Hawker Harrier?

[Admiral Beez]

I want close to the maximum capabilities that the money spent on RN carrier aircraft and aircraft carriers between 1966 and 1982 can buy. Anything less is a failure on multiple levels.

In particular I want the money spent on the Ark royal rebuild, invincible and illustrious to be spent on CVA 01 & 02. The money spent on developing the sea harrier and building 28 and developing the aew2 sea sea king and converting 11 to the spent on the Phantom, buccaneer and Gannett aew fleets.

Why? While luck was on the RN side and it was a close won campaign, history has proven that what was available and sent was sufficient.

 

[Riain]

When spending that much money I would want a lot more than luck and sufficiency. I'd be wanting to be able to stand up to the Soviet Union and kick the shit of tinpot dictatorships.

 

[jsb]

I want close to the maximum capabilities that the money spent on RN carrier aircraft and aircraft carriers between 1966 and 1982 can buy. Anything less is a failure on multiple levels.

In particular I want the money spent on the Ark royal rebuild, invincible and illustrious to be spent on CVA 01 & 02. The money spent on developing the sea harrier and building 28 and developing the aew2 sea sea king and converting 11 to the spent on the Phantom, buccaneer and Gannett aew fleets.

Why? While luck was on the RN side and it was a close won campaign, history has proven that what was available and sent was sufficient.

I just want (with hindsight) less than the amount of the money spent on the Falklands war, I would think you could just buy a couple of a UK built Forestalls, yes they would have to run mostly empty and simply be ready to load up with exchange RAF/USN phantoms if needed.

I suggest what if Callaghan decided in a fit of rage to help his navy and shipbuilding in labour areas by also screwing up the next (con) government, he signs a agreement/contracts with massive escape clauses so its impossible to back out with the US/shipyards for the licenses, parts and building for two super CVs? Publicly justified by creating jobs/NATO defence and the coming oil money (privately so it cant be spent on fighting unions ).

 

[Riain]

I suggest what if Callaghan decided in a fit of rage to help his navy and shipbuilding in labour areas by also screwing up the next (con) government, he signs a agreement/contracts with massive escape clauses so its impossible to back out with the US/shipyards for the licenses, parts and building for two super CVs? Publicly justified by creating jobs/NATO defence and the coming oil money (privately so it cant be spent on fighting unions ).

They wouldn't be able to be refitted in the UK for lack of dockyards big enough. What's more Ark Royal could only be fuelled 94% in Portsmouth so she wouldn't ground in the shipping channel, I imagine this would be way worse for a JFK. Also the RN handed most of Buccaneers to the RAF in 1972, only took delivery of 28 Phantoms and had 5 Gannet AEW3 from 1972, so 'mostly empty' is an understatement.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Hermes and Invincible were proper carriers, equal or greater in capability to Argentina's catobar ship (granted had they figured out how to operate Super Etendards from their carrier it would have been a close match) . SHAR scored 20 kills for zero losses, what more do we want?

https://theaviationist.com/2012/05/...in-the-falklands-to-be-replaced-by-the-f-35b/

As a former part time employee of the Mob I have a soft spot for both ships and agree that one on one they would probably be superior to the 21st De Mayo as she was at the time with only a handful of Skyhawk's - and I am very proud of what the RN achieved.

The issue is though that the Argentines had lots of land based air which sunk 6 ships of the task force plus a landing craft and a number of ships were damaged including hits by 13 bombs that failed to explode and Sir Tristram (damaged at Bluff Cove along side Sir Galahad which was sunk) who was abandoned but later recovered after the war

Had Argentine Bombs been more reliable the chances of success by the Task force is seriously in doubt

So what 'I want' is AEW directed Phantoms operating from Ark Royal or a replacement doing their thing and stopping more of the attacks - ideally by existing and preventing the war from happening in the first place

 

[Mike D]

I unreservedly reserve the right to Mock the CdG - probably after HMS QE is commissioned - but not before......

I saw a funny version of CdG's design and build on another site

OK people gather around for a story of shame and misery, of betrayal and treachery, of the hideous oppression of poor ship designers and the foul fiends who lead them. Weep at their plight, o people, for it was indeed shameful.

When the French Navy realized they had to replace Clemenceau and Foch back in the early 1980s, the Government was very reluctant to release the cash. They only agreed to the construction of two ships if they were exact replacements for the two carriers due for scrapping. This meant they were restricted to 27,000 tons normal, 32,000 tons full load and a length of 240 meters. Also, that they should carry a group of around 32 aircraft. That, by the way, made them look very much like an Essex class (which isn't surprising, the Foch and the Essex are very, very similar in design terms).

Length first. This was actually set by the available drydock. At that time, DCN had a stranglehold on French shipbuilding and required their facilities to be used. The maximum length that could be accommodated within their available drydocks was 260 meters. That immediately lead to a problem. Aircraft are much higher performance than they were in teh 1950s, they require bigger decks to operate from. They needed much more deck space so the ship had to be crowded into that available length. The real joke is that just across the port is the biggest drydock in the world, it was used to build the SS France pre-WW2. But, it couldn't be used, DCN didn't own it.

So, why not lengthen the drydock? Well, the problem was that at the landward side, the extension to the drydock was blocked by a toolshed. Why not move it? Well, the toolshed was owned by the Ministry of the Interior, the drydock was owned by DCN, part of the Ministry of Defense. Moving the toolshed should cost roughly US$100,000 - who should pay? Interior said Defense, Defense said Interior, they never agreed and the tool shed is still there. So was the length restriction of 260 meters.

So, to get around the problem, the designers adopted a solution by which an unusually wide flight deck was adopted. This lead to a rolling problem (its a matter of vertical movement, for the same degree of roll, a wide ship has a much greater vertical movement at its outer limits than a narrow ship so a wide ship has to roll less if its extreme vertical movement is to be within tolerable limits). In order to reduce roll to an acceptable level, the French had to include an elaborate computer-controlled anti-rolling system. This works well but its wasted weight and space, both of which were at a premium.

The restricted length gave another problem. The aircraft on board have to be accelerated to a specific speed in a specific distance. The catapults available couldn't do that. So the French designed a short, high-acceleration catapult. It worked OK but dummy tests showed the force transmitted to the pilot was very, very close to that which would break his neck. Since French pilots carried sidearms and were pounding on the door wanting to discuss this with the catapult deisgners, it was decide dto abandon the new catapults.

Instead, the French bought American C-13-3 catapults. Problem was that these were much longer than the French design. Now, some technicality. On the Pepe le Pu, the flight deck is the strength deck, this is what gives the hull girder its integral strength. Cutting two long slots in the strength deck severely compromises the strength deck and thus weakens the overall hull strength. Worse, because the design of the carrier was restricted in size, the two catapults couldn't be installed in the bow, there was only room for one there. The other had to be put in the waist. That meant not only were the slots cut in the strength deck long, they were one-behind-the-other and overlapped. That critically weakened the flight deck. The only option was to strengthen the flight deck by thickening it up and, because of its area, that cost a lot of weight.

At the other end of the deck, the French also designed a very fierce arrester wire system to bring teh aircraft to a halt quickly. It worked extremely well, the arrester wires stopped the back half of the aircraft perfectly. Unfortunately, the front half kept going. It was decided that this was not desirable (the pilots were pounding on the door again, this time with sidearms drawn) . The only option was to install a conventional arrester wire system and extend the angled deck forward. This interefered with the bow catapult and meant the carrier could not launch and recover aircraft simultaneously - a major limitation.

Later, it was found that they hadn't lengthened the angled deck enough, it was three meters too short and the heavier aircraft would still be moving forward when they reached the end and vanished over the edge. It had to be extended post-completion.

The travails of the design team weren't yet over. The problem now aorse of the elevators. They'd decided on two elevators, fair enough for the proposed air group. The problem was that the flight deck was the strength deck and stress levels there were already critical. Even deck edge elevators require a major cut-out in the deck and weaken the deck significantly. Now, the conventional solution is to put elevators on both sides of the ship, that's good from damage control and from weather shelter perspective. Unfortunately, that means there's a cut out on both sides of the ship, doubling the weakening effect. Having both elevators on the same side of the ship doesn't do that. So, the French had to put both elevators on the same side of the ship. The question was, which side? If they put them to port, they would obstruct the landing deck, they had to go to starboard, the same side as the Island. Hold that thought.

Now we need a little digression. For mostly political reasons it had been stipulated that the ship would need nuclear power. The problem was the French didn't have the money to develop reactors specifically for her, they had to use the K-15s off the shelf. Now, the K-15 was designed at a time when the French were hoping to export nuclear-powered attack submarines. To get around the nuclear non-proliferation treaties, they designed their reactors to use low-enrichment fuel called "caramel". This had two impacts, it lowered the power density of the reactor and it reduced the life between refuellings. Neither mattered too much in teh putative export SSN. It turned out they both mattered a lot in a CVN.

The French Navy adopted the K-15 for its own use. In theory at least, this isn't such a dumb decision. Caramel is around 15 percent enriched, the fuel used in US or British submarines is a lot more (like multiples) more enriched than that. However, highly enriched fuel needs special processing and reprocessing plans that caramel doesn't. So, in theory at least, its possible to argue that the financial and operational costs of using low enrichment fuel can be offset by the elimination of the reprocessing plant. Implicit in that approach (which turned out not to be the case by the way) is designing the ship so that refuelling the reactors is quick and easy.

This meant designing her so there was a path through the ship, straight down to the reactor room. For weight reasons, the reactor room has to be more or less amidships, so this path had to be amidships. Again, structural reasons meant that this non-load bearing path (essentially a hole cut right through the ship's girder) couldn't be in parallel with one of the elevators (stress levels in the flight deck would pass critical).

Back to the held thought on elevators. The refuelling soft patch had to be between the elevators, meaning the two elevators would have to be both starboard side and very well separated. The island (a structure that imposes significant loads on the ship) also couldn't be parallel with the reactor access soft patch. That meant it had to be either forward of the fore elevator or aft of the rear elevator. The latetr was impossible, it would have perched the island right on the stern.

The forward position had to be chosen. This is good for ship handling, lousy for aircraft operations. The French tried to claim that the forward position was selected because it sheltered the aircraft from the weather. The world laughed.

Still more problems. Flight deck space was critical, the minimum required was calculated and subtracting that from the space available gave the space for the island. It wasn't very much. All the antennas were compressed into a small area and they all interfere with each other. That means that many systems can't be operated simultaneously including such things as comms, search radar, fire control, radar et al.

More problems. The design chosen had a wide hull for its length. That's bad for speed. The French did a lot of research into hull forms, a lot of calculation and a lot of trials with a sub-scale model. None of which helped. Pepe le Pu was designed for 27.5 knots; it was admitted that there was no possibility of getting her past 25.5.

Other problems emerged as well. The reactors lacked steam capacity to operate the catapults properly (sustained launching of aircraft would deplete the steam capacity and have a serious effect on the ship - not just on speed). On trials that was a problem, but a bigger one was that the screws fell apart. Partly this was a production problem; the screws had been improperly cast and contained voids, but the other factor was intense vibration at higher speeds. After her screws fell apart, they had to be replaced by a set from one of the older carriers. They were unsuitable and restricted the ship's speed to "less than 23 knots" (actually 21.4). When her new screws arrive (2008), her speed will increase to above 23 knots (actually 23.5 her real maximum operational speed, she can do a bit more but the vibration is intense and its not recommended).

The ship had other operational problems as well, internal flow is not good, supply of munitions is difficult, all the things one expects of a new design team. By the time the design process was finished, the ship weighed 36,600 tons standard, 42,500 tons full load (35 percent and 32.8 percent overweight respectively)

She would have been a much better, more capable ship if she'd been designed as a dead dinosaur powered STOVL carrier but that would mean the French buying Harriers.

I'd like to think it's an exaggeration but I've seen the build/acceptance process of (much smaller, cheaper and less complex) equipment into British service and it wasn't much better than this...

 

[Riain]

I'd like to think it's an exaggeration but I've seen the build/acceptance process of (much smaller, cheaper and less complex) equipment into British service and it wasn't much better than this...

I suspect the old saying 'many a true word spoken in jest' applies here to a degree, advanced weapon system design is hard and there are a pile of competing factors, political/industrial/budgeting not the least of them.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

They wouldn't be able to be refitted in the UK for lack of dockyards big enough. What's more Ark Royal could only be fuelled 94% in Portsmouth so she wouldn't ground in the shipping channel, I imagine this would be way worse for a JFK. Also the RN handed most of Buccaneers to the RAF in 1972, only took delivery of 28 Phantoms and had 5 Gannet AEW3 from 1972, so 'mostly empty' is an understatement.

I once saw some very detailed plans for the Queen Elizabeth Dock that was to be built in Portsmouth for the CVA-01 ships

Found it courtesy of PMN1

So had such ship as a UK Forrestal been built modifying and maintaining (ie dredging) Portsmouth as a suitable berth would have to be part of the cost - as would providing enough aircraft and Squadrons disbanded as ships were decommissioned until none where left. If Sufficient ships existed then surely the Squadrons stay active?

 

[Riain]

I once saw some very detailed plans for the Queen Elizabeth Dock that was to be built in Portsmouth for the CVA-01 ships

Found it courtesy of PMN1

So had such ship as a UK Forrestal been built modifying and maintaining (ie dredging) Portsmouth as a suitable berth would have to be part of the cost - as would providing enough aircraft and Squadrons disbanded as ships were decommissioned until none where left. If Sufficient ships existed then surely the Squadrons stay active?

Looks like were going down this path again. So again I'll say that there is nothing wrong with British ship design or designers and nothing inherently superior with US designs or designers. The problem with CVA 01 was political interference from the Governments involved, primarily stemming from the belief that the major cost of a warship in the early/mid 60s was the steel. If the designers' brief has been to design the best carrier that could fit into the infrastructure that Britain could afford to provide then CVA 01 would not have been short 15% of the deck space that her hull could provide, or had to reduce the angle of the landing deck and have the Alaskan taxiway. These were compromises driven from the Government mandated and partly naval brass endorsed requirement to keep the ship below 53,000t rather than utilising the extra 7,000t that Britain could handle for a more conventional and less compromised design.

As for the aircraft, the RN initially wanted to buy 140 Phantoms to equip one a one for one basis all existing Sea Vixen sqns extant in the early 60s: 766 training sqn, 890, 892, 893 and 899 sqns plus a trails unit/sqn. By the time the order was actually placed it was for 52 aircraft with an option for 7 more, probably enough for 2 embarked sqns of maybe 16 aircraft plus the training sqn which would probably also undertake trials, assuming that 20 aircraft didn't get diverted to the RAF during delivery. As for the S2 Buccs the RN maintained a fleet of 3 embarked sqns plus training and trials units until about 1970 when the fleet began to contract down to a single sqn by 1972, I believe that Bucc sqns were a bit bigger than Phantom sqns because of the bigger fleet and need for tankers. Gannet AEW3 with 849 sqn had 4 embarked flights in 1966, down to 1 in 1972 plus the HQ flight. The point of all this is if the UK did get 2 US carriers, decided in the late 60s after CVA01 was cancelled, they lacked the aircraft to put on them. In contrast they did have enough aircraft to fill a British designed CVA 01 and 02.

 

[Admiral Beez]

So what 'I want' is AEW directed Phantoms operating from Ark Royal or a replacement doing their thing and stopping more of the attacks - ideally by existing and preventing the war from happening in the first place

Wouldn't AEW Sea Kings do the trick? They should have been available, like inflight refuel capable C-130 Hercules and several other capability gaps.

 

[Riain]

Wouldn't AEW Sea Kings do the trick? They should have been available, like inflight refuel capable C-130 Hercules and several other capability gaps.

The money spent on the Sea King AEW2 could have been spent on the Gannet AEW7, not the ridiculous dorsal rotodome proposal that gets bandied about but perhaps the Searchwater radar that the Sea King got with a suite of modern (for the 70s) electronics in a fixed wing aircraft that it is inherently more capable and serviceable than a helicopter.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The money spent on the Sea King AEW2 could have been spent on the Gannet AEW7, not the ridiculous dorsal rotodome proposal that gets bandied about but perhaps the Searchwater radar that the Sea King got with a suite of modern (for the 70s) electronics in a fixed wing aircraft that it is inherently more capable and serviceable than a helicopter.

Yes, but the CATOBAR carriers are gone. This thread is about the Hawker Harrier, so I suggest we focus on what the Harrier needs to meet its potential.

 

[Archibald]

I suspect the old saying 'many a true word spoken in jest' applies here to a degree, advanced weapon system design is hard and there are a pile of competing factors, political/industrial/budgeting not the least of them.

I'm not saying CdG is the best ship in the world, just that the source is deeply shitty.

I mean, I cut and pasted the link first phrase into google and found it originated in TBOverse, which is Stuart Slade B-36 wank also known as "The Big One". then Slade turned pretty racist over the years...

So fuck him very much.

 

[WILDGEESE]

Yes, but the CATOBAR carriers are gone. This thread is about the Hawker Harrier, so I suggest we focus on what the Harrier needs to meet its potential.

According to his book "AIRCRAFT CARRIERS of the Royal & Commonwealth Navies", David Hobbs explains how if the "Invincible" class was designed and built from the outset with no SeaDart, used normal side deck lifts, and went for boilers instead of the gas turbines, the ships could have carriesd double the 22/26 aircraft that they normally did.

So lets have all 3 carriers with 36 Harriers FA1/2's, 12 Seaking ASW's plus 4 Seaking AEW's.

Would that meet the Harriers full naval potential?

Regards filers.

 

[Riain]

Would that meet the Harriers full naval potential?

Not if the lack of engine power limits growth leading to early retirement of the aircraft itself.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

According to his book "AIRCRAFT CARRIERS of the Royal & Commonwealth Navies", David Hobbs explains how if the "Invincible" class was designed and built from the outset with no SeaDart, used normal side deck lifts, and went for boilers instead of the gas turbines, the ships could have carriesd double the 22/26 aircraft that they normally did.

So lets have all 3 carriers with 36 Harriers FA1/2's, 12 Seaking ASW's plus 4 Seaking AEW's.

Would that meet the Harriers full naval potential?

Regards filers.

Those are quite sizable ships, 52 aircraft take up a fair amount of space. At least 40,000 tonnes and probably closer to 50. A ship of that size would make a viable, if possibly small catobar carrier. Equipping such a ship with Harriers would be a waste. Had the navy continued with the 4 Centaurs and a mix of Harriers and Seakings a ship specification of that type might have been possible post Falklands war in conjunction with a decision to build the B.a.e. P1216 AVSTOL fighter project.

 

[Riain]

It really sucks that the more I learn about air power from a 'whole of airforce' and 'whole of government' perspective the worse the Harrier looks. It was my favorite aircraft as a kid and its like my memories of my youth were all based on bullshit. Maybe I have just become a sellout.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I don't think anyone doubts that the Harrier is/was a remarkable aircraft that filled it's niche well. It's just that niche role imposed significant limitations on the aircraft.

 

[Admiral Beez]

if the "Invincible" class was designed and built from the outset with no SeaDart, used normal side deck lifts, and went for boilers instead of the gas turbines

I get removing the SeaDart and considering deck edge lifts (not ideal for the North Atlantic), but boilers? What warship design that's not nuclear powered was being built with boilers in the late 1970s? Given the obsolescence and high space demands of boilers, I would think diesel engines instead of gas turbines is a more likely space saving measure, akin to HMS Ocean, but is 18 knots sufficient for the fleet carrier role?

So lets have all 3 carriers with 36 Harriers FA1/2's, 12 Seaking ASW's plus 4 Seaking AEW's. Would that meet the Harriers full naval potential?

Yes, absolutely. Just need to add a long range AAM and datalink with the AEW bird to engage targets beyond the range of the Sparrow. Is this not possible in the early 1980s?

 

[sparky42]

I get removing the SeaDart and considering deck edge lifts (not ideal for the North Atlantic), but boilers? What warship design that's not nuclear powered was being built with boilers in the late 1970s? Given the obsolescence and high space demands of boilers, I would think diesel engines instead of gas turbines is a more likely space saving measure, akin to HMS Ocean, but is 18 knots sufficient for the fleet carrier role?Yes, absolutely. Just need to add a long range AAM and datalink with the AEW bird to engage targets beyond the range of the Sparrow. Is this not possible in the early 1980s?

In regards to the engine's, I thought some of the issue was the "dogleg" the exhausts forced on the hanger area was a major factor rather than the question of engine type? Could the trunking be angled or moved outboard more to reduce the impact into the hanger deck?