Over the course of the blog, many commenters have suggested
using the big deck LHA/LHD (LHx) as baby carriers. We’ve discredited this notion in terms of
traditional carrier operations (see, “LightningCarrier”) due to the limited size of the air wing and the complete lack
of ability to operate E-2 Hawkeye AEW, tankers, and E/A-18G Growler EW aircraft
that are crucial to combat effective air operations.
Other commenters have suggested using supercarriers for
ground support to make up for the complete absence of naval gunfire. This is a non-starter as the role of the
carrier in an amphibious assault is interdiction of enemy strikes and
reinforcements and the proper place to do that is hundreds or thousands of
miles from the assault site. It is
suicidal folly to ‘tie’ a carrier to one location which is what would be
required for a carrier to provide direct ground support for an amphibious
assault. And, lest we forget, we also
lack a true ground attack naval aircraft.
However, the possibility exists that a dedicated, small,
assault carrier could be useful in supporting amphibious assault operations. Well, wait … don’t we already have ground
support carriers in the form of our big deck amphibious ships (LHA/LHD)?
Yes, we do, but not effectively. Consider, currently, the aviation component
of an assault is housed on the LHx ships of which we only have a few (9 total
LHA/LHD) and they have very limited air wings.
A typical LHx air wing consists of:
That’s a limited capability mix that lacks the number of
aircraft to be effective in any of its roles.
Six strike aircraft can’t provide effective ground support, a dozen
tiltrotors can’t transport a useful number of troops and gear, and four heavy
lift helos can’t provide rapid, efficient heavy equipment transport. Like most mixes, the air wing is a compromise
that can do a little bit of everything but nothing well and ‘nothing well’ is
not how you succeed in combat. We’ve
thoroughly analyzed the shortcomings of the LHx as regards aviation (see, “Aviation Amphibious Assault Ships”) and provided the rationale for splitting off
aviation from assault (see, “Separate Aviation FromAmphibious”) so I won’t belabor it any further, here.
The LHx came about because the Marines, institutionally
terrified of being abandoned by the Navy (the Guadalcanal legacy) tried to
combine the functions of both a carrier and an assault transport and, not
surprisingly, managed to construct an unaffordable monstrosity that places too
many eggs in one basket while performing neither function well. So, why don’t we try separating the two
functions into dedicated ships, each optimized for their role? We previously discussed dedicated attack
transports (see, “Attack Transport - APA”).
Having established the problems with an LHx and the
rationale for separating the aviation and assault functions, let’s now consider
what a dedicated amphibious assault aviation support ship (an assault carrier) would
conceptually look like.
Focus – Separating the aviation component from
assault allows us to eliminate the transport function leaving the carrier able
to focus on ground attack/support. This
is crucial for a ship that will, hopefully, be substantially smaller than a
full size carrier.
There is no need for transport helos. They’re inefficient at their function and they’re
non-survivable over a battlefield as amply demonstrated in Vietnam, Soviet
Afghanistan, US Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
If we really think we need helos for some limited aspect of logistics
support, we can easily provide a dedicated transport/cargo helo carrier by
converting a merchant ship.
Aircraft – This is key to determining what an assault
carrier would look like. The choice of
aircraft will determine the size and characteristics of the carrier.
Stealth aircraft are not needed and, indeed, stealth is
largely useless when providing close range ground support (CAS). The enemy can see you and the main threat is
guns (ZSU-ish weapons) and small heat seeking, Stinger-type, shoulder launched
anti-air missiles. Radar stealth offers
no benefit against either of those threats.
What is needed is an aircraft with the best possible
combination of the following characteristics:
Having identified the desirable aircraft characteristics,
let’s consider some candidate aircraft.
F-35B - The F-35B is often touted as a CAS aircraft but, in
reality, is ill-suited for the ground attack/support role. It is a large, fuel hogging, maintenance
intensive, complex, non-damage resilient, limited hard point aircraft with
staggeringly atrocious availability rates.
In addition, it is hideously expensive to procure and operate.
A-10 - The A-10 has many of the characteristics we’d like
such as armor, redundant/manual flight controls, low maintenance, high sortie
rates, and 11 weapon stations. Of
course, a naval version of the A-10 does not exist and would have to be
developed.
F-16 – The F-16 is fairly maneuverable at moderately lower
speeds but has only 6 (possibly 7?) weapon hard points and, like the A-10, does
not exist as a carrier variant. It also
lacks any useful ground sensors, is unarmored, and lacks rugged, redundant
controls.
A-1 Skyraider - A candidate you might not think of is the prop
driven A-1 Skyraider. It is incredibly
simple (compared to a jet), free by current standards, easily maintainable and
repairable (a wrench and duct tape), armored, highly maneuverable at low
speeds, has very high availability rates, has 15 weapon stations, and can use
simple catapults and arresting gear.
Further, it is a carrier aircraft and would need no development,
whatsoever!
It is clear that high performance jets are not desirable for
the aviation support role. The best
match to the desired aircraft characteristics is the A-1 Skyraider! This, then, is the conceptual basis for an
assault aircraft. Having determined
that, we can now focus on the design of the ship, itself.
Air Wing – Having chosen a conceptual aircraft, we
now need to decide how many aircraft are needed in the air wing. The answer, of course, is ‘as many as
possible’. Well, that’s not very
helpful. A better answer is that the
number of aircraft is derived from a combination of factors such as the
resultant carrier size/cost, combat effectiveness, dispersal of risk, etc. A reasonable answer would seem to be
somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 aircraft.
More than that and the carrier gets too large and costly. Less than that and combat effectiveness drops
precipitously.
Carrier – The first determination is whether we need
a straight deck or angled deck. Ideally,
we’d like a straight deck, operated like WWII carrier, with no catapults and
simple arresting gear. If we could
launch B-25’s off a Yorktown class carrier, I’d like to believe that we could
design a Skyraider type aircraft that could launch unassisted. Elimination of catapults would greatly reduce
mechanical and utility (steam or electric) requirements which reduces the size
and cost of the ship. Assuming we can do
this, we’ll be able to use a straight deck design which, again, reduces the size
and cost of the ship.
As a point of reference, the US Navy WWII escort carriers
were around 500 ft long and 10,000 – 20,000 tons with air wings of 30+
aircraft. That seems like a good
conceptual starting point for a design.
If we can keep the cost low enough, we can afford to build
the carriers in sufficient numbers and be able to replace the inevitable losses
of a vessel that is purposely placed in harm’s way.
The final consideration in this discussion is the fact that
I don’t think there’s a strategic or operational need for amphibious assaults
so the entire discussion is moot.
However, if we did want to maintain an amphibious capability, an assault
carrier would be a step in the right direction though ultimately pointless
without lots of large caliber naval guns.
- Inexpensive so that appropriate numbers and replacements can be procured
- Armored for maximum airframe and pilot survivability
- Redundant and manual control systems enabling the aircraft to absorb tremendous amounts of damage
- Minimal IR signature to mitigate the main threat of Stinger-type missiles
- Minimal complexity which allows for easy repair/maintainability for excellent availability rates and combat damage repair
- Low maintenance per flight hour
- High sortie rates
- Excellent low speed maneuverability
- Minimal carrier operating requirements such as no, or simple, catapults and arresting gear
- Maximum number of weapons (hard points) as opposed to payload weight maximums. In CAS, it’s far more useful to have a large number of weapons rather than a high payload weight. To illustrate, it would be far more useful to have an aircraft with, say, ten weapon stations (hard points), each rated for a 500 lb bomb (5000 lb total payload) than an aircraft with four weapons, each rated for a 2000 lb (8000 lb total payload).
"Stealth aircraft are not needed and, indeed, stealth is largely useless when providing close range ground support (CAS). The enemy can see you and the main threat is guns (ZSU-ish weapons) and small heat seeking, Stinger-type, shoulder launched anti-air missiles. Radar stealth offers no benefit against either of those threats."
ReplyDeleteI'd argue that radar stealth is still necessary to some degree. Radar stealth protects the air wing from medium range and long range SAMs. We can easily avoid AAA and MANPADS by operating at medium altitude, but that will put our aircraft within the engagement envelope of MR and LR SAM. While any amphibious assault should be supported by SEAD missions flown from a supporting CVN, it still takes time for the enemy AD to be detected and suppressed - two can play at that game. RAM paint helps, but to a limited degree.
The real driver of the ongoing cost of stealth has been the RAM coatings that have to be repeatedly applied; VLO geometry is a one and done expense when the aircraft is being designed. As we see from the Rafale, we can get RCS reductions even without VLO shaping or RAM coatings, so that can save some of the costs.
"Maximum number of weapons (hard points) as opposed to payload weight maximums."
We definitely need to accelerate our development of smaller, more responsive weapons. The Small Diameter Bomb is IMO a good step in the right direction - it's a 250lbs guided bomb, and you can fit 4 of them in the same hardpoint space that takes a 2000lbs bomb (mostly due to volume limits). At maximum load, an F-35 can carry 24 of these weapons - yes, a 250lb bomb doesn't have the same oomph as larger JDAMs, but SDB is really the modern alternative to the Maverick missile that was so favored for CAS.
"I'd argue that radar stealth is still necessary to some degree. ... "
DeleteLet's see what else you have to say ...
"We can easily avoid AAA and MANPADS by operating at medium altitude, but that will put our aircraft within the engagement envelope of MR and LR SAM."
You just negated your first statement! Unless we're going to create an F-22 level of stealth CAS, medium altitude over a contested battlefield is where death awaits.
We need to determine how we're going to provide aerial-based ground support and the history of SAMs suggests that medium altitude is not the way to do it. Admittedly, this is a debatable point which just emphasizes the need for realistic testing and doctrine development.
"250lbs guided bomb"
Who/what do you think is going to be providing guidance? GPS will be contested and is only useful against known, fixed targets which is not the typical target in an amphibious assault. Laser guidance requires a lasing platform or person and those will not be available in active combat. No aircraft is going to hang around over a contested battlefield to lase a target. No soldier is going to be able to provide more than very sporadic lasing during active combat like an amphibious assault. We've forgotten why we need large caliber, area naval bombardment.
"You just negated your first statement! Unless we're going to create an F-22 level of stealth CAS, medium altitude over a contested battlefield is where death awaits."
DeleteTo my thinking, it's basically a matter of risk assessment. Down low, we're in AAA and MANPADS range, and the threats can engage us with very little time for us to react. Up at medium altitude, we're immune to those threats, but we're in SAM range; conversely, the number of SAM launchers the enemy has is limited, and we can react to threats.
Gulf War Air Power Survey's study of aircraft loss rates recorded that A-10s had a higher rate of damaged and shot down aircraft vs F-16s, despite being assigned to the same missions. Medium altitude puts you at risk for SAMs yes, but with a fast airframe you have energy for evasive maneuvers and space to perform them in, and onboard ECM provides a further modicum of protection against SAMs in terminal. You've got time to react if a SAM radar locks you up and sends a SAM at you; down low, your MWS might not detect MANPADS fast enough for you to react.
That said, I'm of the opinion that if we're going to go for the low and slow paradigm of CAS, as opposed to the high and fast method, then we should really optimise for that paradigm, which in my opinion is best served with attack helicopters. They can terrain mask, operate in close proximity to targets and friendlies, and while they're slower than Skyraiders, their speed is still sufficient for the relatively short ranges we're talking about.
"Who/what do you think is going to be providing guidance? GPS will be contested and is only useful against known, fixed targets which is not the typical target in an amphibious assault."
Enemy defenses and bunkers are ipso facto fixed targets, as are dug in enemy tanks and IFVs that are defending the beach (until they reposition, anyway). Also, SDB II isn't just limited to GPS and laser - it's got an IIR seeker, like Maverick and Walleye (albeit Walleye was EO), so you can aim, lock, release, and go evasive. It's also got a millimeter-wave radar seeker so you can use ground attack mode on the radar to designate multiple targets for quick deployment of multiple missiles (the same paradigm as Longbow Hellfire on the Apache, or the Brimstone missile on the Eurofighter Typhoon and British F-35s).
Again, a great topic- which, while focused, of course has to take into account the larger picture and combined arms across the battlespace. But once doing so, the idea of small CAS-focused CVs and prop aircraft comes out a winner. A-10s are a natural go-to, but without a navalized version, and the likely need for heavier cats n traps, the propjobs become an easy choice, and the price of a couple CAS wings could probably be lost in Pentagon rounding errors!!!
ReplyDeleteMy only other thought is that maybe a mix of attack helos with the propjobs might be, with proper training and integration, might be feasible. I can see where the Skyraiders and Cobras might be an effective short/long(er) range team.
Of course the downside of pursuing this is that to make our light carrier and prop driven airwing worthwhile, we'd need a proper amphib capability, actual landing craft and transports, NGFS, and a Marine Corps thats fully capable again, not just light infantry. But, if we ever think we will do amphib operations, and we get all the above, then Im game!!!
Thats tough to say because right now Im at the point of casing the Marines colors and putting the whole Lxx fleet in mothballs. The Navy cant afford to waste ANY more time or money on anything thats not actually useful anymore...
(Rant over)
Signed- worried parent of near-future sailor.
The days of opposed amphibious assaults against a reasonably well-equipped enemy are done and dusted. The proliferation of cheap sensors, small drones, satellites, AI analysis, GPS & even bloody social media make it REALLY hard to move any kind of substantial naval force within spitting distance of enemy shores in force. And modern ASMs & precision-guided weaponry will turn your invasion force into fish food. Your navy will have its own fires, of course, but it’s so much easier to build large numbers of shore-based gun & missile systems. They’re gonna have a lot more ammo than you too. Nelson said that a ship’s a fool to fight a fort. That’s more true today than ever before. One thing the Ukraine war had proven is that Russia might not build many things well, but they sure did get SAMs figured out. I know there are folks who will counter by saying that we’ll neutralize them just like we did the Iraqi systems during Desert Storm. The problem with that argument is that this is not 1991. Digital democratization has had the side effect of largely neutralizing the God’s Eye View advantage we enjoyed back then. Also, our navy is half the size it was three decades ago, has fewer capabilities & can’t be easily reconstituted. Our insistence on off-shoring everything has reduced our industrial capability dramatically & the idiotic practice of applying just-in-time manufacturing to vital industries and services has destroyed our surge capability.
DeleteOpposed amphibious assaults are toast, as is anyone who tries to mount one.
That said, I’m not at all against looking for ways to utilize smaller deck carriers in certain roles. An evolved Harrier-type jet is an obvious choice for such a carrier. Harriers are one of the (very) few strike aircraft that have been utilized effectively by nations with small carriers. Reviving piston-powered light strike aircraft is also not a bad idea. Embraer’s Super-Tucano, for instance, is a low-cost, very versatile reconnaissance & light strike aircraft that could be navalized pretty easily. I’d be all in on a program to do so.
I’d quite like to have a Harrier 2.0 & a Super Sea Tucano. I just don’t anticipate using them at the next Battle of Iwo Jima, cause I don’t think there will be one.
"The proliferation of cheap sensors, small drones, satellites, AI analysis, GPS & even bloody social media make it REALLY hard to move any kind of substantial naval force within spitting distance of enemy shores in force."
DeleteReality strongly disagrees! Despite the best radars, EO/IR sensors, GPS, satellites, IFF, etc., the Navy seems to be routinely surprised by the sudden appearance of, and collision with, large merchant ships.
Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 vanished from one of the most heavily monitored areas in the world and no one had the slightest idea where it was when it vanished.
The Navy's USS Mason, despite the world's most advanced sensors and regional monitors claimed - but could not prove - that it was attacked by missiles off Yemen. See the post on the subject.
I can go on with example after example. The reality is that it's not all that difficult to 'lose' very large objects in the midst of advanced sensors.
More importantly, it doesn't matter whether the enemy knows you're coming if you have superior force and a superior battle plan.
"modern ASMs & precision-guided weaponry will turn your invasion force into fish food."
One can equally make the statement that modern SAMs and precision guided defensive weaponry will turn the ASMs into tiny bits of scrap metal. Since no one has ever conducted a serious test of ASMs against SAMs, no one has the slightest idea how such an engagement would turn out.
" it’s so much easier to build large numbers of shore-based gun & missile systems."
It's also so much easier to target land-based gun and missile systems in pre-assault bombardments.
"Nelson said that a ship’s a fool to fight a fort. That’s more true today than ever before."
We disproved that notion in a previous post. Check the archives.
"Opposed amphibious assaults are toast, as is anyone who tries to mount one."
You're welcome to your opinion but this is a very disappointing comment as you failed to offer a single piece of actual, factual data to support your belief. Honestly, I'm considering deleting your comment due to the absence of supporting data or logic. I demand a higher standard on this blog than just unsupported opinions. Why don't you try again and this time offer something factual to support your beliefs (several of which are factually incorrect (as one example, the available data indicates that defensive systems have a substantial advantage over attacking ASMs).
Step up your game! Also, it is your responsibility to know the material in the archives. You need to come up to speed.
If you're going cheap with the A-1, why not go even cheaper and use a drone carrier? They're more cost-effective and can be used more aggressively since they're expendable. What can an A-1 do that a drone can't?
ReplyDeleteThe usual objection to drones is "what happens if they're jammed?". But if communications are jammed, wouldn't that prevent the troops from communicating with the CAS pilots and negate the concept of CAS in the first place?
"What can an A-1 do that a drone can't?"
DeleteAct intelligently without remote control or communications requirement.
"if communications are jammed, wouldn't that prevent the troops from communicating with the CAS pilots and negate the concept of CAS in the first place?"
No. First, you need to understand the comms requirements for unmanned versus manned. A manned aircraft needs only a brief voice comm. An unmanned aircraft requires continuous, full spectrum video, broadband links, and so on. Everything that a pilot would normally see and process without any aid needs to be turned into mega-communications and data link requirements.
You also need to understand that ground support in combat is not the same as peacetime, leisurely, close air support. In combat, an aircraft is likely to be assigned a mission and execute it without communicating with ground troops because the troops will be too busy fighting to survive to take leisurely surveys of the battlefield and provide precise targeting coordinates to some aircraft.
Combat ground support will be more along the lines of, 'hit that hill', 'destroy that bridge', 'hit that command post', and so on - tasks that will be assigned before the flight takes off.
Question - if the comms is too degraded for CAS, how will observers call in naval gunfire strikes? My understanding of naval gunfire is that it's a more time-involved and data-involved process as the observer has to call fires on a grid square, and then walk the guns onto the target with each sucessive salvo.
Delete" if the comms is too degraded for CAS, how will observers call in naval gunfire strikes?"
DeleteYou've got to remember that the vast majority of naval gun support is area bombardment not pinpoint target engagement. You don't need comms for area bombardment. By the time your assault has advanced to the point that you're dealing with pinpoint targets, you've probably got control of the airwaves.
Further, comms to a manned aircraft or ship offshore are easier than comms with an unmanned drone which is what we're talking about.
What am I missing, in Ukraine both the Russian and Ukrainian integrated air defense systems have been so effective to have made close air support aircraft not worth the candle, so question why need CAS aircraft for assualt carriers.
ReplyDeleteThink the only success with aircraft has been the Ukrainians with stand off missiles eg HARM and Storm Shadow, and drones, similarly the Russians have not committed CAS aircraft but stand-off missiles eg Kh-101/Kh-555 both air-launched (Ukraine claimed to have taken out 35 of 35 fired from Tu-95s on night of June 6) and ship launched cruise missiles, Kinzhal air launched from MiG 31, Iskander SRBMs and drones.
Both sides for ground support relying on massive artillery and rockets, reportedly Ukraine using 100,000 155m shells a month and said Russians using even higher numbers, have no figures for the number of MLRS M31 rockets being used.
"What am I missing, in Ukraine both the Russian and Ukrainian integrated air defense systems have been so effective ... "
DeleteNo! What you're missing is that neither Ukraine nor Russia have fought with an ounce of operational and tactical competence. You don't send ground attack aircraft into the teeth of an air defense system; you send an integrated/joint force. You establish local air superiority, apply SEAD, support it with artillery, and coordinate with armored/mechanized thrusts partially aimed at enemy SAM systems AND THEN YOU APPLY GROUND SUPPORT AIRCRAFT and they'll perform quite well.
Both Ukraine and Russia seem to be doing exactly what I constantly preach against, here, which is one v. one thinking. You don't fight one v. one. You fight jointly if you want to succeed. You don't send isolated tanks out - they'll die. You don't send isolated aircraft out - they'll die. You don't send isolated troops out - they'll die. Instead, you plan and execute joint missions with the various elements mutually supporting each other.
I keep saying, DON'T DRAW LESSONS FROM THE UKRAINE-RUSSIA CONFLICT. Neither side is fighting competently.
Thanks, obvious when you set it out so clearly, but needs some expensive kit with limited availability eg EA-18Gs, would need support from the main carriers.
Delete"EA-18G"
DeleteEW aircraft are an obvious and vital piece of the joint effort and yet, inexplicably and stupidly, our Air Force completely abandoned the capability.
We need multiple types of EW aircraft:
- a fighter size, stealthy, tactical EW aircraft analogous to the EA-18G
- a large, stealthy, full capability, stand off EW aircraft like the old AF types that were abandoned
- a fast, stealthy, SEAD-strike aircraft
The Airforce is getting rid of the A-29, you can use those to try out your CASCarrier. Nick the Su-25s are flying, they just stay in the weeds, they have brush guards fitted. ;-)
ReplyDeleteWouldn't new build A-4 Skyhawks be better than the A-1 Skyraider's? they are actually lighter while having a larger weapon capacity though over fewer hardpoints but if your going to be focused on close air support then small diameter bombs, hellfire size missiles and rocket pods can easily be grouped up on each A-4.
ReplyDelete"Wouldn't new build A-4 Skyhawks be better than the A-1 Skyraider's?"
DeletePossibly, although one of the major issues is ease of maintenance and simplicity of construction. Anything with a jet engine is infinitely more complex and less reliable than a piston engine.
Also, you realize that I'm not talking about an exact reproduction of the Skyraider but, rather, using the Skyraider as the conceptual starting point for a new ground support aircraft.
For my recent post I was trying to think of how to get the Navy flight deck capacity as fast as possible. I ended up cutting the section since the more reasonable answer was land-based airfields, but this is what I came up with:
ReplyDeleteThe main idea is a simplification of the Mobile Offshore Base concept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_offshore_base
The simplifications are:
1. No crew quarters or marines. Use an amphibious ship as a tender.
2. Delete propulsion and tow into place
3. Reduce the width since we aren't flying C-17s off it
4. In this case we can use one 300m-400m section and that'd handle A-1s or A-4s without catapults, reducing overall cost and complexity.
5. Treat it like an Air Force base. It will take hits since it is static so give it some decent deck armor, prepare for rapid repairs, have steel barriers between planes below deck to limit how many planes get destroyed in penetrations. You'd also have to put the torpedo blister things on the pontoons and use closed-cell foam in the air-filled voids to prevent flooding during breaches.
Overall make it as close to a steel airfield as possible to reduce initial cost and improve ease of repair.
Might I add another possible new build aircraft, the A-37 dragonfly. Good STOL built in as well as forward unimproved airfield operations. Boatload of weapons points, simple and rugged, easy maintenance. Used to live next to Grissom AFB in the early 70s, they had a wing of them there, very nimble and speedy little aircraft. AF ditched them cause the were not flashy enough and the war in vietnam was winding down.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's a possibility. I hate the thought of a jet engine in this role, however. I'd want maximum ease of maintenance and repairability which suggests a piston engine. We're all under the paradigm of jet engines because ... well ... that's what we've grown up with. However, piston engines have advantages and under the right circumstances would be sufficient.
DeletePlus, I love the Skyraider's 15 hard points!
The A2D Skyshark was the turbo prop follow on to the Skyraider.
DeleteReplace the the wacky Allison XT-40 with PW150 engine and Bobs' your uncle.
Didn't the A2D have fewer hardpoints and reduced payload capacity?
DeleteThis is an interesting concept, but also a good way to throw pilot lives away.
ReplyDeleteNaval support can deliver much more firepower without having to worry about SAMs or MANPADs or whatever.
Of course the USN has no real naval fire support capability (although they might pretend that a Burke's tiny lil gun is enough), but that's a different story.
"Naval support can deliver much more firepower"
DeleteOf course! This was just addressing various concepts that are often brought up. It doesn't mean it's a great idea. Large caliber naval guns are the only way to go!
While this is a detour from the main topic, it is relevant when considering what type of aviation ship we use and where we put them. Helicopters or perhaps tilt-rotors may be valuable for medevac. I will admit as a civilian physician I have a bias towards these considerations. I note ComNavOps comments in the past that our usual peacetime assumptions about helicopters being able to fly freely won't apply in seriously contested air and ground spaces.
ReplyDeletePublic domain reports on battlefield medicine in Ukraine follow that trend, with artillery causing multiple casualties simultaneously, some forward medical units choosing to run without electricity generators, or holding onto wounded for days if medical vehicles are being targeted by artillery. Certainly they aren't using helicopters for medevac in the frontline.
As such ground, waterborne or amphibious medevac options with speed and/or reduced visibility may be needed. And helicopters may have to pickup patients further away than we are used to. One concept of operations might be fast boat transfer to an assault ship, then load onto a tilt-rotor for transfer to a more distant hospital ship, possibly accompanied by a converted cargo ship aviation ship.
I worry that we are not ready for battlefield medicine in mass-casualty warfare in a contested environment. I treat patients who even now bear the personal cost of the lack of preparation of 90 years ago, and see history reflected in current events.
I don't know if China is likely to respect a declared hospital ship in it's defined 'box'. If not, great range may be required if we are not to be dependent on nearby allied ground facilities.
"I worry that we are not ready for battlefield medicine in mass-casualty warfare in a contested environment."
DeleteI don't worry at all ... We're totally unprepared! We've gotten so used to peacetime, one-at-a-time casualties in a permissive environment that we have no idea how to handle mass casualties in a lethal environment. The 'Golden Hour' is a myth on the battlefield.
In the midst of an active battle, there's very little that can be done for wounded. If you can drag them to some kind of cover, you're doing well. Yes, medics will, heroically, do everything they can but they'll be dying, too, and they'll be short of every supply they need.
The cold reality of battle is that the wounded will have to wait until the immediate battle is over. Some will survive. Many will die. There's a reason why war is ugly and brutal.
I would almost go so far as to say that there is little we can do to prepare for battle casualties, if for no other reason than the fact that we, largely, can't get to them during a battle and will have no ability to move them. There's not much effective preparation you can do in that scenario.
One of the interesting new treatments is the use of foaming cavity fillers to stop otherwise rapidly fatal bleeding. Of course, that's great for treating one person but falls apart when you have to treat hundreds in a matter of minutes. There won't be enough medics or treatment packs or access to the wounded.
The best preparation we can do is become experts at combat planning and tactics so we can win the battle as quickly and decisively as possible. That's how you effectively minimize casualties.
Yes, later, after the battle, we need to plan for treating and transporting massive numbers of wounded - assuming we win the battle and can recover our wounded. If we lose, well ...
You are no doubt well-informed on these matters. We have exchanged words in the past about cavity-fillers, which do show great promise.
DeleteI hadn't thought about the implications of mass casualties for the poor frontline medic. Compared to us pampered one-to-three at a time civilian medics, our combat medics will require potent treatments, ie ones that work better for less volume, ie ones that have less weight/mass and can be carried in greater numbers.
I read that some Ukraine forward aid stations choose to run without generators to avoid detectable heat emissions, which means they cannot store blood. If we are to keep large numbers of wounded for long periods on the frontline and forward stations, then there are many adaptions we will need to do. But matters outside the topic of Assault Carriers. Thank you for your feedback.
"matters outside the topic of Assault Carriers."
DeleteI have no problem with this. It's an interesting and vital topic that needs to be addressed. I encourage you to expound on it! I would entertain a guest post if you have a desire and a specific aspect of battlefield medicine that you'd like to examine. Let me know if you have any interest.
Shipboard treatment is also an issue. The wounded who make it to a ship may be more stable (the unstable will have died waiting) but likely seriously hurt with burns, loss of limb, and large cavity wounds predominating, I would guess. What does that imply for our shipboard treatment capabilities as opposed to a traditional hospital-bed type arrangement? Is that the best way to handle that? I'm out of my element, here!
"combat medics will require potent treatments, ie ones that work better for less volume, ie ones that have less weight/mass and can be carried in greater numbers."
And that are effective in incredibly dirty conditions. When you pack a wound on the battlefield, you're packing dirt in, too. If the patient survives back to a ship, they can deal with the dirt/infection at that point. Again, are we prepared to do that on the required scale?
I've seen some debate about tourniquets where Ukraine is using a lot more than the US military usually does. Is that a good thing or driven by the reality that they don't have blood, evac capacity, etc?
Delete"Let me know if you have any interest."
DeleteThank you. I will do some further research on the matter and get back to you. I know how I and my colleagues treat car crash victims and our local experiences with major disasters. Military medicine is something I read about only. I note that there are some lessons at least to learn from Ukraine and other recent conflicts. I am sure I can make some intelligent comment about how we will have to adapt our peacetime thinking for the trade-offs and compromises we will need to consider ahead of time. So we can order kit and training before we need it to keep as many of our people alive as possible.
"Is that a good thing or driven by the reality that they don't have blood, evac capacity, etc?"
DeleteAnything that applies more external pressure to blood vessels than the blood pressure (that your doctor measures) inside the blood vessel at that point will act as a tourniquet. In a pinch, I know I can use my handy-dandy manual blood pressure cuffs as improvised tourniquets until someone can get a specialized device from somewhere. The trick is doing it successfully if you are untrained and have to improvise, because quite a bit of external pressure has to be both applied and sustained over time without it breaking. Tourniquets will stop bleeding beyond that point, at the cost of increasing risk to the limb over time, and the risk of bleeding if the tourniquet fails. There are other consequences, this is a deliberate simplification. Tourniquets are fast to use, effective, and commonly used. However, the longer the patient waits for more definitive treatment, the greater the limb sacrifice.
Without knowing details, estimates only. Increased tourniquet application rate is a function of the large number of casualties. Increased tourniquet application time, and thus consequence, is a function of delayed evacuation and saturated treatment capacity, compared to our luxurious current peacetime state.
Thanks!
Delete"Is that a good thing or driven by the reality that they don't have blood, evac capacity, etc?"
DeleteI have absolutely no actual information, whatsoever, but common sense would suggest that the usage driven by the lack of trained medics and alternate equipment/procedures. In contrast, a tourniquet can be applied by anyone, using many different items. Anyone can do it, anytime, with anything.
Pure speculation on my part.
But nobody here is discussing electrically-powered strike aircraft. Nor diversity among the pilots. You are soooo backward-looking.
ReplyDeleteSlightly off-topic, but here's another idea for a smaller carrier: How about an escort carrier, carrying one or two dozen ASW helicopters, to escort merchant convoys?
ReplyDeleteIt's probably more cost effective from a maintenance/operations point of view than having a separate small aviation detachment on each of the other escort ships. Plus it would allow us to delete the aviation element from the other escorts, making them smaller and cheaper.
And, in the Pacific theater at least, over most of the route the main threat, at least for the moment, is submarines, so an ASW-focused escort force seems reasonable for most of the route.
Of course there is the potential for a single point of failure situation, in that sinking the carrier means all the helicopters go with it. I'll leave it to people with greater expertise than me to decide where to come down on that trade off.
This would be a slight adaptation of the hunter-killer ASW carrier group (see, "Hunter-Killer ASW Group").
DeleteInstead of being free-roaming, the group would be tied to a convoy.
Not sure if an updated S3 Viking ASW aircraft could be a part of this air wing but it could add range to the ASW mix with a helicopters & P8s. We may need dedicated ASW escort ships.
Delete"Not sure if an updated S3 Viking ASW aircraft could be a part of this air wing"
DeleteAn S-3 would be great. The only drawback is that a fixed wing aircraft - and fixed wing aircraft - would require that the carrier have catapults and arresting gear which instantly adds to the size and cost of the carrier. A helo-ASW carrier can be small. A fixed wing ASW carrier is bigger and more expensive. Whether it's worth it depends on the exact CONOPS. It's always CONOPS!
RE: S3-Viking
DeleteAs CNO mentioned, the S-3 is a fixed wing aircraft and would require a larger, more expensive, "cats and traps" equipped carrier.
If the CONOPS requires a faster, longer range airborne asset, perhaps a modified version of the V-22 Osprey might be a better match. I believe it doesn't hover as well as a regular helicopter, so the dipping sonar may be out, but it should be able to perform most or all of the functions of the S-3, albeit with somewhat less range and speed.
It's true that Ospreys are very expensive to fly, although they would give savings on acquisition cost for the carrier, since no cats and traps would be needed. In addition, these ships could be in reserve, with few deployments, most of the time, so higher operating costs might be less important, since they's mostly occur during a major war.
Could the merchant ships carry drones that do the same job?
ReplyDeleteGradually, missile vs aircraft carrier will become a hot topic.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt, aircrafts are main assault and defense forces of a carrier group. They need to attack enemies far away and prevent them from fire missiles close to the group. On land assaults, Ukraine war has proven close-in air supports by manned aircrafts and helicopters are obsolete --- too danger. They should be conducted by drones with bearable costs as some will be gunned down.
This calls to develop drones more suitable for close-in air supports which can be launched from carriers. Alternatively, build drone carriers.
Anonymous poster suggested a drone carrier. Drones are not cheap - a Reaper costs more than an A29 but they have much more time on station which is why Turkey is working in a drone carrier. Drones also don’t require pilots which reduces berthing space.
ReplyDeleteManned aircraft are needed for the initial strikes and they require SEAD. 155mm cannons need to be added to the design so it can fire its own suppression on a timeline mission against beach defenses to allow the prop aircraft to make the initial strikes.
To me, a mixture of A29 / AT-6s and drones is exactly what is needed for both CAS and sea control against maritime militia type ships off the coast of the Philippines. Tge cannons can also increase the volume of fire ashore between sorties.
Been thinking of this problem for a while and I think we need 3 of these carriers: 1 in Japan or Korea for III MEF, 1 in the Mediterranean for II MEF, 1 in Hawaii and 1 in CENTCOM for I MEF.
Redesign an amphib to eliminate troop berthing space and add 4 self loading high rate of fire 155mm mounts (one on each corner) with ammunition. What do you think CNO?
"drones"
DeleteDrones are poorly suited for ground support in an amphibious assault scenario which is what this post is about. They are slow, not very maneuverable, generally non-stealthy, and have poor payloads. Attrition would extremely high.
" Drones also don’t require pilots which reduces berthing space."
??? Of course they require pilots, often multiple pilots for a single drone, as the Air Force has documented. The Air Force noted that UAV manning went UP for drone squadrons compared to manned squadrons.
" sea control against maritime militia type ships"
??? We're talking about high end, amphibious assaults.
"155mm cannons need to be added to the design so it can fire its own suppression"
Setting aside the fact that we don't have a 155mm naval gun, adding these to a carrier instantly increases the cost and complexity of such a carrier and takes it from a hundred million dollar, converted cargo ship to a billion+ dollar, purpose built, combat ship once you add naval guns, magazines and safety systems, auto loading mechanisms, magazine elevators, fire suppression systems, magazine flooding systems, fire control sensors, fire control software, maintenance techs, extra berthing and hotel services, self-defense RAM/CIWS (you want to protect this kind of investment, right?), increased electrical and cooling utilities for these weapons, and so on. And for what? Some non-survivable, small payload drones?
The Air Force has already acknowledged that UAVs are not survivable over battlefields.
I'm completely missing the attraction and usefulness of drones in an amphibious assault ground support role.
(Rewritten for clarification.)
DeleteAnonymous, you might find interesting CNO's assault support ship concept.
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2016/11/assault-support-ship.html
You also can find a description on the Fleet Structure page. This version has five 5/62 guns and a C-RAM (a Phalanx variant).
The British had interesting monitors with two 15-inch guns for shore bombardment in World War Two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts-class_monitor
It would be fun to speculate about what a 21st century monitor with 12- or 16-inch guns would be like, but the result would probably be much larger and expensive than what CNO has in mind. Also, if the fleet has cruisers with 8-inch guns and battleships with 16-inch guns, a very large monitor probably isn't necessary.
I would classify CNO's assault support ship as a monitor (BM) or a gun destroyer (DD). In fact, it might look like a Fletcher-class destroyer with a more modern superstructure.
I know a 5-inch gun has its drawbacks, but a Mk 45 can fire 16-20 rounds per minute. The Mk 45 Mod 4 with its 5/62 barrel can throw the Cargo Round 23 miles. I don't know if it can drive all 5-inch shells that far, but overall, that's good performance.
I think CNO's assault support ship would provide a lot of firepower to aid an amphibious assault while the aircraft from the assault carrier do their jobs.
Let's think about how such a carrier and its airwing might be built in the present day. Start with the engines:
ReplyDeleteThe problem with using a large piston engine in the strike aircraft is that nobody builds them any more. Given the requirement for speed and loiter time, a turboprop makes sense, and there's a fully navalized one that the USN already uses, the T56 that powers the P-3 Orion and the E-2 Hawkeye, as well as most models of the C-130. With about 5,000 shp, this is fully adequate to power a modern Skyraider.
The ship should be diesel-powered, and it's worth having the ship and its aircraft use the same fuel, because that gives you flexibility.
The airframe needs to be simple and lightweight, but the highest priority is being easy to repair, so it should be all-metal, with minimum use of composites. We're solving weight problems with engine power to some degree. Nobody actually builds an aircraft like this at present, but it somewhat resembles a scaled-up T-6A.
You do want an angled flight deck, because it lets you do simultaneous take-offs and landings with reasonable safety. If you have a WWII-style straight deck, any landing pilot who misses all the wires has to try to take off again before he hits the crash barrier. This is quite hard, since there's very little space by deck standards. Hitting the crash barrier will damage the aircraft and often injure the crew. The alternative, of not having a crash barrier and giving a pilot who misses the wires the full length of the deck to take off again makes landing of groups of aircraft extremely slow, because each has to be taken down to the hangar before the next one can land. This also makes it hard to interleave landings and take-offs. With an angled deck, am aircraft that misses the wires can zoom harmlessly over the side of the carrier, with precious altitude available to throttle up before it hits the water.
"nobody builds them any more."
DeleteI really get tired of this argument. No one built F-35s until we wanted them. No one built Zumwalt gun systems until we wanted them. No one built EMALS until we wanted them. No one built Virginia Payload Modules until we wanted them. No one built LRASM missiles until we wanted them. Do I need to keep going? If we want something, we'll build it.
"turboprop makes sense"
One of the major driving forces in such a concept is SIMPLICITY which translates to ease of maintenance, higher availability rates, and ease of repair. A turbine is the opposite of this.
"WWII-style straight deck"
And yet it worked in WWII. When you start adding angled flight decks and supporting sponsons you start quickly increasing the cost. This kind of carrier should be CHEAP!
"Hitting the crash barrier will damage the aircraft"
And yet we made it through a world war operating this way. If the aircraft is damaged and you kept the aircraft design simple, you repair the aircraft or shove it over the side (an argument for keeping the aircraft CHEAP!).
I have nothing against an angled deck carrier except that it begins the process of taking a simple, basic, cheap carrier to a gold-plated, unaffordable monstrosity.
We managed to operate simple, basic, straight deck, escort carriers in amphibious assault ground support roles in WWII. Why do you think we can't do so again?
"f we want something, we'll build it." Yes, but it will take *longer* than using something already available. The radial-engine plants all go re-equipped decades ago. There's small-scale manufacturing of some spares for them. If you want these carriers and airwings this decade, using available equipment has a lot going for it.
Delete"We managed to operate simple, basic, straight deck, escort carriers in amphibious assault ground support roles in WWII. Why do you think we can't do so again?"
You can, but you'll kill a lot of pilots in peace-time operations. That's a lot less acceptable than it was in the 1930s.
"If you want these carriers and airwings this decade, using available equipment has a lot going for it."
DeleteUsing existing equipment always has a lot going for it! I'm a huge proponent of using existing equipment, IF IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS. However, I'm sure we can re-develop a radial engine in less than a decade.
"you'll kill a lot of pilots in peace-time operations"
We kill a lot of pilots now, in jets that have no lift, no forgiveness, no oxygen(!), and no margin for error. Radial engine aircraft have got to be safer to fly and operate.
Don't lose sight of what we're talking about: a simple (merchant conversion?), basic function, amphibious assault, ground support carrier. Simple, rugged, basic, cheap. With a corresponding simple, rugged, basic, cheap strike aircraft. Everything we add to that basic premise moves us farther away from what we want. That's exactly what the Navy does every time. It starts with a moderately basic concept and quickly moves it into the realm of the gold-plated absurd that we can't afford and then numbers get cut and the program fails. Don't fall prey to that practice!
"Don't lose sight of what we're talking about: a simple (merchant conversion?), basic function, amphibious assault, ground support carrier."
DeleteBut, such a carrier would need to meet certain naval construction standards and be just as survivable as other amphibs. Plus, there are electronics (e.g., radar, communications, etc) and defensive weapons to consider.
I get the idea, but outside of a one-off conversion effort, like that of the Atlantic Conveyor, there are certain minimums for survivability, communications, etc, that need to be satisfied.
"such a carrier would need to meet certain naval construction standards and be just as survivable as other amphibs."
DeleteNO! Examine the escort carriers of WWII. They were basically merchant ship designs converted to aircraft operations. They had no armor and lacked most of the naval standards of the time. They were not meant to stand in a battle line and fight. They were for peripheral tasks. If one happened to get caught in a battle, well ... that was too bad and we'd likely lose it (Leyte). The flip side is that they were so cheap that they were numerous and expendable. If we tried to turn each one into a fleet carrier we'd have only had a couple.
One of our unfortunate paradigms is that we've come to believe that EVERY navy ship MUST have full capabilities in every regard and that's just foolish while leading to an unaffordable fleet.
The kind of carrier we're discussing doesn't need anything more than a glorified navigation radar and a basic radio. Add a few CIWS and call it a day.
Supporting an amphibious assault is not a "peripheral task." An amphibious assault is direct combat with the enemy.
DeleteEscort carriers were meant to supplement larger carriers, not replace them. Escort carriers were instrumental in ending the U-boat threat in the Atlantic. But, in the Atlantic, the threat from enemy surface ships and aircraft were minimal.
If you're going to oprate a carrier in combat, it shouldn't be a makeshift design.
"peripheral"
DeletePeripheral, in this context, means low risk of direct combat which is exactly what an amphibious assault, ground support carrier (WWII escort carrier) is. WWII escort carriers were assigned low risk missions such as convoy escort and amphibious assault ground support.
The escort carriers at Leyte, for example, were never imagined to be at risk of direct combat. They were to perform peripheral support tasks.
Radial engines were used in the past because it was the best design to get the best performance out of GASOLINE. Jet fuel (kerosene) is way safer than gasoline. A turboprop engine is much simpler than (and fewer moving parts) than a radial engine. A turboprop engine does operate at higher rpm which requires tighter manufacturing tolerances and better bearings, but with modern manufacturing practices, that is not a problem at all. Notice that commercial aviation has abandoned the radial engine in favor of the turboprop. The A-29 Super Tucano is the nearest modern equivalent of an A-1 Sky Rader. The US procured them for the Afgan air force for the same reasons you advocate the A-1, but now the Taliban has them. There's a great YouTube video of an experienced USAF General test flying an A-29; he was very impressed with the performance. I don't think it would be too hard to produce a version suitable for carrier use.
ReplyDeleteWe have a history of building aircraft carriers from the hull and propulsion plants of cruisers and battleships. CV-2&3 were based on a battlecruiser design that was cancelled. The light carriers of WWII were built on light cruiser hulls. The midway class were built on the designed but cancelled Montana class battleship. If I recall correctly, the Essex class was built on the Alaska class super cruiser hull.
I propose getting away from our current super carriers, doing all naval aviation from one ship, to purpose built carriers. One type of carrier would have the larger support aircraft: tankers, growlers, hawkeye, etc. Other carriers would be for squadrons of a specific combat aircraft: fighters, attack, sub hunters, cas, etc. Each one would have flight deck, maintenance facilities, magazines, etc optimized for that particular aircraft. The number of carriers and aircraft type assigned to the battle group would depend on the particular mission. Low end missions might only need one type (a small ground operation would get a CAS carrier with its A-29 squadron). I'd like some feedback on this idea.
Thanks for running the best military blog on the net.
MM-13B
"A turboprop engine is much simpler than (and fewer moving parts) than a radial engine."
DeleteI don't believe that but if some unbiased mechanic who's worked on both could convince me that a turbine engine is simpler than a piston engine, then I'll gladly change my mind.
"purpose built carriers"
I'm with you to a point. I'm in favor of a limited degree of specialized carriers but for general combat you need general carriers. What happens if your ASW carrier gets sunk? The entire group is without ASW. What happens if your support carrier gets sunk? No tankers, no AEW, no EW. That leaves the rest of the carriers combat-incapable.
One of the key philosophies of combat is dispersal of risk. You don't put all your officers on one ship and all your enlisted on another for obvious reasons. Similarly, you wouldn't want to put all your fighters on one carrier and all your tankers on another. Disperse the risk so as to avoid single points of failure.
"A turboprop engine is much simpler than (and fewer moving parts) than a radial engine."
DeleteI don't believe that from a maintenance standpoint. A piston engine can be torn down, repaired, and rebuilt without any particularly special tools. I don't believe that's the case with a turbine engine but, hey, maybe I'm wrong. In days past, any kid with a wrench was halfway to being an aircraft mechanic. That's not even remotely true today. To be fair, kids can't work on piston automobile engines today, either, due to 'advances' in technology. It requires a computer just to begin a diagnosis!
In my view, the one item that militates against piston engines (both radial and in-line) is they require AVGAS. Every shipboard engineer or damage control person was glad when AVGAS and MOGAS went away.
DeleteA quick search produced this article on tuboprop vs piston engines.
Deletehttps://airplaneacademy.com/piston-vs-turboprop-performance-efficiency-and-safety/
The article does not specifically address radial engines, but it is still a gasoline piston engine.
This sentence from the article sums things up well:
"The simplicity of turboprop operations is one of their distinct safety advantages, particularly in higher performance, large, complex aircraft reduced workload is consistently a primary factor in improved safety."
Granted, this is just one article, but it seems solid to me. Parts count can be tricky. If we count every last nut, bolt, compressor and turbine blade, the turboprop may have more parts, but most of the moving parts are all assembled as a solid unit rotating continuously in the same direction. Piston engines have multiple pistons, connecting rods, and various valvetrain components reciprocating in different directions but timed to work together. The article points out that piston engines have a lower initial production cost and scale better to the small things we own as individuals. Our CAS aircraft would have performance requirements which favor the turboprop. Have a look at the article, and please offer up any counter arguments.
MM-13B
In war, I'm looking for the engine that is the easiest to maintain, most reliable under wartime conditions, and is easiest to repair. In addition, I'm looking for ruggedness. There are many documented war stories of radial engines being shot but managing to limp home, albeit with perhaps a couple less pistons! Can a turbine survive a bullet? I genuinely do not know but I strongly suspect not. The high rotating speeds, precise and delicate balancing, demanding tolerances, etc. all suggest that a single hit will incapacitate a turbine. Toss in the factor of ten increase in purchase price for a turbine over a piston engine and I'm leaning heavily towards a radial engine for this application.
DeleteThe article you linked makes many of these points about cost and maintenance. In addition, the article is focused on fleet operations: routine use with regular, careful, and thorough planned maintenance. How likely is that to occur in war? Again, I go back to ruggedness and ease of maintenance under combat conditions.
As I stated, if a mechanic who has worked on both types can unequivocally state that one or the other is preferred, I'll go either way. Whatever best meets the requirements.
I'll offer one final consideration ... today's jet aircraft availability rates are atrocious. That's not what we want in combat.
"Every shipboard engineer or damage control person was glad when AVGAS and MOGAS went away."
DeleteIn what way is today's jet fuel safer? I genuinely don't know.
Gasoline evaporates readily, and the vapours are explosive. Ships carrying lots of gasoline ignite more easily when damaged. Kerosene does not evaporate so much, and is generally safer for the ship.
DeleteYou can drop a lit match into kerosene/jet fuel/diesel and it won’t catch the n fire. Obviously doesn’t work that way with gasoline. Gasoline has a vapor pressure orders of magnitude higher, creating the fumes that mix with air and readily combust.
Delete"You can drop a lit match into kerosene/jet fuel/diesel and it won’t catch the n fire."
DeleteHow do you explain the Enterprise and Forrestal conflagrations and the torrents of flaming jet fuel?
"Gasoline evaporates readily"
DeleteHigher vapor pressure. Okay.
Now, does that have a practical impact? I'm thinking of the Enterprise and Forrestal conflagrations.
In both those cases, rocket warheads exploded very close to aircraft fuel tanks, breaking the tanks open and providing a powerful source of ignition. Jet fuel is safer than gasoline, but only safer, not wholly safe.
Delete"Jet fuel is safer than gasoline, but only safer, not wholly safe."
DeleteHence, my question about practical impact. In combat damage situations, is there a practical improvement in safety? If there is, that would be an argument for a jet engine, as relates to this post. If there is not, that would mean no difference between a turbine engine and a piston engine from a combat damage safety standpoint. I suspect the later but I really don't know.
Perhaps the improvement in safety is relevant only in a one-in-a-million peacetime accident scenario?
Given the USN's keenness to stop carrying gasoline on carriers, at all levels from mechanics to admirals, I'm going to say there's a significant practical improvement. Aviation gasoline is dangerous stuff. The sinkings of at least two Japanese WWII carriers (Taihō and Shōkaku) were precipitated by avgas vapour explosions.
DeleteOnce you get it hot enough then it definitely burns! The heat increases vapor pressure. This is part of the reason diesel trucks have glow plugs.
DeleteI’m not sure if it makes a practical difference on ships. I’d think gasoline would be more prone to violent explosions while diesel just wants to burn. Either is not fun.
Ever wonder why gasoline is the most common fuel for spark ignited reciprocating piston engines? It's because gasoline is so easy to ignite and it burns so quickly. Most people don't truly appreciate this. You could be casually be cruising down the road with the car engine turning 1800rpm. That equals 30 revolutions per second. On a 4 stroke engine, every other revolution has a firing stroke. This means that each cylinder experiences 15 firing strokes per second. My Suzuki motorcycle doesn't start to make impressive power until around 6000 rpm. That's 100 revs per second, 50 firing events per second for each cylinder. Only an extremely volatile fuel can do that.
DeleteI should qualify as someone who is somewhat knowledgeable about both gas piston engines and combustion turbines. I've done my own engine work on cars, motorcycles, and yard equipment. In the Navy I worked on and operated steam turbines (nuclear). For some years in commercial power plants, I operated both steam and combustion turbines. After that, I completed a mechanical engineering technology degree with a minor in marine engineering. We were required to analyze the thermal/mechanical cycles of various power producing devices. I don't say all this to brag, but to show that my positions on these issues "gasoline vs jet fuel" and "radial piston enginse vs gas turbine" have some knowledge and experience behind them.
Thanks,
MM-13B
AVGAS is not needed Diesel aircraft engines that can burn JP5,JP8 or JET-A1 are already in production.
Deletehttps://red-aircraft.de
The Manufacturer states there is reduced cost for MRO for the engine versus turbine as well as reduced fuel consumption. Since it is a manufacturer's claim I would take it with a grain of salt.
MRO = maintenance, repair and operations
DeleteSorry for not making that clear.
MLW
"have some knowledge and experience behind them."
DeleteExcellent. That's what I'm looking for.
Here's my criteria, in order, for selecting a power plant for a strike aircraft of the type we're discussing:
1. Reliability - If the aircraft isn't available, it's of no use in combat. Can it operate reliably and can it be serviced and repaired quickly to get it back into operation.
2. Maintenance Techs - Can we train enough maintenance personnel, quickly enough, to fill wartime needs? It does no good to have a Mach 27, hyperspace, anti-gravity engine that sits idle because we can't produce qualified maintenance techs quickly enough in wartime.
3. Ease of Production - In war, we'll LOTS of engines and we'll need them quickly. A miracle engine that takes five years to build and requires magic raw materials that are in short supply is NOT what war demands.
4. Cost - Again, in war we'll need LOTS of engines and that means something affordable. I'll trade LOTS of performance for low cost. There's no point having a miracle engine that we can can't afford in large quantities.
5. Ruggedness - Can it take a damage and continue to limp along enough to get the pilot and plane home?
6. Performance - At the bottom of the list is performance because it almost doesn't matter FOR THIS APPLICATION. Our aircraft doesn't require great speed or range. Ground support is a short range, low speed activity. What's required is great maneuverability but that's a function of the aircraft design, not the engine.
So, with that list, what's the best overall choice for a powerplant, in your opinion?
Alternatively, perhaps you have your own, different, criteria list?
"AVGAS is not needed Diesel aircraft engines that can burn JP5,JP8 or JET-A1 are already in production."
DeleteInteresting!
"Perhaps the improvement in safety is relevant only in a one-in-a-million peacetime accident scenario?"
DeleteWasn't IJN carrier Taiho lost due to a buildup of avgas fumes igniting?
"Wasn't IJN carrier Taiho lost due to a buildup of avgas fumes igniting?"
DeleteThat was war, not peacetime. Carriers were sunk or damaged in WWII due to gas fume explosions. The Enterprise and Forrestal suffered massive conflagrations with jet fuel. What's your point?
"Higher vapor pressure. Okay.
Delete"Now, does that have a practical impact?"
The point is that avgas is more flammable than JP8, which makes our damcon work harder. Just throwing our hands up and going "it's all gonna all gonna ignite anyway so it doesn't matter" strikes me as a strange perspective to take when you've argued for more resilient ships that can take battle damage.
In my opinion, part of that hardening of ships to take damage is to use a safer fuel that has a lower ignition point. Yes, we had fuel fires on Forrest Fire and Enterprise, but those fuel fires were ignited by munitions cookoff, and the damage was localised. Taiho had avgas fumes vented into the ship during damcon, turning the ship into a fuel air bomb which went high order when a spark ignited the vapors. That's the issue with the higher vapor pressure of gasoline - it evaporates, it gets into the air, and you now have a fuel air bomb - the effects of which will be worse if those avgas vapors get inside the ship, because the ship traps the vapors and the explosive force like a bomb casing.
Here is the Wiki page for the radial engine used in the A-1 SkyRaider.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_R-3350_Duplex-Cyclone
Please take a look and see how complex it is.
Here is the engine used in the A-29.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_Canada_PT6
Notice that variations of this engine are used in other aircraft including helicopters.
I would still, without a doubt, go with a turboprop engine for a new CAS aircraft. A-29 is already in production and has demonstrated its merit.
Thanks,
MM-13B
"I would still, without a doubt, go with a turboprop engine"
DeleteYou carefully evaluated the six criteria I presented and this is your considered choice? As a minimum, criteria 2, 3, 4, and 5 all favor a piston engine. Criteria 1 is debatable and 6 is a wash for this application.
If turbines are so superior, why are our aircraft fleets, of all types, suffering from such poor availability? Admittedly, there are factors other than just the engines that impact availability but the engines are at the heart of much/most of the availability issues.
Our dismal availability rates are occurring during peacetime! What will happen when war comes and conditions worsen?
If our aircraft could be useful with 500 hp or less, gasoline piston engine is the winner. (not withstanding safety issues related to gasoline) 500-1000 hp is where it becomes a wash. 1000 and over the turboprop starts shining. The engine in the A-1 is capable of over 3000 hp but it is a 18 cylinder turbo-charged engine. A turbocharger is essentially a small turbine, powered by engine exhaust gas, forcing more air into the engine. Pushing piston engines to this extreme level of performance accelerates wear, reducing the number of flight hours between rebuild. This would be similar to a top end rebuild on a motorcycle engine, except instead of 1-4 cylinders, there's 18. I can do it on a motorcycle engine, and it does take some time, but 18 cylinders is getting into some serious man-hours.
DeleteCurrently, all branches of the military use turboprop engines; whether propeller driven airplanes or helicopters. Many ships use gas turbines. The Army's M-1 Abrams tank is powered by a gas turbine (although I believe a tank would be better served with a turbo-diesel). A shipboard gas-turbine tech could be easily retrained to work on an aviation turboprop and vice-versa. The military trains plenty of people to work on gas turbine power plants.
We should also be realistic about our power requirements. What size airframe are we using? What size weapons load? Although we don't want or need the power or speed of a F-16 or F-18, we still require a certain level of performance to propel our airplane and weapons load. If ground forces need CAS support, it means the enemy has enough firepower they could shoot down a very slow lumbering airplane. An A-1 Skyraider with a 500 hp engine would be an easy target.
You may have a car with a 200 hp engine. You can't just increase its size by x10 factor and expect it to achieve 2000 hp. The size and weight increase at a faster rate than the power output. The A-1 was an awesome CAS aircraft, but to tool up today for a high-performance, 18 cylinder, turbocharged gas piston engine, that will require frequent rebuilds, just doesn't make sense when there are already plenty of turboprop engines in production.
So, yes, I still stand by my choice of turboprop engine for our CAS aircraft. Can you make a case for a 500 hp or less gas piston engine? Or even 500-1000 hp? Under that requirement, I would agree with you.
In addition to all that I just wrote, the issue of jet aircraft availability may be an issue of aviation culture rather than function. In military aviation they are more likely to say "this aircraft is past due for a maintenance item, therefore it's not flying." Not that it can't fly, but it's not allowed to fly. In the event of a highly critical war time mission, it could be allowed to fly. Surface Navy culture, "I don't care, this ship is scheduled to get underway in 24 hours, do whatever you have to do, make it happen, dammit".
DeleteMM-13B
Another thing to consider is that you only need to carry one kind of fuel, instead of one fuel for your ship and one fuel for your aircraft. This is the same rationale Big Army uses - every vehicle in Big Army's inventory runs on JP-8 fuel, from tanks to trucks to helicopters.
DeleteThe subject of turboprops reminded me of below back when American was deep into the War on Terror in the Middle east
ReplyDeletehttps://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-next-enterprise-is-wrong-ship.html
Basically suggesting cheap propeller driven aircraft on relatively cheap carriers to fight insurgencies (but not against a near-peer enemy) and a similar article below
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/september/buy-6-wolverine-tacair-community
Now I think a better solution may be Rutan ARES as it is more survivable in a near-peer conflict than a turboprop or even piston with exposed propellers and below uses a jet engine as shown below:
"By this time the aircraft had changed significantly. It retained the general configuration, but now had a single Pratt & Whitney Canada JT15D-5 turbofan engine rather than a turboprop as the propeller was vulnerable to debris kicked up by the nosewheel. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_ARES
Basically the not adopted Scaled Composites ARES seem to be what we are looking for: has a gun, supposed to be relatively low maintenance, and survivable
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/scaled-composites-model-151-ares.2452/
On exposed propellers: there is a reason for below though below may be useful for tiltrotors as they were for firing through World War 1 fighters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronization_gear
Now to increase ARES or Ares-like future aircraft battlefield durability maybe 2 engines and whatever makes the Scorpion , a never adopted plane (as on 2023 today 6/11/2023) below low maintenance
http://military-today.com/aircraft/textron_scorpion.htm
Surprisingly the development of above follows as was suggest below in that "Unlike most ground attack aircraft the Scorpion uses many commercially available off-the-shelf components for the business jets, mostly form the Cessna inventory."
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2017/08/how-to-build-better-aircraft.html
Sadly neither the Ares or the Scorpion are in service anywhere as far as I know.
"Scaled Composites ARES seem to be what we are looking for: has a gun, supposed to be relatively low maintenance, and survivable"
DeleteThat's all good but the glaring omission is payload. The aircraft is small, light, and has no useful payload capacity, as far as I can tell.
"That's all good but the glaring omission is payload. The aircraft is small, light, and has no useful payload capacity, as far as I can tell."
DeleteIf they had finished development of the planes (I did add for ARES, adding an extra engine after all) there should be useful payload capacity, I mean look at how they increased the payload capacity from the YF-16 to the F-16 today or even the F-15 to F-15EX.
" increased the payload capacity from the YF-16 to the F-16 today"
DeleteEven the F-16 is limited in stores delivery with just 6 underwing hardpoints. Compare that to the 11-15 points for the A-10 or Skyraider. Even the F-15EX has a limited number of pylon points although with the right selection of smaller weapons can carry an impressive number/weight.
....But if you give the aircrafts in question cranked wings like the F-16XL below you can increase the payload drastically, again a matter of finishing development of the mentioned aircrafts (and given it is in attack role: the AERS do not need winglets,and the control systems that goes with them,so remove all the maneuverability features as was in the original prototype, thus translating to more payload capacity in the final design)
Deletehttps://www.sandboxx.us/blog/f-16xl-the-f-16-that-could-carry-27-bombs-into-the-fight/
So sacrifice agility features for better payload capacity and you have got a very capable ground pounder if you want.
I mean look at the F-16XL and if they had actually finished development of it:
"The F-16 XL could carry a load of 4,900 kg bombs under the wings and under the fuselage 4 AMRAAM missiles, virtually as two standard Fighting Falcon."
https://www.blogbeforeflight.net/2017/01/f-16xl-misunderstood-aircraft.html
"The General Dynamics F-16XL (Extra Large), also known as F-16E, was a derivative of the F-16, but with different and better features. The variant had two delta wings, designed in collaboration with NASA, which allowed many benefits such as reduction of resistance during transonic and supersonic flight."
Now put those cranked wings onto the low maintenance jet aircrafts mentioned and the payload capacity (not to mention capability) goes up
Did I types "winglets" for the ARES (an acronym for Agile Responsive Effective Support)
Delete..Sorry I meant canards.. oops!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canard_(aeronautics)
Anyway the cranked wing idea from the F-16Xl should increase payload and below gives a pretty good history of the design for those interested:
https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-tactical/f-16xl-27-weapons/
A real-world world example of what I am thinking of would be the version of the Su-30 China bought from Russia:
Delete"Chinese chose an older but lighter radar, so the canards could be omitted in exchange for increased payload."
http://deadlyweapons-army.blogspot.com/2011/11/deadly-sukhoi-su-30.html
Compared to, say, the Su-30MKI for India which still have canards, as well other things like thrust vectoring and so on... Things that a ground pounder doesn't need.
#ComNavOps
ReplyDeleteI have few questions
1) how many attack submarines ( SSN, SSK???) and SSGN will be required to safeguard our interest in Pacific Ocean and in East Asia ?
2) do we have SOSUS like system in Pacific ?
3) for our carrier aviation, which type of aerial refueling tanker will be better, organic or UAV ? also what should be the fuel capacity it delivers, let's say at 500 miles from carrier ?
4) for EW aircraft, what should be an ideal platform ? F-18 G ? F-35 G variant ( hypothetical) or any other example ?
5) what was the main reason, why Navy decided to have V-22 Osprey as next COD instead of having new C-2 or new S-3 aircraft ?
To a large extent, I've answered these questions throughout the blog. I encourage you to make use of the archives.
DeleteSince each of your questions could (or already has) warrant a complete post and this is just a single comment, is there one particular question/aspect you'd like to address?
3rd question please, fuel capacity delivered at about 500 miles from carrier
DeleteThe obvious answer is, as much fuel as the receiving aircraft need. Giant airliner-based tankers are the best (meaning, the largest) supply aircraft we have. Of course, those are not always available or mission-practical.
DeleteThe second best answer is to build aircraft that have sufficient range that they don't need tankers.
I suspect what you're really asking is what tanking needs and tanking aircraft can a carrier use for mission tanking? Again, the answer is the aircraft that can carry the most fuel. For a carrier, that is NOT the idiotic unmanned tanker the Navy is pursuing. The unmanned MQ-25 can only deliver enough fuel for a few aircraft, depending on the receiving aircraft needs.
In recent decades, the obvious answer was the KS-3A tanker version of the S-3 Viking. An S-3, completely optimized for tanking, could deliver some 30,000 lbs of fuel - 2-3x the unmanned tanker.
An alternative from the past might be the A-3 Skywarrior which, if optimized for the role, might carry 60,000 lbs or so.
Ideally, a new, manned, purpose built, large, stealth tanker would be ideal. Stealth is a highly desirable characteristic for a mission tanker on the modern aerial battlefield.
Check out the various posts in the archives under the keyword, 'Aerial Tanking'.
"In recent decades, the obvious answer was the KS-3A tanker version of the S-3 Viking. An S-3, completely optimized for tanking, could deliver some 30,000 lbs of fuel - 2-3x the unmanned tanker."
DeleteBut, that 30,000 lbs of fuel was for fuly-fuelled KS-3A at takeoff. Depending on range and other conditions, you might only be able to deliver 20,000 lbs or so to other aircraft. Still far more than what the MQ-25 is designed to accomplish.
" might only be able to deliver 20,000 lbs"
DeleteSince you obviously understand the nuances of tanker operation and could, therefore, have answered your own question, I have to ask, what was the point of your question?
Is there any American history about WW2 that is more incorrect than the belief that the navy abandoned the marines on Guadalcanal? Almost as many sailors died in the first few days as Marines in total. As Vandergrift, with more men, firepower and supplies than his opponent, just sat still the Navy, at every disadvantage in night surface battles, routinely went out to challenge essentially superior forces.
ReplyDeleteLHA and LHDs are the result of this historical fairy tale