Another (smaller) carriers and jets question - integrating aircraft and ship

That sort of leads to another thread. Turkey intended to purchase the F-35B (until Erdogan upset the US) and was considering the purchase of AV-8B in the interim. Now that they have upset their only possible source of V/STOL aircraft, they have three options for their carrier/LHD Anadolu:

1. Operate her purely as an LHD.
2. Add UAVs/UCAVs/RPVs (whatever we call them today) to her helicopters.
3. Try to operate a homegrown jet - STOBAR perhaps? At 24 000 tonnes the Anadolu is on the small side for safe carrier landings, even if she was given an angled deck.

Studies being carried out as to whether HURJET could be adapted to be carrier launched-landed



Carrier design lesson 101 - build them as large as possible.
Steel is cheap, and air is free.
 

Yokel

LE
Steel is cheap, and air is free.

Perhaps you could share this with the likes of Max Hastings and Lewis Page? Various dunces turn up in the media trying to argue that a larger ship gets more expensive with each extra tonne - as if a circa 60 000 tonne ship is three times more expensive to construct than a 20 000 tonne one, and would have three times the running costs.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you could share this with the likes of Max Hastings and Lewis Page? Various dunces turn up in the media trying to argue that a larger ship gets more expensive with each extra tonne - as if a circa 60 000 tonne ship is three times more expensive to construct than a 20 000 tonne one, and would have three times the running costs.
They tend to be unaware that the hull cost is a minor factor in the big picture.
It is all the associated electronic doodads, catapults, arrestor gear etc which is where the $$$ goes.
Just finished that Hobbs book - British Aircraft Carriers: Design, Development & Service Histories, which explains the reasoning behind 'bigger' carriers
Brilliant.
written in 2013, he points out that QE and POW are useless if the F-35 doesn't work, and it would have been better to build em with an angled deck and catapult/arrestor so it wasn't tied to STVOL.
 

Yokel

LE
They tend to be unaware that the hull cost is a minor factor in the big picture.
It is all the associated electronic doodads, catapults, arrestor gear etc which is where the $$$ goes.
Just finished that Hobbs book - British Aircraft Carriers: Design, Development & Service Histories, which explains the reasoning behind 'bigger' carriers
Brilliant.
written in 2013, he points out that QE and POW are useless if the F-35 doesn't work, and it would have been better to build em with an angled deck and catapult/arrestor so it wasn't tied to STVOL.

As @Not a Boffin will point out, the design was adaptable for either CTOL or STOVL. I am sure that by 2013 the F-35B had performed its first shipboard landings and recoveries although that was possibly before the book was published.

As for ship size, larger ships have less integration and update issues. This is true for all types of warships as well as merchant vessels.
 

Yokel

LE
I saw this on LinkedIn last night.

A consummate Naval Aviator, and legend in the A-7 community, Spider also served as head test pilot for the S-3's carrier suitability trials. George failed the Viking after the initial trials aboard Forrestal in late November/early December of 1973. It was through his inputs and insistence that the Viking was outfitted with a Thrust Trim Compensation (TTC), Auto-Bolter Trim (ABT), and Direct Lift Control (DLC). Equipped with these improvements, Webb took the S-3 out to Enterprise in April of 1974, and conducted trials which lead to approving the Viking for carrier operations.

The fact that no S-3 experienced a carrier landing-related accident serves as testimony to both the professionalism of George and his team, and to the innovations they brought to the S-3.
 

Yokel

LE
A slight thread diversion, but I recall that the US Navy had expressed interest in the Bedford Array lighting system that Britain had developed for Ship Rolling Vertical Landing aboard the Queen Elizabeth class carriers. As I understand it this mates an array of deck lights to accelerometers to provide visual cues to the (F-35B Lightning) aircraft and pilot. It is there to get the aircraft to touch down accurately at a predictable point on deck.

file.php


For a CTOL carrier, it could help the pilot and aircraft catch the wire.

As far as I know nobody apart from the UK intends to use SRVL, but how much would the Bedford Array aid French Navy pilots landing aboard the FS Charles de Gaulle? Could it help compensate for the operating limits caused by her limited size and consequent deck motion?
 
Last edited:

Yokel

LE
If I might be forgiven for asking a direct question of the old and bold, such as @Not a Boffin who probably knows, I recall being at school in the early nineties and reading a Navy News article about one of the Invincible class being refitted, and being modified for Sea Harrier FA2 and Sea King HAS6. What was that about? The Sea Harrier got a bit longer when it changed from FRS1 to FA2, and the SK6 may have been a bit heavier than the SK5, but apart from upgrading the lifts, what could have been done? New shipborne sensors and communications?
 
Most likely they needed to say something about a normal refit and decided to tag it as upgrading facilities for various aircraft, which was most likely just modding the various workshops / instrument test bays - nothing major (although the Merlin diagnostics were a different story....). That refit (IIRC) also added a bit of extra space on 2 deck and increased the briefing room sizes.
 

Yokel

LE
I thought as much - it would be difficult to change the sea handling characteristics of an existing ship. I presume that the stabilisers could be upgraded? My old father (a Cold War matelot) insists that warships were first fitted with stabilisers because of the advent of missile systems and the frigate borne helicopter.

I think that the Americans planned to modify the old Midway class carriers to improve their sea keeping and aircraft operating limit. That would have involved hull modifications. See paper 3 (Deck Motion Criteria For Carrier Aircraft Operations) from AGARD 509: Aircraft Ship Operations.
 

Yokel

LE
I have been looking at the bookmarks on my browser, and one thing I found saved was very relevant to this thread.

The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter

Here is another one - very relevant to what later became the F-35B and the Queen Elizabeth class:

ACQUISITION OF CAPABILITIES THROUGH SYSTEMS OF SYSTEMS: CASE STUDIES AND LESSONS FROM NAVAL AVIATION

I am not sure why the the deck layout of the Invincible class was a design influence, as I do not think if was ever going to be compatible with the new jet.
 
I thought as much - it would be difficult to change the sea handling characteristics of an existing ship. I presume that the stabilisers could be upgraded? My old father (a Cold War matelot) insists that warships were first fitted with stabilisers because of the advent of missile systems and the frigate borne helicopter.

I think that the Americans planned to modify the old Midway class carriers to improve their sea keeping and aircraft operating limit. That would have involved hull modifications. See paper 3 (Deck Motion Criteria For Carrier Aircraft Operations) from AGARD 509: Aircraft Ship Operations.
What actually happened with Midway was that they did modify her and discovered that the changes had actually made the ship stiffer and more difficult to move aircraft on, hence the reason the CNO commissioned the work to change the motion criteria for aircraft operations to include consideration of period (ie time for a complete roll/pitch/heave cycle).

Deck motion is a (very) delicate trade-off between ship stability (in a metacentric sense), inertia and acceleration. You can make the ship more "stable" in one sense and yet in doing so, seriously degrade the ability to operate by making the motion accelerations more severe. One reason why Argus' original conversion involved filling the old hatch covers with ballast to reduce metacentric height.
 

Yokel

LE
What actually happened with Midway was that they did modify her and discovered that the changes had actually made the ship stiffer and more difficult to move aircraft on, hence the reason the CNO commissioned the work to change the motion criteria for aircraft operations to include consideration of period (ie time for a complete roll/pitch/heave cycle).

Deck motion is a (very) delicate trade-off between ship stability (in a metacentric sense), inertia and acceleration. You can make the ship more "stable" in one sense and yet in doing so, seriously degrade the ability to operate by making the motion accelerations more severe. One reason why Argus' original conversion involved filling the old hatch covers with ballast to reduce metacentric height.

In other words, the size and hull form dictates how a ship will handle in various sea conditions, which in turn dictates deck motion, which dictates her ability to recover aircraft. Perhaps those who argued for small carriers to replace the RN Invincible class (new carriers of the same size - suggested here for example) should have considered this. STOVL operations remain less sensitive to deck motion than CTOL ones, but a larger and more stable hull and deck remains desirable.
 
Last edited:
Top