Making a Harrier F.5/7, could use a little input.

[Captain Canada]

Yes, interesting stuff...thanks !

I've always planned on building a diorama of Harriers forward deployed to a farm, using the barn as a hangar. The barn 'hangar' doors would open and the Harrier would do a short roll before launching from a ramp disguised as a manure pile !

 

[Patron Zero]

Just curious if the concept of container ships as 'forward air bases' for Harriers had been considered or the more radical idea of a submersible 'carrier' for jump jets ?

Mind nothing so grand as an undersea going Enterprise but something more of an 'traditional' submarine designed with a dedicated 'hanger' section for two or three Harriers, launch-recovery operations obviously made with said vessel surfaced. 

Again just a a concept of 'covertly' delivering the strike fighters as close to the combat theater without surface ships, land-based facilities or mobile transporters involved.

[Hobbes]

That would involve cutting a Harrier-size hole in the sub's hull, which would be incredibly difficult to seal tightly enough to withstand the pressure at depth. Also, you're looking at a sub the size of a Typhoon to carry 3 Harriers.

[Rheged]

That would involve cutting a Harrier-size hole in the sub's hull, which would be incredibly difficult to seal tightly enough to withstand the pressure at depth. Also, you're looking at a sub the size of a Typhoon to carry 3 Harriers.

Perhaps a skyhook  sub as a refueling/rearming  point  without an actual hanger?

[PR19_Kit]

That would involve cutting a Harrier-size hole in the sub's hull, which would be incredibly difficult to seal tightly enough to withstand the pressure at depth. Also, you're looking at a sub the size of a Typhoon to carry 3 Harriers.

Perhaps a skyhook  sub as a refueling/rearming  point  without an actual hanger?

Didn't someone post a piccie of just such a sub on here a while back? With a Skyhook and a small hangar area aft of the conning tower.

[Rheged]

That would involve cutting a Harrier-size hole in the sub's hull, which would be incredibly difficult to seal tightly enough to withstand the pressure at depth. Also, you're looking at a sub the size of a Typhoon to carry 3 Harriers.

Perhaps a skyhook  sub as a refueling/rearming  point  without an actual hanger?

Didn't someone post a piccie of just such a sub on here a while back? With a Skyhook and a small hangar area aft of the conning tower.

Somewhere in my younger son's library is a book with exactly the picture you  describe as its front cover illustration.  If I can find it, I'll post an ISBN.................if I can ever find it!



Added a couple of minutes later......found it!   See link below

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Strike-Beneath-Sea-Aircraft-Submarines/dp/0752417045

[Mossie]

Here you go guys, I posted the colour image from Popular Science, GTX the B&W image.

How deeply it was considered I don't know.  The idea materialised with the Skyhook system and some artists impressions were drawn up.





I've found a pic on teh web with the P.1216 and submarine:
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1986

Regarding container ships, the SCADS (Shipborne Containerised Air Defence System) was proposed.  The Royal Navy trialled the US Apapaho system on board RFA Reliant (previously MV Astronomer) as a helicopter carrier, I think the idea was to role it out for Harriers if succesful.  They came to the conclusion it wasn't much use as it couldn't handle conditions in the Mediteranean, so wouldn't be capaple of us in the South Atlantic

[PR19_Kit]

Surely THE application of the SCADS system was the 'Atlantic Conveyor'? The conversion worked a lot better than the 'Reliant' trials, it just got in the way of an Exocet....  

Her sister ship 'Atlantic Causeway' was also converted, but the opposite way round in that the hangar was toward the bows and the 'flight deck' nearer the superstructure. Wikipedia also says she had a ski-jump fitted, but I'm darned if I can figure out how, and I've never seen a pic to show that either. In fact the 'Causeway' seemed to be very reticent about having her photo taken!



'Atlantic Causeway'







'Astronomer/Reliant' (the same ship actually)

Yet more thread drift but it's sort of relevant.....  

[Hobbes]

Surely THE application of the SCADS system was the 'Atlantic Conveyor'? The conversion worked a lot better than the 'Reliant' trials, it just got in the way of an Exocet....  

SCADS was the name of a specific system that included weapons, a ski jump, radar etc, all built into containers. Atlantic Conveyor was an ad-hoc conversion where as far as I know, the containers just served as storage.

[PR19_Kit]

Surely THE application of the SCADS system was the 'Atlantic Conveyor'? The conversion worked a lot better than the 'Reliant' trials, it just got in the way of an Exocet....  

SCADS was the name of a specific system that included weapons, a ski jump, radar etc, all built into containers. Atlantic Conveyor was an ad-hoc conversion where as far as I know, the containers just served as storage.

The 'AC's' containers were really used as breakwaters, only the two white 20 footers at the bow were used by the flight deck for storage.

The breakwater containers were mounted on 10 ft high support structures and access to the end doors was impossible for most of them and would have been difficult on the others.

[Daryl J.]

Would the AN/APG-65 radar work with the IRIS-T and/or Meteor?