I think this isn't a half bad idea. Low cost carriers should be able to protect themselves. Having a couple VLS would go along way to reducing the need for escorts. You would still need a point AAW asset and 2 ASW assets but you could save yourself an escort or two.aaaditya said:
Indian ADS aircraft carrier
- Thread starter P.A.F
- Start date
I agree… It’s not like fitting carrier whit air-defense missiles is so new idea… French used Crotale on Clemenceau class, Charles De Gaulle uses Aster15, Nimitz class uses Sea sparrow, Garibaldi uses Aspide and if Im not mistaken Invincible class used Sea Dart for some time…aaaditya said:
I don’t see why carriers wouldn’t have some additional self protection joust in case something goes true escort SAM umbrella. Especially since VLS for Barak or ESSM wouldn’t take to much space…
thats the primary role of the air defence group elements of the task force. eg whoever is managing aegis/paams etc...aaaditya said:
I don't disagree with the carrier having more anti-air - but I don;t see much merit in fitting VLS (an intrusive system) onto a carrier when real estate is already a prime issue.
add up the availa anti-air slots in a typical escort group and you have more than enough to cope with majority of likely contacts.
any strike group going into much more contested space is going to have a support package dealing with enemy air before they get into range (eg, kill the closest airfields with TLAMs, land supported or AAR supported long range CAP etc...)
the saturated loading of missiles as an exercise in self protection onto a carrier is better managed by other means IMV. smaller carriers are far better off with non intrusive response opportunities anyway. (eg RAM)
Thery're not VLS systemsisthvan said:
VLS does take up valuable space. Its why Phalanx is so popular - its a non intrusive packet - ergo its why RAM is so favoured. ie a Phalanx baseplate with a missile box on top.isthvan said:
VLS does intrude - and its not something easily retro fitted. Carriers are critically dependant on available real estate.
Ever wondered why the US prefers ballistrade mounts for their carriers weapons systems - and why their weapons systems are non intrusive as possible?
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Dude, you DO realise the guy was talking about the JMSDF, the premier Asian Navy (especially when it comes to AAW), right? The whole point is that they wouldn't need their carriers to have a VLS missile system, because their escorts can do the AAW job several times over. Maybe they could go for SeaRAM instead of Phalanx, but I think there would be little point in the Japanese equipping future carriers with large numbers of missiles.aaaditya said:
As gf0012-aust pointed out, every bit of space on a carrier is important. If Japan built proper aircraft carriers it would be better to put space for a VLS towards more deck-space and/or a bigger hanger.
Very interesting....
Gentlemen, we have a potentialy fascinating area of exploration here.
The only Carrier vs. Carrier battles in history were between the US an Imperial Japan. All but two of those were fought in 1942, which leaves students of that kind of conflict even more frustrated than Battleship enthusiasts.
What sort of scenarios are opening up here? These new mini-battlegroups (some with no tie to NATO) could make for war-games which could have some startling outcomes.
I might start a new thread, once I get my ideas organized... :ban
Or maybe not-
Gentlemen, we have a potentialy fascinating area of exploration here.
The only Carrier vs. Carrier battles in history were between the US an Imperial Japan. All but two of those were fought in 1942, which leaves students of that kind of conflict even more frustrated than Battleship enthusiasts.
What sort of scenarios are opening up here? These new mini-battlegroups (some with no tie to NATO) could make for war-games which could have some startling outcomes.
I might start a new thread, once I get my ideas organized... :ban
Or maybe not-
I think its more likely that any evolving contact is more akin to a surface action group event opposing a carrier group. Even the smaller nations carriers are more a hybrid than a serious air wing delivery platform. the smaller countries are also (in the main) not anywhere close to structuring up a proper carrier strike force/task force.Manfred said:
the US moved away from specialised carriers in the 60's - it would be ironic to see it coming full circle where other countries decided to take the specialised path again.
mass (sheer weapons delivery) and capability dispersal are force multipliers in their own right....
Actually ASTER15 on French carrier “Charles De Gaulle” is VLS and IIRC new Italian carrier “Cavour” will also be fitted whit same system. Also HTMS Chakri Naruebet has provision for the future installation of one eight-cell Mk 41…gf0012-aust said:
I understand your point but I think that if you take VLS in account during design faze you can fit him whit VLS without losing any space for other purposes…gf0012-aust said:
And IMHO one or two eight-cell Mk 41 for ESSM wouldn’t take to much space but would provide additional air defense to entire CBG…
CdG was designed for expansion of systems - and VLS was a non issue. India has second hand carriers. None of hers were greenfield designs for contemp weapons systems like VLS.isthvan said:
See above, see also the comment about real estate - or more pointedly - "bunkerage issues"isthvan said:
I'm guessing you've never seen an entire VLS module - you just can't plug a VLS module into an available hole. (unless you're running an older ship like the Meko's)isthvan said:
I say again, SeaRAM ala Phalanx is favoured because its non intrusive and can be retro fitted to older vessels with a minimum of grief. The same cannot be said for fitting VLS into the same vessels. Space is at a premium - irrespective of whether its a frigate or a carrier.
If its a greenfield issue that its a more or less a non issue - India is not in that kind of procurement luxury for its older platforms by any stretch of the imagination.
Design hybrids have this historical tendency of biting the user on their backside - you'd be surprised at how much extra is involved with plugging in a modular weapons system into an older asset. - Its a design and integration nightmare of financially horrific as well as operational proportions. Again, thats why non intrusive systems are still favoured and why some of the more wealthier navies keep a surplus of them in storage so that they can retrofit them as they need them. With VLS you're looking at an installation time difference of almost 5-12 months on a virgin vessel (assuming that it can be done anyway).
knightrider4
Active Member
Ffgup
I,m assuming GF that the RAN's upgrade of the OHP's which saw the installation of an eight cell VLS ran into some dramas, hence the time blowout?
I,m assuming GF that the RAN's upgrade of the OHP's which saw the installation of an eight cell VLS ran into some dramas, hence the time blowout?
Yes, exactly. The JMSDF has the second best AAW capability in the world, after the USN.Musashi_kenshin said:
I agree with aaditya that a carrier should have some self-defence capability, to deal with leakers, but for that, I don't think big VLS systems like Mk 41 are a good solution. Better a non-intrusive CIWS or SR missile such as gf0012-aust suggests. We can debate separately which is best.
IMO, CdG & Cavour would be better off with less ancillary weaponry & more aircraft capability, but I see why they've got it. They want to be able to deal with limited threats on their own, to save on escorts. They're expected to mostly be deployed in low-intensity conflicts, lightly escorted, but don't want to be vulnerable to, e.g., the odd Hezbollah missile.
yeah, just a tad.knightrider4 said:
bear in mind that the RAN OHP's are already slightly bigger than their US namesakes (actually they're the biggest iteration of that class all round)
Don’t get me wrong, I was joust saying that if new ship (in this case possible future JSDFM carrier) is designed fitting of VLS could be done without limiting other carrier capabilities… I newer mentioned retrofitting older ships whit one…gf0012-aust said:
You are naturally right I have never seen Mk-41 VLS since my only military experience is conscript service in military police. I have some ideas of size of that system and I’m quite aware of problems whit retrofitting of older ship whit such system and I agree that for that purpose Mk 29 or RAM are better choice…
I only thin that carrier should have self-defense capability in case that something goes true air defense umbrella provided by escorts and if we talking about smaller navy carrier should be able to provide some additional air defenses to battle group.
contedicavour
New Member
I agree with you - a small carrier with a normal complement of a dozen harriers or F35s aboard plus half a dozen heavy helos shouldn't rely exclusively for AAW and anti-missile on the planes and a short range CIWS system. Too risky ! Besides, the USN may afford to lose a flat top in a major confrontation - they would still have 11 carriers (not to mention the Tarawas, Wasp, etc). Smaller navies cannot afford to lose their 1 or 2 carriers for both operational and psychological reasons.isthvan said:
Bottomline, since steel isn't that expensive, I prefer to have a carrier which is 20 meters longer and has serious VLS AAW/anti-missile. Besides, a Sylver VLS+the missiles doesn't cost much more than 3 F35s...
cheers