Royal Navy Wasp LHD Type "Medium" Carrier? And Sea Harrier FA.3?

[Weaver]

The argument for basing the SHAR FRS.1 on the 1st gen Harrier was basically cost, plus the fact that it was less likely to be cancelled. Unfortunate in the long term, but probably sensible in view of the fact that the AV-16 actually was cancelled.

The argument for basing the SHAR FA.2 on the FRS.1 rather than the AV-8B was that the latter was approx 50 kts slower due to it's wing being optimised for "efficient bomb-truck" missions rather than fighter/interceptor ones. Bit more short-sighted this one, since the consequences of having an increasingly "orphan" 1st gen airframe fleet were blindingly obvious. An AV-8B II+ with Blue Vixen would have been smarter and could probably have been sold to Spain and Italy too.

The argument for adopting the Bk.27 over the ADEN is that the former has a much higher muzzle velocity and hence better accuracy, and that it would make it effectively a "British standard" due to it's use across the Tornado fleet. I simply cannot understand why they even launched the ADEN-25: even if it had worked perfectly, it would have left the RAF with FOUR gun calibres (20mm on Phantoms, 25mm on Harrier GR.5s, 27mm on Tornados & 30mm on Jags/Harrier GR.3s/Hawks  ). It would have been SO much more sensible just to re-work the Harrier gun pods to take the Bk.27.....

[Weaver]

The whole "commando carrier" idea might have been a bit of a red herring. I hadn't thought about the fact that Ocean was already launched, with Albion and Bulwark in the pipeline. So pure carriers it is.

Given the possible volume - less than a Wasp, but greater deck area (thanks, Weaver) - any ideas on a reasonable air group? The proposed FA3 will be slightly larger than an FA2. And would Merlins be operational? I'm thinking of perhaps 28 SHAR's and eight Sea Kings/Merlins? But is that feasible on 40,000 tonnes?

I can feel a trip to the model shop coming on.

Sounds good. A VERY rough guide for carrier air wings on a pure aircraft carrier is one aircraft per 1000 tons of displacement, so you should be able to get 40 on your carrier. My choice would be 30 x SHARs, 4 x AEW helos, 4 x ASW helos and two stripped-out plane-guard/SAR helos with long-range tanks. With that number of SHARs, you might be able to use some as dedicated buddy-tankers to extend the range/loiter time of the rest, while still having a decent-size air group.

[sandiego89]

any ideas on a reasonable air group? The proposed FA3 will be slightly larger than an FA2. And would Merlins be operational? I'm thinking of perhaps 28 SHAR's and eight Sea Kings/Merlins? But is that feasible on 40,000 tonnes?

Agree with Weaver that the AV-8B would have been a better basis for an improved Sea Harrier.

As for your proposed air wing it depends on what time frame you are looking at.  If you are looking at 2006 when your first ship comes on line, I would recommend your improved Sea Harrier and Sea Kings (three versions, ASW, Commando and AEW).  After @2012 I would go with Sea Harrier and Merlin (and perhaps some AEW Sea Kings to keep it interesting)

I would recommend and air wing of @20 Sea Harriers and 8 Helos in the carrier role (3 AEW and 5 general purpose ASW/SAR)      

Are you thinking 1/700 scale?  Your source pick for the airwing will be important.  If using a 1/700 AV-8B (like from the WASP kit) your radar and internal gun modifications to an 1/700 AV-8B airframe will be invisible.  If you use a first generation Harrier/Sea Harrier you will have lots of work as differences between a 1/700 first generation Harrier/Sea Harrier and a 1/700 AV-8B/GR5/7/9 are very noticable especially with the wing. outriggers and canopy.

Go for it!    

[Army of One]

Do it......do it........

[Old Paul]

Heller TAV-8B/T.10 kit ordered. Just hope I can make this idea work...

[Old Paul]

Also...

When Captain Canada mentioned Osprey, I thought he meant this - http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,35449.0/highlight,osprey+frs+1.html - but I've just seen that V-22's have been trialed as tankers. Quite bulky, even folded, and could they lift a reasonable amount of fuel off a deck? And could a refueling system and tankage be palletized? (Is palletized even a word?) And I believe they've also been suggested as an AEW asset with palletized Searchwater!

But does open up the possibility of an air group of, say, 28 FA.3 SHAR's, 4 ASW/planeguard Merlins* and 4 COD/AEW/refueling Ospreys**? Trying to get a reasonable mix given the deck and hangar constraints, without ending up with an over the top wish-list.

*Or Lynx/Super Lynx, to fit the timeline and save space?
**Although when would these become available?

[Captain Canada]

I was talking about the bulky folding wing Osprey* ;-) I think it would be an awesome fit for a small carrier.....al sorts of systems could be palletized : AAR, AEW, ASW...could also do SAR and plane guard duties. Then you could keep your other chopper small, like the Lynx/ Wildcat

*But the Osprey FRS.2 is also pretty sweet !

[Old Paul]

Some invisible whiffery -

To power the proposed Sea Harrier FA.3, Rolls Royce develop the Pegasus Mk.108. Based in part on design work for the Pegasus 9D, 13 and 15-02, this has new LP and HP turbines and improved internal aerodynamics and produces 24,500lb thrust.

[Joe C-P]

I was going to build an ASW Osprey, using parts from an SH-60, but managed to sell those models amidst some others. 

As for the Wasp class, they make only somewhat over 20 knots, whereas the QEs are to make over 25 knots, which adds up over long voyages.
And rearranging the interior of a Wasp to suit RN missions would probably entail a wholesale redesign. But, it'll be your model and your alternate universe, so have at it!

Maybe someday I'll do an RN ex-USN Iwo Jima post-Falklands if it didn't end up as well with either Invincible or Hermes heavily damaged or lost.

[Old Paul]

The Wasp class LHD's were commissioned from 1989 onwards...USS Makin Island in 2009, with gas turbine electric/diesel electric propulsion was good for 25 knots...I'm not suggesting that the UK buy Wasps, but could a similar design...have been worthwhile to take over from the Invincibles?

[pyro-manic]

A "similar design" as in a large LHD, or a "similar design" as in a ~40,000 tonne carrier? No to the first, yes to the second (which is what CVF started off as).

The Invincibles could have done with being a bit larger in any case. I have a plan for a stretched version with big sponsons and an angled deck.

[lenny100]

what you must take into account it that the Invincable class ships were first and formaost command ships for a antisubmarine group, and were only to operate the sea king, which at the time was to large to be on the back of the navy anti sub warships,  and the sea harrier was tagged on by the goverment of the day becasue of the cancelletion of the true fleet carriers

[Old Paul]

Pyro - the second option.

What started as a bit of background for a potential Sea Harrier development has taken on a life of its own.

I was originally thinking of something like a LHD with more emphasis on the air ops, but this has morphed, thanks to feedback in this thread, into a pure carrier. The idea is to stick closer to the original SDR proposals for a class of similar tonnage to the Wasps, but with no marines or equipment other than what would be normal for a carrier and with a useful but realistic sized air group.

This is looking like about 40,000 tonnes, larger deck area but smaller volume in comparison to a Wasp, 25+ knots and an air group of perhaps 28 Sea Harrier FA.3, 4 Sea King ASaC.7 and 6-8 HAS.3/HMA.8 Lynx. Phalanx CIWS or similar for point defence and to operate with frigates/destroyers providing dedicated defence systems.

Not sure about power or radar systems. Would all diesel propulsion benefit range? Or would something closer to the Makin Island gas turbine electric/diesel electric propulsion be preferable? And I know nothing about radar systems, shipboard or otherwise, so that may be down to a quick cut and paste from Wikipaedia.

In the meantime...my Harrier's in the post! 

[lenny100]

why not use a simmler system as the new type 45 destroyer which are  fitted with an innovative integrated electric propulsion (IEP) system.
Historically, electric-drive ships (like USS Langley) have supplied power to their electric motors using DC, and ship's electrical load, where necessary at all, was either separately supplied or was supplied as DC with a large range of acceptable voltage. Integrated electric propulsion seeks to supply all propulsion and ship's electrical load via AC at a high quality of voltage and frequency. This is achieved by computerised control, high quality transformation and electrical filtering.
Two Rolls-Royce WR-21 gas turbine alternators and two Wärtsilä 12V200 diesel generators provide electrical power at 4,160 volts to a high voltage system. The high voltage supply is then used to provide power to two Converteam advanced induction motors with outputs of 20 MW (27,000 hp) each.
Ship's services, including hotel load and weapons system power supplies, are supplied via transformers from the high voltage supply at 440 V and 115 V. The benefits of integrated electric propulsion are cited as:

    The ability to place the electric motors closer to the propeller, thus shortening the shaftline, obviating the need for a gearbox or controllable pitch propellers, and reducing exposure to action damage.
    The opportunity to place prime movers (diesel generators and gas turbine alternators) at convenient locations away from the shaftline, thus reducing the space lost to funnels, while at the same time improving access for maintenance and engine changes.
    The freedom to run all propulsion and ship services from a single prime mover for much of the ship's life, thus dramatically reducing engine running hours and emissions.

Key to the efficient use of a single prime mover is the choice of a gas turbine that provides efficiency over a large load range; the WR-21 gas turbine incorporates compressor intercooling and exhaust heat recovery, making it significantly more efficient than previous marine gas turbines, especially at low and medium load.

The combination of greater efficiency and high fuel capacity give an endurance of 7,000 nautical miles (13,000 km) at 18 knots (33 km/h). High power density and the hydrodynamic efficiency of a longer hull form allow high speeds to be sustained. It has been reported that Daring reached her design speed of 29 knots (54 km/h) in 70 seconds and achieved a speed of 31.5 knots (58 km/h) in 120 seconds during sea-trials in August 2007

[pyro-manic]

CVF has an all-electric power system too - IIRC the main turbines are actually mounted right up under the islands.