It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Air craft carriers - A simple Alternative

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Instead of having massive,expensive,very high value carrier capital ships to provide air power with all the attendant expense of additional support and protection ships the simpler and very cheap alternative was demonstrated in the 1980.

Quite simple harrier jump jets like the sea harrier have the the wheels tc removed and a hard point at the top of the aircraft interfaces with a ordinary frigate which has 4 cranes which interface with the hard point interface.

to launch an aircraft the skyhook simply locks on to the aircraft hard point and swings it over the side the frigate,vstol engines fire and it takes off in the direction of the ships forward travel.

the extra weight of the landing carriage can be removed to reduce aircraft weight.

to get the aircraft back on to the frigate the aircraft hovers within a 30 inch square window near the frigate and the skyhook locks on and swings it aboard.

very simple and effective.

advantages are if you lose a frigate you lose up to a max of 4 aircraft.

also with every frigate having 4 aircraft you distribute the air power over a much larger area.

the idea was tested and found to be workable by British Aerospace but the brain dead people in charge would not agree to it.

the idea can still be resurrected.

it is simple,cheap and very effective.any nation can do it.

here is some links to it...

he SKYHOOK is invented by Heinz Erwin Frick (Test pilot form Swiss) at BAe
and with specification No.2104014 was filed with the British Patent office in 1982


www.secretprojects.co.uk...

www.faqs.org...

[edit on 28-8-2009 by esecallum]

Mod Edit: Removed all caps title.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Gemwolf]




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Or just use container ships as improv carriers like in the falklands ,make all the equiptment needed fit into standard containers so if carriers are ever needed you just bolt these together on the roro or what have you to make the deck and runway



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
i say we just nuke everybody and solve the problems once and for all. then we can save the money on carriers which can be destroyed. nuke them all.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum


Quite simple harrier jump jets like the sea harrier have the the wheels tc removed and a hard point at the top of the aircraft interfaces with a ordinary frigate which has 4 cranes which interface with the hard point interface.
[edit on 28-8-2009 by Gemwolf]

It's been a while since I've posted but I figured I'd jump in here, I take it someone else here has been keeping up with the UK carrier debate....

First off mate, the idea of having small numbers of escort or even civilian ships carrying fighter planes as eithier defence or an extra attack for is not as new as you might think. The idea has been in service almost as long as the plane has, infact during WW2 many hurricanes ( god bless those tough buggers) where converted into "Sea Hurricanes" and launched off CAM's.
CAM's

I'm sure quite a few readers of the old "Commando" comics will be familiar with a comic they ran of a CAM during the Atlantic convoys, very inspiring stuff for a 10 year old!


As for your harrier idea.....the harrier is an OLD bird even by MOD standards....infact the design is originally older than even the carriers....however the new harrier. The BAE Harrier II only came into service around 2007.

As much as I love the harrier (Which school boy didn't like the idea of plane that could hover and blow stuff at the same time??) it still has many of the issues that where raised at the end of the "jet age" of the Fleet Air arm.

I'm sad to say....we need a new bird with longer legs , more weapons , more up to date stuff and one that can actually effectively engage super sonic targets.

Just a few humble opinions....feel free to rip them apart...

- Devil



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by esecallum
 


I prefer a cigar shaped "beamship" that is 3,000 feet long.
Put some scout class spacecraft inside.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
not very practical



your not going to be able to project much force with 4 aircraft, aside from the fact that a frigate doesnt have the room for such things in thefirst place.


and where are you going to service the aircraft, ie rea arm and refuel.
and where are you going to store spare parts and munitions,


and the frigat is going to have to lose most of its defensive capabilities to make room for the iarcraft and all of the stuff associated with them.

Frigates are just that frigate not aircraft carriers.

besides most of the hype about sunburn this and chinese ballistic missles that is just that hype.

each ticondaroga escort in a us cgb has 122 sm1/rim66 or rim162 anti air missles. thats 122 each, for 244 missles for a carrier strike group.

each of the three arliegh burke class guided missle cruiser has 90 launch tubes for sm-2 and sm-3 missles.
so thats an aditional 270 anti air missles available.

and each carrier carries 42 rim-116 missles(which has a 95% kill rating) as well as 2 8 tube mk29 launchers for the rim 7 sea sparrow.


it will be awfully hard to get anything inside of a carrier strike group



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by devilwasp
 


i agree with everything you have said, the harrier while it is an awsome aircraft is 40year old tech even in the newest model.

It is also limited by the fact it is an infantry support aircraft, and is not suited to a the role of carrier defense or tactical bombing of high value targets.
It was desiged to give infantry close in support, which is why the usmc went with the harrier.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
Instead of having massive,expensive,very high value carrier capital ships to provide air power with all the attendant expense of additional support and protection ships the simpler and very cheap alternative was demonstrated in the 1980.

Quite simple harrier jump jets like the sea harrier have the the wheels tc removed and a hard point at the top of the aircraft interfaces with a ordinary frigate which has 4 cranes which interface with the hard point interface.

to launch an aircraft the skyhook simply locks on to the aircraft hard point and swings it over the side the frigate,vstol engines fire and it takes off in the direction of the ships forward travel.

the extra weight of the landing carriage can be removed to reduce aircraft weight.

to get the aircraft back on to the frigate the aircraft hovers within a 30 inch square window near the frigate and the skyhook locks on and swings it aboard.

very simple and effective.

advantages are if you lose a frigate you lose up to a max of 4 aircraft.

also with every frigate having 4 aircraft you distribute the air power over a much larger area.

the idea was tested and found to be workable by British Aerospace but the brain dead people in charge would not agree to it.

the idea can still be resurrected.

it is simple,cheap and very effective.any nation can do it.

here is some links to it...

he SKYHOOK is invented by Heinz Erwin Frick (Test pilot form Swiss) at BAe
and with specification No.2104014 was filed with the British Patent office in 1982


www.secretprojects.co.uk...

www.faqs.org...

[edit on 28-8-2009 by esecallum]

Mod Edit: Removed all caps title.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Gemwolf]


If any other country had as many carriers as the US, the US would start building Battlestars.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
A ligter than air air craft carrier is the way to go nuclear powered but doesnt carry conventional air craft but uavs and ucavs. By making it lighter than air you can lift more with any powered lift needed. All operated by remote from ground.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks09
reply to post by devilwasp
 


i agree with everything you have said, the harrier while it is an awsome aircraft is 40year old tech even in the newest model.

It is also limited by the fact it is an infantry support aircraft, and is not suited to a the role of carrier defense or tactical bombing of high value targets.
It was desiged to give infantry close in support, which is why the usmc went with the harrier.


With respect the new harrier is just that.....brand new, its just the design itself is old. I mean no offence if it isn't broke don't fix it...the avionics and tech in is still brand new and amazing.

TBH the harrier has done well for itself , the harrier was redesigned for sea combat in the 80's and served faithfully for over 20 years.

As for your comment on carrier defences....can I point out one little tiny flaw in the argument? UK carrier groups don't really exist, the carriers kind of do their own thing because we have a REALLY small surface fleet. Add to that the Invincible class tends to use its helicopters as human shields in times of dire needs....

- Devil



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by esecallum
 


By distributing your air wing over several ships, you're also distributing repair and support services over several ships, which reduces the efficiency of an already manpower-intensive system. You're also complicating mission planning and strike package coordination, and that's before you get to the innate limitation of using a pure-VTOL strike aircraft. In pure-VTOL mode, the Harrier is extremely limited in payload, and will burn a large amount of its already limited (see 'payload') fuel supply while hovering for launch or recovery.

There's are reasons the USN, France, India, and Great Britain operate (or want to operate) normal carriers rather than VTOL ones.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Agree with what Brother Stormhammer posts just above this one

The other questioin I have about this system of launch and recovery is how does it work in rough seas. This is a problem for a full sized carrier. How would it work with a bobbing, rolling, pitching smaller ship??? Both in launch and recovery.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by devilwasp
 


as brand new as the harrier II gr9 is it still suffers from a severe short coming as a naval defence fighter, it still has no on board radar.

Its still an excellent close air support fighter/bomber and the VTOL is very useful when operation from forward air bases, no runway needed.

My comments about carrier defenses were more in the context of the dizzing array of threads about mythical chinese missles and 30 year russian missles against a modern US carrier strike force.

although a lone carrier is a sitting duck to the newer anti ship missles, I doubt the Royal Navy would be so careless as to send them into that sort of situation anyway.
BTW what happend to the mighty Royal Navy after WW2, at one time british ship yards built the finest fighting vessels of all.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
and dont the british carriers use a jump ramp deck to launch the harriers, just like the russian carriers.
They dont verticaly take off from a ship because, like was mentioned earlier, it uses to much fuel and severely limits the payload.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
uhhmm one question on the missle defenses of a carrier battle group...the are now supersonic missles that fly about 15 to 20 feet off the suface of the water...if one is coming over the horizon, say at 1800 miles an hour, that's 30 miles a minute, which is 1 mile every 2 seconds. at 20 feet above the sea surface, the horizon is 6.8 miles......as you can see there would be little time if a salvo of missles were fired at one of these groups. and yes i know the ships have radar above the water line. but a delay of 20 to 30 seconds could be deadly.

answers.google.com...
[edit on 29-8-2009 by jimmyx]

[edit on 29-8-2009 by jimmyx]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks09
 


well the iraqis got awfully close to sinking one if it wasnt for the lil uk frigate savin its big ol ass mebbe the missouri tbh ..think it was the gloucester if memory serves me right

and we still do have some of the finest vessels eg daring destroyers and new Astute class subs for instance theres just no point in having as many..apparently

[edit on 29-8-2009 by gambon]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 


why are attacking me by throwing spurious excuses.

you mean to tell us that we cannot plan?

heard of the telephone.cell phone,internet..?



you are just jealous of my idea.

[edit on 30-8-2009 by esecallum]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks09
not very practical



your not going to be able to project much force with 4 aircraft, aside from the fact that a frigate doesnt have the room for such things in thefirst place.


and where are you going to service the aircraft, ie rea arm and refuel.
and where are you going to store spare parts and munitions,


and the frigat is going to have to lose most of its defensive capabilities to make room for the iarcraft and all of the stuff associated with them.

Frigates are just that frigate not aircraft carriers.






how much space does aircraft ammo take.very little compared to frigate ammo,missiles.

Just admit you are jealous of my idea and throwing up spurious excuses.

you and your stormbrother... are you related?

you have claimed the most nonsensical excuses ever.

every frigate has engineers.

technicians.

mechanics.

captains.

you seem to claim it is beyond the wit of man...to adapt.

i daresay you would just rolled over to the nazis as you seem incapable of any innovation or adapting.


are you related to someone who is mentally rigid?

have ever looked at a frigate lately?

they are largely empty space on the top with a helipad.

the aircraft in any case are stored with the wings vertically on the sides into recessed pods .this means no additional space is required.

how much space is required for servicing? a football field? how much space does your car require? the super bowel stadium?

your luddite thinking suggests we would never have left the caves.


here is an example of what you would have said during cave times.

but but ugh ugh...fire can set fire to the cave,.we could be burned ugh ugh..ugh ugh...but hunting animals ugh ugh can injure us and requires planning and co com com communication...ugh ugh
ugh ugh but farming crops means we cant move to far away from the farm ugh ugh..ugh...
weapons..but we would have to make the weapons...ugh ugh...

army but we would need a leader and planning and communication..radar..
ugh ugh...


[edit on 30-8-2009 by esecallum]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by esecallum
 


I don't know which astounds me more...the fact that you're illiterate (if you could read, you'd realize that my handle is "Brother Stormhammer", not "Stormbrother"), the fact that you're being childish (as evidence, I call as witness your last posts on this thread), or the fact that you're being intellectually dishonest (you claim that we're jealous of 'your idea', when, by your own admission in your original post, someone else already has a patent on the idea, and a company has already looked into developing it. If you aren't the patent holder, it's not 'your' idea, you're simply laying claim to another person's idea. Shame be upon you).

Mini-rants aside, I'll attempt to address the tiny morsels of meat in the five-course banquet of infantile behavior that you posted.

It's true that every frigate already has engineers, technicians, and captains (usually only one of the last). It's also true that they already have their hands full keeping the ship operational and combat ready. They have very specialized training, very little of which is germane to the arcane fields of airframe maintenance, jet engine maintenance, or avionics. Those folks are extra bodies, who have a nasty habit of wanting places to eat and sleep...and that requires more space, more cooks, and a large volume of specialized equipment.

You also need to do a bit of research in the field of ship design...or visit a warship or three...if you think that any combat ship is 'mostly empty space'. Despite their size, even an aircraft carrier is a remarkably crowded place when the air wing is embarked...frigates and destroyers operate on the 'even numbers inhale when odd numbers exhale' principle. There's barely room for a spare coat of paint, never mind aviation support personnel.

I can't help but noticing in closing that you were too busy with the insults to actually address any of the objections that I and other 'luddites' raised regarding 'your' idea, other than some vague, New-Age-ish handwavium about the 'adaptability of man'. Do you have any substantial contributions, or is this just another "I THINK THIS WUD B3 KOOL!!!!!" thread?



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
There is not much point slinging harriers off the sides of ships... Firstly they will be hung out there in all weathers getting bashed by the elements... How on earth are you going to do all the maintenance and rearming? Planes need a lotta love!

2nd what is all that weight that high up going to do to the ships centre of gravity?

3rd - Harriers only take off in a hover when they need to - they can take a lot more kit with them if they use a rolling take off.

4th - It's hard enough setting DOWN on a pitching deck - If I read you right you are suggesting the Harrier comes up from under the hook... And this hook is on a much smaller vessel than a carrier? That vessel is going to be a lot less stable - No one could consistently hook that thing up - the Harrier is not an easy plane to fly...

5 - A harrier when it takes off only has a limited amount of hover time - did you know they have to carry water in a tank to facilitate the hover? It's injected in to the engine to provide a bit of cooling for the engine and also the jet blast which as you would know has to be directed... I believe it also adds a bit more 'substance' to the column of air that the bird actually is sitting on.

At full use there is only actually 90 seconds worth!!! But not all situations require the water to be used up at the full rate.... What I'm saying is that a harrier loose a lot of the ability to hover and vector in combat because it's already had to factor in a difficult hover intensive take off and landing!

6 - this is the age of the UAV's - much better to design around those bad boys, as others have said the Harrier is old - we could be replacing with the JSF if the yanks want to sell them to us I suppose - I heard we were eyeing up the Osprey, although that is not a fighter of course - more of a helicopter alternative - nah design around the little UAV's




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join