Sea Control Ships: your thoughts...

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

The limiting factor for F-4s on Essex-carriers was the wooden deck in combination with the F-4's downward-angled *hot* exhaust-jets. The weight was not limiting (A-3 Skywarriors also operated off Essexes without any trouble).

 

The weight wasn't the issue directly - KE was - the A-3 though greater in mass to the F-4 landed significantly slower so presented lower forces on deck impact and cable engagement.

 

Craig

[Toryu 156]

 

i'm wanting closer in AD capability as well as anti sub capability( which drives me nuts as most of the older antisub AC are at that other site!).

With AD-capability you mean "AD" as in "AD Skyraider"? The only aircraft to replace a Skyraider is another Skyraider! 

Sounds corny at first, but the AD got replaced by several aircraft (A-4, A-6 and A-7 - additionally by the S-3 to some extent).

 

I guess the best plan would be going for A-7As and A-7Bs - they offer the most bang per buck. I don't know, if their cat-strut would fit into the Essex-class cat-shuttles (would be pretty easy to retrofit, though!). If you want to keep it "nice and simple", the A-4M could be worth a shot. Even though operationally not quite sound, special situations require special action! 

 

 

The weight wasn't the issue directly - KE was - the A-3 though greater in mass to the F-4 landed significantly slower so presented lower forces on deck impact and cable engagement.

 

 

Theoretically, the specs for landing-gear sizing call for a sink-rate on touchdown (forgot the exact figures, but they're constant for any design anyway). Therefore, the A-3 would have a greater maximal kinetic energy (heavier at same vertical speed) in vertical direction*. The horizontal direction is another story, though. I know that F-4s were flown off Essex carriers (not operationally, though), so the match of the two does work out.

Generally, there's nothing that couldn't be retrofited - apart from "re-decking" the flight-deck with metal, which would certainly have been prohibitive due to cost.

 

______

*Do you have any figues for max. trap-weights and corrosponding approach speeds? Would be interesting to have a quick run through the numbers.

[macelena 1,070]

I think AD meant Air Defense.

 

 

I think we should define the concept we are trying to implement, is it about the Sea Control Ship, (We used a WW2 CVL in that role, but Amphibious Helicarriers could do, as well as an specifically designed ship) or finding a new kind of CVE equivalent for WW3? Because if the later, the Essex CVS ships could have made the job if put back to service...if available.  Finding a proper air wing could have been achieved, but it would have meant Crusaders, unless there was a program like that of the Iowa class, including the mentioned flight deck conversion, wich anyways could have been troublesome for Phantoms, and if anything, would have required F-4B/Ns like the Midway class carriers.

[Stratos 3,168]

A Corsair with After Burner capable engine and A/A radar?

[+daddyairplanes 8,689]

Stratos they made such a thing. its called a Crusader!

toryu, macelena was right i was trying to abreviate air defense. also weren't the SCB125 Essex's given a metal flight deck when they gained angled decks? i know that the Dedalo got a metal area for the Spanish Harriers to land on  and that was an Independence class at that.

 

all concerned, if your universe has unlimited funds, and if IRL you havent pissed off DAT and gotten blocked from the site (Dirty Harry was right, the difference between 5 and 6 DLs is IMPORTANT) run free. when i go to alter history i aim for minimal changes to the RL timeline, little something learned from all the alt history books i like.  Ticonderoga and the FD Roosevelt would fit the bill for this best i think (even though we don't have the Rosie in game). Rosie was decommissioned in 77 and scrapped in 78 IRL, while Tico sat in storage til the 90's. Rosie also did trials on her last cruise integrating the AV-8A into CV ops, so that would again be a natural as she was set up, but the Admirals reallllllly didnt want to keep her because they felt a refurb would threaten the Nimitzes. 

Finally here's another wrinkle to consider...... there were  studies on parking a few Harriers on each merchie in order to spread out the force and still provide some close in protection. off to do some thinking...

[Toryu 156]

Oopsie - aplogies! The statement about the Skyraiders remains true, however! 

 

A Corsair with afterburner was built - called the A-7F "Strike Fighter". Performance was said to be somewhat similar to the Crusaders, albeit with much improved attack and strike-capability!

If one would need such an aircraft is a different story, though.

 

Harriers off merchand-ships is a good idea - the maintenance would have been troublesome to nightmarish, though! Imagine keeping a stock of spares on a merchie that keeps your Harriers (you should have at least 5 of them per ship) operational at all cost...24/7!

[+daddyairplanes 8,689]

well the afterburning engine would have wrecked the SLUFs range, and the USAF (who developed the F) preferred to retire the type and get more Falcons. interestingly, the USAF kept the SLUFs home while the Navy postoned the retirement of the last two squadrons to deploy on the Kennedy in 90-91! they had to call back alot of personnel that had already left and scramble to find the manuals that had been gotten rid of....

as to the Harrier merchies  5 seems like a good number. but more likely than even distributing parts is having the worst two as hangar queens to keep the other 3 flying.  I'm the big problem i have at the moment is that several good candidate planes for AEW and ASW aren't here at CA.  also possible is to have the RNs SHAR training squadron meet up with the carrier before they leave land based air coverage on the US side.  good after around 78 anyhow...

[Centurion-1 1,228]

Wov, did not know about the YA-7F, very cool plane. Interesting ideas you are throwing about too!

[Wrench 9,471]

Florian's Sea King????

[+daddyairplanes 8,689]

of course.  but looking for fix wing ASW as well.

[Slartibartfast 153]

Been having a think on this though it would require a couple of Aircraft building...

 

ASW S-2T Trackers Turboprop Trackers also could mount the Radar like the E-1, 6 S-2T and 4 E-1 Tracer. I know that there are some in SF1.

 

For Air Defence they could use a Lightened A-4M or even A-4N. But I like the idea of a re-furbed F-8 Crusader with an uprated radar and weapons maybe 1 Squadron or 2 Squadron's for Convoy protection duties for mixed duties say a squadron each of F-8's and A-7B's. Also I love the thought of using the F-20 beefed up for AD duties...

 

But hey just me on the F-20.

[+daddyairplanes 8,689]

S-2 family is available for Gen1....... at that other site.  F-8 would be nice but too worn out from vietnam.

as for F-20... well they had to get the sales going somehow!

[macelena 1,070]

I guess Crusaders, even worn out, would have been the option if lacking Hornets. Updating with yet more systems for combat capability and survivavility (ECM, Decoy dispensers, RWR, computer for HUD, new radar, etc) would have burdened them for carrier Ops, just as it had with the A-4Ms. An A-A capable Skyhawk would have been another different variant, with the same issues as the A-4M and less performance. I think something like the French F-8P seems like an obvious solution, if still having been battered, modified Vietnam veteran airframes.

[Icarus999 70]

What exactly was the issue with the A-4M and carrier ops? The only negative thing that I had read had to do with operating them off of the french aircraft carrier Foch that had a catapult design that was not up the the task.  http://a4skyhawk.org/2e/france/france-a4.htm

[+daddyairplanes 8,689]

macelena, French Crusaders werent flown as much by that timeframe as the USN.  they actually got the same mileage, but the french used it up over 30 years, the USN in about 10.

[macelena 1,070]

That´s the issue, there is a need to define the kind of ship we are trying to get:

 

Some sort of CVE-CVL-CVS, with an air defence fighter like the Crusader (wich would take, if possible at all, refurbishing at a probably prohibitive cost) or Skyhawks, wich would take many modifications as well, let alone how did that work for the carrier capability of A-4Ms. This way you will have just a less capable CVA wich would be expensive to get into service and operate, with overused airframes in an overused ship (SCB-125?)

 

Or some concept closer to the SCS, wich would imply a Harrier air wing. Something like the Spanish Navy and maybe later (depending on the timeframe) the British Navy had. This would mean either USMC Harriers readily at hand or the more capable Sea Harrier. However, ship wise, it would mean either using LPHs, LHAs and others to fulfill a role they are not optimized to, or brand new ships, unless there were more WW2 Independence class CVLs around to put back into service, with the same issues as the Essex class, if not worse. 

 

 

Given that it is a What-If, i think it would be great either to have the SCB-125s service life extended along with the Crusaders and some other complement (either Skyhawks, Corsairs or...why not? Imported Super Etendards, or a purpose built ASW helicarrier fitted with Harriers

[Stratos 3,168]

 

Or some concept closer to the SCS, wich would imply a Harrier air wing. Something like the Spanish Navy and maybe later (depending on the timeframe) the British Navy had. This would mean either USMC Harriers readily at hand or the more capable Sea Harrier...

Mmmmh USN Sea Harriers... Pretty interesting...

[+daddyairplanes 8,689]

with limitations of both whats available stock and here in house at CA, i have settled on extended service life for SCB-125s. would like to included the Roosevelt also but again, availability in game.  Harrier ops were run on the Roosevelt, it just becomes a matter of intell on Red air sorties or an AWACS that can sortie off the Essex class. from there you set up patrols far out enough to disrupt the launch process, rather than take down all launchers and missles.  hard to shoot well when someone is shooting back

[Toryu 156]

The Harrier will be enough for a limited war (e.g. "Jaguar Diplomacy" as did the French in Africa in the 70s and 80s). For a full war, the Harriers don't carry enough fuel and armament.

 

That is unless you fight a foe that is undersupplied and acting at the limit of his capability (e.g. Argentina in the Falklands War)

[macelena 1,070]

Then we should reconsider their role. Tomcats can handle cruise missile strikes, Phantoms have trouble doing so, it is quite hard with Crusaders, but with SeaHarriers or Skyhawks, it is almost impossible to even think at intercepting, just a matter of speed. They couldn´t do much against Argentine Super Etendards, imagine how could they do against Backfires...or even Badgers

 

They would be bound to operate under the cover of a Supercarrier. Probably the CVS role, with a capability to provide air cover to ground forces would fit, also making the A-4s the way to go. I don´t know much about the maths, but i´m sure they could find a way to get those A-4Ms carrierborne, or even Super Etendards. Either of them would be a beast for any A-S role. If they cannot operate independently in the classic SF2NA scenario, they could provide a well needed support both for engaging the Soviet fleet and their forces in Iceland. Could still use something for A-A

Edited January 29, 2014 by macelena

[Toryu 156]

The A-4 is the better bird payload-range wise, but it doesn't feature the adequate fire-control radar (Agave on the S-E).

That's nothing a good modification (= weight) couldn't take care of. One thing should be noted:

A-4Fs were already hurting, bringing back two Shrikes. Imagine a modified (= even heavier) A-4M that brings back one or even two Harpoons!

 

Can the S-E bring the Exocet back to the ship in case it wasn't fired?

 

Funny that nobody thinks of the Sea Jaguar - image two juiced-up engines, an Agave-radar (as found in the Jaguar Internatinal M of the indian Navy) and stand-off missile-capability (Exocet, or as in case of the Jag IM: Sea Eagle missiles). Probably not the most elegant solution, but a poor plan violently executed is better than no plan at all 

Edited January 30, 2014 by Toryu

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

Jag's have some merit I gues, supersonic dash capability and the potential to have an avionics & a2a fit that at the very least matches the Sea Harrier, potentially opens the door fo buddy tankers as well.

 

Craig

[Icarus999 70]

Asking again, what exactly was the issue with A-4M carrier compatibility? They have launched and trapped with no issues on US carriers as far as my research points out? am I missing something?

[Toryu 156]

The A-4 was trap-weight limited, as written in here earlier. The A-4F already had issues, when bringing back ordnance to the ship - they would have fuel-limits that were hampering the bolter-and-hold-capability. The A-4M, while having significantly more thrust (and a better T/W ratio than the non-Super Foxtrott) was heavier when empty, worsening the problem.

 

There were deployemnts by Mikes (including on the Foch, from where the brazillian AF-1s operate off today), but they were limited.

 

It's an operations-issue. You could lower the trap-fuel when bringing back ordnance, or dump all the ordnance altogether (expensive, when that consists of AGMs/ LGBs/ etc).

[macelena 1,070]

If we are settling for using SCB-125s as some sort of second line-complementary carrier to bulk out the fleet, it is acceptable to use A-4Ms while it would be desirable to solve the weight issue. Of course, we can´t add antiship missiles, wich would mean both more equipment and facing the possibility of bringing them back aboard. A mix complement with Dassault Etendards for that role would be fine. Having the carriers full of Etendards may be too much for Dassault to make in a short term, however. A-7 Corsairs were employed aboard Essexs, so we shouldn't forget that possibility. Jaguars Ms would be perfect, however it may be too what if, so depending of what you want DA.

 

About an air defence fighter, either using Harriers or Skyhawks would be not effective enough, either would mean needing to resort to a redundant air cover by heavier carriers. Crusaders would be ideal, while they would have a hard time against missile carriers, and we have the issue of depleted airframe life. F-4Ns could be the best solution performance wise, but operating them from carriers that size would be pushing too much.

 

 

My solution would be an SCB-125, with A-4Ms and Super Etendards to boost attack capabilities, maybe , a lot of SH-3D for ASW, and if possible, Crusaders. Should the Crusaders be ditched, they could operate under the air cover of supercarriers as ASW platform and to perform missions like CAS for Marines, and adding sorties to bombing campaigns or  Alpha Strikes against enemy surface fleets.