Small Aircraft Carriers

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Large carriers are great/necessary if you are fighting are hunting bear (aka a peer), but what if you're hunting gophers (aka U-boats). As RN learned the hard way, hunting submarines with a fleet carrier wasn't necessarily wise.

For Allies:
An oiler set up as a MAC (ideally, with the 3-4 plane hanger of the cargo MACs to allow servicing in addition to increased capacity) along with 3-4 DEs or even "twin screw Corvettes" can cover a lot of ocean. (Oiler has the fuel capacity/etc to allow extend duration patrols)
It might not be able to sink a raider, but it would be bad news for a HSK or U-boat and it would cost a fraction of the cost of a fleet ship. (I'm thinking something Australia/Canada/New Zealand/South Africa can afford to operate). And, if it finds a raider, it can call in the big boys.​
Planes can be be obsolete "biplanes" as the emphasis is on search. (A submerged U-boat can't see to find anything to attack.​

For Axis:
Conversely, does a Dithmarschen auxiliary with a flight deck operating a couple handfuls of Fi.167s and trio of Bremse class "training" ships provide an equally challenging adversary to Graf Spee? (The Dithmarschen ships at 20k tons full load are a little big, Bremse might be a little light for the task, but I was looking for existing diesel powered ships.)
 
Howard Gibson said:
Long ranged aircraft are inferior in combat to short ranged aircraft. There must be a sweet spot out there. The further you fly from your carrier, the harder it will be to find it afterwards.
Click to expand...
This statement is simplifying a very complex topic. Inferior in what kind of combat? The long range aircraft are very much superior in combat that occurs far from the carrier. Which is the best kind of combat for carrier safety.

If you want to do power projection inland, which the USN does, then you have to be able to get inland.
 
Frog said:
Yes but the Atlantic Conveyor went down to the bottom with all but one of the Chinooks...
Click to expand...
Although they could launch and recover to Atlantic Conveyor it was very much to ship them and self land them once a beachhead existed on land.

Closer to the OP was the alternative plan for a larger Task Force built up over the winter to campaign in the summer. IIRC there were two container ships to be rebuilt and using containers to operate Harriers and ASW helicopters as part of the Fleet naval operations.
 
MIflyer said:
Note that in the Falklands the RN used container ships as carriers, launching GR Harriers as well as Sea Harriers.
Click to expand...
During the Falklands War a number of Ships Taken Up from Trade (STUFT) were used to carry helicopters from Britain south.

Atlantic Conveyor is the most famous due to her loss to an Exocet. But she left the UK carrying only 5 Chinooks and 6 Wessex and with her holds stuffed full of ammunition and tents etc. 6 Harrier GR.3 and 8 Sea Harrier FRS.1 joined her at Ascension Island, having been flown out from the UK. One Sea Harrier was maintained at readiness on the landing pad at her forward end in case there was a need to intercept any Argentinian recce aircraft (like the B707 intercepted by the main Task Force as it sailed south). The remainder of the aircraft and helicopters were wrapped in plastic to protect them from the elements on the journey. The Harriers & Sea Harriers were all flown off her in the 2 days following her arrival in Falklands waters.

The Atlantic Conveyor - Think Defence

The SS Atlantic Conveyor was a British merchant vessel that was used as an aircraft ferry during the 1982 Falklands Conflict. She would be subsequently sunk after being struck by two Excoet missiles fired by Argentine Super Etendard aircraft on the 25th of May 1982
www.thinkdefence.co.uk

3 Chinooks (1 was offloaded at Ascension and 1 was flown off before her loss), 6 Wessex and a Lynx HAS.2 (arrived aboard after she reached Falklands waters) were lost when she sank.

Other vessels that took significant numbers of helicopters south were:-

MV Elk - Gazelles & Scouts.
SS Atlantic Causeway - sister to Atlantic Conveyor. Sea King HAS.2A (stripped for the transport role), Wessex HU.5.
MV Astronomer - Chinook & Wessex. Left UK 8 June so didn't arrive in Falklands waters until 2 days after the Argentinian surrender.
MV Contender Bezant- Chinook, Gazelle & Sea King. Arrived off Falklands 10 June.

In 1983 the Astronomer was chartered for the RFA to test the Arapaho containerised aircraft handling concept and operated as a helicopter carrier off Lebanon. IIRC the kit was supplied by by USN and didn't prove successful in practice. Amongst the problems, the hangar leaked badly.

RFA Reliant A131 - IMO 7383889

Information, photos and AIS vessel tracker for the Ship RFA Reliant A131 (IMO 7383889)
www.shipspotting.com

Contender Bezant was purchased by the MoD in 1984, initially for use as a helicopter training ship. She became the RFA Argus and has filled a number of roles over time. She is still in service.

RFA Argus (A135) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org
 
I generally don't point this out in the context of naval aircraft because it usually comes up in discussions about the USAAF's daylight bombing campaign over Germany. American aircraft flying out of Great Britain were able to establish air superiority over Berlin because they had superior technology. The Germans failed to develop two-stage superchargers, and they failed to ship large amounts of high-octane gas to their fighter squadrons. The Japanese fielded some aircraft with laminar flow wings, but the Germans didn't. The Mustangs' superiority was sufficient that it could carry large amounts of fuel deep inside enemy territory, and still out-perform their fighters. The Japanese also lacked two-stage superchargers and high-octane fuel, but it was the US Navy who killed off most of their experience pilots.

If the Americans go up against the same level of resources and technology, their long range fighters get shot down in unacceptable numbers. A long range-aircraft requires some combination of large fuel tanks, and wings optimized for efficient cruse rather than combat.

Did the US Navy fly missions deep inside Japanese territory?
 

The Germans did not need either two stage superchargers or high octane fuel for intercepting American bombers. Both helped but they were not needed for the defensive mission IF other choices had been made.
The Russian Mig-3 could hit 400mph at 7800 meters using middle grade fuel (?) in 1940(?).
The DB 603E engine could make 1550hp at 7000 meters. It was about 310lbs (140kg) heavier than the two stage engine used in the Mustang, not counting respective radiators, intercoolers and such.
However a German interceptor does not need to carry as much fuel. A P-51 needed to carry 150-180 US gal to make home from 450 miles. This is regardless of size of drop tanks. German interceptor can start the fight (after take-off and climb) to 7-8000 meters with around 1/2 that much fuel (or even less).
Combined weight of powerplant and fuel should be rather close. Assuming similar aerodynamics a properly designed German interceptor should be able to have nearly equal performance to the Mustang. It just can't fly as far, but then it doesn't need to. The Americans are delivering 4 engine bombers right to it's dining room.

The lack of two stage superchargers and high octane fuel is an excuse. The Germans had failed to keep up with some other aspects of technology. Like low drag and building quality. Doesn't matter how refined an airfoil you can come up with in the lab/experimental station if all the production aircraft look like experiments in clay in a kindergarten class.
 
At the B-17 bouncing altitude of 30000ft, the Bf109 and Fw190 were 50mph slower than the P-47. The P-47 could equal the climb rate of the Fw190. Luftwaffe pilots fought at a terrible (for them) disadvantage because they did not have two supercharger stages, and their performance at altitude sucked.
 
Howard Gibson said:
Did the US Navy fly missions deep inside Japanese territory?
Click to expand...
The USN carriers of TF58 first struck at the Japanese homeland on 19 March 1945. After a halt for the Okinawa campaign, they returned at the end of June as TF38, this time supported by the carriers of the BPF as TF37. Aircraft from the carriers of both navies struck the length of Japan and all the way across to its west coast. In various places.

Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Were these raids deep inside Japanese territory? Japan is a set of islands, with all landmass fairly close to oceans.
 
Shortround6 said:
The Germans had failed to keep up with some other aspects of technology.
Click to expand...
I think that all by themselves Boeing and Consolidated Vultee built more tons of airplanes that the whole of Nazi Germany.

And the Mig-3 might make 400 mph at 7800 meters but with single stage supercharging that meant it was a dog at low altitudes.
 
True but the performance sucked for several different reasons.
The DB 605 engine was actually just bit lighter than the two stage Merlin and without better fuel you are correct. It did not have the needed power. We are also taling aobut several different DB 605s and the Germans were a little late getting the DB 605 to work properly in any case.
V-1650-3 in the P-51 was rated at 1330hp at 23,300ft.
This beats the heck out of the DB 605 A-D of 1335hp at 18, 700ft. It does not beat the heck out of the DB 605 AS with it it's 1200hp at 26,200ft. But the 605 AS doesn't show up in number until late. Now for correction factors you are going to loose about 3% power per 1000ft as you climb. So the V-1650-3 was down near 1200hp at 26,200ft.
The 605 AS was not very trick engine, it was a standard 605 with the supercharger off a DB 603 engine. It took more power to drive the larger supercharger and it cost power at lower altitudes.
The late model 109s were certainly not the most aerodynamic airframes in the box in 1944. Adequate (barely) engine in draggy airframe does not cut it.

Airframe doesn't care what kind of engine is in it or what kind of supercharger it has. What it cares about is if there is enough power (however that is made) and how heavy the powerplant is and how much drag the airframe has.
The 109 was well past it's prime with too many lumps and bumps. Even if you could have crammed a two stage Merlin in it and given it 100-130 fuel you were not going to get P-51B-C performance.

The Jumo 213 A was supposed to give 1600hp at 18,000ft so at 23,500ft is should be around 1350hp ( at least one chart shows this). All 4 engines under discussion are going to loose power at pretty much the same rate until they all hit zero power in the mid 50,000ft range (they don't have wings that will allow them to get that high).
 
Howard Gibson said:
Were these raids deep inside Japanese territory? Japan is a set of islands, with all landmass fairly close to oceans.
Click to expand...
As I noted they went all the way across the island chain in places. As far as aircraft range and the poor weather conditions encountered allowed.

FAA aircraft, including Seafires with drop tanks, from TF37 for example hit Maizuru, a port on the west coast (the Sea of Japan side of the island chain. Launch positions were as close as 50 miles from the east coast. You can't get much deeper.

If you want detailed information on all the operations from the USN perspective.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
MIflyer said:
And the Mig-3 might make 400 mph at 7800 meters but with single stage supercharging that meant it was a dog at low altitudes.
Click to expand...
Quite true. But there was a possible solution for that too. The Soviets never used water injection in a service aircraft.
The Germans did. Granted you need to make the engine strong enough to withstand the greater power but you have to do that with 100/130 fuel too.
Germans got 1800hp out of the DB 605 AM and they got 1700hp at 13,500ft (?, data from old "Janes's") granted at high altitude this doesn't work. You need the larger supercharger.

Point is that there were solutions to the high altitude interceptor problem without two stage superchargers and 100/130 fuel.
Two stage supercharges and 100/130 fuel allowed for more general purpose aircraft (both low and high altitude) and requiring a bit lighter power plant means more weight for fuel for longer range. The two stage supercharger and 100/130 gave the Allies more options. It did not mean the Germans (or Japanese) could not build more specialize aircraft to deal with high altitude bombers at all.
 
Shortround6 said:
Point is that there were solutions to the high altitude interceptor problem without two stage superchargers and 100/130 fuel.
Click to expand...
Yes, but a more important point is that the Merlin Mustang was a war winner using The Smallest Displacement Front Line Engine of the war. 1650 cu in was too small as early as 1940 and everyone knew it. The RAF were focusing on the Sabre and Griffon, while the USAAF figured you needed at least two V-1710 engines and probably more like two V-3420, or else a 2800 cu in radial. The Luftwaffe started the war with the DB601, over 2000 cu in, knew it was too small and went up in displacement from there, including the later DB and the BMW 801. The A6M3 had 1700 cu in, 50 cu in more than the Merlin and even the Japanese knew that was too small, which is why they went with their version of the DB601. Even the Hisso 12Y had over 2000 cu in. Republic abandoned its lightweight V-1710 concept and applied the P-47 designation to the P-43's big brother. Nobody was designing and building new fighters with less than 2000 cu in; that was 1930's thinking.

And along comes the Merlin Mustang, with an engine smaller even than the A6M3, and kicks everybody's ass. Putting the 2600 cu in Vulture's supercharger on the too-small Merlin gave you a big-ass engine in a small package, not only good at 40,000 ft plus, as envisioned, but better than any comparable engine at any altitude. And it could be fitted into an airframe that was not too large to get out of its own way, but large enough to carry enough fuel to get the job done. Add in a laminar flow wing, a Meridith effect radiator, and Hooker's liquid cooled aftercooler and the party was over for everyone else.

 
MIflyer said:
And the Mig-3 might make 400 mph at 7800 meters but with single stage supercharging that meant it was a dog at low altitudes.
Click to expand...

Shortround6 said:
Quite true. But there was a possible solution for that too. The Soviets never used water injection in a service aircraft.
Click to expand...
The 1-speed supercharging meant that the MiG-3 was a dog at the lower altitudes
A simple solution was to introduce the 2-speed gearing for the S/C, as it was done for the AM-39 series of engines. Another simple solution was to lower the compression ratio and crank up the boost; you loose perhaps 5% of power at really high altitudes, but the power under 5 km skyrockets.
Increasing the RPM was also in the cards, for the benefit of power at all altitudes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Hybrid aircraft carriers
6 7 8
Replies
155
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
A
Where could Universal Carriers make an impact?
Replies
4
Views
354
Warspite63
Making better Italian aircraft, 1933~1945
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
A
1939-1942 FAA: Better aircraft or more aircraft?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
5K
Admiral Beez
A
C
Advice on wooden aircraft
Replies
3
Views
931
Howard Gibson
Menu
Log in
Register