Proposed US Navy Future Carrier Air Wing

[Parthu]

From CSBA (Centre for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments):

I'm pretty sure the future USN CAW is going to develop along these lines. With unmanned aircraft outnumbering the manned types.

Unmanned aircraft of various types will be the primary carrier-borne air asset for performing:

• Strike (at least alongside F-35, following Loyal Wingman concept)
• Anti-Surface Warfare
• Anti-Submarine Warfare
• Electronic Attack
• Mid-air Refueling
• Light Surveillance/Reconnaissance

In this context, I'll say one thing about the Indian Navy: I'm GLAD we decided upon a CATOBAR setup with EMALS as our future carriers' launch configuration. Do I think we are hurrying to get more carriers? Yes. Do I think we should have rolled back on carrier plans for time being and allocated as much resources as possible elsewhere like SSN programme? Yes. But at least, in our hurry, we are not making the same mistakes (let's be more subtle and call them cost-to-capability trade offs) that the British made with their choice of STOVL with Ski-jump (no catapults & no arresting gear) for their QEC, in their hurry to get those carriers and within their prevailing budgetary limitations.

Now, I'll admit that budget limitations are a real & present aspect that everyone has to consider...but when dealing with a carrier, a platform expected to last you for 30-40 years easily, making the right choices with regard to base configuration goes a long, long way toward ensuring that carrier stays relevant & right at the cutting-edge well into the future in a highly evolving battle-space.

I do believe the Royal Navy had, either out of poor planning or sheer limitation of choice given the timeframes & budgets, severely crippled the future growth potential of the QEC air wing with their choice of a Ski-ramp setup. I'm sure this move is up for debate and all kinds of people have already commented on it, but that's just what I believe.

The Brits are not going to be able to operate pretty much ANY fixed-wing type from QEC which cannot land vertically. Which means no Taranis (or whatever it evolves into), no high-power AEW, and no anything into the future like MQ-25 tanker.

I'm just glad we didn't paint ourselves into the same corner. It's already known IN has the Hawkeye in mind, and a naval version of the AURA/IUSAV drones in development isn't a stretch. IN closely follows and never fails to take cues from leading Western navies when it comes to the way it sees naval combat and its future. So I won't be making too much of guesswork when I say IN would also want its future air wing to follow the same pathways that USN is taking.

Any thoughts on this are welcome.

@vstol Jockey @randomradio @Arpit @Nordic Wolf @BMD @Milspec @Hellfire @Picdelamirand-oil @halloweene @Bon Plan @Ashwin @Amal @GuardianRED

 

[Valkyrja]

I'm not sure I trust an autonomous aerial platform to perform ASW without oversight (my view is different with AUVs since I have first hand experience with them performing ASW autonomously). ASW at altitude requires hydrocarbon sensors, which are very fine-tuned and sensitive, but require a complete picture to be made and for humans to then look at that picture and say, "Yes. That's an unnatural emitter." Hydrocarbon sensors are pretty common for underwater resource exploration, and natural emitters of hydrocarbons aren't uncommon.

MAD works best down low, but their false-positive rates are really high. Trained crews know the difference between a submarine, assuming it's actually magnetic, and a natural magnetic source like an underwater volcano. But right now autonomous systems don't have the degree of fidelity necessary to make a definitive conclusion like a trained MAD operator would.

Sonobuoys and dipping sonars are your best bet, but a fast-moving, long-range ASW AUV isn't going to be loitering long enough to either complete a picture based on the returned data, or act in a timely manner. The Mk1 eyeball is still used to verify the data received. There's a reason SONARs are found on loitering platforms like ASW heloes and not MPAs.

Other aerial sensors like LIDAR, green laser or RADAR work best in shallow waters where lurking submarines, even DE or AIP boats aren't too common. Wake hunters require you to actually have access to a wake, and while they can be tracked for kilometers, they must be done so underwater. Wake hunters either measure water density or radioactive particulates from nuclear boats.

Same with optical interference systems which detect changes in water's refractive index due to heat dissipation. Detectors that locate zinc runoff from anti-corrosive material dissolution or hydrogen from oxygen scrubbers also require an underwater sensor and their ranges are limited. Good for allowing a submarine to trail another, but bad for locating one.

There are a lot of way to find a submarine, but most of them don't work great from the air.

For attacking, sure. Once data has confirmed and a submarine is in the vicinity and that data has been verified, a homing torpedo or two from an AUV should do the trick. But remember, a torpedo homes in on the closest source of noise that matches its data-base, but only after such noises are found and tracked. Active acoustic homing allows the torpedo to locate noises on its own and follow them to a conclusion. Acoustic homing, and there's a difference between these two, relies on threat profiles to be known and will follow them. In either case the relatively short range of aerial torpedoes means a submarine or underwater contact has to be tracked and traced before attack.

But ASW above water just has too many variable that I wouldn't trust a truly autonomous system to be able to perform solely on its own with a high degree of accuracy and safety and reliability. At least not yet.

For the rest of a carrier air-wing the more autonomy the better. Streamline the boring jobs like long-range surveillance, cargo runs and tanking. The technology's safe enough and reliable enough now that it's viable. Can't wait to see the MQ-25 flying off carrier decks.

 

[randomradio]

Jet engines shouldn't face such a big problem from STOBARS. The E-2 is a prop, that's why the problems.

 

[vstol Jockey]

I had posted the comparison between STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers on another forum. I can post it yet again her as that was part of the presentation I gave to IN. I am against CATOBAR carriers and would love to go for pocket sized STOBAR carriers.

 

[Parthu]

Jet engines shouldn't face such a big problem from STOBARS. The E-2 is a prop, that's why the problems.

I believe I've read somewhere previously about Grumman saying that even E-2 can operate from Ski-jumps. And I don't doubt that, there's no reason why it shouldn't. However there is always a very considerable loss of payload capacity involved.

That said, here's the deal: the QEC can launch any fixed-wing from the ramp...it just can't recover them. No arrestor wires.

It's not unfeasible to imagine they might incorporate arrestors later on, but the payload trade off would still be there.

I had posted the comparison between STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers on another forum. I can post it yet again her as that was part of the presentation I gave to IN. I am against CATOBAR carriers and would love to go for pocket sized STOBAR carriers.

I would definitely be interested in reading your assessment (or at least the major points of it), do post. It appeared from the outside that IN was always intent on a CATOBAR for the next carrier after IAC-1.

 

[randomradio]

I believe I've read somewhere previously about Grumman saying that even E-2 can operate from Ski-jumps. And I don't doubt that, there's no reason why it shouldn't. However there is always a very considerable loss of payload capacity involved.

That said, here's the deal: the QEC can launch any fixed-wing from the ramp...it just can't recover them. No arrestor wires.

It's not unfeasible to imagine they might incorporate arrestors later on, but the payload trade off would still be there.

The E-2 can operate from Gorky and IAC-1, but endurance will be only 1 hour instead of the usual 5-6 hours. So every sortie will require mid-air refuelling. But a buddy refueller can easily top it up, be it the Mig-29K or the Rafale M.

The QEC can operate the AEWC version of the Ospreys in the meantime. Obviously not as good as the E-2, but better than nothing.

 

[Parthu]

The E-2 can operate from Gorky and IAC-1, but endurance will be only 1 hour instead of the usual 5-6 hours. So every sortie will require mid-air refuelling. But a buddy refueller can easily top it up, be it the Mig-29K or the Rafale M.

Launching a 2nd aircraft to make up for the shortcomings of the 1st. Definition of inadequate/sub-optimal right there.

The QEC can operate the AEWC version of the Ospreys in the meantime. Obviously not as good as the E-2, but better than nothing.

The EV-22 is a paper aircraft. If RN wants to buy it, they'll probably have to fund it, as no one else seems interested (maybe JMSDF....).

 

[randomradio]

Launching a 2nd aircraft to make up for the shortcomings of the 1st. Definition of inadequate/sub-optimal right there.

Yep. That's why it didn't work out. We have too few fighters already.

The EV-22 is a paper aircraft. If RN wants to buy it, they'll probably have to fund it, as no one else seems interested (maybe JMSDF....).

It has the same limitation as helicopters, a lower ceiling than the E-2.

 

[Parthu]

Yep. That's why it didn't work out. We have too few fighters already.

Glad it didn't.

Just imagine the additional time & effort needed for flight preparations, the additional wear on the MTBFs of the fighter engines (which is already poor on the Klimovs), the list goes on. For special situations or emergencies this type of operation is fine, but to adopt it as the go-to procedure for every single AEW sortie? Untenable at best.

It has the same limitation as helicopters, a lower ceiling than the E-2.

Hawkeye is the best there is. But the EV-22 (if we assume UK would fund its development and buy it) would at least have a bigger radar and more internal space for Operator Work Stations.

Maybe if QEC receives arrestor gear in a future refit, then can look at operating a small jet with AEW, something along the lines of Antonov An-71...

But ofcourse the payload limitations will still persist to a considerable degree, not to mention the cost of funding such a program (because you can sure no one else in the world will). Really sucks when you want to remain at the cutting edge of capability, but without laying the proper foundations for it.

I'm not sure I trust an autonomous aerial platform to perform ASW without oversight (my view is different with AUVs since I have first hand experience with them performing ASW autonomously). ASW at altitude requires hydrocarbon sensors, which are very fine-tuned and sensitive, but require a complete picture to be made and for humans to then look at that picture and say, "Yes. That's an unnatural emitter." Hydrocarbon sensors are pretty common for underwater resource exploration, and natural emitters of hydrocarbons aren't uncommon.

MAD works best down low, but their false-positive rates are really high. Trained crews know the difference between a submarine, assuming it's actually magnetic, and a natural magnetic source like an underwater volcano. But right now autonomous systems don't have the degree of fidelity necessary to make a definitive conclusion like a trained MAD operator would.

Sonobuoys and dipping sonars are your best bet, but a fast-moving, long-range ASW AUV isn't going to be loitering long enough to either complete a picture based on the returned data, or act in a timely manner. The Mk1 eyeball is still used to verify the data received. There's a reason SONARs are found on loitering platforms like ASW heloes and not MPAs.

Other aerial sensors like LIDAR, green laser or RADAR work best in shallow waters where lurking submarines, even DE or AIP boats aren't too common. Wake hunters require you to actually have access to a wake, and while they can be tracked for kilometers, they must be done so underwater. Wake hunters either measure water density or radioactive particulates from nuclear boats.

Same with optical interference systems which detect changes in water's refractive index due to heat dissipation. Detectors that locate zinc runoff from anti-corrosive material dissolution or hydrogen from oxygen scrubbers also require an underwater sensor and their ranges are limited. Good for allowing a submarine to trail another, but bad for locating one.

There are a lot of way to find a submarine, but most of them don't work great from the air.

For attacking, sure. Once data has confirmed and a submarine is in the vicinity and that data has been verified, a homing torpedo or two from an AUV should do the trick. But remember, a torpedo homes in on the closest source of noise that matches its data-base, but only after such noises are found and tracked. Active acoustic homing allows the torpedo to locate noises on its own and follow them to a conclusion. Acoustic homing, and there's a difference between these two, relies on threat profiles to be known and will follow them. In either case the relatively short range of aerial torpedoes means a submarine or underwater contact has to be tracked and traced before attack.

But ASW above water just has too many variable that I wouldn't trust a truly autonomous system to be able to perform solely on its own with a high degree of accuracy and safety and reliability. At least not yet.

For the rest of a carrier air-wing the more autonomy the better. Streamline the boring jobs like long-range surveillance, cargo runs and tanking. The technology's safe enough and reliable enough now that it's viable. Can't wait to see the MQ-25 flying off carrier decks.

On that note, what's going to be the USN replacement for the S-3 Viking?

 

[halloweene]

STOBAR/CATOBAR are dfferent beasts with very different aims.All depends on doctrina (homeland protection or projection of power).

 

[vstol Jockey]

STOBAR/CATOBAR are dfferent beasts with very different aims.All depends on doctrina (homeland protection or projection of power).

No sir. Please rethink. We can design aircraft fit for operations from STOBAR carriers and also have far superior Recce aircraft taking off and landing on them.
Unfortunately we adopted Sea Harrier and other shore based aircraft for STOBAR operations completely forgetting aircraft like Buccaneer and F-4 which had BLC for take off. We need to design aircraft fit for STOBAR operations and not adopt old designs to somehow suit STOBAR operations,

 

[CountryFirst]

I had posted the comparison between STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers on another forum. I can post it yet again her as that was part of the presentation I gave to IN. I am against CATOBAR carriers and would love to go for pocket sized STOBAR carriers.

Why not both?? A combination of STOBAR and CATOBAR? Will let you have even smaller carriers no?

 

[GuardianRED]

From CSBA (Centre for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments):

View attachment 3765

I'm pretty sure the future USN CAW is going to develop along these lines. With unmanned aircraft outnumbering the manned types.

Unmanned aircraft of various types will be the primary carrier-borne air asset for performing:

• Strike (at least alongside F-35, following Loyal Wingman concept)
• Anti-Surface Warfare
• Anti-Submarine Warfare
• Electronic Attack
• Mid-air Refueling
• Light Surveillance/Reconnaissance

In this context, I'll say one thing about the Indian Navy: I'm GLAD we decided upon a CATOBAR setup with EMALS as our future carriers' launch configuration. Do I think we are hurrying to get more carriers? Yes. Do I think we should have rolled back on carrier plans for time being and allocated as much resources as possible elsewhere like SSN programme? Yes. But at least, in our hurry, we are not making the same mistakes (let's be more subtle and call them cost-to-capability trade offs) that the British made with their choice of STOVL with Ski-jump (no catapults & no arresting gear) for their QEC, in their hurry to get those carriers and within their prevailing budgetary limitations.

Now, I'll admit that budget limitations are a real & present aspect that everyone has to consider...but when dealing with a carrier, a platform expected to last you for 30-40 years easily, making the right choices with regard to base configuration goes a long, long way toward ensuring that carrier stays relevant & right at the cutting-edge well into the future in a highly evolving battle-space.

I do believe the Royal Navy had, either out of poor planning or sheer limitation of choice given the timeframes & budgets, severely crippled the future growth potential of the QEC air wing with their choice of a Ski-ramp setup. I'm sure this move is up for debate and all kinds of people have already commented on it, but that's just what I believe.

The Brits are not going to be able to operate pretty much ANY fixed-wing type from QEC which cannot land vertically. Which means no Taranis (or whatever it evolves into), no high-power AEW, and no anything into the future like MQ-25 tanker.

I'm just glad we didn't paint ourselves into the same corner. It's already known IN has the Hawkeye in mind, and a naval version of the AURA/IUSAV drones in development isn't a stretch. IN closely follows and never fails to take cues from leading Western navies when it comes to the way it sees naval combat and its future. So I won't be making too much of guesswork when I say IN would also want its future air wing to follow the same pathways that USN is taking.

Any thoughts on this are welcome.

@vstol Jockey @randomradio @Arpit @Nordic Wolf @BMD @Milspec @Hellfire @Picdelamirand-oil @halloweene @Bon Plan @Ashwin @Amal @GuardianRED

Q: This is the possible to fit all this on a single carriers? + would the carriers just be a launch platform with operational control from land bases? or the carrier itself will have control?

If we are going to see the IN having a future air wing with a larger UAVs - this would be mean that the IN would be projected as a Global force and not a regional correct? therefore we need to have the infrastructure for such in place correct - do we foresee any projects to say the same?

 

[Parthu]

Q: This is the possible to fit all this on a single carriers? + would the carriers just be a launch platform with operational control from land bases? or the carrier itself will have control?

Yes, in the image they are listing an Air Wing consisting of 75 aircraft. Which is within the capacity of a Ford-class to carry (I would imagine even more can be carried under full load conditions). Carrier will have control of the drones. However, the control can be handed off to a ground station once mid-flight if needed.

If we are going to see the IN having a future air wing with a larger UAVs - this would be mean that the IN would be projected as a Global force and not a regional correct? therefore we need to have the infrastructure for such in place correct - do we foresee any projects to say the same?

Still very early for IN to adopt all this. IAC-2 is only expected to come by ~2030. By that time I would imagine a naval version of AURA will at least be in development. Our role & involvement in affairs stretching all around the IOR is already significant (Maldives, Seychelles, Mauritius, Gulf of Aden, A&N islands, Malacca Straits, etc. all these are very important spots from IN perspective).

One can only expect this role to increase. And with the 4 LHDs and 5 Fleet Support Ships, the ability to conduct operations (both military & HADR-related) across the world will be solidified.

 

[randomradio]

Glad it didn't.

Just imagine the additional time & effort needed for flight preparations, the additional wear on the MTBFs of the fighter engines (which is already poor on the Klimovs), the list goes on. For special situations or emergencies this type of operation is fine, but to adopt it as the go-to procedure for every single AEW sortie? Untenable at best.

Most definitely. We have P-8s already, so we have no need for a half-assed system.

Maybe if QEC receives arrestor gear in a future refit, then can look at operating a small jet with AEW, something along the lines of Antonov An-71...

But ofcourse the payload limitations will still persist to a considerable degree, not to mention the cost of funding such a program (because you can sure no one else in the world will). Really sucks when you want to remain at the cutting edge of capability, but without laying the proper foundations for it.

They may end up going without one. Big Daddy US is always around anyway.

On that note, what's going to be the USN replacement for the S-3 Viking?

I doubt there's anything on the cards yet.

 

[randomradio]

Why not both?? A combination of STOBAR and CATOBAR? Will let you have even smaller carriers no?

 

[CountryFirst]

This is Vishal??

 

[Parthu]

This is Vishal??

Project-23000E Shtorm. Russian concept carrier. Very unlikely they'll ever build it though, at least not in foreseeable future. However they did offer the design to Indian Navy, but doesn't seem we're interested either.

Even for the Russian use, I doubt they'll be intent on a 90,000T design like Shtorm. Rather, they'll be going for a ~65-70,000T design similar to IAC-2 and QEC.

 

[CountryFirst]

Project-23000E Shtorm. Russian concept carrier. Very unlikely they'll ever build it though, at least not in foreseeable future. However they did offer the design to Indian Navy, but doesn't seem we're interested either.

Even for the Russian use, I doubt they'll be intent on a 90,000T design like Shtorm. Rather, they'll be going for a ~65-70,000T design similar to IAC-2 and QEC.

But why don't we put both CATOBAR and STOBAR?? Instead of EMALS, because EMALS is untested. Shouldn't we work with tested technology. And maybe creat EMALS as experimental models for integration only in later projects post 2030 instead of immediately?

 

[Parthu]

But why don't we put both CATOBAR and STOBAR??

If you already have CATOBAR, then whats the point of having STOBAR except taking up useful deck space with the ramp?

This type of CAT+STOBAR setup is conceptualized by navies like Russia where they have large number of existing aircraft types which are not made to be structurally capable of withstanding catapult launch, and for whom modifying the aircraft for CAT capability costs too much money.

Instead of EMALS, because EMALS is untested. Shouldn't we work with tested technology. And maybe creat EMALS as experimental models for integration only in later projects post 2030 instead of immediately?

We are not experimenting with EMALS, the US is. Any kinks or problems with the new tech will be ironed out by the US minimum 10 years before we even start launching aircraft from EMALS (which is not likely to happen before 2030). By then EMALS would be pretty mature technology.