dand%tekigm2.men.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (Dan C Duval) (01/25/89)
I seem to have stirred up a couple of things with my posting on the use/usefulness of large carriers, the use of nuclear weapon at sea, etc. I will address these separately. First of all, two messages regarding E-2s. Forwarded Message follows: >From: Steve Willner P-316 x57123 <willner%cfa183@harvard.harvard.edu> >To: dand@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.com >Subject: Re: carriers >Thanks for your thoughtful message on large carriers. One key point >is whether more numerous but smaller carriers could be better. You >seem to suggest that smaller carriers could not support AWACS aircraft. >If so, that would significantly favor the larger ships. Do you know >for sure how big a ship is needed to launch the E2-C? And is there >any prospect of packaging AWACS in a smaller aircraft? You may want >to post your answers, since I think they will be of general interest. ------ And this: >From: Mark Moraes <moraes@csri.toronto.edu> >Sinking an aircraft carrier may not be necessary to neutralize it's >capability - destroying the catapults at the front could keep it out of >action for quite a while (if the damage was repairable) >If the E-2s require the catapults as well (don't think so, but I'm not >sure) then the effective protection to the battle group would also be >decreased significantly. Current Situation: The E-2C weighs 24,000 kg. The E-2 may be able to launch from a large carrier deck without a catapault, but I think it would require the entire length of the deck to run up. It is engined for endurance, not for a power (though the latest engine upgrade did increase power 25% while reducing fuel consumption 15%.) Shorter carriers would have to have a catapault to launch the E-2. At this time, the only carriers that can launch the E-2C with catapaults are the US carriers. The French _Clemenceau_ class carriers have a maximum limit of 20 tons on a catapault and cannot launch the E-2C. The new _De Gaulle_ class carrier will be able to launch the E-2. None of the smaller carriers even have catapaults. Carriers with a "jump ramp" for V/STOL carriers could not mount catapaults on the same deck as the ramp, and would require an angled deck for the ramp, so that the catapaults would have a flat deck on which to operate. The angled deck forces a larger ship (to counter- balance the overhang and to stabilize the ship against roll now that it is more top-heavy -- note that similar problems have come up with the _Midway_ and _Coral Sea_ when angled flight decks were added: these ships became even heavier than they were before, and much less stable against roll.) With a ship large enough to carry a catapault for the E-2, you essentially have a large carrier. Smaller Plane? The E-2C carries a full suite of not only air search and early warning gear, but also a full air control system for controlling the assignment and stationing of other planes, allowing the carrier to remain "EMI clean" (not transmitting radio or radar.) The only other carrier-borne airborne early warning aircraft in service is the French Alize, but it is primarily an ASW plane that does have a search radar -- it does not contain the communication and control facilities to direct a battlegroup's air defenses, much less any room for the air combat controllers. A smaller plane can carry such a load (the C2A --transport version of the E-2 has a cargo capacity of 3,724 kg) but at the cost of endurance (it would have to carry much less fuel. The E-2 can loiter for six hours before being forced to land for refuel. A smaller plane with the same endurance would have to carry less equipment, meaning a loss of capability -- specifically, the carrier would have to do its own air control, meaning that it would have to transmit both radio and radar frequencies, making it a very inviting target for radar-seeking missiles. Assuming that the same load of equipment must be carried, a smaller plane without that endurance would require more aircraft to be carried on the carrier both to give 24hr coverage and to provide spares. Currently, US carriers carry 4-5 E-2Cs. If more units of a smaller plane were placed on board, they would crowd combat planes off the carrier, again, weakening the air group. Smaller "Large" Carriers? Larger carriers provide more aircraft for the same number of crew and cost of machinery to run the ship. This is taken as a sort of truism but it does appear to hold. The Royal Navy's _Invincible_ class carriers will carry (normally) 8 AV-8s and 12 Sea King helos. This is on a 16,000 ton hull with 1030 officers and men (not including the aircrew of 320). The _Nimitz_ carries 86 planes and helos, including 20 F-14s, 20 F-18s, 20 A-6 5EA-6 or KA-6, 10 S-3s, and 8 SH-3D, along with 5 E-2Cs. This is on a 81,000 ton hull and 3,670 crew. In other words, three times the crew to provide four times the aircraft of the _Invincible_ and the _Nimitz_ carries far more capable aircraft. The new French carrier, the _Charles de Gaulle_, will weigh out at 34,000 tons and 1,150 crew. It will carry 35-40 planes. At half the weight, it carries half the planes, but is able to do better with crew. (This is partly because of improved automation and partly because the carrier isn't meant to have the at-sea endurance of the US nuclear carriers far from home.) Let's design a smaller carrier and see what we have. Let's use the size of the new French carrier-- 34,000 tons -- and assume that we cannot operate more than 40 planes from that deck. To provide 24hr coverage (with a spare plane), 5 E-2s are necessary. We want to keep the same protection against submarines, so we will keep 10 S-3 Vikings and the 8 SH-3s, so already we have 23 of the planes our carrier can handle. We want to keep our electronic warfare aircraft and a tanker or two, so we have 5 EA-6 and/or KA-6. This leaves us with twelve planes we can use for air defense. If we take all F-14s, we have no strike capability; all F-18s and we have no stand-off air defense. If we mix them, we still have only 12 fighters to cover the task force when we used to have 38. Operating two small carriers together in the same task force will provide the same air group as a single large carrier, but are more difficult to cover with the same number of ships unless the two small carriers operate so closely that they are again essentially one target. If the two smaller carriers are operating separately, then they must split up the current battle group complement between them, halving (at best!) the protection of each new battle group. Not even the US can afford to double its current number of frigates, destroyers, and cruisers in order to protect each of the smaller carriers to the same extent that the big carriers are protected. There is also some question on the sea-keeping ability and endurance of smaller carriers and their ability to take damage. Granted, a larger carrier with fewer redundant systems is more fragile than two separate carriers, but I expect that the larger carrier is more likely to survive a given amount of damage than would a smaller carrier. And in combat, damage is likely to be spread between the two small carriers rather than having one little carrier take all the damage and the other get away free and undamaged, making both of them inoperative. With smaller crews and repair equipment suites on board, the smaller ships would be longer in making repairs and getting back into operating condition. That last paragraph is more my opinion, since I cannot generate any hard facts to back it up, but I believe it to be true. Summing Up: I do not believe that the E-2C can operate from carriers in the 15,000-20,000 ton range and I do not believe that two carriers in the 30,000-40,000 ton range are better than having one 80,000 ton carrier. On the other hand, there is little doubt that an 80,000 ton carrier is far more capable than the 16,000 ton carrier. Dan C Duval Measurement Systems Division Tektronix, Inc. dand@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM or tektronix!tekigm2!dand