Dream Carrier

this is something written as an idea, to start a debate and to provide a point of reference within that debate...

So here it is, this carrier is designed to not only project its own bubble of defence, but to also be able to launch a significant strike group; it is designed to survive and fight in all likely situations.

Displacement: 70,000tons (aprox)

Range: infinite

Speed: 32kts

Crew: 400 + Air group + Marines (minimum to be carried 400) + Command Staff

Armament;

• Saturation/Small Boat defence; 4* 57-mm Mk 110 Mod 0 Naval Gun System (mounted forward)


• CIWS; 4* Phalanx + 4*RAM, these are paired up, in part to mimic the Kashtan system, in part because I do not believe 3 of one or the other can provide sufficient protection to make such an important and targeted vessel viable.


• Multirole; 48/64 cell MK41VLS – mounted aft of the single island structure - these can be loaded with Tomahawks, Standard Missiles (2, 3, & 6) or Aster Missiles (15 & 30) and Asroc; all of which make the vessel potent, and capable of self defence against a myriad of threats; I am not of the school that believes you have escorts and carriers, especially in the case of the RN we do not have enough escorts, to have our carriers being barely armed.

Sensors:

• Air Search: The same BAE Systems Insyte / Thales S1850M radar operating at D band as is installed in the T45 AAD -this is installed to allow it to act as its own destroyer


• Air/Surface Search:


• Command Control System: Suggestions please....I am not sure what to choose, and I know you lot will make some very good suggestions


• ESM:


• Sonar: this may have to be developed, because their does not seem to be one designed for ships of a carrier size


• Communications:


• Fire control:


• all the blanks fit neatly in this, which would naturally be mounted at the top of the island; Thales integrated sensor mast - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sMgEsHC1Lc

Decoys

• Chaff launchers/flares


• DLH active naval off board decoy system as has been fitted in Type 45 AAD

Aircraft

• Fixed wing Aircraft; 4-6 AEW EC3-D, 36-48 JSF/F-22N/Strike UAV


• Rotary wing Aircraft; 4-8 Apache, 6-8 Merlin MK3 Junglie, 6-8 Merlin ASW, 6-8 UAV ASW


• total; 56-78 Aircraft + 6-8 UAV ASW

Boats

• 4* LCVPs


• 8 * Launches/Assault Boats


• 4* USVs; http://nosint.blogspot.com/2009/03/sea-protector-to-fridtjof-nansen.html)

Propulsion: Nuclear power is best for vessels of these size, so I would pick two PWR as are installed in the RN's submarines...I am sure they would do the job nicely, and would provide enough power to split water into Hydrogen for fuel to power its escorts..Should they be switched to that as a power supply? Most importantly the Nuclear power will generate enough steam or electricity to operate catapults, for launching aircraft with far more powerful weapons load outs than a ski jump can provide.

Design

• All edges are to be sloped 7˚ as in duke class frigates, cause like with the corvettes, I feel its radar imaged should be minimised, but full scale stealth boat is pointless due to size and expense.


• coated in radar absorbing paint
  

Estimated cost; £2.4billion (compare to current Queen Elizabeth Class costing £1.2billion), and do you want know what, I would build 3 of them!

***** (19/03/2009)

Sven you started without so much as happy birthday, ah well here we go;

My general understanding for future carriers is that they should be difficult to identify for aerial opposition and difficult to detect for subs.That excludes large size, operation of untypical or powerful radars and the use of loud nuclear power.A very silent engine running on kerosene for 5 kts + electricity generation in the area of operations plus a cruise diesel running on kerosene as well would be my choice.Nuclear power is quite pointless unless you use the ship as sea control cruiser or have a fully nuclear powered battlegroup.
Or if you want to launch aircraft of a decent size + payload weight, whilst a Ski Jump is lovely, catapults are better. plus a nuclear powerplant does not generate smoke, or require a funnel thus removing the RAFs ruling that the aircontrol platform has to be seperate from the mechanicals...there will be none for it to be seperate from allowing for just one Island structure and reduced drag.

The right use of aircraft (take off with ski jump, low landing speed) enables CV operation with much less than 30 kts.Power requirements increase much more than speed, so there's a lot of weight, space and also some crew and money to save with a slower ship.
actually nuclear power works out as net cheaper over 40 years of service, and it is also far better in terms of crew and capability, plus this might seem strange but a faster ship is more useful as it can cover a far larger area.

I would limit air defense to about a corvette's self-defence suite - lightweight and compact.
Helicopters will carry lightweight torpedoes, so a triple torpedo launcher fired from the hangar deck would be a cheap improvement, especially as there are now some torpedoes (like a MU90 version) that can allegedly hard kill heavyweight torpedoes.
you would limit air defence to a corvettes self-defence, well lovely, but I would point out even the Italian navy has started fitting Aster 15 and many other weapons, and the Americans, Russians and Indians are all beefing up their defences to deal with the next generation of missiles. added to this the RN is always short of escorts, so I reckon the carrier will need to fulfil that role to an extent itself.

"launches":Protector is pretty much crap imho, hyped up but crap.keywords: "Troika" system with "Seehund" ROV in Germany, add two SRBOC launchers, a jammer (to attract home-on-jam missiles), an IR sensor for air target detection/tracking/ID and a SeaRAM (7 missile launcher).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensdorf_class_minesweeper

I like the protector myself, its nice and simple, and it works, you like the others, fine but I was just using it as an example, I myself would wager that by 2012/2014/2016 there will be better ones still, available for purchase.

AEW: An Erieye system on a Merlin (mounted like the Orchidée on Super Puma) would fly lower, but be superior in other regards; performance over land, ability to refuel (on escorts and picket ships) without disruption of CV deck ops, maintenance commonality with Merlin, no requirements for deck length and CV speed like Hawkeye.

I come from the nation thats produced the Sea King AEW and have seen a Merlin AEW...trust me I prefer the Hawkeye, it has a far better range of detection, and whilst you might like the idea of the AEW helicopter landing on a picket ship which was not designed to take it, I don't...I have watched the difficulties of landing them on an unprepared land base...(this next bit added in later...) however there are cost and their are advantages and disadvantages, the fact is Hawkeye is better if Britain can get it/wants to afford it because simply put it has a more powerful radar, greater range, greater speed, and longer endurance which combine to give it a larger radius of effect - but if its decided perhaps for logistical synergies as well as cost reasons that its best to have as fewer different types of aircraft as possible, then the merlin successor to the sea king is the obvious choice and the question becomes why don't we have them rolling off the production line already? afterall the italians have some, and rumours suggest we have a better radar than they do...

Greatest problem:CVs are useless for the defence of Europe or the UK. The range of land-based aviation increased too much with midair-refuelling - carrier aviation has no defensive purpose (helicopter ASW CVEs could quickly be built on container ships if necessary).

okey for starters, what about supporting troops abroad in foreign lands? or amphibious/naval task groups operating far away from Britain, I am sorry I don't care much about Europe. (this next bit added in later...) I would also point out that during the problems caused by a Volcanoe errupting the aircraft carriers were able to move and provide air defence whilst the land based aircraft were imobilised...furthermore during world war II the Royal Navy operated quite successfully in the mediteranean more often than not in range of enemy air - yes they took lossess and damage, yes they were not always successful, but they pulled off many very large and very precarious operations in the face of this threat, and whilst aircraft and their weapons may be better today, so are the weapons which the navy has to oppose them with.

Even three 70 kt CVs are merely good enough to weak small country. The "Dream Carrier" lacks a justifiable strategic raison d'etre.

the dream carrier has the strategic raisin d'etre, is that they are there for the visible projection of power on a strategic level, whilst also providing support and succor for forces figthing far away from home bases.

Sven, I hope this answers your questions

yours sincerly

Alex

*******(19/03/2009)

Sven

I'm not much into small talk and such.Those who know me learn to appreciate my ways over time or break contact.

Sorry, that was a joke, british sense of humour, whilst it is my birthday, I certainly don't expect congratulations,
---

"the dream carrier has the strategic raisin d'etre, is that they are there for the visible projection of power on a strategic level, whilst also providing support and succor for forces fighting far away from home bases." That's pretty much what I call "not justifiable". It's not related to defence, neither self-defence nor collective defence in our alliance. Distant places are by definition no threat to our security. They cannot invade us and can hardly bomb or blockade us from afar.

North Korea is a distant place, so is Afghanistan, one is building missiles, the other was send terrorists all round the world... I am sorry sven but there is no such thing as local defence anymore in the global age, and whilst Europe might still be obssessed with the continetal strategy, the British have always been spread all over, and that requires we be able to postion ourselves all over.

A CV battlegroup with three carriers, about a dozen necessary escorts, participation in a special aircraft project for the carriers, keeping this force effective for decades, a workforce loss of thousands of people etc - the average annual cost to the nation is far in excess of a billion pounds.Far more than a billion pounds annually - for the mere capability to bully foreign, distant countries and to meddle in other continent's affairs instead of caring about domestic challenges? Or for prestige? Sorry, that's billions wasted as long as I could discuss domestic problems facing every country in Europe for hours without a pause. Your country is pretty much broke(n). The damage done to the economy is much greater than the mainstream media tells the people. This is no crisis for two or three years that goes away - it's a symptom of an economic structure that raced into a dead end for decades and crashed at its end. GDP about $2.8 trillion in 2008, trade balance deficit about $180 billion in 2007 - about 6.5% deficit. The military expenditures were about 2.5%. The efforts needed to fix domestic problems require a lot of the society's fiscal power, motivation, attention, brainpower and time. Expeditions and adventures overseas are simply a waste of these scarce resources.A CV can be a tool in a national security strategy - but it's a hollow shell with no purpose if it doesn't fit, and a British national security strategy needs to exploit our relatively calm times to spend resources on fixing domestic problems. The Spanish, Ottomans and Soviets demonstrated the effects of a ruined domestic economy on national security in the long term.

very nice fiscal analysis, I have many economic specialist though who are independent and tell me it is not as bad as it looks. however, I will get to this at the end. building a CVN+Battlegroup would actually help us, as the areas of employment we are suffering in is mainly car manufacture and other industries which have been closed down by their parent european companies in order for them to maintain the factories in their home countries going...so please don't get me started on the europeans, and how brilliant they are for the british economy, this means these unemployed could be given work building the ships; a bonus of this is that as money spent in these areas would be spent locally it works as a more productive form of job seekers allowance... it would also allow us to build up our defence/manufacturing industry, the former is one of the few areas still bringing in large amounts of foreign currency - with the revamped ship yards I would request that the british shipping firms by their merchant ships/cruise liners in the UK offering them tax incentives to do so.

Added to this Britain is not just part of europe, Britain is also part of the UN Security Council and the Commonwealth; both of which require far flung deployments of troops, as well as other personal and material. These operations require support (it is often forgotten that Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, and both of the Gulf Wars had large amounts - in some 85% of their air support flown from carriers, and of course British Forces in the Falklands were entirely reliant upon it). As for fixing domestic problems excetra which you seem so worried about, might I suggest that stop obssessing with so much you see on the news, I know from many friends all around the world and their reports to me that Britain is not doing that badly compared to some others, and I hope that with the next election the government will be changed and that the new incumbents will be more proactive with dealing with the current difficulties. Finnally I would also point out that leaving Europe would free up about 8% of our national budget, as well as another 4% spent on compliance, so that is 12% from European Union vs 2.5% on Defence, I know which I would cut first.

----

Your design would be a great target for SSKs, by the way.

This would be the SSK that would be the target of the 8 ASW helicopters on the Carrier itself, plus 10 more on the escorts and auxilaries in the battlegroup. Added to this you have the fact that whilst an SSK is very quiet once in place, it is not as quiet when it needs to charge its batteries, and is tied in place/operating era, so once it is discovered it either needs to move or is easily avoided/hunted to distruction. Even if the SSK does make it close enough to target the carrier, if it did fire it might hit a decoy, but its chance of being alive for that long would not be very great.

yours sincerly

Alex

***** (19/03/2009)

Kobus

Be aware, a CV is an purely offensive unit. Do not use automatic self defence weapons, you don´t want to kill an aircraft returning with an emergency.You´ve got destroyers, frigates and submarines to protect you when the aircraft are on board. Forget the sonar, you´ve got ASW helicopters.

whilst I can see your point, I do believe the deployment of carriers can be a defensive strategic tactic and is always something worthwhile having up the sleeve.

as for the defensive cannons, whilst I have heard that argument before, in practice we still deploy these weapons on the RNs carriers and the US's carriers, because the benefits of such weapons far outweigh the negatives when you are facing a saturation level missile attack.

yours sincerly

Alex

******(20/03/2009)

Mike

Arrgh! Since its your birthday, I bite my tongue.Except to say, with a hybrid carrier/missile ship/amphib I think you will need a bigger budget. Oh, those choppers will need to be airborne constantly to deal with SSK's. maybe UAV's instead?

well I increased the budget, and added UAVs to supliment the choppers...mainly keeping the latter cause at the moment they carry better torpedoes.

and thankyou mike for your kindness

yours sincerly

Alex