wdr@wang.COM (William Ricker) (08/11/90)
From: William Ricker <wdr@wang.COM>
News reports on US response to Iraqi crisis raise questions in my
mind about the assumptions in US naval strategy.
REPORT
on August 7, the Rear Admiral in charge of US DoD Information Agency
(the Pentagon PR group) was interviewed on Canadian public radio's
"As It Happens" (prototype of US NPR's "All Things Considered"). He
reported that a blockade operation in the Persian Gulf (and land
operations nearby) would be difficult without air-bases in Saudi
Arabia -- because our carriers are too big to operate in the
congested waters of the Gulf. I recall his mentioning both the
carriers' size and the body of water's size and being pocked with
drilling rigs -- deep water obstacles. (The subsequent deployment
of the 82nd Airborne & USAF fighters to Saudi airbases makes this a
moot, hypothetical question, suitable for SCI.MILITARY.)
DATA and ANALYSIS
Our current carriers all weigh in at 64kton-93kton, with all but the
built-for-wwII Midway class being 78kton & up. Other nations (UK,
USSR, France) all have lighter carriers. Our only low displacement
"carriers" are the Marines' TARAWA class LHA assault ships, at
39kton. I wondered why they weren't a good ship for this duty --
are the Harriers unsuited to air superiority? or too few? or was
this part of the alleged discrimination against admitting that the
Tarawa's flight deck was a carrier? Perhaps it has a draft problem,
since it has a floodable well-deck below.
To evaluate Draft, I convert tons to cubic feet of water and
dividing by length and beam to get a number highly correlated to draft
(my 1983 Observer's Warships doesn't give Draft)
[mod.note: I have added the true draft (from Roger Chesneau's _Aircraft
Carriers of the World, 1914 to the Present_ - Bill ]
Draft Estimates,ft, by model
CLASS Disp(ton)LOA(ft)Beam(ft) Box Wedge Fudge Cone [True]
Nimitz 93,405 1092 252 10.9 21.8 32.6 65.3 37
BigE 89,600 1123 248 10.3 20.6 30.9 61.8 36
KH/JFK 80,800 1062.5 250 9.7 19.5 29.2 58.5 35
Forrestal 78,000 1039 238 10.1 20.2 30.3 60.6 37
Midway 64,000 979 258.5 8.1 16.2 24.3 48.6 32.75
Kiev(USSR) 37,000 900 164 8.0 16.1 24.1 48.2 32.83
Clemenceau(Fr)32,780 869 168 7.2 14.4 21.6 43.2 24.58
Invincible(UK)19,500 677.8 90.2 10.2 20.4 30.7 61.3 24
Dedalo(SP) 16,415 622.5 109.3 7.7 15.5 23.2 46.4 26
Colossus(exUK)19,800 693 119.5 7.7 15.3 23.0 46.0 18.5
Tarawa(LHA 1) 39,300 820 106.6 14.4 28.8 43.2 86.4 27.5
NOTES ON TABLE
CVL28 Cabot 1943, transfered in 1967 to Spain, as PA01 Dedalo;
originally CL79, ordered in 1940. CVL28 was damaged at Luzon in '44.
One Colossus class carrier (formerly HMS Vengence, laid down '42) is
in service as Brazilian Minas Gerais (A11), ASW carrier, bought '56,
entered service '60. another is Argentine 25 de Mayo (R81)
Box: Assume hull below water is box LOA*Beam*Draft.
Wedge: " " " " is triangular prism LOA*(1/2*Beam*Draft)
Fudge: change 1/2 to 1/3 to allow for tapering at bow and stern
Cone: Assume hull below water is pyramid/cone with base LOA*BEAM,
thus volume LOA*Beam*(1/6*Draft).
[mod.note: Hopefully a naval architect will reply with more information.
but basically, what you're searching for is the "block coefficient", CB.
This is the ratio of the ship's underwater volume to the volume of a block
with the dimensions of her length, beam, and draught.
CB = (Displacement/density of water) /(length*beam*draught)
I'll leave it an excercise for the reader 8-) to calculate this for
the above ships; according to Norman Friedman in _Battleship Design and
Development 1905-1945_, it varies from about .5 to .7 for battleships.
Sorry for the long interruption. We now return you to your regularly-
scheduled poster. - Bill ]
This suggests the Tarawa class are either (a) much boxier below
water-line than real carriers, due to their well-deck, or are deeper
than other carriers of their displacement.
QUESTIONS
Can someone with JANES supply real Draft numbers for these classes?
Is the US Navy trend toward super-carriers the problem with getting
naval & air superiority in the gulf?
Or would smaller carriers have the same problems turning into the
wind in a narrow body of water with oil platforms & islands?
I have not heard that any of the British ships allocated to the
non-Blockade flotilla were carriers; has anyone heard of any
carriers currently or ever operating north of the Straights of
Hormuz?
Could the Midway fit into the Gulf? If so, would its F4's be any
use against the MIG23 and Mirages of Iraq? (Midway's WWII decking
won't take F14/15/16 stresses.)
Is the flightdeck of the Tarawa capable of handling regular Navy
aviation, or only the Marine jump-jets & choppers it routinely
carrys?
--
/bill ricker/
wdr@wang.com a/k/a wricker@northeastern.edu
*** Warning: This account not authorized to express opinions ***Steve.Bridges@Dayton.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) (08/13/90)
From: Steve.Bridges@Dayton.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) I'm not sure if it is a matter of of draft, but of sea room for flight operations. I'm sure that the super tankers will draw more than 37 feet (see previous article regarding draft) Let's assume that the carrier needs 35 knots of wind down the deck for flight operations. Now, from reading, I know that it takes about 20 minutes to launch a major strike. Now, since 20 minutes is 1/3 of an hour, they need approximately 11 2/3 nautical miles of clear sea room for steaming at 35 knots ( assuming no wind over the deck). I'm sure that with all the oil rigs, wind constraints and the like, the Persian gulf is not all the suitable for flight ops. The British carriers and the Tarwara class carry Harriers (British) and helicopters (Marines) that don't need as much wind to conduct flight operations, thus they need less sea room. -- Steve Bridges | NCR - USG Product Marketing and Support OLS Steve.Bridges@Dayton.NCR.COM | Phone:(513)-445-4182 622-4182 (Voice Plus) ..!ncrlnk!usglnk!uspm650!steve | AOPA #916233 ..!uunet!ncrlnk!usglnk!uspm650!steve| PP-ASEL, AMEL
terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) (08/14/90)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <1990Aug11.015042.19542@cbnews.att.com> wdr@wang.COM (William Ricker) writes: > > >Is the US Navy trend toward super-carriers the problem with getting >naval & air superiority in the gulf? > No. The trend towards supercarriers simply means that the carriers can operate aircraft of sufficient performance so that the carrier doesn't have to enter the gulf to attack targets in Iraq. Remember the carrier doesn't need to be in the gulf, the aircraft do. >Or would smaller carriers have the same problems turning into the >wind in a narrow body of water with oil platforms & islands? > Yes. They would also have problems with dodging detection and attacks. >Could the Midway fit into the Gulf? If so, would its F4's be any >use against the MIG23 and Mirages of Iraq? (Midway's WWII decking >won't take F14/15/16 stresses.) > It is more than deck stress. The F-14 is a much larger plane so it uses more deck area. The catapults also cannot handle the weight of the F-14. The 15 and 16 are not carrier capable. >Is the flightdeck of the Tarawa capable of handling regular Navy >aviation, or only the Marine jump-jets & choppers it routinely >carrys? No. The Amphibs have no catapults or arresting gear. I have watched the Tarawa launch OV-10 Broncos, but that is about all they can handle. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) (08/14/90)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <1990Aug11.015042.19542@cbnews.att.com> wdr@wang.COM (William Ricker) writes: > >on August 7, the Rear Admiral in charge of US DoD Information Agency >(the Pentagon PR group) was interviewed on Canadian public radio's >"As It Happens" (prototype of US NPR's "All Things Considered"). He >reported that a blockade operation in the Persian Gulf (and land >operations nearby) would be difficult without air-bases in Saudi >Arabia -- because our carriers are too big to operate in the >congested waters of the Gulf. I recall his mentioning both the >carriers' size and the body of water's size and being pocked with >drilling rigs -- deep water obstacles. > The problem is not physically navigating in the Gulf. Obviously many tankers are of comparable size. The problem is in OPERATING in the Gulf. Carriers need LOTS of sea-room to maneuver, both to launch/recover aircraft, and to avoid attacks. As you point out, there a many obastacles for a carrier to dodge. Plus if they faced a serious attack, the only direction to run is South, and that makes chasing them very easy. Basically, by entering a restricted waterway, the carrier gives up all of its advantages, and only gains a little in reduced range for its aircraft. Ther eis an additional defensive factor involved. If the carrier planes must fly the length of the Gulf, then so would attacks against them. The effects on detecting and avoiding such attacks should be obvious. If an attack is launched, the carriers can move to a new location, making the attacker's problem more difficult. The difficulty is the same irregardless of the carrier's size, so a smaller carrier would still take quite a chance operating in the Gulf. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - OpenWindows Contractor) (08/14/90)
From: msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - OpenWindows Contractor) I think that with the steam catapults now in use our carriers can launch their planes downwind. The big problem I see with putting our carrier groups in the gulf is that it becomes very easy to locate them. There's only one axis for travel, and much of it is in view of land. The carrier force would need strong round-the-clock CAP as long as they were in the gulf. My hunch would be that if things got out of hand, the two USN carriers near the gulf would steam in at night, send attack sorties out during daylight hours, and then retire back to the Indian Ocean that night. To keep them in the gulf overnight and allow Iraq to prepare a dawn attack is really pushing it. -MSM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mark S. Miller "Different "In a nation ruled by swine, UUCP: msmiller@Sun.COM things all pigs are upward mobile." GEnie/AOL: MSMILLER vary" - Hunter S. Thompson
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (08/14/90)
From: jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) I was on the commissioning crew of the LHA-2 (USS Saipan) and spent a few years in their wardroom. From: William Ricker <wdr@wang.COM> }Our current carriers all weigh in at 64kton-93kton, with all but the }built-for-wwII Midway class being 78kton & up. Other nations (UK, }USSR, France) all have lighter carriers. Our only low displacement }"carriers" are the Marines' TARAWA class LHA assault ships, at }39kton. I wondered why they weren't a good ship for this duty -- }are the Harriers unsuited to air superiority? or too few? or was }this part of the alleged discrimination against admitting that the }Tarawa's flight deck was a carrier? Perhaps it has a draft problem, }since it has a floodable well-deck below. The jump jets have AWFUL stay time after burning up their fuel on a verticle/short take off. Good for close-in air support of the landing force - bad for CAP. }This suggests the Tarawa class are either (a) much boxier below }water-line than real carriers, due to their well-deck, or are deeper }than other carriers of their displacement. LHAs are REAL boxy - both above and below the waterline. }Or would smaller carriers have the same problems turning into the }wind in a narrow body of water with oil platforms & islands? This is sorta the problem. Pilots like to have a good wind across the deck, have it fairly steady, and have it for an extended interval. I don't see getting there as being a carrier problem (I mean, tankers make it!) but I see conducting air ops as being a problem. }Is the flightdeck of the Tarawa capable of handling regular Navy }aviation, or only the Marine jump-jets & choppers it routinely }carrys? Jump jets and chopters, although we have managed to land one of those light recon aircraft. If you look at a picture, you'll see a white line going down the port side - that would be the centerline of a SMALL plane such that the wings would clear the island. Problem with the other guys is no arresting cable and no catapult! (BTW: I was part of the bridge watch during the AV-8B sea trials. Noisey sucker!!!) -- That that is is that that is. That that is not is that that is not. That that is is not that that is not. That that is not is not that that is. And that includes these opinions, which are solely mine! jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET
woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) (08/14/90)
From: eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) [ bunches o' stuff deleted to save room ] IMHO, aside from the maneuvering considerations, the navy doesn't want to put their expensive strike capability into a sack that the Iraqis have already demonstrated maritime strike capability in. remember the STARK? i'm sure the navy does... /*** woody **************************************************************** *** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I... *** *** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd *** ****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/
mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu (08/16/90)
From: mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu > I'm sure that with all the oil rigs, wind constraints and the like, > the Persian gulf is not all the suitable for flight ops. > I spent four months in 1983 in the Persian (Arabian) Gulf aboard a destroyer, USS DEYO DD989. If I remember correctly, the average depth in the Gulf is something like 150 feet, so that draft is not a problem. The Gulf is approximately 350 x 100 miles in size. Vestfjord in Norway is rougly 1/3 this size and surrounded by high cliffs on three sides. Yet current US strategy for Norwegian Sea Ops against the Soviet Union plan to put up to three carriers in Vestfjord to limit the threat axes. It would seem that size is not a problem either. I tend to believe the real reason for not putting carriers in the Gulf is one of "Risk Strategy". Why expose the carriers to unnecessary risks, Iraqi and Iranian ASMs and SSMs, when they are more than capable of projecting power ashore from comparative safety from OUTSIDE the Gulf? We just can't afford to let some third world dictator put egg on our face by damaging or sinking one of our carriers. Mike
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (08/19/90)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <1990Aug16.030249.15026@cbnews.att.com>, mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes: >I tend to believe the real reason for not putting carriers in the Gulf is one >of "Risk Strategy". Why expose the carriers to unnecessary risks, Iraqi and >Iranian ASMs and SSMs, when they are more than capable of projecting power >ashore from comparative safety from OUTSIDE the Gulf? Plane range. I think you'll add, what 200-300 miles per trip if you have to take the long way 'round? Someone help me, I do not have an atlas handy. Of course, you'd better bring Mr. Aegis along and warn all commercial air to stay the hell out of the way. I wouldn't be surprised for a BIG strike if we ran one of the carriers in there full-bore, perhaps for an evacuation of U.S. citizen out of Kuwait, and then ran it out (under 12-14 hours time on station) >We just can't afford to >let some third world dictator put egg on our face by damaging or sinking one of >our carriers. If it's a nuclear-powered carrier, hopefully it'll sink close to some place where their fisherman hang out. Does anyone have any public domain information on how you scuttle a nuclear-powered ship? Who has the responsibility of getting the nuclear weapons off-loaded?