Zumwalt "borrows" (and adapts) European carrier designs...

[SSgtC]

"More Midways" as a shorthand for "more attack carriers the size of the Midways"

I can see the use for small carriers as convoy escorts, where an LHA CVV/CVS would make sense. I don't really see the point of attack carriers smaller than Nimitz class. Carriers are exponentially more effective the larger they get, since they basically all need the same size crew but a bigger hull gives you more aircraft for roughly the same operating costs.

Which is why the Navy only wanted more Nimitz class instead of a "mid sized" carrier.

 

[Pirate Pete]

There seems to be a page missing (26?) as the text on page 25 ends mid-sentence.

My apologies- missing page now included

 

[uk 75]

The RN used its two Commando ships to carry ASW Seakings in addition to Commando versions. The three Invincibles and the new QEs all had/have a role in delivering Royal Marines.

Given that ASW helos take up valuable space on Nimitz ships would using the LHA/LHD to carry Seahawks or Seakings have been useful in wartime?

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Given that ASW helos take up valuable space on Nimitz ships would using the LHA/LHD to carry Seahawks or Seakings have been useful in wartime?

No, with a maximum sustained speed of 20 knots the LHAs and LHDs would be unable to accompany the CVAs/CVANs. Not to mention you're diverting valuable amphibious shipping from its intended role.

 

[uk 75]

I was going to start a new thread but this one seems to fit quite well.

For a variety of reasons US involvement in Vietnam ends in 1973 and not 1975. The US Navy turns to the growing problem of defending sealanes from Soviet submarines in tension or war.

Although the big carriers are getting S3 Viking and Seaking ASW assets, and Spruance ASW destroyers are on order to replace ageing FRAM destroyers the Sea Control Ship (SCS) and other small carrier designs appear to offer a solution similar to the WW2 jeep carriers.

The main obstacle to adding such a ship to US and NATO fleets is the absence of credible fixed wing aircraft to supplement the Seaking ASW.

With the UK looking at Harrier variants for its Though Deck cruisers, the USN looks at developing this plane.

US manufactures Convair and NA Rockwell have their own designs to bring to the table.

Canadair meanwhile is working with HS in the UK to develop an AEW version of its CL84.

The Ford administration in 1975 takes the Soviet threat seriously and encourage by SACLANT agrees to order a small carrier to work with the new Spruance class.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I was going to start a new thread but this one seems to fit quite well.

For a variety of reasons US involvement in Vietnam ends in 1973 and not 1975. The US Navy turns to the growing problem of defending sealanes from Soviet submarines in tension or war.

Although the big carriers are getting S3 Viking and Seaking ASW assets, and Spruance ASW destroyers are on order to replace ageing FRAM destroyers the Sea Control Ship (SCS) and other small carrier designs appear to offer a solution similar to the WW2 jeep carriers.

The main obstacle to adding such a ship to US and NATO fleets is the absence of credible fixed wing aircraft to supplement the Seaking ASW.

With the UK looking at Harrier variants for its Though Deck cruisers, the USN looks at developing this plane.

US manufactures Convair and NA Rockwell have their own designs to bring to the table.

Canadair meanwhile is working with HS in the UK to develop an AEW version of its CL84.

The Ford administration in 1975 takes the Soviet threat seriously and encourage by SACLANT agrees to order a small carrier to work with the new Spruance class.

Honestly, the biggest force towards getting an SCS or VSS out at sea would be the CL84 AEW (though I suspect that it'd have to be a bigger airframe than the CL84). So that the small carriers can have AEW that isn't stuck on a helicopter that can't fly at 25,000ft. Harriers could play fighter, I'm sure the USMC aviators would love a chance to go chase a Bear.

"We have everything to give this an acceptable air wing. 3 AEW Dynaverts, 4 Harriers, and a dozen Sea Kings for ASW."

 

[H_K]

Focusing on the attack carrier mission, I’ve been idly wondering if a smaller carrier than CVV might have worked.

CVV was in some ways too big - too close in size to a CVN, but sacrificed too much capability so was never going to compare well to a Nimitz. But perhaps if one could build an attack carrier half the size of a CVN at half the cost, things would be different?

To test this out, I’m playing around with my 45,000 ton medium carrier. Half the propulsion of a CVN, no expensive nuke plant, half the catapults, half the elevators, half the manpower…

Looks like it could take approx. 52 aircraft: 30 F/A-18, 10 A-6E, 4 KA-6D, 4 EA-6B and 4 E-2C.

I’ll have to draw it up.

Of course might be tough to build for half of what a CVN cost…

Coming back to this medium carrier discussion. @Cjc was asking me what a USN 45,000 ton carrier might look like (much like PA58), and whether it could carry F-14s. Short answer is "Yes"... it looks tight but doable (*just about*) with 253ft C7 catapults and a 650ft angled deck (long enough for Mk7 Mod 2 wires with a 310ft runout).

Here are 2 airgroups with 46-50 fixed wing aircraft:
20 F-14 or 24 F/A-18 fighters
18 A-6/KA-6 attack/tankers
4 EA-6B electronic warfare
4 E-2C AEW
5 SH-3D ASW helos

This would be similar to a CVN but without the 2 light attack squadrons (20 F/A-18 or 24 A-7) and without the ASW squadron (8-10 S-3 Vikings). Should be OK as the F-14s could contribute to attack/recon missions when not tasked with fleet air defense. This would probably require carrying a few more ASW helicopters on escorts.

Enjoy.

 

[Archibald]

Wow, never thought a 45 000 tons carrier could handle Tomcats.

 

[SSgtC]

Coming back to this medium carrier discussion. @Cjc was asking me what a USN 45,000 ton carrier might look like (much like PA58), and whether it could carry F-14s. Short answer is "Yes"... it looks tight but doable (*just about*) with 253ft C7 catapults and a 650ft angled deck (long enough for Mk7 Mod 2 wires with a 310ft runout).

Here are 2 airgroups with 46-50 fixed wing aircraft:
20 F-14 or 24 F/A-18 fighters
18 A-6/KA-6 attack/tankers
4 EA-6B electronic warfare
4 E-2C AEW
5 SH-3D ASW helos

This would be similar to a CVN but without the 2 light attack squadrons (20 F/A-18 or 24 A-7) and without the ASW squadron (8-10 S-3 Vikings). Should be OK as the F-14s could contribute to attack/recon missions when not tasked with fleet air defense. This would probably require carrying a few more ASW helicopters on escorts.

Enjoy.

View attachment 734112View attachment 734113

So, basically a redesigned Essex class. Because 45,000 tons was right about what Oriskany was at post modernization. The Navy is probably going to want at least an extra 10,000 tons for any proposed medium attack carrier. I can see 45,000 tons for the CVS design though. Put 20xS-3s, 10xF-14s, 4xE-2s, 8xSH-3s and probably 2-4 KA-6s on it and you've got a very capable CVS that can also provide a meaningful contribution to Fleet Air Defense

 

[H_K]

So, basically a redesigned Essex class.

Yes, the basic idea is a modern Essex.

There are some important detail differences though, to support modern jets:

• Much longer angled deck (650ft) and catapults (C7)
• The catapult arrangement is designed to improve cyclic ops, with the waist catapult allowing a bigger deck park forward
• The hangar is smaller, to make room for more workshops and more spacious accommodation spaces
• Finally I would assume a lower top speed (~28-29 knots), allowing a smaller propulsion plant and more fuel/munitions storage under the waterline

 

[1635yankee]

I know, alas, that CVA-01 was the proverbial camel - a horse designed by a committee...
This suppose an ATL where the french build PA58 and the british didn't failed CVA-01... Zumwalt become CNO in 1970.

The NIH is a major obstacle for sure.

Every real-world ship design is "by committee," as are all modern industrial projects. We can also see the problems with ships not designed by committee. See, for example, Fisher's large light cruisers.

A problem at least equal to NIH is the USN's requirements for carriers, which could not be met by anything much below 70,000 tons.

In any case, If they wanted a heli/VTOL carrier, they could start with something like USS Tarawa LHA-1.

 

[1635yankee]

This sounds like a Lewis Gilbert directed Bond movie or a Gerry Anderson series but 10 years earlier.

These submarines will need bases to operate from and where said bases are will have a lot of influence on the countermeasures that the USA and its allies employ.

I could see one of the authoritarian governments in South America trying that, on the grounds that being anti-communist would (and did) excuse a lot of sins.

 

[Volkodav]

From a 1978 Congress hearing.

View attachment 710020

View attachment 710021

Very interesting, I wonder if this relates in any way to the Modified LHA proposed for the RAN as a replacement for Melbourne. I had thought it was a VSTOL design, but I now wonder if it was related. According to cabinet papers on the replacement program, the RAAF and deputy chief scientist were both pushing for a CTOL design or nothing, I had thought it was looking to the PA75, i.e. a conventional Charles de Gaulle but now wonder if it had been this. I have actually speculated about the possibility of doing this and intended to build a Tarawa in 1/700 as a CVS, it is incredible to see this now.

 

[Volkodav]

A thought came to mind reading through this topic, that is do it under an expanded MDAP. The US uses MDAP to fund carrier development programs with allied nations but also inserts US tech and systems into the designs. When the other nation's systems are superior, arrange licencing agreements for US production, technology exchanges and pooled supply chains.

The US licenced Canberra bombers, Harrier, Saphire and Spey aircraft engines, codeveloping evolved versions. The 105mm L7 gun, as well, I'm sure there are many other examples. The US builds much of the Namer for Israel, US funded, Israeli design, US workers and companies benefiting.

Pre WWII the RN was planning and actually built within their means, Strike carriers (Ark Royal), Fleet Carriers (Illustrious), Cruiser Carriers (Hermes then Colossus and Majestic), Aviation Support Ships (Unicorn), as well as planned escort carriers. They never achieved the numbers they desired or needed.

WWII saw large strike carriers, fleet carriers, light fleet carriers and escort carriers built in numbers, in particular the USNs "Essex Swarm". Postwar these ships served on and some were upgraded, smaller ships were supplied to allies, both upgraded and standard. By the 1960s these ships were showing their age and were also too small and limited. However, even the US lacked the resources to replace everything like with like. The US had to get out of the CVS and fleet carrier game, concentrating on super-carriers and specific amphibious support carriers, while other nations switched to V/STOL STO/VL, or got out of carriers altogether.

A MDAP carrier program could have been very interesting, the US funding the UK to develop a Fleet Carrier / CVA, the French to do a Light Fleet Carrier / CVS, while the US develops supercarriers. Maybe a joint NATO helicopter carrier and amphibious assault carriers even a CVE.

 

[Scott Kenny]

A thought came to mind reading through this topic, that is do it under an expanded MDAP. The US uses MDAP to fund carrier development programs with allied nations but also inserts US tech and systems into the designs. When the other nation's systems are superior, arrange licencing agreements for US production, technology exchanges and pooled supply chains.

The US licenced Canberra bombers, Harrier, Saphire and Spey aircraft engines, codeveloping evolved versions. The 105mm L7 gun, as well, I'm sure there are many other examples. The US builds much of the Namer for Israel, US funded, Israeli design, US workers and companies benefiting.

Especially in the 1960s, Not Invented Here was a major issue. The J65 was never as capable as the Saphire it was developed from, mostly due to US "improvements" (read: changes for the sake of having American designs).

Pre WWII the RN was planning and actually built within their means, Strike carriers (Ark Royal), Fleet Carriers (Illustrious), Cruiser Carriers (Hermes then Colossus and Majestic), Aviation Support Ships (Unicorn), as well as planned escort carriers. They never achieved the numbers they desired or needed.

And after WW2 the RN no longer had the economy of the British Empire to pay for everything.

WWII saw large strike carriers, fleet carriers, light fleet carriers and escort carriers built in numbers, in particular the USNs "Essex Swarm". Postwar these ships served on and some were upgraded, smaller ships were supplied to allies, both upgraded and standard. By the 1960s these ships were showing their age and were also too small and limited. However, even the US lacked the resources to replace everything like with like. The US had to get out of the CVS and fleet carrier game, concentrating on super-carriers and specific amphibious support carriers, while other nations switched to V/STOL STO/VL, or got out of carriers altogether.

A MDAP carrier program could have been very interesting, the US funding the UK to develop a Fleet Carrier / CVA, the French to do a Light Fleet Carrier / CVS, while the US develops supercarriers. Maybe a joint NATO helicopter carrier and amphibious assault carriers even a CVE.

Honestly, I think the right way to set up the MDAP Carrier program is US pays UK and France to build Midway-sized carriers (whether Nuclear powered or conventional), and NATO as a whole gets a general Helicopter Carrier/Commando Carrier/LPH class that may or may not keep a couple of catapults for AEW planes, probably 32ktons or so in size (smaller than the US Tarawa-class, bigger than Clem and Foch). UK and France would have 3x LHAs each, Italy and Spain would each have a couple, maybe even Germany having a couple more as ASW helo carriers/convoy escorts. Oz could choose between the Midway-size carriers or the LPH-with-catapults. Might be worth trying to keep India as a US/UK ally instead of Pakistan and let them buy a couple of LPH-with-catapults new and then buy a couple of the NATO carriers when UK/France retire them for new builds.

Could offer Brazil the LPH-with-catapults design, too.

Maybe get Japan to have a few as "ASW Helicopter destroyers" as well, without catapults.

 

[uk 75]

If only the UK had built 2 to 3 Malta class from 1945 to 1960 instead of the Audacious.
These ships would have been copied by France building Foch and Clemenceau to the same size as Verdun.
With Buccaneers to handle strike and a VG interceptor from Vickers-Dassault and AEW/COD from DeHav- Breguet.
Hermes, Centaur, Bulwark and Albion would be converted in the late 50s to ASW/Commando ships.

 

[Volkodav]

Especially in the 1960s, Not Invented Here was a major issue. The J65 was never as capable as the Saphire it was developed from, mostly due to US "improvements" (read: changes for the sake of having American designs).



And after WW2 the RN no longer had the economy of the British Empire to pay for everything.



Honestly, I think the right way to set up the MDAP Carrier program is US pays UK and France to build Midway-sized carriers (whether Nuclear powered or conventional), and NATO as a whole gets a general Helicopter Carrier/Commando Carrier/LPH class that may or may not keep a couple of catapults for AEW planes, probably 32ktons or so in size (smaller than the US Tarawa-class, bigger than Clem and Foch). UK and France would have 3x LHAs each, Italy and Spain would each have a couple, maybe even Germany having a couple more as ASW helo carriers/convoy escorts. Oz could choose between the Midway-size carriers or the LPH-with-catapults. Might be worth trying to keep India as a US/UK ally instead of Pakistan and let them buy a couple of LPH-with-catapults new and then buy a couple of the NATO carriers when UK/France retire them for new builds.

Could offer Brazil the LPH-with-catapults design, too.

Maybe get Japan to have a few as "ASW Helicopter destroyers" as well, without catapults.

Many in the US saw the utility of Midway / CVA01 sized carriers as well as modern light fleet carriers such as France operated, and the small to very small STOVL and Helicopter Carriers and helicopter cruisers. The issue has always been the Congress Critters and the likelihood they would say "A carrier is a carrier, no matter its size" and cut back large carrier numbers if the USN adopted perfectly good enough ships to replace the upgraded Essex as they aged out.

The US offered modernised Essex Class carriers to Australia, Canada and the UK to help keep them in the carrier game. As others have mentioned CVLs and CVEs were transferred to France and Spain, the US has demonstrated they wanted allies to get into and stay in the carrier game. With no new build ships in those classifications, the US lost the ability to help allies help them.

By using MDAP the USN could concentrate on Large Carriers and Large Decked Amphibs, while supported allies could operate medium and light CTOL carriers, as well as STOVL and Helo carriers. Because they were MDAP the smaller ships would use many US systems, providing economies of scale as well as export dollars, and the use of the allied development and design teams would complement and improve US innovation.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Many in the US saw the utility of Midway / CVA01 sized carriers as well as modern light fleet carriers such as France operated, and the small to very small STOVL and Helicopter Carriers and helicopter cruisers. The issue has always been the Congress Critters and the likelihood they would say "A carrier is a carrier, no matter its size" and cut back large carrier numbers if the USN adopted perfectly good enough ships to replace the upgraded Essex as they aged out.

Well, that and the fact that a carrier has pretty much the same crew requirements regardless of how many planes are in the air wing, and bigger carriers can handle more and larger planes much more easily.

Midways were 3/4 the displacement of the Forrestal-class, but only carried about half the number of planes.

Essex-class were about the right size for LPHs/LHAs or "helicopter carriers with catapults" able to operate AEW and maybe a handful of light fighters in addition to the helicopters. The USN wouldn't want their LPHs to have catapults because Congress would cut funding to the carriers able to do something more than operate helicopters. But NATO navies would be perfectly fine with having their LPH/LHAs with catapults to operate AEW, to act as convoy escorts.

May actually end up with two different "small carrier" designs, not so much "with and without catapults" as "with and without well decks" as the major difference. No well deck you get 2-3 catapults because not having a well deck gives you much better lines around the stern and so higher speeds. If you have a well deck you don't have any catapults (mostly to keep the USN happy). So, a CVE/CVS versus an LHD.

The US offered modernised Essex Class carriers to Australia, Canada and the UK to help keep them in the carrier game. As others have mentioned CVLs and CVEs were transferred to France and Spain, the US has demonstrated they wanted allies to get into and stay in the carrier game. With no new build ships in those classifications, the US lost the ability to help allies help them.

By using MDAP the USN could concentrate on Large Carriers and Large Decked Amphibs, while supported allies could operate medium and light CTOL carriers, as well as STOVL and Helo carriers. Because they were MDAP the smaller ships would use many US systems, providing economies of scale as well as export dollars, and the use of the allied development and design teams would complement and improve US innovation.

Right, but the size "light carriers" the US needed to push was Essex size, 32ktons. That takes some painful thinking to wrap your brain around. Nobody operates anything as small as the Spanish Principe de Asturias, instead you're running ships about twice that displacement and able to actually run an air group big enough to have ~12-16 Sea Kings, 3-5 E-2 Hawkeyes AEWs, and ~4-8 A-4 or AV-8s. Spain and Italy would want these, and probably 2-3 each, as would UK and France. Using the same powerplants in both CVE/CVS and LHD would be advantageous, would give you even bigger economies of scale.

The fleet carriers are Midway-sized (different shape, Midways were a bit wet and fixing the low ride ruined their roll characteristics). 45ktons empty, 60k full load. I'd want ~75ft from waterline to flight deck, flight deck shape and layout like the Coral Sea, and whatever hull shape it'd take to make that happen. 3 catapults, 2x shorter cats forward, longer cat at the waist. Maybe make the starboard bow cat long, but the port bow cat needs to stay short to keep it out of the angled deck.

So again, the idea is to get UK and France using a Midway-sized carrier, 2-3 each, plus 2-3 LHDs each. Spain, Italy, and Germany get pushed to buy 2-3 CVS each, Germany homeports theirs in Bremerhaven so they wouldn't be trapped in the Baltic in case of WW3.

We could also probably push for some NATO standard LPDs. LPDs only have a half flight deck, LHDs have a full flight deck. Build the hulls in whichever country is going to operate it, build the equipment wherever the best supplier for that item is. So UK might make the turbines and reduction gears, Spain makes the boilers or GTs, Germany the defensive guns, etc.

 

[Archibald]

Midways were 3/4 the displacement of the Forrestal-class, but only carried about half the number of planes.

That's my understanding too. Texbook case: the CVV as cut-down carrier alternative to Nimitz and co.

Long story short: when cutting down carrier designs in hope of saving some bucks, the silver lining is : capabilities drops much faster than cost.

More pointedly: cutting a 100 000 tons carrier design to 80 000 or 65 000 tons cuts right into the number of catapults and airplane, which are key factors in the number of daily strikes delivered from the ship. All this for too-limited costs savings.

Didn't CVV ended no better than a JFK redux ? (they were, what, $100 million appart in total costs, from memory)
So they asked, what was the point in starting from scratch, which made CVV de facto more expensive overall ? It ended on that absurd situation.

Indirectly related: nowadays drones and F-35B on larger and larger amphibious ships further undermine the case of a CVV.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That's my understanding too. Texbook case: the CVV as cut-down carrier alternative to Nimitz and co.

Long story short: when cutting down carrier designs in hope of saving some bucks, the silver lining is : capabilities drops much faster than cost.

More pointedly: cutting a 100 000 tons carrier design to 80 000 or 65 000 tons cuts right into the number of catapults and airplane, which are key factors in the number of daily strikes delivered from the ship. All this for too-limited costs savings.

Didn't CVV ended no better than a JFK redux ? (they were, what, $100 million appart in total costs, from memory)
So they asked, what was the point in starting from scratch, which made CVV de facto more expensive overall ? It ended on that absurd situation.

Indirectly related: nowadays drones and F-35B on larger and larger amphibious ships further undermine the case of a CVV.

That said, there's still a mission slot for something carrying a dozen or more ASW helicopters, ~4x AEW if fixed wing, lots more if helos, and 4x-8x fighters. 4x for deck launched intercept, 8x for CAP. More fighters would be better, but 8 is enough for 3-5 days of 24/7 CAP flights. And that's enough to get from NY to Rotterdam. Pacific side, you'd want more like 12-16x fighters.

That's the modern CVE/CVS.

 

[Hood]

Call my sceptical but the differing naval standards between NATO navies would make any common design difficult and expensive. We've yet to see many effective ship designs shared by more than two partners.
As much as I love the idea of common NATO vessels I can imagine it would take the Admirals 5 years of talking just to decide what inflammable stuffing goes into the Chief Petty Officers' settee.

 

[Volkodav]

That said, there's still a mission slot for something carrying a dozen or more ASW helicopters, ~4x AEW if fixed wing, lots more if helos, and 4x-8x fighters. 4x for deck launched intercept, 8x for CAP. More fighters would be better, but 8 is enough for 3-5 days of 24/7 CAP flights. And that's enough to get from NY to Rotterdam. Pacific side, you'd want more like 12-16x fighters.

That's the modern CVE/CVS.

Yes, and this day and age with UAVs there is also a place for a UAV/Helo carrier, a more specialised CVE.

 

[Volkodav]

Call my sceptical but the differing naval standards between NATO navies would make any common design difficult and expensive. We've yet to see many effective ship designs shared by more than two partners.
As much as I love the idea of common NATO vessels I can imagine it would take the Admirals 5 years of talking just to decide what inflammable stuffing goes into the Chief Petty Officers' settee.

It could work if those who want a medium carrier settle on one design and those who want a light carrier settle on another. Cats and traps would be common, or at least major components of them would be, other systems navies could mix and match to meet their own requirements and support systems.

MDAP would just take a lot of the cost and duplication out of the design process.

Think of it more a VW group car, technically the Golf, A3, Octavia and Leon are all the same platform but couldn't be more different. Then there are the SUV and other variants. Then there's the other synergies between models.

US is VW, then each nation has their sportier, more practical (for them, etc. derivative using the parts bin. Larger, smaller, taller shorter, faster, more economical.

 

[bobtdwarf]

It could work if those who want a medium carrier settle on one design and those who want a light carrier settle on another. Cats and traps would be common, or at least major components of them would be, other systems navies could mix and match to meet their own requirements and support systems.

MDAP would just take a lot of the cost and duplication out of the design process.

Think of it more a VW group car, technically the Golf, A3, Octavia and Leon are all the same platform but couldn't be more different. Then there are the SUV and other variants. Then there's the other synergies between models.

US is VW, then each nation has their sportier, more practical (for them, etc. derivative using the parts bin. Larger, smaller, taller shorter, faster, more economical.

badge engineering warships.... interesting concept

 

[H_K]

It could work if those who want a medium carrier settle on one design and those who want a light carrier settle on another

There *was* a light carrier design available… Clemenceau & Foch (32,000t full load) but no one seemed interested. Probably rightly so as they were just too limited in terms of the aircraft they could launch & recover.

A real medium carrier with longer cats & traps for E-2 Hawkeye, F-4s etc would require a ~45,000t full load design like the one I sketched out at the top of this page. Basically PA58 Verdun, which was Essex sized.

But… that overlaps too closely with a ~60,000t fleet carrier design like CVA-01 or CVV (modern Midway equivalent).

So I don’t see many buyers for the light carrier. Only the RN had the budget for the large fleet carrier... until it didn’t. The medium 45,000t carrier would have been a good compromise between UK & French requirements, and potentially doable for Australia, Italy and Canada (stretching a little… or a lot). The key would have been to value engineer every detail to take out the expensive bits, while keeping a fairly large platform.

 

[PFJN]

Coming back to this medium carrier discussion. @Cjc was asking me what a USN 45,000 ton carrier might look like (much like PA58), and whether it could carry F-14s. Short answer is "Yes"... it looks tight but doable (*just about*) with 253ft C7 catapults and a 650ft angled deck (long enough for Mk7 Mod 2 wires with a 310ft runout).

...

Hi,
Iknow that this post was fromearlier this year, but since this thread has become active again, I'm hoping its OK to post a reply to this post now.

Overall, the fact that an F-14 would hang sofar over the edge of the lifts,which would be fairly close to the water in the down position and the fact that when launching they would have their wings extended would likely make trying to operate such a plane from such a ship all but impossible.

 

[H_K]

Overall, the fact that an F-14 would hang sofar over the edge of the lifts,which would be fairly close to the water in the down position and the fact that when launching they would have their wings extended would likely make trying to operate such a plane from such a ship all but impossible.

I accounted for the F-14’s (and Hawkeye’s) wingspan when drawing the bow catapult safety line, so launching should not be an issue.

Elevator operations in inclement weather would be an interesting challenge… I was patterning on the Midway forward lift layout but perhaps there should be an option for the forward lift to be built inwards (as on Clemenceau) instead of along the deck edge…

 

[bobtdwarf]

I accounted for the F-14’s (and Hawkeye’s) wingspan when drawing the bow catapult safety line, so launching should not be an issue.

Elevator operations in inclement weather would be an interesting challenge… I was patterning on the Midway forward lift layout but perhaps there should be an option for the forward lift to be built inwards (as on Clemenceau) instead of along the deck edge…

I don't know what the clearance of the lift would be on PA-58, never seen it listed or don't remember it.... any idea what it is?

 

[uk 75]

It is instructive to see how different the current carrier designs are for the US and Allied navies.
Only the Spanish Juan Carlos design has found another operator in the RAN.
Each country has developed ships that reflect differing traditions and roles.

 

[BlackBat242]

Well, that and the fact that a carrier has pretty much the same crew requirements regardless of how many planes are in the air wing, and bigger carriers can handle more and larger planes much more easily.

Midways were 3/4 the displacement of the Forrestal-class, but only carried about half the number of planes.

Not correct.

Lets look at 1987.

CV-41 Midway: 74 aircraft
VFA-195 (12 x F/A-18A)
VFA-151 (12 x F/A-18A)
VFA-192 (12 x F/A-18A)
VA-185 (12 x A-6E and KA-6D)
VA-115 (12 x A-6E and KA-6D)
VAW-115 (4 x E-2C)
VAQ-136 (4 x EA-6B)
HS-12 (6 x SH-3H)

CV-43 Coral Sea: 74 aircraft
VFA-131 (12 x F/A-18A)
VFA-136 (12 x F/A-18A)
VFA-137 (12 x F/A-18A)
VA-55 (12 x A-6E)
VA-65 (12 x A-6E/KA-6D)
VAW-127 (4 x E-2C)
VAQ-133 (4 x EA-6B)
HS-17 (6 x SH-3H)

CV-60 Saratoga: 84 aircraft
VF-74 (12 x F-14A)
VF-103 (12 x F-14A)
VA-81 (12 x A-7E)
VA-83 (12 x A-7E)
VA-85 (14 x A-6E and KA-6D)
VAQ-137 (4 x EA-6B)
VAW-125 (4 x E-2C)
VS-30 (8 x -3A)
HS-3 (6 x SH-3H)

CV-61 Ranger*: 70 aircraft
VF-1 (12 x F-14A)
VF-2 (12 x F-14A)
VMA(AW)-121 (12 x A-6E)
VA-145 (12 x A-6E and KA-6D)
VAW-116 (4 x E-2C)
VAQ-131 (4 x EA-6B)
VS-38 (8 x S-3A)
HS-14 (6 x SH-3H)

Note however that during the Vietnam War A-4 & A-7 squadrons tended to have 18 aircraft each, and dedicated recon aircraft were carried (RF-8A/G, RF-4B, RA-5C) so even after the S-3As are subtracted (not carried by the large carriers then) the numbers would be around 90-95 for the supercarriers and about 74-80 for the Midways.


* Ranger and CV-67 Kennedy in the mid-late 1980s had not been readied to operate F/A-18 Hornets, but there was a shortage of A-7Es due to the re-equipping of squadrons out-pacing the upgrading of carrier support equipment, so Ranger operated what was called "the Kennedy Air-Wing" in 1985-1993 and Kennedy did so in 1983-89 (her 1986-87 deployment kept the two A-6E squadrons and added one A-7E squadron while the ones before & after had none).

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not correct.

Lets look at 1987.

CV-41 Midway: 74 aircraft
VFA-195 (12 x F/A-18A)
VFA-151 (12 x F/A-18A)
VFA-192 (12 x F/A-18A)
VA-185 (12 x A-6E and KA-6D)
VA-115 (12 x A-6E and KA-6D)
VAW-115 (4 x E-2C)
VAQ-136 (4 x EA-6B)
HS-12 (6 x SH-3H)

CV-43 Coral Sea: 74 aircraft
VFA-131 (12 x F/A-18A)
VFA-136 (12 x F/A-18A)
VFA-137 (12 x F/A-18A)
VA-55 (12 x A-6E)
VA-65 (12 x A-6E/KA-6D)
VAW-127 (4 x E-2C)
VAQ-133 (4 x EA-6B)
HS-17 (6 x SH-3H)

CV-60 Saratoga: 84 aircraft
[Air wing too different, A-7s instead of A-6s]

CV-61 Ranger*: 70 aircraft
VF-1 (12 x F-14A)
VF-2 (12 x F-14A)
VMA(AW)-121 (12 x A-6E)
VA-145 (12 x A-6E and KA-6D)
VAW-116 (4 x E-2C)
VAQ-131 (4 x EA-6B)
VS-38 (8 x S-3A)
HS-14 (6 x SH-3H)

Gotta compare like with like, boss.

The catch is that the bigger carriers were running F-14s instead of F-18s. What's the spot factor for a Tomcat versus F-18, ~1.5?

I'm going to build up from the bottom, the support squadrons. Each carrier is bringing 6x SH-3s, 4x EA-6Bs, and 4x E-2Cs. Now we add the strike squadrons, 24x A-6. And now for the major difference, Ranger is carrying 24x Tomcats while the Midways are carrying 36x Hornets.

Putting the same planes on the Midways and they're operating 62 birds while Ranger is operating 70+, able to carry an entire extra support squadron plus recon det.

Yes, and this day and age with UAVs there is also a place for a UAV/Helo carrier, a more specialised CVE.

Yes, these days it's almost certainly possible to use UAVs for your fixed wing AEW and ASW support, say with a GA Mojave STOL drone.

 

[H_K]

Lets look at 1987.

CV-41 Midway: 74 aircraft
VFA-195 (12 x F/A-18A)
VFA-151 (12 x F/A-18A)
VFA-192 (12 x F/A-18A)
VA-185 (12 x A-6E and KA-6D)
VA-115 (12 x A-6E and KA-6D)
VAW-115 (4 x E-2C)
VAQ-136 (4 x EA-6B)
HS-12 (6 x SH-3H)


CV-60 Saratoga: 84 aircraft
VF-74 (12 x F-14A)
VF-103 (12 x F-14A)
VA-81 (12 x A-7E)
VA-83 (12 x A-7E)
VA-85 (14 x A-6E and KA-6D)
VAQ-137 (4 x EA-6B)
VAW-125 (4 x E-2C)
VS-30 (8 x -3A)
HS-3 (6 x SH-3H)

IIRC during deployments some aircraft would be left ashore due to space constraints.

During the Gulf War for example, Midway had 30 (vs 36) F/A-18s and 18 (vs 24) A-6s. So a total of 62 aircraft on board vs 72 theoretically assigned to the air wing.

Likewise Saratoga had 20 (vs 24) F-14s, 18 (vs 24) F/A-18s, but 18 (vs 14) A-6s. So a total of 78 aircraft on board vs 84 theoretically assigned.

(Source: https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-98-1.pdf)

So in practice carriers never carried their full air wing. I remember some congressional testimony where the Navy was challenged about this and asked whether they were fudging their numbers… the Navy’s answer was that in wartime the carriers could carry their full air group as an overload, by increasing deck density and unloading liberty boats to free up space in the hangar. Not totally convincing but there you have it…

 

[BlackBat242]

Gotta compare like with like, boss.

The catch is that the bigger carriers were running F-14s instead of F-18s. What's the spot factor for a Tomcat versus F-18, ~1.5?

I'm going to build up from the bottom, the support squadrons. Each carrier is bringing 6x SH-3s, 4x EA-6Bs, and 4x E-2Cs. Now we add the strike squadrons, 24x A-6. And now for the major difference, Ranger is carrying 24x Tomcats while the Midways are carrying 36x Hornets.

Putting the same planes on the Midways and they're operating 62 birds while Ranger is operating 70+, able to carry an entire extra support squadron plus recon det.



Yes, these days it's almost certainly possible to use UAVs for your fixed wing AEW and ASW support, say with a GA Mojave STOL drone.

But your claim I was responding to said the Midways could only operate HALF the aircraft the Forrestals did - which would mean 35 : 70 or 45 : 90.

Not 62 vs 70-80.

 

[BlackBat242]

IIRC during deployments some aircraft would be left ashore due to space constraints.

During the Gulf War for example, Midway had 30 (vs 36) F/A-18s and 18 (vs 24) A-6s. So a total of 62 aircraft on board vs 72 theoretically assigned to the air wing.

Likewise Saratoga had 20 (vs 24) F-14s, 18 (vs 24) F/A-18s, but 18 (vs 14) A-6s. So a total of 78 aircraft on board vs 84 theoretically assigned.

(Source: https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-98-1.pdf)

So in practice carriers never carried their full air wing. I remember some congressional testimony where the Navy was challenged about this and asked whether they were fudging their numbers… the Navy’s answer was that in wartime the carriers could carry their full air group as an overload, by increasing deck density and unloading liberty boats to free up space in the hangar. Not totally convincing but there you have it…

And as I noted to Scott Kenny, 62 vs 78 is NOT "about half the number of planes" like was claimed!

 

[CV12Hornet]

The CVV and CVA-01 designs are definitely about the minimum viable fleet carrier. Any smaller and you have to start operating smaller aircraft, with noteworthy penalties in this era of aircraft design.

If only the UK had built 2 to 3 Malta class from 1945 to 1960 instead of the Audacious.
These ships would have been copied by France building Foch and Clemenceau to the same size as Verdun.
With Buccaneers to handle strike and a VG interceptor from Vickers-Dassault and AEW/COD from DeHav- Breguet.
Hermes, Centaur, Bulwark and Albion would be converted in the late 50s to ASW/Commando ships.

Maltas are bigger, but they don't really change the fundamentals of the RN's postwar carrier problems (aging WW2-era hulls and machinery; much painstaking refit work needed to bring them up to modern aviation standards; oversized planned force structures).

That the French would have copied them is a laughable proposition. The Clemenceaus are far more modern, and more importantly, French-designed and built.

 

[uk 75]

My point if you read it was that Foch and Clemenceau would have been Verdun sized not designed like the Maltas but French designed.
The Maltas would have been no more unreliable than Eagle/Ark but much easier to update.
Having them would have made it easier to build similar sized CVA01 ships without the expensive radars and CF299/Seadart some time in the 1960s.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Having them would have made it easier to build similar sized CVA01 ships without the expensive radars and CF299/Seadart some time in the 1960s.

Not really. Can't build them in the 1950s as the force structure shrinks without other hanges, and Maltas don't change the dynamics of the 1966 review.

 

[uk 75]

I think you will find that the events of 1966 were heavily influenced by the limited choices of carriers available to the RN (Hermes in particular) and the need to order CVA01 that year.
With two or three Maltas instead of the Ark, Eagle, Hermes and Victorious their conversion and replacement by new build ships would have been stretched over more years and been less fraught.
However, getting two much less three Maltas built from 1945 to 1960 required the scrapping of much of the rest of the carrier fleet and as we know the RN tended to stick with ships it already had built.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Their replacement would not have been stretched out over more years. The Maltas are the same vintage of ship as the Audaciouses, only a few years newer at best, with the same-tech propulsion machinery and electrical systems, and are thus going to age out around the same time, which is why I keep saying they don't really solve any of the problems the RN faced with their carrier fleet.

By 1960 the RN is still going to be staring down the barrel of replacing the Maltas by 1975. That means CVA-01, that means the same decisions that lead to CVA-01's cancellation in 1966.

 

[Archibald]

By this point, having learned about HMS Africa I think an all-out Audacious class building (four of them) might be the RN best case scenario. With perfect, 20/20 hindsight, they are the one and only just big enough to handle Phantoms - 15 years in the future, 1945 - 1960. Four of them would be appreciable. Maybe this would help nixing the impossible-to-rebuild 2-1-3 Illustrious class.