?

But yes, a turboprop E1 would be the likely option. Turboprop to avoid having to have AvGas onboard as well as Jet A.


Rule of cool said:
Its hard to think of examples, maybe the British in the Falklands when the 2 carriers were down to 17 SHars. I don't think small carriers operating independently would go anywhere they would have to mount a 24hr CAP or supersonic DLI because realistically its beyond their capability.
Click to expand...
That takes 6-8 fighters for CAP, 3-5 fixed-wing AEW or 5-7 rotary-wing AEW, and ~3-5 helos for plane guard.


Rule of cool said:
Canada in the NATO context would be operating in the North Atlantic in conjunction with Strike Fleet Atlantic and land based assets rather than swanning around on its own awaiting AVMF bombers. Australia (or other other potential operators) could likely have more independent missions, but the likely air threats to the carrier would also be facing F111/SAS attacks and whatever else Australia could throw at it, reducing the direct threat.
Click to expand...
If Canada is concentrating on ASW, they may be escorting convoys. Which means that they'd need to be able to at least deal with the Bear-Fs providing targeting info to the subs...

IIRC the US CVS air wings only had 4x A-4s for their "fighter" element.
 
- A limited AEW capability existed after 1980 when the Alizé radar was replaced by a better one.
- In another thread (or maybe this one ?) the E-1B Tracer was shown to be able to operate out of very small carriers. Its oddly shaped radome seemingly acted like an anti-gravity device, lifting it over a very short distance.
- French navy thought about Tracers at both ends of the Clems lives: 1966 and 1986
- The USAF A-7D was to have a reheated TF30 to give it more thrust at takeoff. That was before they shifted to unreheated TF41
 
Scott Kenny said:
That takes 6-8 fighters for CAP, 3-5 fixed-wing AEW or 5-7 rotary-wing AEW, and ~3-5 helos for plane guard.
Click to expand...

The rule of thumb is that on a carrier a combat aircraft can fly 1 mission a day, on average, on a sustained basis. More is possible for short bursts, if you have the crews, but there will be a downtime after that. In the Falklands the SHars would fly CAPs during the day and DLI at night.

8 fighters would give you 4 x 2hr CAPs a day sustained or maybe 10 or 11 x 2hr CAPs over 2 days followed by withdrawal for maintenance.

Trackers, Tracers and Gannets can fly for 5-6 hours before their crews are knackered, however they tend to land serviceable so can post better averages than fighters and helicopters.

Even with 12 jets putting on a 24hr CAP would mean the carrier can't do anything else.
 
I have my own little TL idea where the A-7D keeps its reheated TF30 and go supersonic during flight testing. Then somebody at USAF says "It might be interesting to replace supersonic F-105s bomb trucks, with another supersonic bomb truck. How about making that A-7D supersonic by keeping the reheat after the change to TF41 ?
Wait - the british have such engine to power their F-4K Phantoms.
Wait again: how about putting these engine on that obese pig called the F-111B
- wait, wait again: or maybe its successor called the Grumman G-303 ? " It is like a snowball rolling down a hill...
 
Archibald said:
- In another thread (or maybe this one ?) the E-1B Tracer was shown to be able to operate out of very small carriers. Its oddly shaped radome seemingly acted like an anti-gravity device, lifting it over a very short distance.
Click to expand...
No, it just was another wing (a side view clearly shows the airfoil shape) - a thick, long-chord, narrow-span wing... making the E-1 Tracer a biplane! ;) :p


Gumman E-1B Tracer ANAPS-82.jpg
 
Of course, on the debit side the Tracer is a space-eater. About half as many Tracers can be accommodated as compared to Crusaders in the same space.
 
CV12Hornet said:
Of course, on the debit side the Tracer is a space-eater. About half as many Tracers can be accommodated as compared to Crusaders in the same space.
Click to expand...
IIRC from our previous discussions, the Tracer had a spot factor of 2.27 when using the Corsair as the baseline size for each "spot." So yeah, she's a big girl. On something the size of a Centaur, I don't think you're shipping more than 2 without running into major issues trying to fit the rest of a functional air group on board. As crazy as it is to say, something like a Gannet or AEW Skyraider is probably the better option so you can at least carry 4 aircraft and maintain round the clock radar coverage of your fleet

Edit: Just looked, and the USN flew the AD-5W with the AN/APS-20 radar until 1967, with the last operational deployment of the type being with VAW-13 Det N on USS Hornet. So it's possible that some might be in the Boneyard. Especially if Canada asks for them early enough
 
I'd suggest people wind their expectation back somewhat, a Centaur is never going to be a US super-carrier, or even an SCB125 Essex or Phantomised Ark Royal. Even the small air-group in the Ark has 12 fighters able to do 2.5hr missions as well a 2 Buccaneers specifically dedicated to in-flight refueling while still having 12 Buccaneers to deliver a very heavy attack at long range. IIRC SCB125 Essex carriers had 24 F8s, KA3 tankers but only 3 E1 Tracer AEW.

A word on these old AEW. The APS20 in the Gannet AEW had a bomber detection rage of ~85nm and a fighter detection range of ~65nm and of course and only look down. So it flew at 3,000' where that 65mn radius touched the surface and provided low level radar coverage of a circle 130mn across.

The APS82 in the E1 IIRC had a detection range of 110mn, and it was top mounted so could look up. It flew at 8,000' where the 110nm touched the surface so provided low level radar coverage of a circle 220nm across, but could also control fighters operating at medium levels.

However both of these aircraft only had 2 radar operators, so were limited in the number of tracks they could handle and fighters they could control. Apparently in Vietnam I think the Coral Sea lost its radar and/or comms as a big Alpha strike was returning to the carrier and the E1 distinguished itself by controlling all of the aircraft in the pattern and getting them all back on deck, a feat that should have been well beyond its capabilities.
 
Rule of cool said:
IIRC SCB125 Essex carriers had 24 F8s, KA3 tankers but only 3 E1 Tracer AEW.
Click to expand...
A typical air group for a Vietnam era Essex class CVA consisted of 24 F-8 Crusaders, 36 Skyhawks or Corsairs, 4 Tracers, 2-4 Photo Crusaders, 2-3 Skywarriors, 1-2 COD aircraft, and 4-8 helicopters. Total air group size was between 73 and 81 aircraft. They were packed pretty tightly. Compare this to the last fixed wing air group that Hermes flew: 7 Bucaneers, 12 Sea Vixens, 5 Gannets (4 AEW, 1 COD), and 6 Helicopters. Total? 31 aircraft, only 19 of which were suitable for the strike/fighter roles.

A theoretical Canadian Centaur, if operating Skyhawks or Corsairs, might be able to manage up to 24 attack aircraft while maintaining 4 AEW Gannets or Skyraiders. But if you want Tracers, you're probably maxed out at 18 Corsairs. Probably better off using them as ASW carriers with Trackers.
 
Or a multi-role carrier with the ability to sink ships, shoot down shadowers and other very useful stuff, but not steam alone to the Kola or Kamchatka peninsulas to take on the AVMF, or some air force with 50+ modern combat jets.

Its just about having realistic expectations. The HMAS Melbourne had no AEW and only 8 x A4s but was the most powerful non-USN warship in S.E.A. in the 70s, by a mile! She could be a major part of a full ADF air capability with F111s and Mirages or lead an allied Task Force backing up USN carriers.
 
My thought was warning for when the Bear-F comes. If a full strike package comes for the convoy you're escorting, the RCN is hosed.
 
Rule of cool said:
The rule of thumb is that on a carrier a combat aircraft can fly 1 mission a day, on average, on a sustained basis. More is possible for short bursts, if you have the crews, but there will be a downtime after that. In the Falklands the SHars would fly CAPs during the day and DLI at night.

8 fighters would give you 4 x 2hr CAPs a day sustained or maybe 10 or 11 x 2hr CAPs over 2 days followed by withdrawal for maintenance.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that depend on just how long the maintenance between flights takes? 8 fighters flying 2 on 6 off gives ~5 hours to do maintenance between flights.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom