Written by Pierre-Henri Baras
1/ HISTORY
Great Britain, with it’s naval background, understood very quickly what an excellent weapon an aircraft carrier could become. It is no coincidence that the Royal Navy developped the catapulte and the angled deck. Yet this country left the small group of countries possessing aricraft carriers in 1978, when the HMS Ark Royal was scrapped. The only aircraft carrier left, the HMS Hermes, could not accommodate Phantoms, Buccanneers and other conventionnal airplanes, and thus the Sea Harrier was left as the only carrier-borne aircraft. But in 1980 Great Britain was also putting into service 3 ships of the Invincible class, to replace the HMS Centaur, Victorious, Hermes, Eagle and Ark Royal. Helicopter carriers with ski-jumps to help Sea Harriers and Harriers take-off, these ships were named HMS Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal and were designed for a specific cold-war mission, hunting Soviet submarines (ASW). They were designed to carry mainly Westland Sea Kings HAS Mk.3 for ASW, with only a handfull of Sea Harriers for the defense of the fleet. The cold-war having come to an end, needs have changed and the future aircraft carriers (CVF) will carry 3 types of aircraft: a combat aircrat (Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground), a airborne early warning (AWACS) aircraft and an ASW aircraft. The RAF and Royal Navy realized that they needed to adapt their composition, and a new command was created, named Joint Force 2000. This meant, as far as the helicopter carriers are concerned, the deployment of RAF Harrier GR.7s on HMS Invincible class ships with, RN Sea Harriers FA.2s.(In 1982 during the Falkland war a similar crash programm was conducted to reinforce the few Sea Harriers in their Air-to-Ground role).
This solution was only temporary, and the British government expressed it’s need for a future aircraft carrier, nammed CVF.
2/ SPECIFICATIONS
The outlines of the project were slay in the 1998 Strategic Defense Review. The CVF class ships were to measure 300meters long, weigh 40,000t at a speed of 28kn. Their cost would be of £2.2 billions, and they would embark 1200 sailors. Great Britain chose not to use a nuclear reactor, and thus 4 turbines will propulse the ships throughout their 8000nm range.
The Royal Navy did not field a conventionnal aircraft-carrier since 1978, but did maintain it’s ship building proficiency by building the recent HMS Ocean helicopter-carrier and the HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion amphibious warfare vessels. The new technics used to build these 3 ships will of course be used for the CVF.
Selection of the principal contractors will take place in 2003. Construction will start in 2005; the ships will be launched in 2010 and will enter active duty in 2015.
3/ AIR OPERATIONS
With the future retirement of the Sea Harriers and Harriers, 3 configurations are considered : STOVL, STOBAR, CTOL.
STOVL (Short Take-Off Vertical Landing): this is the configuration of the Invincible class ships, and of any ship operating aircraft with vectored thrust(Yak-36/-38) or other Harriers (US Marine Corps, Spain, Italy, Thailand, India). The planes take-off on a very short distance (80-100m), sometimes with the help of a ski-jump to save fuel, and simply because the engines are not powerful enough to lift a fully armed and fueled plane. Landing is performed vertically since the plane is lighter, like a helicopter, after a hover above the deck.
This launch and recovery mode allows a faster rate of take-offs, and also eliminates the catapultes, arresting wires and angled deck. Thus ships are shorter and cheaper. On the other hand vectored thrust aircraft are often smaller and less capable than conventionnal planes, due to their special internal propulsion systems.
If the STOVL configuration was chosen, the aircraft likely to be aquired are the JSF and Super Harrier, even if the latter has unofficially been canceled!
STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested landing): This was the solution chosen by the Soviets and their Su-33 Flanker D. It consists in a take-off without a catapulte, on the entire deck length, and a conventionnal landing with arresting wires. If this option eliminates the catapulte, it also limits the load of weapons and fuel each plane can carry. Unlike STOVL, STOBAR ships need an angled deck and and an arresting system. It also means a long time between recovery and launch, the time to reconfigure the deck. The longer the recovery procedure, the more you need fuel and thus refuelling aircraft to fuel planes waiting in the pattern. Should Great Britain retain the STOBAR option, the plane likely to be chosen is the Eurofighter EF 2000 Typhoon (N), navalised version of the Typhoon in service with the RAF.
CTOL (Conventionnal Take-Off and Landing): This is the system adopted by the US Navy, France, Great Britain until 1978, Argentine and Brazil. It is a simple system, very efficient with steam catapultes and arresting wires. These equipments are very heavy and take a lot of (scarce)space, thus CTOL ships are enormous (340m , 5,000 sailors) compared to STOVL ships. On the other hand, there are less weight restrictions, catapults can launch planes weighing up to 30t. CTOL, since they are bigger, can accommodate up to 90 aircraft, compared to 40 (50 in war time) for British HMS Invincible class ships. The CTOL contenders are the Dassault Rafale M and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
4/ CARRIER AIR WING
The choice of the air wing depends entirely from the type of ship chosen. Yet we can already say that the CAW will be composed of 30 multipurpose combat airplanes/FCBA (Future Carrier Borne Aaircraft), 6 helicopters and 4 AEW aicraft/FOAEW (Future Organic Airborne Early Warning). The CVF will thus in times of peace operate 40 aircraft, and up to 50 in wartime. The overall objective is to launch 150 sorties a day.
Requirements for the FCBA are the following: it has to be all-weather, day and night, for Air Superiority and Close Air Support, but also for interception, anti-shipping and tactical reccon. It needs to be supersonic and equipped with internal and external weapon points.
CTOL :
The first plane considered if the CTOL option is chosen is the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. This plane is today entering service in the US Navy; it is globally an upgrade from the F/A-18 A/B/C/D Hornet, plane which is widely combat-proven. This plane was designed from the start to be used on aircraft carriers, and it would be bought “off the shelf” by the RN, ie. Without any major nalalization modifications. On the other hand, buying this plane would bring nothing to the British industrie because it is likely to be built in the USA. But it remains a cheap and risk-free choice. The airplane makes up for its lack of stealthiness by high performances and weapon loads.
The second CTOL option could be the Dassault Rafale M. This aircraft is not operationnal yet, but its design is more recent than that of the Super Hornet, which is not entirely a 4th generation fighter. Nevertheless the Rafale M is a smaller and less navalized plane. If it were to be chosen, this choice would be less military than political! It is an entirely european plane, and Britain would be less dependant on the USA.
STOBAR
The plane going with the STOBAR version is the Eurofighter EF 2000 Typhoon (N). It is still on the drawing board, but the idea makes sense. Its main flaw is that it is not navalized at all. The choice would, then again, be very economic, since the plane will be operated by the RAF. One could think that building a naval version would not be very complicated. It would be mainly a reinforcement of the structure, and new fly-by-wire controls for carrier landings. Its advantages are its speed and weapon load.
STOVL
With the withdrawal of the Super-Harrier, the main STOVL contender is also the favorite of all, the JSF. The Joint Strike Fighter is indeed supposed to revolutionnize the XXIst century. It will come in 3 versions: conventionnal for the USAF (and Turkey?), navaliezd (catapulte an arresting wires) for the USN, and STOVL for the USMC and the RN. 3,000 airframes are expected to be built. It is meant to replace at least 10 aircraft in all services. The selection for the JSF will take place in 2001. The 2 competitors areBoeing (X-32) and Lockheed-Martin (X-35). The battle between the two is fierce, just like the one between the YF-22 and YF-23. The unlucky loser is likely to have to stop all military activities!
Calendar :
Costs :
The need for an airborn radar system appeared in the worst way during the Falklands War in 1982. Whereas the USA had the S-2 Tracker followedby the E-2C Hawkeye, and France had the Breguet Alizé, the Royal Navy; to detect incoming threats; could only count on ship-mounted sensors. Their range was dramatically small. In 1982, after the loss of several ships to Exocet missiles fired from Argentinian Super-Etendards that had approached these ships undetected, Great-Britain developped the Sea King AEW Mk.2, by mounting an airborn radar on a Westland Sea King. Its mission is air and surface surveillance, interception and attack coordination, and over-the-horizon missile guidance.
The replacement of the Sea King AEW will not be announced before 2003, but already several contenders have appeared:
The E-2C Hawkeye
If the CVF retains the CTOL configuration, the FOAEW aircraft will probably be the E-2C in a new version (yet not at the Hawkeye 2000 standard). The plane is combat proven and is very popular among its crews. It is in service in the US Navy, France, Japan, Egypt, Singapour and Israel. But only the US Navy and the French Fleet Air Arm (4F squadron at NAS Lann-Bihoué) operate them from aircraft carriers. It is the best possible solution, a plane designed specificaly for this mission.
The Merlin AEW
In the case of a STOVL or STOBAR solution, the probable choice could be an AEW version of the english-italian EH-101 Merlin helicopter, the replacement for the Sea King in most of its missions. It is a logical solution, adapting a modern AEW radar on the Royal Navy’s futur workhorse; combat doctrines would remain unchanged.
The Bell V-22 Osprey
The V-22, currently entering service in the US Marine Corps, is The plane which will revolutionize combat in the 21st century. Part airplane, part helicopter, it will combine the speed and the payload of a plane, and the easy employment of the helicopter. For the RN, the V-22’s advantage is its range and its autonomy, essential in a AWACS mission.
Just like for AEW, the futur Anti-Submarine Warfare aicraft will be a helicopter based on the EH-101 Merlin, replacement for the Sea King. It is likely to be dubbed Merlin ASW.
5/ WHAT ABOUT FRANCE ?
The importance for France of the choice of the future CVF goes beyond the simple sale of Rafale M. Indeed, the year 2000 marks the retirement of the Foch: for the 1st time since 1945, France goes without an aircraft carrier. The Charles-de-Gaulle will not be commissionned until mid-2001. But it will be alone to replace 2 ships, the Foch and the Clemenceau. Furthermore it means that when the CdG will be in dry docks for 6 months (every 5-6 years), France will not be able to deploy it’s naval deterrence element. The French Government has only recently been aware of this part of the problem, and funding for the second ship is soon to be expected (its name might be Richelieu). The next problem is about the propulsion system: building a second carrier, a little brother for the Charles-de-Gaulle would not be too expensive in terms of research and development costs. Blueprints already exist, you just have to build the boat. Unfortunately, nuclear propulsion is not an option anymore, technically and politically. Yet, designing a whole new carrier, from A to Z, with a conventionnal propulsion would be far too expensive. Thus France sees an opportunity to share some costs by entering a partnership with Great-Britain. If both countries have very different needs, the choice remains economical. Conventionnal propulsion (steam) is also cheaper to install and maintain than a nuclear propulsion.
If France chooses to go with Britain, clearly both nations would have to go through some sacrifices: the Royal Navy for example would buy the Rafale M. Both navies would field the same carriers and the same planes.
But if this option is retained, France would be operating 2 different aircraft carriers, and Great-Britain would operate 2 different fighters for the RAF and the RN; the EF 2000 Typhoon and the Rafale M. For both countries this situation is neither practical (in terms of collaborations of forces) nor economical.
Then again if the RN chose the Rafale M and the CTOL carrier, perhaps a new type of internationnal cooperation could be expected i.e. FN Rafales stationned on a RN carrier. On a european point of vue, this sort of cooperation is already planned: the Kriegsmarine (German Navy) is considering a permanent deployment of Rafale Ms (in German colors, flown and maintained by German personnel) on the Charles-de-Gaulle.