[Winnipegger]

I drew a modification to the same Majestic light carrier to permit it to carry Viking patrol aircraft, Mariner UAVs, and F-35B STOVL fighters. It required a 9.5° flight deck, cantilevering the "ski jump" over the bow of the ship, and widening the parking area of the bow beside the "ski jump". In all that's a lot of steel, increasing the weight of the ship. Increased ship weight means reduced aircraft weight capacity. Because the F35B is so long, I also had to delete the working spaces on one side of the hanger, replacing the ship hull there with an armoured wall. Most importantly, the F35B is a significantly heavier aircraft while the bomb load is practically the same. Considering the Rafale has much better performance, this doesn't look like a good choice at all. A more intelligent choice would be to design a ship with either an angled flight deck or jump ramp, not both. A ship designed to carry Viking aircraft is therefore better off with Rafale fighters. For an assault configuration, the BAE Harrier II is a smaller, lighter aircraft than an F35B. Again, a better choice for a light carrier.

The reason for looking at the F35B Joint Strike Fighter was common maintenance with an F35C for a full carrier, or F35A for the air force. However, operationally it doesn't make sense.

[saturn_656]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

I drew a modification to the same Majestic light carrier to permit it to carry Viking patrol aircraft, Mariner UAVs, and F-35B STOVL fighters. It required a 9.5° flight deck, cantilevering the "ski jump" over the bow of the ship, and widening the parking area of the bow beside the "ski jump". In all that's a lot of steel, increasing the weight of the ship. Increased ship weight means reduced aircraft weight capacity. Because the F35B is so long, I also had to delete the working spaces on one side of the hanger, replacing the ship hull there with an armoured wall. Most importantly, the F35B is a significantly heavier aircraft while the bomb load is practically the same. Considering the Rafale has much better performance, this doesn't look like a good choice at all. A more intelligent choice would be to design a ship with either an angled flight deck or jump ramp, not both. A ship designed to carry Viking aircraft is therefore better off with Rafale fighters. For an assault configuration, the BAE Harrier II is a smaller, lighter aircraft than an F35B. Again, a better choice for a light carrier.

The reason for looking at the F35B Joint Strike Fighter was common maintenance with an F35C for a full carrier, or F35A for the air force. However, operationally it doesn't make sense.

Is this modified Majestic a "what if" had we kept ours or are you advocating building another from scratch?

The F-35B is the Harrier II replacement and is more advanced in every respect. Sure there'll be surplus Harriers once everyone ditches theirs for the F-35B, but it would be criminal to equip the CF with museum pieces. And you'll never operate the Viking off of a Majestic type, the USN looked at operating them off their Midway class carriers (65,000+ tons, close to supercarrier size) and found they couldn't do it. They needed a supercarrier at least the size of the Forrestal type.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cv-41.htm

While unable to operate either the F-14 Tomcat or S-3 Viking, MIDWAY was still an amazing and powerful national asset over forty years after her commissioning.

[sasquatch2]

Perhaps we should leave aircraft carriers to the big guys on the block. The soviets attempted that and just accelerated their economic collapse. As far as any nostaligia for the "Bonnie"...Naval veterans of that period report many slow passages in her company because the sucker kept springing leaks. This indicates a fatigued hull----a floating scrap year in their opinion.

[Winnipegger]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

While unable to operate either the F-14 Tomcat or S-3 Viking, MIDWAY was still an amazing and powerful national asset over forty years after her commissioning.

Well, why the hell not? The Dassault Rafale has an approach speed of 120 knots and can land on a CdG carrier. The Viking as a stall speed of 97 knots, so I don't see why it shouldn't be able to land on the same runway. As for launch, the Viking is one big heavy aircraft, there's a reason I drew the catapult stroke length the same as a Nimitz. When placed in the traditional location for a Majestic, the catapult extended right back into the runway, so there was no point keeping them separate. You couldn't land and launch at the same time. That's why I moved the catapult to the runway, with the same angle. That made the forward flight deck all parking. A Viking has a wide wingspan, so carriers that operate it require a wider foul line. The Midway may have required a catapult upgrade to launch F-14 Tomcat or S-3 Viking aircraft; I don't see any other problem.

As for what I'm advocating: this is Canada, go small or go home. Our assets must be affordable, so keep it physically small while retaining all the capabilities of larger assets from other countries. I tried to design a light carrier that could host a Hornet, but ended up with a ship with twice the displacement of the Bonaventure. That made it a full carrier, as big as the CdG, not a light carrier. By incorporating every trick I could find in old carriers together with up-to-the-minute technology, it is relevant and able to carry as many aircraft as a Nimitz. It would carry 48 Hornets while the Nimitz carries 36 Hornets and 12 SuperHornets, but still pretty good for a ship only 40% the size. That got way big, so I went back to the Bonaventure design. It was used for anti-submarine patrols late in its life. Replace the Tracker aircraft with Viking to modernize. Of course that meant a longer runway and much more powerful catapult. Then make it flexible, multi-role.

Actually, I would like to the buy the Vikrant from India, toss off the souvenir shops and do the upgrades. Seriously, a sister ship of the Bonaventure back in service, and a current relevant ship. Maybe even inexpensive enough that Canada could afford it. An icon for maintaining old stuff, so people stop trying to throw away expensive assets just because their age reaches a number. Of course only do that at the same time as building the brand new full carrier. Expensive, but the political ramifications of refitting the old one without building the new one would be bad.

Then again, would we be better off focussing on army stuff? Politicians are now arguing for going back to Darfur once we pull out of Afghanistan. Grunt work in low-tech third world countries appear to be what we're in for. So UAVs, APCs, and a ro-ro.

Somebody needs to develop ground penetrating radar that can scan the road a hundred metres ahead of an APC, detect a land mine and warn the driver. If Mars Express can scan deep into the surface of Mars to map it's rock layers kilometres down, and NASA's satellites can map the bedrock beneath the sands of the Sahara, why can't an APC can a foot or two beneath a road surface just a hundred metres ahead? Or scan stuff beside the road for explosive formed projectiles?

[sasquatch2]

Canada's geographic reality and the geographic reality of India are vastly different. India doen't have two oceans to patrol.
IED's are an ever evolving phenomina. Paved roads make concealing road bed devises difficult....but the Iranian self-forging fragment devises are set up sometimes 100 metres off the road---they are a projectile devises and usually command detonated.
The only real cure is intense 24/7 surveilance, possibly by UAVs. Such intense surveilance would resolve a lot of tactical problems such as infiltration.