1  2  3  4  5  Next

<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=24026" target="_blank">Navy plans to deploy unmanned aircraft on frigates; orders study</a> (click to view)

<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/13-military" target="_blank">Military</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=Hyack" target="_blank">Hyack</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2007-08-16 22:01:51
<strong>Canadian</strong>

   

Sounds good, it should extend the reach of our ships and help protect them from a variety fo threats.

   

You'd be amazed how many enemy soldiers will surrender to a remote controlled airplane.

   

Why not, they've surrendered to reporters before...

   

Or we could get this?

   

The finance minister would shit his pants trying to buy the aircraft on the top deck alone.

   

Question for you. Is it possible to have an aircraft carrier that is able to break ice and could be deployed in the Arctic?

   

I'm sure in this day and age it's possible to design anything...........just have to pay for it.

   

Interesting. I was just thinking maybe it would be better to go through the Northwest passage than have to go through Panama to get to the Pacific from the Atlantic or vice versa.

   

   

Hahaha. Yeah, I remember the CNN division in the first Gulf War captured almost as many Iraqis as the Marines did.

   

Um, yeah, that's why people want it.

   

Amen to that. And, yes, a nuclear powered ice-breaking carrier would be possible but such a ship would probably need to use VTOL fighters instead of catapult launched fighters as you're not going to get too much wind across the deck when you're busting through ice.

   

Actually, I had looked at that. When Stephen Harper promised 3 armed heavy icebreakers during the last election, I thought they were a waste of money. Sure there is a place for displaying military force, but those armed heavy icebreakers would be about as big as a frigate, not even a destroyer. Besides, we could put mounting points on our existing coast guard icebreakers so they could be coast guard vessels most of the time, but a helicopter could bring weapons and ammunition out to the ship at sea if armed action was needed. The first, most obvious ship to do this is the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent, our heaviest icebreaker. The Fraser Institute had hte same idea, but while I want to put weaponry of a Halifax class frigate, they want to mount weaponry from a Iroquois class destroyer. Not the vertical launch system, but the cannon and other stuff. They pointed out the CCGS Amundsen was deemed surplus by the coast guard and sat in storage for years until some scientists convinced the government to let them have it. So the Fraser Institute wants to arm that ship. Ok, so that's the other ship, but I still think frigate radar and weapons are better because they're newer. The CCGS Amundsen is an intermediate icebreaker, not heavy, but the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent used to be a smaller ship, it was cut and extended to turn it into the heavy icebreaker it is today. Just do the same with CCGS Amundsen, extend it by 20 metres. Then we would have 2 armed heavy icebreakers.

That would still only give us 2 ships equivalent to a frigate. The big impressive navy ship is an aircraft carrier. I played with some designs and came up with one. A full carrier, smaller in terms of displacement than an American supercarrier, about the same size as the Charles de Gaulle of France. It would have a dual acting hull. That means the front is a hurricane bow, permitting travel through deep ocean in the worst storms, even a hurricane. It would use azimuthing pods, permitting it to travel backwards as easily as forwards. Rather than a squared-off stern, a dual acting hull has an icebreaker bow in the stern. An icebreaker has a rounded bow, it rolls badly in deep ocean during heavy seas, risking capsizing, but a dual acting hull has a sharp bow in front that cuts through waves. I just drives backwards through ice. We cold give it a class 10 icebreaker hull. Any icebreaker class 8 or heavier requires a nuclear reactor for sufficient power and enough fuel to get to it's destination. So this would be a nuclear carrier.

A couple other nifty features: one runway on the flight deck, used for both launch and landing. You couldn't land and launch at the same time, but conversion from launch to landing in seconds. Place an electromagnetic catapult down the center of the runway, with 4 shuttles. Each shuttle launches one aircraft, so it permits 4 aircraft to line up one behind the other to launch in sequence. That would permit launching 4 aircraft as fast as using all 4 steam catapults of a Nimitz class carrier. The Nimitz has 2 catapults in the bow, 2 in the landing runway. This would require a thrust deflector behind each starting position, the thrust deflector for the first position would have to drop before the second aircraft launches, etc. Just ensure they drop fast. Orient the runway axial with the ship, right down the centre. Either side of the runway for parking, CF-18 Hornet aircraft parked perpendicular to the runway on the starboard side, and the island on that side. The port side would have to be wider to counterbalance the weight of the island, so it could be wide enough to park Super Hornets. Place 4 refuelling and rearming stations in the parking deck, 2 on each side. The new CVN-21 is supposed to have a "pit stop" for refuelling and rearming, this carrier would have 4. The whole thing optimized for rapid sortie rate. The arrester cables would have to be able to pull an aircraft back so it could drive into a refuel/rearm station. Use robot tractors to push aircraft around the deck.

Also use MQ-9 Mariner UAV configured with the same electronically scanned radar as an E-2D Advanced Hawkeye. Place mission command and control on the carrier instead of a Hawkeye aircraft. An American supercarrier has 4 E-2C Hawkeye aircraft right now, they will be upgraded to E-2D soon, but we could use 4 MQ-9 Mariner UAVs instead. We could put electronic warfare equipment on an MQ-9 Reaper UAV, similar to the MQ-9 Mariner but shorter flying time. The Mariner has a bulge in the fuselage and longer wings for 51 hour loiter time, the Reaper can still fly 30 hours. Add the same wing hinges as the Mariner, and it would replace the EA-6 Prowler. An American supercarrier has 4, so we could carry 4 EW UAVs.

A Dash-8 model 200 aircraft (now called Q200) has about the same capacity as a C-2 Greyhound cargo plane. For carrier use it would require strengthened landing gear, and strengthening for catapult launch and arrester cable landing. It would require some carbon fibre to reduce weight for all that strengthening and more cargo, and ALON windows to instead of glass to also reduce weight. Add the same wing hinges as a C-2 Greyhound, and you have a carrier cargo plane; same cargo weight as a C-2 Greyhound. The tall T-tail would never fit in the hanger, it would be a deck plane only.

Another nifty feature: 2 hanger decks. This permits more aircraft than normally carried on a full carrier. The upper and lower forward hangers would each hold 24 CF-18s, the lower aft hanger dedicated to helicopters and UAVs, the upper aft hanger designed with a tall ceiling to act as the repair garage, or store Rafale fighters. You could store the entire air wing in the hanger, nothing on the deck other than Dash-8 cargo planes and they could fly to a nearby airport. High seas in the arctic can cause icing; you would want all aircraft below deck in such a storm. During combat operations all aircraft from the lower forward hanger would be stored on deck, leaving that hanger empty. Here's a comparison:

Nimitz: 14 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, 36 F/A-18C Hornet, 4 E-2C Hawkeye, 4 EA-6B Prowler, 6/2 SH-60R/CH-60 Seahawk helicopter, 6 S-3B Viking, 2 C-2 Greyhound
total: 4 AEW, 4 EW, 8 helicopter, 56 tactical
published capacity: 90 aircraft, depending on type carried

Charles de Gaulle: 2 E-2C Hawkeye, 16 Super Étendard, 6 Mirage 2000 D, 5 Rafale
total: 2 AEW, 27 tactical

Canada: 56 CF-18, 7 CH-148 Cyclone helicopters, 4 AEW UAVs, 4 EW UAVs, 2 Dash-8 (stored on deck)
total: 4 AEW, 4 EW, 7 helicopter, 56 tactical
additional 12 CF-18 and 12 F/A-18E aircraft can be stored on the deck, bringing the tally to 80 tactical, 95 total
maximum load: deck holds 2 Dash-8, 17 CF-18, 12 F/A-18E, for 82 tactical, 102 total

Design it from the beginning to permit replacing the CF-18 Hornet fighters with F-35C Lightning II, the joint strike fighter. You could change the 8 aircraft in the upper aft hanger for mission requirements: 48 CF-18s instead of 56, and 8 other aircraft: Rafale, S-3B Viking, Super Hornet, F-35C, or other.

We currently have 24 CF-18A (single seat) aircraft based in Quebec, another 24 CF-18A based in Alberta, and 40 CF-18B (two seat) aircraft. We also have 33 CF-18A fighters in storage. We had 18 crashes, one was repaired but the other 17 planes are just gone. If we could somehow rebuild fighters from the wreckage of those 17 we could get some additional fighters. With the 33 in storage we just need 15 more to fill-out the air wing of this carrier. Oh, the CF-18A had all the features of a F/A-18A plus one piece of avionics that the American version didn't. The F/A-18C has advanced avionics that does the function of the Canadian addition and more; it also uses carbon fibre to reduce weight. Each pound of reduced weight increases its bomb capacity by that same pound. The Canadian fighters are currently going though an upgrade, installing the same avionics as an F/A-18C and installing graphite fibre. They'll be the same as F/A-18C when finished.

I noticed that Russian icebreakers have a nuclear reactor that only lasts 5 to 6 years, but they can refuel at sea in only 3 to 7 days, depending on weather. They have a special ship called a "floating technical base" for that purpose. Nimitz class ships have two A4W reactors, designed to last 20 years without refuelling. However, they have to be dismantled to refuel them, a procedure that takes 3 months. A smaller reactor that has to be refuelled more often, but can be refuelled in just 3 days if weather is good, would be a better choice.

But then I'm the guy who wants to completely pay off the federal debt and dramatically reduce taxes. How do we do that if we build a full carrier? Besides, what the hell would we do with it? If it's to defend the arctic, wouldn't an air base at Resolute work just as well and cost a lot less?

   

Send in the drones? Excellent idea!

   

1  2  3  4  5  Next