COIN aircraft carrier

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

15 years 9 months

Posts: 1,025

One option here in the case of the USN would be to take out of "mothballs" the JFK or the Kitty Hawk and re-condition them (big dollars) to operate as afloat forward operating bases. That would give you the space and tonnage to cover the full range of COIN/OOTW missions without pulling a CVN out of some other high priority area. That being said, any ship with that much mobile sovereign acreage is a strategic asset and would still require a quality escort force.

Umm...you realise that this is the job of the CVN's right? and that if there are not enough of them they should build more (IMO, with the LHD's and CVN's that they already have, USN actually has more then enough flat tops for what they are doing). I wouldnt be surprised if pulling an old carrier out of reserve and giving it s SLEP (which is what would be required) would probably cost more then half as much as a new CVN, would cost more to run and would only have a short service life.

Remember these are all 50 year old ships you are talking about.

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 65

Umm...you realise that this is the job of the CVN's right? and that if there are not enough of them they should build more (IMO, with the LHD's and CVN's that they already have, USN actually has more then enough flat tops for what they are doing). I wouldnt be surprised if pulling an old carrier out of reserve and giving it s SLEP (which is what would be required) would probably cost more then half as much as a new CVN, would cost more to run and would only have a short service life.

Remember these are all 50 year old ships you are talking about.

Yes I do realize what you're pointing out. It was suggested someplace on-line (IIRC it was a RAND Report) that such a ship need not be brought up to "full CV" capability to fulfill a mobile base role. I picked the last two conventional CVs that were in commission just for the reason that they'd be the least deteriorated.

If you really need more carriers, and want to pay for then (including personnel, air wing, escorts and fleet train), then we get into the findings from the CVX/CVNX study from the 1990s where the final designs came out to "small", "medium" and "large". "Large" nuclear powered won out based on the difference in initial cost vs the life time capabilities that choice bought.

The Congressional Research Service report on Navy Force Structure: Alternative Force Structure Studies of 2005, suggested an X-AVS aviation support ship/CV of about 57,000 tons built on a common merchant like hull based on another design from a 2004 Maritime Prepositioning Force study (that would also be used for an arsenal ship, a "mother ship" for PCs, and an LHD). (That was the same tonnage and air wing size as the CVX/CVNX "small" design came out to be.) Building to those standards would be the only way to get the pricing down. The problem is keeping such a vessel in a support role and not get it pressed or substituted for a "full service" CV (which has been one of the USNs concerns whenever these suggestions for small support carriers come up).

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 65

(A note, considering the missions on the "low-end" of the conflict spectrum, OOTW would probably be a better moniker than COIN. I only make this point because it would be a very rare and tragic situation where a power was involved in such operations ashore in another country where they could not maintain enough security to operate a fully capable FOB with an all-weather 10,000 foot airfield either in country or within a "very" short flight time from a neighboring friendly territory.)

The conversion pathway to a CVL/CVE/CVS/CVV/AVS for many navies (either a "fast" container, RO/RO ship or an existing T-AOE), particularly for COIN/ OOTW, and multi-role "sea control" is still a viable alternative. The question gets into how "full service/multi-role" a ship you want to come out of the other end. Is it air operations only, half fixed wing air operations/commando carrier or more emphasis on amphibious operations and less for sustained fixed wing air operations. Getting that through the budget process is likely going to be more arduous that carrying out the modifications to the ship and getting it and its air wing up to speed.

As an example, right now in the USN James River Reserve Fleet are two +85% complete T-AO Henry J. Kaiser-class ships, the USNS Benjamin Isherwood (T-AO-191) and the USNS Henry Eckford (T-AO-192).

This class of ship could be converted a la the CVE Commencement Bay/T3 tanker conversion. With a length of 677 ft and a beam of 97 feet and a full load displacement of over 40,000 tons gives some options as to whether you're going to look at CTOL, V/STOL or UAV/UCAV operations and the kind of deck layout. (On this note, UAV/UCAV operations IMHO shouldn't be considered without an angled deck. The best option for such operations would be a turbofan, like the General Atomics Avenger/Predator C. No tail end propeller and is meant for a variety of threat situations.)

If the USN were to go the route of expanding the capabilities of the LHAs/LHDs, the additon of a small sponson to allow for the installation of an extra segment of flight deck and arrestor gear/capture net of some kind for UAV/UCAV or light fixed wing turboprop operations could be done with minimal expense if deemed appropriate.

To go along the lines of a commercial ship conversion, you'd want to look at a vessel that was no more than "Panamax" in size (Length: 965 ft (294.13 m), Beam (width): 106 ft (32.31 m), Draft: 39.5 ft) with performance similar to that of an AOE. As an example, either options would give the USN the flexibility of additional coverage in areas such as off the Horn of Africa where the additional air coverage for surveillance would be handy without pulling heavy units out of other higher priority missions. (As a side note, another example of this is the use of Burke DDGs in anti-piracy operations off Somalia where even the new LCSs or the Perry FFGs would be overkill except for the issue of endurance in the area. In my mind that would be the mission for a CVE/SCS with a couple of LCSs/FFGs and a bunch of PCs would make more sense.)

For most regional powers to get a political nod to go this route or new construction they're going to need to be more than a one trick pony or the local/regional situation is about to get a lot hotter. A good example of this are the proposed Japanese 19000 ton through deck "destroyer" and the RoK Dokdo class amphibious assault ship.

In those cases you're probable going to the next step that Stan_hyd brought up along the lines of the BSAC 220 or the VSS 3 or the Indian ADS/USN CVX Small.

In the case of Brazil, adding SSNs to her fleet along with the Sao Paulo/ex-Foch, it kind of makes you wonder what's their next upgrade.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 6,208

If you want to talk about the BA-609, check out my thread V-22 Offsprings

The Italian Navy is looking at using a Military version already of the BA-609 as an alternative to NH-90's

I just bought the latest Navy magazine where the front article was talking about the OV-10X and how Australia should buy some for use from the new LHD's we are getting instead of buying F-35B's. Now I'm not sure of this idea- F-35B's offer a level of support and strike capability that a Bronco (or any similar aircraft) could not- yet the Lightning also has it's draw backs too. I'm not going to weigh in on the Australian debate until I know for sure that we are going to go down that path- I have my own ideas about what we should have should the RAN FAA ever regain it's fixed wings, but for now I'm sitting out!

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 6,208

Another thought came to mind over Easter while I was away. If you want to bring back the OV-10 Bronco, then why not have something a little harder hitting

Bring back:
http://lh5.ggpht.com/daretamalr/SL1Xn05QN4I/AAAAAAAAEWw/fAEkcw0lrBs/s800/A-37B%20Dragonfly%20%23605%20Chile.jpg
The A-37 Dragonfly

I remember reading somewhere that the CIA had plans to have these planes operate out of standard shipping containers. Two containers carried the plane and stores, equipment, fuel and weapons as well as a workshop and a rudimentary control facility. The planes wings folded upwards and were lowered upon leaving the container. I have seen the A-37 in operation (albeit as a warbird collectors piece at several airshows) and I can tell you, they are nothing short of spectacular, they jump of the ground in such a short distance that carrier ops would really pose no problem, landing also is very short, I seriously doubt if a hook system would really be needed!

Member for

17 years 8 months

Posts: 40

How about something like the "Atlantic Conveyor" used in Falklands. Use a container cargo ship to store parts equipment in. Build a flight deck for helicopters/harriers and maybe mount a Phalanx on it.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 6,208

How about something like the "Atlantic Conveyor" used in Falklands. Use a container cargo ship to store parts equipment in. Build a flight deck for helicopters/harriers and maybe mount a Phalanx on it.

Well if you are going to go that way mate, then Maersk already have a design ready to go- The S Ship concept

http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=173004&d=1242447450

As for mounting a few Phalanx on it, these vessels would need a decent protective suite since they are basically floating Islands!

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 86

How about something like the "Atlantic Conveyor" used in Falklands. Use a container cargo ship to store parts equipment in. Build a flight deck for helicopters/harriers and maybe mount a Phalanx on it.

speaking about "Atlantic Conveyor" here's a photo I found on the WEB some time ago (Unknown Source):

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/5397/camouflaged20freight.jpg

regards
Ayala Botto
Lisbon, Portugal