You are not logged in.

Survey on aviation ships

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

  • 1
  • 2

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

  • Send private message

1

Tuesday, June 12th 2012, 10:07pm

Survey on aviation ships

Gentlemen,

I can some kind of survey which nation in WesWorld is still building floatplane carriers. The idea was to check for new/other ideas. However, it turned out that the RSAN seems to be the only navy still rating a combatant floatplane carrier a valuable asset because I found no entry in any other navy about similar designs laid down within the last few years. So my question to you is: Have I missed something? Are there designs out there I may not have found or have you all stopped building such vessels?

Thanks,
HoOmAn

Hood

Ugly Aircraft, Inc

Posts: 8,155

  • Send private message

2

Tuesday, June 12th 2012, 10:14pm

I've three such ships, two hybrid CL/seaplane carriers and one larger seaplane carrier. I intend on refitting all of them in the near future but I've no replacements planned.

Modern seaplanes are proving a headache for the FAA.

I had planned one for Argentina (there is an empty encyclopedia entry for one) but it slipped down the prority list and then the carrier fleet came along...

Personally I can see use for such vessels, a large seaplane carrier could serve as a useful tender/ base ship. It can anchor in some suitable anchorage or atoll and serve as a floating airbase thus increasing aerial recon cover over a fixed area of operations. A hybrid cruiser-seaplane carrier is more practical than a cruiser-carrier and has far bigger search range. Radar still hasn't replaced eyes in a plane operating over long-ranges. The main problem is perhaps equipping them with planes that can be modern and of good enough performance to evade enemy carrier-based fighter screens and having the range and payload capacity to loiter and carry modern cameras.

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

3

Tuesday, June 12th 2012, 10:38pm

France still feels the floatplane is a viable tool of war. The MN intended to refit four of the older De Grasse class CLs into fast (33 knot) floatplane carriers in 1940. I've also got a new-built design I published somewhere else, too; a smaller type similar to a large colonial aviso. Unfortunately, the floatplane tenders ended up competing for funds with destroyers, cruisers, and regular carriers. When it came to the crunch, "Need!" beats out "Want!" However, the French have increased the aviation facilities on all new large ships (for instance, the Temeraire and Jean Bart class cruisers) in order to compensate. It does at least help that the French currently have one of the best military floatplanes in the world.

I know the Yugoslavians recently completed a floatplane tender, and the Peruvians have that 6x8" floatplane-carrying CA that I like so much.

parador

Sage

Posts: 3,829

  • Send private message

4

Tuesday, June 12th 2012, 10:48pm

The latest seaplane carrier from China

http://www.jk-clan.de/wbblite/thread.php…0941#post100941

Also i'm planning to refit the Palk Bay in the near future.

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

Posts: 3,605

  • Send private message

5

Wednesday, June 13th 2012, 12:35am

The Belgians are still trying to decide what they want in an "Expeditionary ship", but floatplanes are a possibility. They are looking at the role Hood is talking about, with the addition of supporting land assets.

The Dutch field a pair of smaller floatplane carriers and 6 tenders, and the Dutch continue to have floatplane fighters and reconn planes. But in the DEI there are supposed to be land based infrastructure for supporting seaplanes at most of the coastal fortification locations, so the ships are for "additional" or "out of area".

This means further floatplane carriers keep loosing out to other perceived critical needs.

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

6

Wednesday, June 13th 2012, 12:38am

Atlantis has an even more accute shortage of floatplane carriers than France for the same reasons. Other projects simply take presedence over any plans for floatplane carriers so the next best thing is seaplane bases with tenders.

The Arracife class were seaplane carriers in their day but are woefully inadequate for the task now given their age so they have been relegated to tender statis.

Turkey has no plans as of yet for such vessels.

Colombia has considered them but lacks the funds given the work being done to modernise capital ships and aquire cruisers.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

  • Send private message

7

Wednesday, June 13th 2012, 12:58am

All this sounds quite defensive. Isn't there much more offensive potential in the floatplane carrier?

For the RSAN a floatplane carrier is more than a movable base or tender. Instead, a floatplane carrier can replace a full-scale aircraft carrier where such ship would be overkill, e.g. for blockade, patrol and scouting duties (see my analysis of the lessons learnt from the ABS war). With 20+ a/c and the capability to launch several planes in relatively short order, a floatplane carrier operating with the fleet offers options otherwise not available to commanding officers.

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

Posts: 3,605

  • Send private message

8

Wednesday, June 13th 2012, 1:37am

The Dutch sea an offensive role for seaplanes.

As a purely OOC matter, they long expected that in a war with SATSUMA, Dutch torpedo bearing seaplanes would attack the supply ships, making the task sustaining a SATSUMA force within DEI very difficult. Planning against torpedo-bearing seaplanes from Diego Garcia is why the S-series of escorts have heavy, long range AA.

Lastly, well I believe I wrote about it once, not 100% sure that it ever got posted as it's something they like to do away from prying eyes, but the Dutch like to practice "surge" where they take all 6 tenders and 2 carriers and park them at a seaplane base. Then a couple hundred seaplanes could fly in, spend the night arming and then launch a very large strike.

Bruce once alluded, jokingly I think, to moving Filipino ships to a base closer to DEI, one which happened to be in range of the above concept given ranges from the Sangihie islands...which I found amusing.

So there, an offensive role in addition to the defensive/reconn.

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

9

Wednesday, June 13th 2012, 1:58am

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
All this sounds quite defensive. Isn't there much more offensive potential in the floatplane carrier?

France does see a limited offensive use to seaplanes. The current generation Liore-et-Oliver LeO-400 seaplane, for instance, was designed to be fast enough to intercept enemy floatplanes and land-based scouts, and even some carrier-based aircraft. It can carry light bombs, depth charges, or even rockets. The older Late-298 floatplanes, many of which are still in service, are quite capable (if ponderous) torpedo bombers.

However, while the French believe that seaplanes can be used offensively, their lower performance makes them easy prey for a modern land-based fighter, and probably shouldn't be used in offensive situations where they will face major aerial opposition.

The Chilean Navy does not see the floatplane as an offensive weapon due to their presence on a very stormy and unsettled ocean, which doesn't make for a good launch or recovery site for floatplanes. The north coast is similarly devoid of good floatplane harbours; only southern Chile has the sort of protected waters necessary for floatplane operations. Chile thus strongly prefers flying boats and seaplanes with ASW capability.

TheCanadian

Master

Posts: 2,242

  • Send private message

10

Wednesday, June 13th 2012, 2:12am

The Americans do see a use for seaplanes, but mainly in a defensive role. One of the recommendations for improving defenses in the American Pacific possessions will include a fairly major use of seaplanes as an early warning system against anyone wishing to wander east, based in the various American possessions. I do have at least one, possibly two tenders penciled in, though not till at least 1943-44, for the first laying down.

The Americans main use for seaplanes is in the scouting role, they see the seaplane as the "seeker" while the carrier and land based aircraft are the "destroyers." The seaplanes based in the Pacific will have some offensive capabilities, but the USN brass see them more as a tripwire than an asset to be used in an offensive role.

On further reflection, the SAE is probably one of the few powers left that can justify spending tonnage on them. They would be useful in say the Indian Ocean, or even along the Atlantic Coast of the SAE's African possessions. Their main role would be anti-raider and anti-cruiser warfare, and they wouldn't be facing major aerial opposition. The Americans can't see much use for them in the Atlantic or Caribbean, and even in the Pacific they would rather have a proper carrier.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "TheCanadian" (Jun 13th 2012, 2:17am)

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

11

Wednesday, June 13th 2012, 6:16am

Seaplane Tenders/Carriers?

Brock is correct, Yugoslavia is building small seaplane tender/base ship to support a small number of reconnaissance seaplanes; it is far too small to seaplanes capable of offensive operations, and Yugoslavia doesn't need such. It would not really need the seaplane tender but it does provide flexibility to operate with its Warsaw Pact allies.

The Philippines has had a large seaplane tender/carrier, but tactically I do not see it as an offensive asset. It presently supports patrol aircraft operating in near sea areas.

Germany has no seaplane tenders per se; the aviation support ships it is building are intended to support flying boats or seaplanes. Again, while these types of aircraft can carry a small war load, and might be effective against unarmed surface targets, they are primarily search assets intended to support land or carrier based strike aircraft or surface units.

Personally, I do not see the seaplane or flying boat as being generally useful as offensive strike aircraft; they might be able to function in the face of limited opposition, but any first-class opposition will knock them out quickly.

AdmKuznetsov

Sage

Posts: 2,918

  • Send private message

12

Wednesday, June 13th 2012, 12:47pm

RF Navy

uses floatplanes off of cruisers and battleships, of course.

And they still have four seaplane carriers built back in the late 1920s.

They're probably due for a refit.

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

  • Send private message

13

Wednesday, June 13th 2012, 1:51pm

Peru's got a seaplane-carrying heavy cruiser. To the degree that shipborne aircraft are necessary, it's expected that the new light carrier will suffice. No additional seaplane carriers/cruisers are anticipated.

Bharat built three seaplane carriers during the Cleito years, along with a few small escort-types that carried a single seaplane. There has also been ongoing development of float-fighters. On the other hand, there has been no recent construction of such vessels, and indeed the oldest of the three has been sold to China.

Bharat's interest in the type during the Cleito years was to have them stand in for conventional flat-tops - particularly in trade defence roles, which is reflected in the other capabilities of the type. Some expeditionary capacity was also envisioned - whether in a place like As Salif, or against evil imperialists in the Pacific. I didn't see a territorial defence role though - figured that the long-held islands in the Maldives and Laccadives would simply have proper airbases built there.

The existence of three (soon to be five) aircraft carriers could be an argument against further seaplane carriers. However, there are some in the BNS that find continued utility in the type, and some designs are being circulated for contemplation.

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

14

Wednesday, June 13th 2012, 3:50pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I've three such ships, two hybrid CL/seaplane carriers and one larger seaplane carrier. I intend on refitting all of them in the near future but I've no replacements planned.

Modern seaplanes are proving a headache for the FAA.

..... ...

The main problem is perhaps equipping them with planes that can be modern and of good enough performance to evade enemy carrier-based fighter screens and having the range and payload capacity to loiter and carry modern cameras.


I thought that the FAA was introducing the Blackburn Firebrand this year? Has its development been delayed?

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

15

Wednesday, June 13th 2012, 4:47pm

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
I thought that the FAA was introducing the Blackburn Firebrand this year? Has its development been delayed?

You mean the Blackburn B.44? I thought the Firebrand was a carrier-based fighter/bomber thing...

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

16

Wednesday, June 13th 2012, 4:53pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
I thought that the FAA was introducing the Blackburn Firebrand this year? Has its development been delayed?

You mean the Blackburn B.44? I thought the Firebrand was a carrier-based fighter/bomber thing...


There could have been a change of plans. I came across this which is what prompted my question. It seems as if at one time the B.44 project bore the Firebrand name.

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

17

Wednesday, June 13th 2012, 5:07pm

Ah. Perhaps I'm getting confused between WWTL and OTL, then...

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

18

Wednesday, June 13th 2012, 5:13pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Ah. Perhaps I'm getting confused between WWTL and OTL, then...


That is possible; the OTL Firebrand was a carrier-based torpedo strike fighter.

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

  • Send private message

19

Wednesday, June 13th 2012, 8:53pm

Canada has the Prince Edward Island (ex HMAS Queensland), which could be considered a seaplane cruiser, though the RCN does not have it designated as a dedicated aviation ship. Almost all of Canada's large ships have aviation facilities, though the RCN is generally looking past floatplanes towards helicopters for fleet liason and ASW work.

The two large Arctic ships (Sir John Franklin and Nonsuch) carry aircraft, as do the smaller RCMP breakers.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

  • Send private message

20

Wednesday, June 13th 2012, 9:35pm

Well, almost all units in the RSAN above 3,000ts carrier 1-4 floatplanes - doesn't make them floatplane carriers. A dedicated design offers much more...
  • 1
  • 2