Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Maxman1]

It also requires that the elevators and hangers can handle the aircraft, for the F35b , the Mistrals not be my first choice, I would go with a vessel based on the San Juan 1/Canberra Class giving some aviation and amphibious benefits as well. However to fit into our current budget and crewing realities, the Mistrals with helicopters are a far better fit for Canada. I would give up a AOP's and a CSC for them.

Now that I think about it, could a Mistral handle a CT-156 Harvard II (and is a Harvard II carrier-capable)? Because there's a light attack version of it, the AT-6 Wolverine, which has been adopted by the USAF. If we could operate those from a Mistral, that would be pretty slick.

 

[Kirkhill]

Steam Catapults (1955) and Rubber Decks (1948)

Back in 1955, our predecessors were also following aircraft carrier developments closely, with first test of an important new technology, the steam catapult. Using steam from the ship’s boilers to act directly on the catapult itself, these had been tested aboard the carrier HMS Perseus since 1950, and had just started to be installed aboard the British and American carrier fleet.

Prior to the use of steam catapults, aircraft had been propelled into the air using a hydro-pneumatic system which used steel wire ropes to drag a small trolley along the flight deck, with the aircraft towed along behind. This was fine for the relatively small and lightweight aircraft carried by naval vessels in World War II, but with the advent of jet engines, carrier-borne aircraft became heavier and needed to be launched at greater speed. For a while, naval architects just increased the power of the hydrodynamic system, but the heavier aircraft — along with the heavier cables and pulleys — meant that eventually the catapults were growing too large to be installed even on the biggest ships.

This month in 1955: the steam catapult - The Engineer

www.theengineer.co.uk

The ‘Rubber’ Flight Deck​

In 1945 deck landing trials with de Havilland Sea Vampire fighters exposed the limitations imposed by the slow acceleration rates of early types of jet engine and it became obvious that changes in both carrier technology and deck landing technique were needed.

Mr Lewis Boddington, Head Scientist at the Naval Aircraft Department, NAD, at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, RAE, at Farnborough recommended transferring the pneumatic absorption of deck landing stresses from the aircraft to the carrier, in other words operating aircraft that had no undercarriages. His concept was based on the logic that catapults and arrester wires, the other devices that allowed short take-offs and landings, were built into the carrier and not the aircraft. The idea had the additional merit that the airframes of fighters without undercarriages would be some 15% lighter than their conventional equivalents and this could be translated into higher performance.

The obvious drawback was the inability of aircraft without wheels to move under their own power after landing either on a carrier deck or an airfield ashore. The Admiralty was sufficiently interested in this potential solution to devote money, manpower and resources to evaluate to it during a period of severe post-war austerity.

A flexible deck, more commonly referred to as a rubber deck, was built ashore at Farnborough onto which aircraft were to fly a low, flat approach well above the aircraft’s stalling speed to pass just over the rubber deck with their arrester hook down.

In 1948 HMS Warrior was fitted with a rubber deck made out of hosepipes laid across a steel frame over the conventional flight deck between the two lifts. They were filled with compressed air and covered by a rubber membrane on which the aircraft landed and the surface was lubricated for landings by hosing fresh water onto it. A single Mark 4 arrester wire was fitted over the rubber deck with the actuating pistons situated fore and aft alongside it. It had a maximum pull-out of only 160 feet which meant that a high minimum wind over the deck was required for every recovery.

Warrior’s first rubber deck trials took place in November 1948 and the first landing was carried out by Lieutenant Commander Brown in TG 286, landing at an indicated air speed of 96 knots into a 35 knot wind over the deck which gave the arrester hook an entry speed into the wire of 61 knots. Once landed, the aircraft was lifted by crane so that its undercarriage could be lowered and it could then be manoeuvred onto the conventional area of flight deck forward of the rubber deck as normal. All subsequent landings were flown by Sea Vampire F 21s which were heavier and capable of being launched by the ship’s single BH 3 hydraulic catapult.

Royal Canadian Navy service​

She was launched on 20 May 1944 and completed on 24 January 1946. She was transferred to the Royal Canadian Navy, commissioned as HMCS Warrior and placed under the command of Captain Frank Houghton.[1] She entered Halifax harbour on 31 March 1946, a week after leaving Portsmouth. She was escorted by the destroyer HMCS Micmac and the minesweeper HMCS Middlesex. The RCN experienced problems with the unheated equipment during operations in cold North Atlantic waters off eastern Canada during 1947. The RCN deemed her unfit for service and, rather than retrofit her with equipment heaters, made arrangements with the Royal Navy to trade her for a more suitable aircraft carrier of the Majestic class which became HMCS Magnificent (CVL 21) on commissioning. HMCS Warrior returned to the United Kingdom and was recommissioned as HMS Warrior (R31) on 23 March 1948. Warrior was then refitted in Devonport and equipped with a flexible flight deck (layers of rubber) to test the feasibility of receiving undercarriage-less aircraft; the Sea Vampire was used to test the concept, which was successful but not introduced into service.

HMCS Magnificent - 40 aircraft with props. No catapults. Also no angled flight deck.

 

[calculus]

Now that I think about it, could a Mistral handle a CT-156 Harvard II (and is a Harvard II carrier-capable)? Because there's a light attack version of it, the AT-6 Wolverine, which has been adopted by the USAF. If we could operate those from a Mistral, that would be pretty slick.

No catapults on the Mistrals, so I would say no. Deck is no where near long enough. Still be nice to have a couple, but would be restricted to vertical lift only.

 

[JMCanada]

V280 Valor tilt-rotor will, most likely, be operative before Canada operates a Mistral type LHD. Not comparable to the F35-B but still may be a good asset for close aerial support and to deploy troops faster and at longer ranges.

 

[Kirkhill]

No catapults on the Mistrals, so I would say no. Deck is no where near long enough. Still be nice to have a couple, but would be restricted to vertical lift only.

Just wondering what V2 is on something like the Harvard II at Maximum Take Off Weight.

Consider a 20 knot wind (37 km per hour) and the "Mistral or equivalent" steaming flat out into the wind at 18.8 knots (35 km per hour). That means that the aircraft has got a wind speed of 72 km per hour flowing over its wings while it is standing still on the deck.

It was that wind advantage that the old, pre-catapult, carriers relied on to get their aircraft into the air.

Having said that, the Valor is still probably a better bet. Both at sea and on shore.

 

[JMCanada]

Harvard II:

• Wingspan: 33 ft 5 in (10.19 m)
• Height: 10 ft 8 in (3.25 m)
• Empty weight: 4,707 lb (2,135 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 6,500 lb (2,948 kg)
• Cruise speed: 320 mph (510 km/h, 280 kn)
• Range: 1,000 mi (1,700 km, 900 nmi)

V280

• Width: 81.79 ft (24.93 m)
• Height: 23 ft 0 in (7 m)
• Empty weight: 18,078 lb (8,200 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 30,865 lb (14,000 kg)
• Cruise speed: 320 mph (520 km/h, 280 kn)
• Ferry range: 2,400 mi (3,900 km, 2,100 nmi)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A Mistral Class flight deck is about 100' longer than a WWII Bogue Class Escort Carrier. So yes it could launch prop driven attack aircraft, however to ensure safe landings, you need arrestor wires and crash barriers. Then you need to modify the aircraft with stronger lading gear, arrestor hook and support frame. Marininize the aircraft and put folding wings on it. It most certainly would be a absolutely Canadian thing to do. they would be excellent for shooting up pirate vessels and warlord shorebased installations. Although I think this airframe might be a more valuable addition.

 

[calculus]

New overhead view of CSC on the LMC website: Lockheed Martin Canada

Still showing 24 MK41 VLS, so that seems to be confirmed, but nice to see the 6 ExLS cells are still there aft of the funnel.

 

[Dana381]

Forgive me if this has been discussed before. I have seen discussions about possible future replacements for the Cyclone but I don't recall this being discussed.

With the CSC and the AOR both being built to handle a "Chinook sized helicopter" Wikipedia. What are the chances the Navy is preparing for a navalized cargo helicopter? How much non ASW work does the Cyclone do? I'm assuming quite a bit. Why fly the blades off of expensive combat helicopters when much of their work could be done more efficiently by a cheaper helicopter? What size helicopter can the HDW class handle?

Do you think we will see and RFP for a navalized cargo helicopter in the near future and what options would work best for us? NH90 S-92 SH-60 or something else. I can't see the RCAF sending it's Chinooks to sea.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Forgive me if this has been discussed before. I have seen discussions about possible future replacements for the Cyclone but I don't recall this being discussed.

With the CSC and the AOR both being built to handle a "Chinook sized helicopter" Wikipedia. What are the chances the Navy is preparing for a navalized cargo helicopter? How much non ASW work does the Cyclone do? I'm assuming quite a bit. Why fly the blades off of expensive combat helicopters when much of their work could be done more efficiently by a cheaper helicopter? What size helicopter can the HDW class handle?

Do you think we will see and RFP for a navalized cargo helicopter in the near future and what options would work best for us? NH90 S-92 SH-60 or something else. I can't see the RCAF sending it's Chinooks to sea.

Nearly all the embarked Cyclone hours go toward either surface or subsurface surveillance, with the remainder going to training or logistics.

 

[Dana381]

Ok, I was (wrongly) under the assumption that they were often used for resupply and crew movement duties as well.

 

[FSTO]

Ok, I was (wrongly) under the assumption that they were often used for resupply and crew movement duties as well.

Ship to ship transfer of personnel are mainly done by boat or if we're really in the mood, Jackstay.

 

[Dana381]

So to modify my question on my above post. When the AOR's start coming online and lets say we keep Asterix how much could we benefit from a naval cargo helicopter?

It could also be used for initial training in shipboard ops. In stead of going from land ops straight to ship ops with an expensive and critical combat helicopter a pilot could 'cut their teeth' sort of speak on a cheaper and easier to replace cargo helicopter. Bear trap and aerial refueling training could at least in part be done on another type to minimize risk to the Cyclones.

The fact that these two types are specifically designed to operate a Chinook sized helicopter must have been done for some reason.

 

[Dana381]

I'll admit I had to look it up but it looks like quite the trip.

 

[Maxman1]

There's worse ways to get aboard.

 

[MTShaw]

New overhead view of CSC on the LMC website: Lockheed Martin Canada

Still showing 24 MK41 VLS, so that seems to be confirmed, but nice to see the 6 ExLS cells are still there aft of the funnel.

It’s like Lockheed and the Navy are having an argument about how many vls cells we should have.

 

[Underway]

If that's the case they are also arguing about the entire mast design as well.

I would go with Lockheed's new image. That CSC infographic was released during the PBO's investigation into the ship. The RCN needed to educate the public and the government. The design was already in transition when they put that out.

Note: JSS image on their infographic is also incorrect, the design keeps moving on even if the fancy public relations art does not.

 

[MTShaw]

If that's the case they are also arguing about the entire mast design as well.

I would go with Lockheed's new image. That CSC infographic was released during the PBO's investigation into the ship. The RCN needed to educate the public and the government. The design was already in transition when they put that out.

Note: JSS image on their infographic is also incorrect, the design keeps moving on even if the fancy public relations art does not.‘

Makes for a mean looking ship.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Makes for a mean looking ship.

Please don’t say that. If the PMO hears that they’ll force a smiley face to be painted on the bow so as to not offend anyone.

 

[MTShaw]

. Canadians find warships to be too offensive.