Busto963 wrote:
Yes, but the idea of operating VSTOL (and even STOL) aircraft from auxiliary carriers (modestly modified bulk carriers, or more recently containerships) has been around for many decades, and was even a feature touted by Hawker Siddeley when marketing the Harrier.
While this is probably true and very feasible in a very limited fashion, such as a situation where all of the real aircraft carriers are unavailable, safe storage of ordnance is a paramount concern. Hiding the aircraft between a wall of connex boxes is pretty cool, but storing the ordnance for the aircraft is a logistical concern. Unless you are willing to let it be vulnerable to attack by being stored topside in connex boxes, there would have to be well protected magazines inside the ship. Significant maintenance would need to be performed inside a hanger bay and not on the topside deck of the carrier.
However, do you envision this kind of carrier being limited to surging only when necessary for short periods of time? As a stop-gap emergency measure that would be feasible, but if you intend for such a ship to be able to stay on station for long periods of time, performing many dozens or hundreds of sorties during a deployment, the ship would need an enclosed hanger to perform needed maintenance on its aircraft.
Quote:
Disagree. Effective Auxiliary aircraft carriers could service the low sortie rate missions required by a low intensity conflict in many areas of the world. Outside a major regional war, you do not need high sortie rates, nor high performance jet aircraft. Something along the lines of an prop driven A-1 sky raider would be better in every respect than any helicopter in performance, economy, reliability, survivability, etc.; save for the vertical take-off/hover capability.
Would the F-35 fit this bill to you?
Quote:
You do not need anything more sophisticated than a WWII era escort carrier, many of which were converted from merchant hulls!
While this is true they also blew up like bombs when they were hit, because they did not have protected magazines. CVEs were a stop-gap measure. My grandfather was on the USS
Core (CVE-13), and he said they called them "Carrier Vessel Expendable" because they realized that they were very vulnerable, totally unarmorered.
Quote:
This could be a lower end carrier option. What I am proposing something a lot less ambitious – a true ACV, modest in cost and capability, but more than sufficient for operating a flight of 2-4 light attack aircraft, and servicing Airborne Forward Air Controller (FAC) aircraft. A squadron of twelve aircraft would be more than sufficient to dominate the East Coast of Africa, chop up pirates, and provide CAS for SOF/troops ashore.
Interesting!
Quote:
LHA-6 carries a sticker price in the range of $3.6 Billion, and there are many modifications required to turn her into a STOL carrier and that is without CATOBAR systems.
The Navy's idea is that the LHA-6s would operate V/STOL F-35s and would not require catapults or arrester gear. It would literally be an airwing swap.
Quote:
Example, the massive vehicle deck is less compartmented than many merchant hull designs, and would have to be extensively subdivided.
Why? The Navy is okay with how it's constructed. Why would it have to be fitted to merchant vessel standards?
Quote:
After reviewing a document quoting the cost of the proposed Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) MPF(F) ships at $1.7 Billion dollars for a ship built to merchant hull standards (!) and other insanity, I have real questions about the Navy’s ability to execute an LHA to CV conversion economically.It is not clear what trade offs there will be compared to a CVN in terms of flight operations. There are a lot of hidden, but critical considerations to the last point.
I am pretty sure that we can soundly conclude that any LHA conversions to a CV(X) would yield a far inferior product in comparison to a CVN. The F-35 seems promising, but it is still far inferior to the F-14 or even the F/A-18.
Quote:
I just cannot see the wisdom of using F-16/F-18s to bore holes in the sky trying to find a bunch of uneducated, 114 lb, terrorists with a single spare magazine for their AKs.
I understand 100%!
Battleships! But really when you're doing fire support that is inside the range of propeller driven aircraft and A-10s, smart artillery is an awfully effective thing to have. In conversations I have had with BAE, they say that adapting the Excalibur technology to an 8" caliber round would not be a problem, and it would be easier to make them extended range than the development of the 155mm LRLAP.
Attachment:
WNUS_8-55_mk71_Guided_pic.jpg [ 30.94 KiB | Viewed 2832 times ]
With smart munitions, you don't have to worry about defilated targets. The rounds will change direction in the air and hit the far side of a hill or mountain. Sixteen-inch/13"/11" discarding sabot extended range Excalibur-type rounds would be able to reach all kinds of targets.
Attachment:
11inchER.jpg [ 33.22 KiB | Viewed 2832 times ]
In conversations with BAE, they have established that since the 11" DSR already exists and has been tested, adapting its body to accommodate and Excalibur package and unitary warhead would be an easy feat.
Attachment:
XM982_Excalibur_inert.jpg [ 97.99 KiB | Viewed 2832 times ]
I would still love to see a carrier based A-10. However, since it requires 4,000 feet of runway to get off the ground, I think that such an aircraft would need to have catapult assistance to get off a carrier of any size. A Midway-type CV would most likely be the smallest vessel that would be able to accommodate such aircraft in useful numbers and a power plant significant enough to accommodate any type of catapult system from steam to EMALs.
I would LOVE to see someone's interpretation of a modern
Midway!