rcstse@urc.tue.nl (Stephan Eggermont) (11/04/89)
From: rcstse@urc.tue.nl (Stephan Eggermont) I am trying to find out how effective a force of multiple small carriers would be in comparision to a CVN with escorts. - how many small carriers would be needed to provide the same level of - air defence - asw - strike power that a large carrier can give? - how many support ships would be needed to deploy this carriers group, compared to a carrier group? - are small carriers able to operate their harriers in as bad weather as a large carrier its tomcats? - can small carriers provide the same maintenance level the large carrier can provide? - How much do they cost? (initial, through-life, manpower) Stephan Eggermont RCSTSE@eutrc3.UUCP tuerc3::RCSTSE ...!mcvax!eutrc3!RCSTSE
terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (11/06/89)
From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) The subject of light versus heavy carriers has been debated for a long time. Unfortunately, the whole discussion revolves around the ability of the planes. The F-14 cannot operate from the smaller fleet carriers (such as the Midway), so F-18 is used. The discussion then centers on whether any number of Harriers can provide the same capability. The Falklands conflict provided much evidence that they can't. Yes they did do a smash up job in the South Atlantic, but the Argentines were operating under some severe constraints. It is not at all clear that the Harriers would do as well in any other environment. Assuming this line of reason, you need a carrier that can operate the Tomcat in sufficient numbers. If you think about it, from a cost effectiveness viewpoint, the only thing to do is to build supercarriers. That leaves the discussion of small carriers to decide if there are naval missions that don't require Tomcats and Intruders. The prevailing wisdom is that there aren't any. Of course that prevailing wisdom is from the fighter and attack communities and they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. I am no fan of carriers or airdales, but after thinking long and hard about this problem, I have to agree with their decision. I can't think of any reason to justify building smaller carriers. They are actually more expensive to operate for the same number of planes (there is a minimum overhead per hull). For a more detailed discussion look in previous editions of USNI Proceedings. As I sat on my gator and thought about the capabilities of the Tomcat, I was glad it was there. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogc.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/06/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: rcstse@urc.tue.nl (Stephan Eggermont) >I am trying to find out how effective a force of multiple small carriers >would be in comparision to a CVN with escorts. This is a real swamp, because almost everyone with opinions on the subject has some degree of vested interest in the answer. It shouldn't be hard to figure out what the USN position is, especially at budget time... >- how many small carriers would be needed to provide the same level of > - air defence > - asw > - strike A lot of this depends on *how* small. It is possible to operate most current carrier aircraft off something quite a bit smaller than current supercarriers; in fact, the USN did so until fairly recently. After that, there is a grey area where capability is progressively lost and aircraft design is progressively affected. Remember that current small carriers are quite hefty carriers by WW2 standards, and really determined aircraft designers could probably produce quite capable aircraft that could operate off them. Carriers like the Invincible class and the USMC's "amphibious assault ships" (only the USN is allowed to call ships "carriers") are too small for most of today's USN aircraft, but that doesn't mean they are inherently limited to Harriers and helicopters. Of course, building new aircraft to operate from them would run the bill for smaller carriers up even higher... >- how many support ships would be needed to deploy this carriers group, > compared to a carrier group? It is probably safe to assume that an equivalent number of aircraft need a similar number of support ships, whether they are based on one carrier or several. >- are small carriers able to operate their harriers in as bad weather as > a large carrier its tomcats? In considerably worse weather, actually. The hard part is landings, and Harriers can land anywhere on deck, not just at one end (where the pitching motion is worst). Normal bad-weather Harrier landing procedure is to hover alongside amidships, where motion is least, and then slide over and set down. The RN was flying Harriers off the Falklands in weather that would have shut down a supercarrier. >- can small carriers provide the same maintenance level the large carrier > can provide? There is no inherent reason why they can't. The RN did engine changes and the like off the Falklands. >- How much do they cost? (initial, through-life, manpower) I doubt that you can get meaningful answers on this. It depends too much on the assumptions made. You might want to consider some other issues as well: - You can't divide a supercarrier in half to lead two smaller task forces. Larger numbers are more flexible. - Putting all your eggs in one basket is notoriously unwise. Sinking several small carriers is almost certainly harder than sinking one supercarrier. (Sinking *one* small carrier is probably easier... but you don't use just one.) (Of course, the USN position is that the HMS Titanic, er excuse me the USS Nimitz, is unsinkable.) - Harriers and helicopters can operate, with some limitations, from destroyers and such. This considerably improves flexibility. - The lower bound on the size of your carriers is probably set by whether you want fixed-wing radar aircraft, and if so, how big they are. Such aircraft *can* operate off small carriers; it was done in the 50s. Radar helicopters impose fewer constraints but are not as capable. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/08/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) >...The F-14 cannot operate from the >smaller fleet carriers (such as the Midway), so F-18 is used... The only thing that can really be said about this is "tsk tsk, bad aircraft design". The A-3 Skywarrior, a *strategic bomber*, the heaviest carrier-based aircraft in history, could operate off the smaller fleet carriers. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (11/09/89)
From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <11148@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >>From: rcstse@urc.tue.nl (Stephan Eggermont) > >>- how many support ships would be needed to deploy this carriers group, >> compared to a carrier group? > >It is probably safe to assume that an equivalent number of aircraft need >a similar number of support ships, whether they are based on one carrier >or several. That is not a safe assumption. Supporting the aircraft is not the only requirement. As a rule of thumb, a carrier half the size is going to operate less than half as many aircraft (I realize that more smaller aircraft can be carried, but how many more are needed for the same mission?). In addition the smaller carriers will probably not be nuclear powered, so you need to provide a supply of fuel to them. There will be more men to feed per the number of aircraft so you need more food. Supercarriers actually provide some of the support (such as fuel) to their escorts, so the loss of that support has to be compensated. Now that you have doubled the number of support ships, they must be protected. You now need more escorts. Of course they need support...... >>- are small carriers able to operate their harriers in as bad weather as >> a large carrier its tomcats? > >In considerably worse weather, actually. The hard part is landings, >and Harriers can land anywhere on deck, not just at one end (where >the pitching motion is worst). Normal bad-weather Harrier landing >procedure is to hover alongside amidships, where motion is least, and >then slide over and set down. The RN was flying Harriers off the >Falklands in weather that would have shut down a supercarrier. > There is a trade off in bad weather capability. A supercarrier is going to have less deck motion in the same sea state, so they will be able to operate longer in that regard. In addition, even if the Harrier can land and take off in bad weather it has no significant all weather capability. It would be limited in what it could accomplish. >>- can small carriers provide the same maintenance level the large carrier >> can provide? The only factor related to the carrier size is the amount of hangar space. This is also a function of aircraft size and is difficult to discuss in general terms. Another implication of hangar size is the number of aircraft that can be protected in bad weather. This is one reason you see so much variation in the number of aircraft that can be operated by a carrier. It depends upon the mission and how many aircraft they are willing to leave on deck in a storm. > >You might want to consider some other issues as well: > >- You can't divide a supercarrier in half to lead two smaller task forces. > Larger numbers are more flexible. And inherently more limited. If it takes one supercarrier to launch a strike, it might take 2-4 (depending on size) smaller carriers. >- Putting all your eggs in one basket is notoriously unwise. Sinking > several small carriers is almost certainly harder than sinking > one supercarrier. (Sinking *one* small carrier is probably > easier... but you don't use just one.) Actually, sinking isn't the important issue. A mission kill is. If you can disable a ship's weapons and mobility then sinking it is easy. The supercarriers have proven incredibly durable. There have been major flight deck fires and explosions that wouldn't have prohibted flight operations, there was a delay while damage was repaired. Since the smaller carriers planes are less capable, it would be easier to get hits, that would be more severe on the smaller hulls. >- Harriers and helicopters can operate, with some limitations, from > destroyers and such. This considerably improves flexibility. This true for supercarriers also, adn ahs little to do with the merits of small versus large carriers. >- The lower bound on the size of your carriers is probably set by whether > you want fixed-wing radar aircraft, and if so, how big they are. > Such aircraft *can* operate off small carriers; it was done in > the 50s. Radar helicopters impose fewer constraints but are not > as capable. The lower bound is probably the capability in the fighters and attack aircraft. I have seen OV-10 Broncos operate off an LHA without any catapults or arresting gear. It is simply a matter of finding a capable radar that can fit inside an airframe that can land and take off, which is why the RN has AEW Sea Kings. On the other hand, the Tomcat is large because of the Phoenix missile. The Hornet (or F16 Falcon) are probably as small as you can get for a medioum range fighter that carries 6-8 (radar guided) missiles. If you need less range, or fewer missiles, then you can probably use something the size of the Hawk or Alpha jet. -- Terry Rooker terryr@ogc.cse.edu