UAV's and a Canadian carrier

[Kestral]

I have finally found a forum to discuss this idea!

It has long been my dream to see another Canadian carrier, but in this day and age ($$$) it is very unlikely. 

However...

I have been looking for a long time at launching UAVs from a ship.  This should be relatively easy.  No people on-board means that a catapult system could use a much higher G force to launch the aircraft.  No cockpit or person means a lighter plane/jet.  This should equate to a smaller deck length to launch the UAV.  I understand that some armies are able to launch UAV from a specialized truck bed...

The main problem with this is not the taking off, but the landing.  We can't afford a big ship.  Thus we can't have a long landing deck.  I need some method of capturing, netting recovering or whatever to really make this idea work on a smaller ship.  Perhaps a strengthed frame to withstand being caught by a net.

Testing should be cheap:  Use a scrapped ship and just add testing platforms onto it as needed.  The launch deck should be small enough to attach to a frigate.  A frigate can't recover it, but it could launch it.

Building the UAV:  Not so cheap.  I expect the main problems to come here.  With a lighter plane come a plane that is more affected by crosswinds and that can carry less fuel and less munitions.  Serious design work would also have to go into building a plane that can stand massive G force from an aggressive catapult.  Plus the landing gear/arresting cable something for landing...  These UAV could launch/carry all sorts of things missiles, detection pods, torps....

Building the carrier:  Have the U.K. build it.  I.E. someone with experience.  The various radars, weapons, whatever can be added in a Canadian yard after initial construction.  We do have a long-standing relationship with certain countries.  We should use it.  They get some of our tax dollars we get their experience in carrier building.  As I understand it the hull, decking and engines are relatively cheap in comparison to the weapons systems.  The ship size should be much smaller that even the 20 000 ton British carriers.

Supporting Units:  E2 hawkeye -> This is a CTOL air craft.  We can't afford the deck.  The British use a Sea King with a type of radar attached to it.  I have always had concerns about endurance about this setup.  Best bet -> a balloon with the same type of radar (I am stealing this idea from someone else on this board  :)  This could also be launched from a frigate and also be recovered by a frigate.

What this setup means:  This will give the CAF a presence in the air both defensively and offensively while at sea.  It would radically increase the reach of the navy.  Helicopters are not the same as jets.  UAV should be much cheaper, faster, expendable and just plain more offensive.  Please note that the UAVs will not have the endurance of a CTOL, but I believe that this would give us a brand new platform that we could afford.  We can spend lots or a little on the carrier's systems, but it is the deck that we really need.  The UAV's can be few or plentiful, cheap or expensive.  Bottom line is with the carrier we have a valid platform to further develop a Naval airforce at a world class level for a reasonable price.

Think of it as skipping a step in carrier development.

What do you guys think?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

If you search the forum you will see we have talked the merits and limitations of carriers.

 

[Kestral]

I did read the other posts.

What I am trying to suggest here is a new design for a carrier:  A Micro Carrier.

This could be on a much smaller hull.  Say perhaps the same size as a Air-Defense Destroyer.

If Canada uses the common hull design for it's larger ships, AOR and amphib, everyone would nod their heads and say good efficiency.

Canada could also design a destroyer hull for around 6000 tons as replacement for the Tribal DDs's.  Say 4 hull forms, 3 for Air Defense and 1 as a carrier test bed.  That flat deck can allow all helos to work from it, so at worst it would be a helo carrier.

 

[Neill McKay]

Canada could also design a destroyer hull for around 6000 tons as replacement for the Tribal DDs's.   Say 4 hull forms, 3 for Air Defense and 1 as a carrier test bed.   That flat deck can allow all helos to work from it, so at worst it would be a helo carrier.

I wonder, though, if you could support several helicopters in a hull that size?  It's one thing to be able to launch and recover them, but where do we put them the rest of the time?

 

[winchable]

So you're suggesting something like the Ark Royal (or one of it's predecessors) which technically weren't carriers, they were cruisers that had a small flight deck added to them?

 

[winchable]

Swear to God I'm not making that up, I remember watching a program about that though I can't remember specific details.
The fleet didn't want carriers built but someone recognised the need for carriers so they built cruisers and put flight decks on them to avoid the agressive appearance of having carriers.

...This is going to drive me mad.

 

[Neill McKay]

Swear to God I'm not making that up, I remember watching a program about that though I can't remember specific details.
The fleet didn't want carriers built but someone recognised the need for carriers so they built cruisers and put flight decks on them to avoid the agressive appearance of having carriers.

I've heard them refered to as "through-deck cruisers" but thought that was just a name given for political, rather than technical, reasons.

I always thought "Canadian Patrol Frigate" was perhaps in the same category, given that they outweigh some destroyers and are perhaps a bit overqualified for some "patrol" taskings.

 

[NCRCrow]

I actually like the idea, it more realistic than most corn dog posts I have seen on here.

UAV's are the future, just ask the Dutch. As they have got rid of there MPA's for UAV's.

This ship would need an extensive communications suite and C4ISR capability, plus specialized recovery helo's for UAV's. Combined with ELINT/IMINT/SIGINT and comms , (Link 11, 14, JTIDS) and TBMCS (Theatre Battle Management) and SATCOM this would be a joint cap!!!!

I am thinking a modified Blue Ridge/ Mount Whitney class, with the capability to launch and recover UAV's (which does not require much space) but at least 3 helos. (It would take some modifications)

This platform in the future might be able to launch drones such as the BQM-74E for training.

Good Vision and realistic!

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

So you're suggesting something like the Ark Royal (or one of it's predecessors) which technically weren't carriers, they were cruisers that had a small flight deck added to them?

Swear to God I'm not making that up, I remember watching a program about that though I can't remember specific details.
The fleet didn't want carriers built but someone recognised the need for carriers so they built cruisers and put flight decks on them to avoid the agressive appearance of having carriers.

...This is going to drive me mad.

I've heard them refered to as "through-deck cruisers" but thought that was just a name given for political, rather than technical, reasons.

I always thought "Canadian Patrol Frigate" was perhaps in the same category, given that they outweigh some destroyers and are perhaps a bit overqualified for some "patrol" taskings.

What are you guys talking about?  The Ark Royal is an Invincible-Class Aircraft Carrier: http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/148.html

They initially called them "Through-Deck Cruisers" to get them through Parliament, but they were always conceived as Escort Carriers.

There was an Ark Royal in WW1 that was a merchant ship converted to carry seaplanes: it was the first aircraft carrier in the world, but is long-gone and doesn't really have any relevence to the the discussion of carriers today.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Supposedly the next generation of surface combatant will embark UAVs as part of its air det.

Nor will I be surprised if UAVs will be a feature of the JSS program.

 

[a_majoor]

The size and shape of the UAV "Carrier" really depends on the sorts of UAVs you want to embark. Some UAVs resemble helicopters, so don't need much of a flight deck at all, while a carrier launching "Global Hawks" would need to be the size of a real aircraft carrier since the Global Hawk is a rather large aircraft.

There isn't anything wrong in principle with this idea, some issues like bandwidth allocation would be a bit difficult to resolve but are not insurmountable. The real question is what exactly would the CF use such a ship for? Embarking an air wing of UACVs carrying weapons stores would be a non starter for political reasons, so the only other role would be to launch surveillance craft for fleet protection under weigh, and to provide oversite for the joint force once it is ashore. I am not sure we would need an entire aircraft carrier for that.

 

[mjohnston39]

Nor will I be surprised if UAVs will be a feature of the JSS program

Quickly looking through the JSS statement of opperational requirement, I seem to recall seeing a section on the need for the JSS to launch and retrieve UAVs.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/docs_presentations/state_op_require_e.asp

Mike.

 

[Kestral]

I am thinking that the size and shape of the UAV carrier would be mainly as big as we can afford.  So not that big.

The UAV's are the real question. 

It comes to mind that there are at least 4 types of airborne UAVs:

1.  propeller for recon, over the horizon targeting and maybe asw
2.  jet for ground strikes, surface strikes and air superiority (also kamikaze and missile defense)
3.  helicopter for missile defense (think CIWS hanging under a helo) or decoys....?
4.  blimp/balloon for recon and air traffic control

They all have their own uses and drawbacks.  Do you think that a UAV could be easily configured for VTOL?

I do know that Boeing is working on a jet based UAV (did any one else see that TV special on the JSF?)


A blueprint for a Canadian Task force?

2 x Frigates                    (2 Large Helos)
1 x Micro-Carrier              (Say 12 UAVs)
1 x Air-Defense Destroyer (1 Large Helos, 1 Recon blimp)
1 x Sub
1 x AOR                        (2 Large Helos)

 

[tomahawk6]

Below are the X-45 and X-47 UAV's. The X-47 has been carrier tested.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x-45-ucav/

http://www.darpa.mil/j-ucas/X-47/gallery.htm

 

[winchable]

What are you guys talking about?  The Ark Royal is an Invincible-Class Aircraft Carrier

There was an Ark Royal in WW1 that was a merchant ship converted to carry seaplanes:

So you're suggesting something like the Ark Royal (or one of it's predecessors) which technically weren't carriers, they were cruisers that had a small flight deck added to them?

As Neill pointed out, I had a fragmented memory of the documentary.
Wrong about the cruisers part..half wrong.

Any historical paralell we could draw with regards to converting a ship without a flight deck to a ship with a flightdeck seems relevant, and this seems to be one of the options presented here with regards to a short range UAV.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I think though if we wanted a UAV carrier it would come at the expense of any amphib we are looking to get. While a UAV carrier would help with joint ops(as pointed out by NCRCrow) an amphib is more attractive to all 3 elements.

 

[Kestral]

If I had to choose between an Anphib or a carrier, I would pick the Anphib.  I suspect that most other professionals would as well.  Carriers are nice, but that anphib is more useful...

With the new JSS project I would like to see 4 ships emerge.  2 Supply ships and 2 Amphib ships...

 

[NCRCrow]

UAV's are still viable and low cost.

The Amphib could hold a logistical value as well as a C4ISR platform. This would make all the elements buy in to as well as other agencies for there needs (Customs, RCMP)

U need very little space to launch and recover UAV's.

The UAV could do a forward RECCE of the area and give the Amphib commanders the battle space management.

Also serve as tracking tgts for the Navy and definately contribute to the RMP for force protection and ASUW.

It would   be a dynamic platform and cheap! (relatively)

 

[George Wallace]

With the new JSS project I would like to see 4 ships emerge.   2 Supply ships and 2 Amphib ships...

This is the absolute minimum that you would want.  Remember that at any one time there will be a ship in drydock for maint/repair/refit.  With two coasts, widely separated by the continent, it would most likely be best to have three or four ships of each class, to handle such eventualities.

 

[childs56]

the US miltary launches UAV's off of their Destroyers, using a catapult. They they recover them with a net. A little damge at times but it is very effective.  If we get a sole Carrier for the UAV's then we are loseing one other aspect. If we  incorporate it in the JSS or Ampihb etc then we will win on all sides. Should we be relying on UAV/s for all our needs no. They are good but lets not fall into this situation of relying on them for all our tasks.  Adapt the Ships to launch and recover them then employ them with in their capibilties.