PC/WI Improved "INVINCIBLE" class for Australia & Canada

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
Expanding an earlier thread regarding Type 22's & 42's for Australia, Canada & N.Z.

With a POD no earlier than 1980, what events etc, would it make it plausible for Australia and Canada to either build or purchase an improved "Invincible" class for their navies.

I'm thinking of removal of both the SeaDart system and the scissor lifts and replaced by 2 US style deck edge lifts. Also built with a US style overhang "sponson" to increase the aircraft complement to 52.

Possible air complement

3 x 1 Sqn Sea Harriers FRS 1/2 (36 aircraft)
1 x 1 Sqn SeaKing HAS 6/7's (12 aircraft)
1 x Flt SeaKing AEW (4 aircraft)

Bonus points if you also get Brazil, Italy, India, Iran, Japan & South Korea to put these ships into service.

Regards filers
 
With goal of 52 aircraft I think Jesus would have to come back to earth to make that many aircraft fit on an Invincible, even an improved one.
 
And if you're going to have that many aircraft, why not go the whole 9 yards and add catapults and angled flight decks.
 
Remember, the Invincible class weren't aircraft carriers. They were cruisers that carried aircraft. That wasn't just a wheeze to get them past the Treasury - it influenced their design in a number of ways. Doubling the air wing would be almost impossible. Some tweaks would allow minor increases, but nowhere near that extent.

Potential export customers, running down your list:

Australia - just about possible, they were looking for a carrier in the right timeframe. They did actually agree to buy Invincible when she was available cheaply, but the Australian preference has been for US rather than UK equipment.

Canada: Unlikely, the Canadian Forces don't have the manpower or funding for a carrier. You could do it with a PoD before HMCS Bonaventure was retired, but it would be quite difficult.

Brazil: Possible, but they'd probably prefer to stick with conventional carrierborne aircraft.

Italy: Entirely too much ship for Italian requirements.

India: Just about possible, but a newbuild in this era would probably be too expensive for the Indians.

Iran: Buy a lottery ticket instead. Iran's geography means that a navy is always going to be a distant third in its' defence priorities. The only way carriers of any kind will happen is if it's a prestige project. Something like the Japanese helicopter destroyers to support ASW in the approaches to the Strait of Hormuz is the most Iran can plausibly get.

Japan: No chance, it's politically impossible for Japan to build what are clearly miniature strike carriers. And even if they did, it would be politically impossible to import a foreign design.

South Korea: The ROKN didn't have a requirement for such ships, and arguably still doesn't.

You'd probably have a better shot at selling a non-enlarged version of the design. Some tweaks to correct the deficiencies of the CVS design - most of which derived from its' origins as an aircraft-carrying cruiser - and it could become a useful successor to the light fleets. You'd sell them with a helicopter-heavy air wing for ASW, with a single squadron of Harriers for air defence. The limitations of the Harrier make an Invincible-derived strike carrier a very hard sell.
 
IOTL the air wing was doubled and then doubled again! The standard pre Falklands CAG was 5 Sea Harriers, during the Falklands it went immediately to 8, then 10. In a later refit the Sea Dart was removed to provide more deck park and bomb magazine space and the CAG went to 18 GR9s. However the total aircraft numbers never went to more than 22, because that's all a 20,000t hull can take.
 
An easy route for improving the Invincible class carrier's would be to build the version that came with no Sea Dart , and had a normal rectangular hangar . Add in some extra beam and length , remove the commando carrier accommodations , the boat deck etc . In short build a real carrier but design it for Harrier operations only . Building a carrier is a lot more complicated then most people think as the Hangar and flight deck look simple but they have considerable structural needs and these create compromises in other parts of the design . The need to have full maintenance facilities encroaches on aircraft complement and capability and the magazine needs to be the correct size to handle sufficient weapons and the adjacent lifts etc . Last but not least the Carrier needs to be a floating fuel tanker to operate the aircraft . HMS Invincible was a ship designed to the tightest tolerances possible in order to be approved by politicians , The fact she was so efficient and effective is more a compliment to her crew then the design in my opinion .

Having taken all of that into account I would rather build from scratch a carrier to carry the Sea Harrier and optimised for that task . I would specify the numbers of aircraft I wanted and ask for growth in size and weight of %50 to allow for future aircraft . Initial airgroup in the mid to late eighties would be a Harrier GR 7 with a Sea Harrier nose (radar lol) and I would want at least 18 to 24 carried and a further 12 land based . ASW based on the SH-60 (as ordered for the FFG-7's) with at least 8 carried . AWACS based on the Sea King and 3 carried . so airgroup of 24 fighters , 8 ASW and 3 AWACS helo . This would need at least a 30,000 ton vessel possibly larger . If you accept a lower speed for the vessel the SHP needed can be dropped considerably . A speed of 25 knots with 20 knot cruise would be sufficient . Use the same hull to build an UNRep ship to replace HMAS Sirius and the Australian Navy would be significantly improved . Late 90,s take up the US offer of several Ticonderoga to replace the DDG and the USA would have a very effective partner .
 
Wasn't the narrow waisted hangar a result of the requirement for big gas turbine uptakes? I think the Italian carrier Garibaldi had the same hangar design for the same reason.
 
Wasn't the narrow waisted hangar a result of the requirement for big gas turbine uptakes? I think the Italian carrier Garibaldi had the same hangar design for the same reason.
Partly; the starboard side was waisted by the GT uptakes and downtakes, but the port side also had a waist. That was due to the large number of boats that were required to be carried due to the legacy of the Invincible class as cruisers. Then there's the loss of the forward end to Sea Dart and Exocet - the latter was never fitted, but provision was in the design.
 
If it's around the early 80s, you may get the Italian Navy interested, as they were working on the Giuseppe Garibaldi. So, instead of this carrier, they may be interesting in an improved Invincible.

Spain had the keel of the Principe de Asturias laid on October 1979, but it was not launched til 1982. Butterfly it and you may get another client.

Why would India buy the old HMS Hermes in 1986 if they can get an improved Invincible?
 
Why would India buy the old HMS Hermes in 1986 if they can get an improved Invincible?
Would that not be due to the price?
I would assume Hermes was sold for little over scrap as the RN did not want it any more and it would need lots of manpower intensive work (that would be cheaper in India) to keep in use.
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
With goal of 52 aircraft I think Jesus would have to come back to earth to make that many aircraft fit on an Invincible, even an improved one.

According to his book:Aircraft Carriers of the Royal & Commonwealth Navies the author David Hobbs explains the workings of the internal deck design and how they where capable of supporting 52 aircraft if the design was reworked from scratch.

I wonder if getting rid of the GT's and going back to Diesel engines instead would also help.

Regards filers
 
Diesels would only make the ship good for 20kts or so, for fleet work 25kts+ is a must. Apart from the gas ducting I don't think the GTs were a problem, they are virtually standard fitment on warships from 1970 onwards.
 
Top