The Algol-class AKRs were built as fast container ships in Dutch and West German yards for a Maersk business division. They were converted at NASSCO in San Diego, which has the size but not the warship construction experience.
HMS EAGLE in the Falklands
- Thread starter flasheart
- Start date
There's actually a danger here of the perennial DoD temptation to "capability creep" in future Wasps or for that matter, the existing Tarawas in major refits. You have this weapon system that is designed and well suited to this particular mission (amphibious assault) but we need it now to have these other capabilities, too (air superiority and strike). The result could be neither fish nor foul: a ship that mutates into something barely adequate, but not terribly good, at any of these missions.
They'd be better off ramping up the tempo of Nimitz construction, or coming up with some intermediate light carrier option to supplement the supercarriers.
I recently watched this lecture by Adm Chris Parry - a few minor errors - nothing serious but he does at the end talk about lessons learned / re-learned ie Ships Making smoke and use of Barrage balloons (there were 100 sitting at Abingdon Air base) - would have made low level attacks even more hazardous - all skills forgotten by 1982!
One of his conclusions was that "you don't go fishing with a golden hook" such as a Nimitz - you keep those for the jobs they were intended for and use the 'jeep' carriers ie LPHs with Harrier/F35B to do the dirty jobs as they are more expendable with the CVNs backing them up from a place of relative safety.
Anyway I found it an entertaining 'waste' of an hour
The early ships of the America class in other words, an "amphibious assault ship" without a well deck so it can operate more F-35's. Thankfully later ships will return to having a proper well deck but the same temptation to make LPH's into full carriers will still exists ITTL. However with Wasp still on the drawing board that's likely to involve engine upgrades, cats and an angled deck at the expense of what its actually best for.
SsgtC
Banned
That was studied IOTL, and the USN decided that it wasn't worth it. The Wasp class LHD are over 150' longer than the Invincible class and the USN calculated that the longer run provided by the Wasp gave them the same capability as launching off Invincible with a ski jump. And as previously noted, they didn't want to lose the helipad. Not for a ship who's primary job was landing Marines on hostile shores
SsgtC
Banned
Not a chance. Their primary job is amphibious assault, not to serve as carriers. It's not just the deck. It's the ammunition and fuel storage and the size of the hanger bay. Enlarging all of those will severely compromise their ability to embark Marines and their equipment. If the Navy wants a smallish carrier, they are better off designing one and building it specifically for that role
Yup.
In fact, the current deployment of America to WestPac suggests that the Navy is trying out the Flight 0 of the class as something genuinely like a light carrier.
But using an America LHA as something like a conventional fleet carrier has its own problems. Yes, losing the well deck means it can operate 20 F-35B's. But it's still too small to use Hawkeyes as AWACs, and it can't refuel its fighters in the air. Yet losing the well deck compromises its capability in the amphibious assault role...
(I suspect the Navy's plan is to use land-based assets to takeover airborne radar and refueling roles. Well, that's all well and good if you're in range of Kizarasu, Atsugi, Iawakuni, Andersen, or even Subic Bay, but if you're in some other, less basing rich part of the world - or the Chinese have knocked out the bases - that won't be an option, and you'd have to deploy it only in company with a Nimitz or a Ford.)
But perhaps this is just the Navy trying to make lemonade out of these lemons, once again. Honestly, the Navy would be better off designing a conventionally powered 50-60K mT straight up light carrier from scratch - rather than trying to make amphibious assault LHDs and LHA's into light carriers. And the same, of course, would be true for the Royal Navy as well.
EDIT: I now read that 1) the Navy seems to be thinking in terms of operating any LHA/LHD "Lightning Carriers" as part of a larger Carrier Strike Group; and 2) "The USMC states that it is likely the Lightning Carrier concept will include a quartet of MV-22 Ospreys equipped as aerial tankers." This certainly goes some way to addressing the limitations of an America-class deck being operated as a light carrier; but the deficiencies still remain, no matter how creatively the Navy is trying to work around them. I still can't help but think that the Navy would have been better off simply developing intrinsically designed light carriers to fill this gap, rather than trying to force LHD's into this role - and the fact that the America class will be shifting back to well decks with the Bougainville suggests that USN planners (acting under heavy pressures from the USMC) have come to realize this on some level, too.
In the end, I think the exorbitant cost of Ford class carriers is going to force the US Navy to look a lot harder at developing genuine light carriers to fill this cap by the 2030's and 40's.
Whereas in @flasheart's timeline, I think the US Navy 's Super Carrier Syndrome will be too powerful to allow any sort of CVL program to go forward based on HMS Eagle's performance here, but there *is* a real danger than the Wasp class will get modified into something closer to it, leaving it neither very capable as either an amphibious assault ship OR a strike carrier.
Last edited:
EV-22 is very likely to be deployed in both the RN and the USN Gator Navy filling the gap and of course there is nothing stopping the USN from deploying Helicopter AEW aircraft
I am of the opinion that it is the Well deck that is the poorer compromise on an LPH/A rather than the expanded air group that has replaced it
A dedicated LPD with a large helicopter deck and lift/ramp to the well deck in addition to a more specialised LPA like the America I think is the better choice
The original LSD's from WW2 was intended to provide the ability to transport lots of Landing craft across seas/distances that they could not cover themselves
The LPD was the above but allowing for the additional ability to support transport helicopter ops
Given that an Amphibious group is usually 4 such ships + logistical support - I think that having a Flight 0 Wasp class is not that big an issue as people like to make out.
The biggest criticism of course is that the vessel cannot deploy its marines via smaller boats/hovercraft but it does give the group a lot more 'accessible' firepower in the way of a dozen F35s and / or more rotary wing aircraft than would otherwise be the case and the Ships do not operate as a single vessel but in company with 3 or more Landing ships which do have Docks.
Yeah, I noted the use of EV-22's in the near future in the aerial refueling role in my subsequent edit.
I don't think any helicopter AEW is going to be an adequate replacement for a Hawkeye, though. And it does seem more likely that the Navy is going to address it by using the Lightning Carriers in tandem with land-based and/or CVN assets.
It's obvious that the USMC disagrees, though, and I'm reluctant to say they're wrong.
The history of U.S. weapons procurement in the 80's and 90's makes me depressingly confident that the USN will draw lessons from this alt-Falklands War in such a way that the USN will find a way to have the worst of both worlds by trying to force a ship into both roles. Not least because the only STOVL capability it is going to have in these two decades is going to be the Harrier, not the F-35B.
In any event, the USN in this alt-1980's timeline is going to have far more fleet carrier decks available to it than the Royal Navy, so the need for a genuine strike fighter capability will be more easily and better resolved by insuring that its LHA's operate in close tandem with a CVN.
Fair enough - and it is only my opinion.
At the end of the day I (unlike some posters on here) would place the USN and USMC decision making process ahead of my own - they being SMEs and all.
I suppose that one of the problems that both the USN and RN faced in the late 80s and 90s was that the changing nature of the types of wars they fought overtook the design and development of long lead items like the Wasp class
Glyndwr01
Banned
NATO specified a multi fuel engine, all the other countries went their own way with their own choice of engine, Britain not wanting to upset anyone followed the rules and used the crappy L60, actually when the engine was designed as a diesel known as the deltic it successfully powered trains!
And where would the cold war lore be without the 'Chieftain Scream'
A 'old tanker' I knew said that they sorted most of the issues with the L60 Engine by the time he was serving in the early 80s
He also said that German Leo1 units had to replace their powerpacks twice as often (although some one else did say that the Germans were very particular when it came to the powerpack).
Yes, but that's exactly where the Navy and Marines were heading anyway. Wasps were designed from the start to run six Harriers even during assault operations with the deck full of helicopters, and Desert Storm saw a whopping 3349 sorties by Harriers, more than the F-111, F-4G, and F-15E, and almost as many as the entire rest of the Coalition strike fleet. Granted, they were seventh on the hierarchy (behind the F-15C, F-16, A-10, F/A-18, A-6, and F-14), but they were a significant factor in the conflict.
So, that's 6 Hornets, 6... Sea Jaguars? Sea Mirages? One of those. Six Sea King helos. Eight of what look like updated Trackers. And one of whatever that plane is abaft the island. Plus two elevators and steam cats. Not bad. If they can swap out six of the Trackers for more strike birds (two would be covering the AEW allotment), then two of these can reasonably replace Eagle, and three would be a major capability upgrade over the OTL Invincibles without compromising aircraft numbers.All of this carrier talk, ignores that the RN could probably go with something like the Bazan SAC-220 [shopped around to various South American navies and the Chinese), which, while it is a bit later (1990s, not 1980s) is an example of what you can get on a 25-30k ton hull:
However, the three-ship option makes me wonder how two de Gaulle-sized - or slightly bigger - ships would compare in procurement and operating costs. I suspect the latter would be cheaper.
Edit: I'm a derp. Those blue-colored fighters are Super Entendards.
Looks like a Pucara to me. Appropriate, if the ship is sold to Argentina.
To me as well. Not a bad design if the UK wanted to look at it. Thankfully Argentina is likely to be as reluctant to invest in the military as OTL so they won't have one.
Whilst the Bazan 220 is a nice looking design, it does highlight to me some of the flaws in the smaller carrier concept, at least for the larger naval powers. It would be fine for a navy that doesn't actually foresee much of a modern threat, or is confined to reasonably local waters under friendly air cover, or will be operating as part of a larger, more powerful group, but on it's own it is very limited, possibly dangerously so. For the Royal Navy or the Marine Nationale at this time, both still with a global remit and still expected to face off against the Soviets, it's fine if it is just intended to provide an ASW deck to work alongside a Nimitz, but on it's own it falls into the old adage of Too Much to Lose, Too Little to Win. There is the temptation to think it can do the things a full sized carrier can.
Firstly, You will need some form of self defence on the ship itself and not just rely on the escorting vessels. The carrier is always going to be a major target in a shooting war and needs these systems (and personally I think that the new HMS Queen Elizabeth may be a bit light in that respect, given the lack of escort decks that we also have). Whether that defence is CIWS or SAM based, even on this smaller deck at a bare minimum 2 mounts (realistically 3) are needed to cover the arcs and provide at least one functional at any time. They in turn need spares and munitions stores. Regardless of whether it is fitted to a 100,000 ton vessel or a 25,0000 ton one, these systems will mass the same. Two CIWS and supporting infrastructure may amount to only 1% of the displacement of a super carrier, but the same 2 mounts are 4 or 5% of a smaller deck that is already tight for space. This just eats into the volume and displacement available for anything else. The same applies to every other component on the ship.
Secondly, that airwing shown may just be representative, but it is the sort of thing a navy would likely consider when buying this design; a little of everything but not enough of anything. It is clearly geared to ASW work. Six Hornets is painfully few if you need to maintain a CAP for any length of time, especially near an enemy coast and without AEW, and 6 strike aircraft, regardless of how powerful the Super Etendard/Exocet combination appeared at the time, is not much if you are going up against an enemy that is larger, or more dispersed, or more powerfully equipped, or dug in on land. Eight Trackers and 6 Sea King is fine if the role is primarily ASW but too big a chunk of the airwing for a flexible carrier approach. Even if you could build 3 of these vessels, you would still need to have 2 available to work together at a moments notice, which is not a given and assumes the enemy gives you the time to gather, something a war with Russia for example wouldn't necessarily provide in the early stages. That ship and its airwing are fragile. Better to go with 12-16 Hornets that can fulfil both CAP and Strike roles, drop the Super Etendards entirely and reduce the Trackers slightly.
That brings me to the third point, the logistics side of carrier operations. Any size of hull has a finite amount of space and at some point will need underway replenishment (something few navies can actually do) or a visit to a friendly port. The more that can be carried aboard increases time between these resupply tasks and increases the number of missions its aircraft can undertake. Ignoring the Pucara (?) and the Sea Kings, that airwing has 3 very different types of aircraft to be maintained. Any guesses how many components are common across the three? Short of a major redesign and expensive rebuild of whichever types of aircraft are selected, commonality is going to be minimal. That small hull is having to hold spares for 3 different engine types, 3 different fuel delivery systems, 3 different avionics systems, probably even 3 different tyres for the nose wheels! Plus it has to hold the same for the Sea Kings. Every single item held in stock takes up precious space. Cutting out the Super Etendards and reducing the Trackers allows you to hold more spares for the remaining 2 types. This improves the serviceability of those, making it more likely that enough are available when you need them. Instead of 100 tons of spares for each of 3 types, you now for example need only hold 100 tons of Tracker spares for the reduced number of airframes and 150 tons of Hornet spares; you've just increased probable availability of those 2 types and have also 'gained' 50 tons for another weapons mount on the ship, or more munitions to increase the amount of strikes you can conduct before needing the fleet train, or more aircrew to increase the number of sorties before pilot fatigue sets in. For me that's no small consideration when switching from a Tomcat/Hornet mix to an all Hornet force on the Nimitz class. Yes you lose a little in the brute force of a Tomcat interceptor, but you gain a larger potential air defence group that can multi-task and is easier to maintain with limited space and spares. Additionally on this smaller deck your hanger crews now only need to concentrate on 2 different aircraft, not 3.
Firstly, You will need some form of self defence on the ship itself and not just rely on the escorting vessels. The carrier is always going to be a major target in a shooting war and needs these systems (and personally I think that the new HMS Queen Elizabeth may be a bit light in that respect, given the lack of escort decks that we also have). Whether that defence is CIWS or SAM based, even on this smaller deck at a bare minimum 2 mounts (realistically 3) are needed to cover the arcs and provide at least one functional at any time. They in turn need spares and munitions stores. Regardless of whether it is fitted to a 100,000 ton vessel or a 25,0000 ton one, these systems will mass the same. Two CIWS and supporting infrastructure may amount to only 1% of the displacement of a super carrier, but the same 2 mounts are 4 or 5% of a smaller deck that is already tight for space. This just eats into the volume and displacement available for anything else. The same applies to every other component on the ship.
Secondly, that airwing shown may just be representative, but it is the sort of thing a navy would likely consider when buying this design; a little of everything but not enough of anything. It is clearly geared to ASW work. Six Hornets is painfully few if you need to maintain a CAP for any length of time, especially near an enemy coast and without AEW, and 6 strike aircraft, regardless of how powerful the Super Etendard/Exocet combination appeared at the time, is not much if you are going up against an enemy that is larger, or more dispersed, or more powerfully equipped, or dug in on land. Eight Trackers and 6 Sea King is fine if the role is primarily ASW but too big a chunk of the airwing for a flexible carrier approach. Even if you could build 3 of these vessels, you would still need to have 2 available to work together at a moments notice, which is not a given and assumes the enemy gives you the time to gather, something a war with Russia for example wouldn't necessarily provide in the early stages. That ship and its airwing are fragile. Better to go with 12-16 Hornets that can fulfil both CAP and Strike roles, drop the Super Etendards entirely and reduce the Trackers slightly.
That brings me to the third point, the logistics side of carrier operations. Any size of hull has a finite amount of space and at some point will need underway replenishment (something few navies can actually do) or a visit to a friendly port. The more that can be carried aboard increases time between these resupply tasks and increases the number of missions its aircraft can undertake. Ignoring the Pucara (?) and the Sea Kings, that airwing has 3 very different types of aircraft to be maintained. Any guesses how many components are common across the three? Short of a major redesign and expensive rebuild of whichever types of aircraft are selected, commonality is going to be minimal. That small hull is having to hold spares for 3 different engine types, 3 different fuel delivery systems, 3 different avionics systems, probably even 3 different tyres for the nose wheels! Plus it has to hold the same for the Sea Kings. Every single item held in stock takes up precious space. Cutting out the Super Etendards and reducing the Trackers allows you to hold more spares for the remaining 2 types. This improves the serviceability of those, making it more likely that enough are available when you need them. Instead of 100 tons of spares for each of 3 types, you now for example need only hold 100 tons of Tracker spares for the reduced number of airframes and 150 tons of Hornet spares; you've just increased probable availability of those 2 types and have also 'gained' 50 tons for another weapons mount on the ship, or more munitions to increase the amount of strikes you can conduct before needing the fleet train, or more aircrew to increase the number of sorties before pilot fatigue sets in. For me that's no small consideration when switching from a Tomcat/Hornet mix to an all Hornet force on the Nimitz class. Yes you lose a little in the brute force of a Tomcat interceptor, but you gain a larger potential air defence group that can multi-task and is easier to maintain with limited space and spares. Additionally on this smaller deck your hanger crews now only need to concentrate on 2 different aircraft, not 3.
Last edited: