K
Kestral
Guest
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?
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?