Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!uokmax!occrsh!att!cbnews!military From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Light vs. large carriers Message-ID: <11278@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 9 Nov 89 15:32:42 GMT References: <11148@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Oregon Graduate Center, Beaverton, OR Lines: 100 Approved: military@att.att.com From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <11148@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >>From: rcstse@urc.tue.nl (Stephan Eggermont) > >>- how many support ships would be needed to deploy this carriers group, >> compared to a carrier group? > >It is probably safe to assume that an equivalent number of aircraft need >a similar number of support ships, whether they are based on one carrier >or several. That is not a safe assumption. Supporting the aircraft is not the only requirement. As a rule of thumb, a carrier half the size is going to operate less than half as many aircraft (I realize that more smaller aircraft can be carried, but how many more are needed for the same mission?). In addition the smaller carriers will probably not be nuclear powered, so you need to provide a supply of fuel to them. There will be more men to feed per the number of aircraft so you need more food. Supercarriers actually provide some of the support (such as fuel) to their escorts, so the loss of that support has to be compensated. Now that you have doubled the number of support ships, they must be protected. You now need more escorts. Of course they need support...... >>- are small carriers able to operate their harriers in as bad weather as >> a large carrier its tomcats? > >In considerably worse weather, actually. The hard part is landings, >and Harriers can land anywhere on deck, not just at one end (where >the pitching motion is worst). Normal bad-weather Harrier landing >procedure is to hover alongside amidships, where motion is least, and >then slide over and set down. The RN was flying Harriers off the >Falklands in weather that would have shut down a supercarrier. > There is a trade off in bad weather capability. A supercarrier is going to have less deck motion in the same sea state, so they will be able to operate longer in that regard. In addition, even if the Harrier can land and take off in bad weather it has no significant all weather capability. It would be limited in what it could accomplish. >>- can small carriers provide the same maintenance level the large carrier >> can provide? The only factor related to the carrier size is the amount of hangar space. This is also a function of aircraft size and is difficult to discuss in general terms. Another implication of hangar size is the number of aircraft that can be protected in bad weather. This is one reason you see so much variation in the number of aircraft that can be operated by a carrier. It depends upon the mission and how many aircraft they are willing to leave on deck in a storm. > >You might want to consider some other issues as well: > >- You can't divide a supercarrier in half to lead two smaller task forces. > Larger numbers are more flexible. And inherently more limited. If it takes one supercarrier to launch a strike, it might take 2-4 (depending on size) smaller carriers. >- Putting all your eggs in one basket is notoriously unwise. Sinking > several small carriers is almost certainly harder than sinking > one supercarrier. (Sinking *one* small carrier is probably > easier... but you don't use just one.) Actually, sinking isn't the important issue. A mission kill is. If you can disable a ship's weapons and mobility then sinking it is easy. The supercarriers have proven incredibly durable. There have been major flight deck fires and explosions that wouldn't have prohibted flight operations, there was a delay while damage was repaired. Since the smaller carriers planes are less capable, it would be easier to get hits, that would be more severe on the smaller hulls. >- Harriers and helicopters can operate, with some limitations, from > destroyers and such. This considerably improves flexibility. This true for supercarriers also, adn ahs little to do with the merits of small versus large carriers. >- The lower bound on the size of your carriers is probably set by whether > you want fixed-wing radar aircraft, and if so, how big they are. > Such aircraft *can* operate off small carriers; it was done in > the 50s. Radar helicopters impose fewer constraints but are not > as capable. The lower bound is probably the capability in the fighters and attack aircraft. I have seen OV-10 Broncos operate off an LHA without any catapults or arresting gear. It is simply a matter of finding a capable radar that can fit inside an airframe that can land and take off, which is why the RN has AEW Sea Kings. On the other hand, the Tomcat is large because of the Phoenix missile. The Hornet (or F16 Falcon) are probably as small as you can get for a medioum range fighter that carries 6-8 (radar guided) missiles. If you need less range, or fewer missiles, then you can probably use something the size of the Hawk or Alpha jet. -- Terry Rooker terryr@ogc.cse.edu