8 ms·

A Renaissance for Small Aircraft Carriers?

20 points by protomyth 10y ago

Animats 10y ago
The US Navy has already done this. They're called "amphibious assault ships", and the US has 8 of the Wasp class.[1] The USMC operates helicopters and Harriers from them. The plan was to use F-35s with VTOL capability, but they cost too much. Now they're stuck with these mini-carriers that don't have enough reach for inland targets. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_...
- bb611 10y ago
  The F-35B is still being deployed on the Wasp class: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35b-completes-first-sea-trials-on-the-uss-wasp https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35b-completes-first-sea-tr... The problem is that without a catapult the takeoff weight and therefore range and armament of any aircraft is greatly reduced. That's a problem fundamental to the Wasp class.
  - Animats 10y ago
    The F-35 will be used on the Wasp class, but not in the numbers originally planned. The F-35 just costs too much. The Navy's problem is that, in recent decades, most of the US's enemies have been far from a coast. They need range, more range than helicopters can provide, to project power inland. Hence the Osprey and the F-35. But the price of VTOL is very high in many directions - expensive, reduced payload, and fragile. Without sea-based long-reach air power, and without friendly territory in the neighborhood, it's back to the old way - land Marines, establish a beachhead, build an airfield, and invite the Air Force to come over with their big iron. The US won WWII in the Pacific that way, but it was slow, bloody and expensive.
sanjeetsuhag 10y ago
The STOVL capability of the F-35B comes with a cost. According to the Congressional Research Service, the projected flyway cost for the various models are : F-35A : 77.7 million USD F-35B : 105.5 million USD F-35C : 89.7 million USD
- gaius 10y ago
  The B is the most expensive and least capable in terms of range/endurance and weapons carried.
  - Alupis 10y ago
    > The B is the most expensive and least capable in terms of range/endurance and weapons carried. And oddly enough, it's the model that drove most of the program's requirements. Why civilians in congress thought it was a good idea to have a one-size-fits-all Fighter/Attacker is beyond me, but then to effectively allow Marine requirements to pollute specifications for the two branches of the military that operate the most aircraft is another thing entirely.
    - WesleyLivesay 10y ago
      Actually, I know exactly why they thought it was a good idea. At the time they were sold a platform that would have a large amount of part commonality, be very low purchase cost, and low maintenance cost. With the latter assisted by the fact that the entire US Military establishment would be using it. I feel that explaining why the civilian government thought it was a good idea is one of the easier things to explain in the entire F-35 saga.
      - gaius 10y ago
        They should have paid more attention to the RAF's experience of trying to make the Tornado fulfil all roles...
        WesleyLivesay 10y ago
        No doubt. I think the allure of a one-size-fits-all aircraft is just too tempting. For each new generation people just throw away the failures of the past by claiming that NOW we have the technology to not have those same issues.
        gsnedders 10y ago
gaius 10y ago
I fear we will come to bitterly regret building the QE class without cats and traps, or without nuclear power. I mean even more so than every sane taxpayer in the UK does already. A US carrier battlegroup contains the carrier itself, and a cruiser and two destroyers to protect it. We will have two carriers and a grand total of 6 destroyers, no cruisers. So the choices are abandon all other commitments and use the entire rest of the Royal Navy for force protection for the carriers, or leave the carriers as sitting ducks. Yes I know only one carrier will be at sea at a time. All six destroyers won't be at sea at the same time either! Did I mention no cats and traps? That means we are forced to rely on rotary wing for AEW - a decision that cost dearly in the Falklands. Helicopters simply don't have the altitude or endurance for that mission. So we have a fleet that can't see, can't fight, and can't stay at sea for very long. And there's no money left.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  I would guess that at this point, the notion is that in any serious conflict the US would be involved. Those gaps could be easily filled in that context.
  - gydfi 10y ago
    One of the main goals of the RN's aircraft carrier program is presumably to help out in any Falklands War II, and the US stayed out of it last time (for reasons I've never understood -- wtf Ronnie?)
    - rodgerd 10y ago
      Maintaining the remaining tattered shreds of the British Empire was less important to US interests that not annoying their South American client states.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      That's true, but do you really think we'd stay neutral again? The "Special Relationship" has only been more emphasized over the last decades, and we probably owe some for co-opting their PM and dragging them into Iraq.
nostrademons 10y ago
Light carriers (CVLs) have had a very troubled history. They were the very first aircraft carriers, from USS Langley & HMS Argus, and were frequently built to use up extra treaty tonnage (USS Ranger, IJN Ryujo) or when fleet carriers weren't ready yet (USS Independence class). But they almost always exhibited poor seakeeping characteristics and could carry only small air wings, which prevented them from being very useful in combat. Light carriers haven't proven the decisive element in any major sea battles, and major naval powers usually relegated them to playing support roles for fleet carriers or doing aircraft-ferrying or escort jobs. I would bet against them being all that useful now, too. Escort carriers (CVEs), however, don't get nearly enough praise. Aside from one decisive strategic victory (the Battle of Samar) where U.S. escort carriers beat back the main body of the Japanese navy under overwhelming odds, they also were a major factor in winning the Battle of the Atlantic. Convoy losses plummeted once escort carriers started being attached to convoys. I'd bet that the future of carrier warfare lies in a "drone swarm in a box". Outfit ordinary shipping containers to launch & retrieve a swarm of drones with a combat radius of a few hundred miles, and then you could load these onto ordinary freighters. They'd create an effective deterrent for any surface or submarine warfare, and could be added to existing vessels without modification.
- aetherson 10y ago
  Wait a minute, how in the world do you outfit ordinary shipping containers to "launch and retrieve a swarm of drones with a combat radius of a few hundred miles"? I mean, yeah, that sounds like it would be pretty effective. Assuming that you could actually do it. But I'm not aware of any drone that might conceivably have an operational radius of a few hundred miles that could launch, land, and be serviced in an area of 8ft x 20ft or 8ft x 40ft. Much less a "swarm" of them in the same area.
  - nostrademons 10y ago
    A Cessna Skyhawk has range of 640nm, height of 8ft, length of 27ft, wingspan of 36ft, and payload of about 900lbs. Take the pilot out, streamline & shorten the fuselage, and give it folding wings, and you're basically there for size, range, and payload. For landing: well, SpaceX can land a rocket vertically on a drone ship after taking it to orbital velocity. You could do similar maneuvers with a drone. Flip the plane so that its wings act like a parachute to slow its descent, and then turn it around all the way to use the propeller to lower it onto the deck, then fold the wings. Without a pilot, the only limits on G-forces is the structural integrity of the airframe, and such planes are likely to land very lightly after completing their mission. Computer control lets you do things that would be totally impractical with a pilot, like maintain stability in a stall. Takeoff seems the biggest challenge. Ground roll on the Cessna is 960 ft, and the drone will be at its heaviest on take-off. Maybe do an assisted take-off, launching from a gun barrel or compressed air cylinder? Again, without a pilot, you can be much more liberal with G-forces, and with computer control you can do things like unfold the wings in the air. It wouldn't fit in a single container then, but you could have a system of containerized components all working together. Also, the Russians reportedly have containerized cruise missiles, which meet the requirements for range, payload, and take-off. They don't really have multi-mission capability, but it may not be all that far from there to drones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch2Rqte6XOs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch2Rqte6XOs http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/7632543/A-cruise-missile-in-a-shipping-box-on-sale-to-rogue-bidders.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/7632...
NikolaeVarius 10y ago
I really wonder what the next 20-30 years might hold for the US Navy. This entire Supercarrier business looks just like the Dreadnoughts pre-WW1 where in the span of a decade, these ultra heavy ships became completely worthless and unusable because they were so expensive that no one could ever justify fielding them in combat. Can you imagine the political repercussions of even losing a single Carrier?
- remarkEon 10y ago
  >Can you imagine the political repercussions of even losing a single Carrier? Yes. A Third World War.
  - bluedino 10y ago
    He's talking about taking one out of service, not being destroyed by an enemy state.
    - purple-again 10y ago
      It doesn't read that way to me. I interpreted it as a combat loss as well.
    - Noughmad 10y ago
      Considering the Enterprise has just been decomissioned, I doubt that.
    - NikolaeVarius 10y ago
      I meant combat loss.
- purple-again 10y ago
  Complete nuclear holocaust. Without a doubt.
- rhino369 10y ago
  Super carriers are still useful even if they become increasing vulnerable. Most US military conflict is with developing countries who lack access to cutting edge weapons But their vulnerability is overstated imo. It's easy to build a missile that can physically get through an AEGIS defense. It's hard to accurately target ships during a time of war. Over the horizon targeting is tough. The US would destroy or jam satallite. If the US were dumb enough to put a carrier in the middle of the Taiwan straight during a shooting war, then it will at a minimum be disabled. But 200 miles off shore?
fit2rule 10y ago
Meh. I can hear the P-270 Moskit (SSN2 Sunburn) operators laughing form here ..
l3m0ndr0p 10y ago
If only the time and materials were used for housing the homeless and poor in the USA
InTheArena 10y ago
At one point in my (non-military) career, I spent a ton of time onboard a LHA/LHD (the types of carriers mentioned above). They are impressively huge. You had no way of knowing if the ship was at sea or not. Even at the time - more then a decade ago - I remember thinking that with anything more competent then a harrier - they could do damage. That said, a carrier force is also a networked force. They have planes and ships all aligned in a sensor network to project power over the horizon. I don't see them doing that with LHDs.

20 points by protomyth 10y ago

The US Navy has already done this. They're called "amphibious assault ships", and the US has 8 of the Wasp class.[1] The USMC operates helicopters and Harriers from them. The plan was to use F-35s with VTOL capability, but they cost too much. Now they're stuck with these mini-carriers that don't have enough reach for inland targets. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_...

bb611 10y ago
The F-35B is still being deployed on the Wasp class: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35b-completes-first-sea-trials-on-the-uss-wasp https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35b-completes-first-sea-tr... The problem is that without a catapult the takeoff weight and therefore range and armament of any aircraft is greatly reduced. That's a problem fundamental to the Wasp class.
- Animats 10y ago
  The F-35 will be used on the Wasp class, but not in the numbers originally planned. The F-35 just costs too much. The Navy's problem is that, in recent decades, most of the US's enemies have been far from a coast. They need range, more range than helicopters can provide, to project power inland. Hence the Osprey and the F-35. But the price of VTOL is very high in many directions - expensive, reduced payload, and fragile. Without sea-based long-reach air power, and without friendly territory in the neighborhood, it's back to the old way - land Marines, establish a beachhead, build an airfield, and invite the Air Force to come over with their big iron. The US won WWII in the Pacific that way, but it was slow, bloody and expensive.

sanjeetsuhag 10y ago

The STOVL capability of the F-35B comes with a cost. According to the Congressional Research Service, the projected flyway cost for the various models are : F-35A : 77.7 million USD F-35B : 105.5 million USD F-35C : 89.7 million USD

gaius 10y ago
The B is the most expensive and least capable in terms of range/endurance and weapons carried.
- Alupis 10y ago
  > The B is the most expensive and least capable in terms of range/endurance and weapons carried. And oddly enough, it's the model that drove most of the program's requirements. Why civilians in congress thought it was a good idea to have a one-size-fits-all Fighter/Attacker is beyond me, but then to effectively allow Marine requirements to pollute specifications for the two branches of the military that operate the most aircraft is another thing entirely.
  - WesleyLivesay 10y ago
    Actually, I know exactly why they thought it was a good idea. At the time they were sold a platform that would have a large amount of part commonality, be very low purchase cost, and low maintenance cost. With the latter assisted by the fact that the entire US Military establishment would be using it. I feel that explaining why the civilian government thought it was a good idea is one of the easier things to explain in the entire F-35 saga.
    - gaius 10y ago
      They should have paid more attention to the RAF's experience of trying to make the Tornado fulfil all roles...
      - WesleyLivesay 10y ago
        No doubt. I think the allure of a one-size-fits-all aircraft is just too tempting. For each new generation people just throw away the failures of the past by claiming that NOW we have the technology to not have those same issues.
      - gsnedders 10y ago

gaius 10y ago

I fear we will come to bitterly regret building the QE class without cats and traps, or without nuclear power. I mean even more so than every sane taxpayer in the UK does already. A US carrier battlegroup contains the carrier itself, and a cruiser and two destroyers to protect it. We will have two carriers and a grand total of 6 destroyers, no cruisers. So the choices are abandon all other commitments and use the entire rest of the Royal Navy for force protection for the carriers, or leave the carriers as sitting ducks. Yes I know only one carrier will be at sea at a time. All six destroyers won't be at sea at the same time either! Did I mention no cats and traps? That means we are forced to rely on rotary wing for AEW - a decision that cost dearly in the Falklands. Helicopters simply don't have the altitude or endurance for that mission. So we have a fleet that can't see, can't fight, and can't stay at sea for very long. And there's no money left.

M_Grey 10y ago
I would guess that at this point, the notion is that in any serious conflict the US would be involved. Those gaps could be easily filled in that context.
- gydfi 10y ago
  One of the main goals of the RN's aircraft carrier program is presumably to help out in any Falklands War II, and the US stayed out of it last time (for reasons I've never understood -- wtf Ronnie?)
  - rodgerd 10y ago
    Maintaining the remaining tattered shreds of the British Empire was less important to US interests that not annoying their South American client states.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    That's true, but do you really think we'd stay neutral again? The "Special Relationship" has only been more emphasized over the last decades, and we probably owe some for co-opting their PM and dragging them into Iraq.

nostrademons 10y ago

Light carriers (CVLs) have had a very troubled history. They were the very first aircraft carriers, from USS Langley & HMS Argus, and were frequently built to use up extra treaty tonnage (USS Ranger, IJN Ryujo) or when fleet carriers weren't ready yet (USS Independence class). But they almost always exhibited poor seakeeping characteristics and could carry only small air wings, which prevented them from being very useful in combat. Light carriers haven't proven the decisive element in any major sea battles, and major naval powers usually relegated them to playing support roles for fleet carriers or doing aircraft-ferrying or escort jobs. I would bet against them being all that useful now, too. Escort carriers (CVEs), however, don't get nearly enough praise. Aside from one decisive strategic victory (the Battle of Samar) where U.S. escort carriers beat back the main body of the Japanese navy under overwhelming odds, they also were a major factor in winning the Battle of the Atlantic. Convoy losses plummeted once escort carriers started being attached to convoys. I'd bet that the future of carrier warfare lies in a "drone swarm in a box". Outfit ordinary shipping containers to launch & retrieve a swarm of drones with a combat radius of a few hundred miles, and then you could load these onto ordinary freighters. They'd create an effective deterrent for any surface or submarine warfare, and could be added to existing vessels without modification.

aetherson 10y ago
Wait a minute, how in the world do you outfit ordinary shipping containers to "launch and retrieve a swarm of drones with a combat radius of a few hundred miles"? I mean, yeah, that sounds like it would be pretty effective. Assuming that you could actually do it. But I'm not aware of any drone that might conceivably have an operational radius of a few hundred miles that could launch, land, and be serviced in an area of 8ft x 20ft or 8ft x 40ft. Much less a "swarm" of them in the same area.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  A Cessna Skyhawk has range of 640nm, height of 8ft, length of 27ft, wingspan of 36ft, and payload of about 900lbs. Take the pilot out, streamline & shorten the fuselage, and give it folding wings, and you're basically there for size, range, and payload. For landing: well, SpaceX can land a rocket vertically on a drone ship after taking it to orbital velocity. You could do similar maneuvers with a drone. Flip the plane so that its wings act like a parachute to slow its descent, and then turn it around all the way to use the propeller to lower it onto the deck, then fold the wings. Without a pilot, the only limits on G-forces is the structural integrity of the airframe, and such planes are likely to land very lightly after completing their mission. Computer control lets you do things that would be totally impractical with a pilot, like maintain stability in a stall. Takeoff seems the biggest challenge. Ground roll on the Cessna is 960 ft, and the drone will be at its heaviest on take-off. Maybe do an assisted take-off, launching from a gun barrel or compressed air cylinder? Again, without a pilot, you can be much more liberal with G-forces, and with computer control you can do things like unfold the wings in the air. It wouldn't fit in a single container then, but you could have a system of containerized components all working together. Also, the Russians reportedly have containerized cruise missiles, which meet the requirements for range, payload, and take-off. They don't really have multi-mission capability, but it may not be all that far from there to drones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch2Rqte6XOs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch2Rqte6XOs http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/7632543/A-cruise-missile-in-a-shipping-box-on-sale-to-rogue-bidders.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/7632...

NikolaeVarius 10y ago

I really wonder what the next 20-30 years might hold for the US Navy. This entire Supercarrier business looks just like the Dreadnoughts pre-WW1 where in the span of a decade, these ultra heavy ships became completely worthless and unusable because they were so expensive that no one could ever justify fielding them in combat. Can you imagine the political repercussions of even losing a single Carrier?

remarkEon 10y ago
>Can you imagine the political repercussions of even losing a single Carrier? Yes. A Third World War.
- bluedino 10y ago
  He's talking about taking one out of service, not being destroyed by an enemy state.
  - purple-again 10y ago
    It doesn't read that way to me. I interpreted it as a combat loss as well.
  - Noughmad 10y ago
    Considering the Enterprise has just been decomissioned, I doubt that.
  - NikolaeVarius 10y ago
    I meant combat loss.
purple-again 10y ago
Complete nuclear holocaust. Without a doubt.
rhino369 10y ago
Super carriers are still useful even if they become increasing vulnerable. Most US military conflict is with developing countries who lack access to cutting edge weapons But their vulnerability is overstated imo. It's easy to build a missile that can physically get through an AEGIS defense. It's hard to accurately target ships during a time of war. Over the horizon targeting is tough. The US would destroy or jam satallite. If the US were dumb enough to put a carrier in the middle of the Taiwan straight during a shooting war, then it will at a minimum be disabled. But 200 miles off shore?

fit2rule 10y ago

Meh. I can hear the P-270 Moskit (SSN2 Sunburn) operators laughing form here ..

l3m0ndr0p 10y ago

If only the time and materials were used for housing the homeless and poor in the USA

InTheArena 10y ago

At one point in my (non-military) career, I spent a ton of time onboard a LHA/LHD (the types of carriers mentioned above). They are impressively huge. You had no way of knowing if the ship was at sea or not. Even at the time - more then a decade ago - I remember thinking that with anything more competent then a harrier - they could do damage. That said, a carrier force is also a networked force. They have planes and ships all aligned in a sensor network to project power over the horizon. I don't see them doing that with LHDs.