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

[Old Paul]

A wild stab in the dark. I did a quick search, but couldn't find any threads on this. And any figures are from Wikipedia, so take them with a pinch of salt.

In 1998, the Strategic Defence Review was looking at a carrier class of 30-40,000 tonnes.

The Wasp class LHD's were commissioned from 1989 onwards, at a unit cost of about £465M. The last to be built, USS Makin Island in 2009, with gas turbine electric/diesel electric propulsion was good for 25 knots. They can carry a Marine complement of 1800 and the air wing can vary between six AV-8's and 24 helos for assault to 20 AV-8's and six ASW helos for sea control. All on a tonnage of 41,150 tonnes.

I'm not suggesting that the UK buy Wasps, but could a similar design, optimised for a smaller Royal Marine force of 400 or so, similar to Albion, a larger hangar and perhaps 24 "navalised" GR9's and ASW/transport helos, have been worthwhile to take over from the Invincibles?

[sandiego89]

Yes, I think they would have been very usefull with a navalized GR9 (with radar and AIM-120 and AIM-9X) Ski-jump of course.  Later a transition to F-35.   

Very usefull ship for an Invicible replacement as it could be either be for sea control, amphibious ops, or humanitarian missions.   

[darthspud]

Hi Old Paul,
First, good question.
Second , don't mention the 'H' word
strictly verboten, no?
Must be another site i'm a member of.

Had UK PLC not sold the Harrier fleet for spares a couple of years ago, not a bad idea.
Wasp class could handle all the UK Military Rotary equipment currently in use.
From memory, they also have a large surgical/operating Hospital, lower deck dockside loading capability(ro/ro ramp)
Enough surplus power to supply a large town in the event of requirement natural disaster and saltwater desalination plant too.

But then RN and Govt aren't in the disaster management business and MOD wouldn't buy them 'just in case'.

[Old Paul]

Darthspud..."H"?

I wasn't thinking of a Wasp copy, rather something about the same size but designed for perceived British requirements. So less interest in disaster relief (although that is still an option) and more on expeditionary use and fleet support. Something like a cross between the Invincibles and Albions.

It's more so I can cobble up a backstory to justify building T.12/12A airframes as single seat SHAR FA.3's with a BK-27 in the back seat. 

[lenny100]

HMS Ocean  is the uk version of the wasp orignaly it was to operate as part of a landing group of two of these ships and 3 albion lpd but this was all cancelled leaving ocean now operating as a sea control type ship

[darthspud]

H= Harrier
there are those who love them and those who are over-joyed that the US Marine Corps bought all the UK ones and are letting them slowly rust away in the desert.
The latter faction are mainly happy that the R.N. & R.A.F. are buying F35's.
It's a contentious issue for the pro and anti Harrier and UK CVF (QE & PoW) SUPPORTERS.

[Weaver]

Something akin to the Italian Cavour then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavour_(550)

[pyro-manic]

It's important to note that the Wasp-class are not aircraft carriers, but assault ships. They might look broadly similar (big, flat tops) but are designed very differently.

As Lenny said, HMS Ocean is broadly equivalent to the Wasp in terms of role, though quite a lot smaller. The CVF design started out at 40,000-ish tonnes, but evolved and grew as it was realised that a bigger ship simply performs better. The old Ark Royal was on the order of 40,000t, and it was horribly cramped.

Britain could never afford (or crew) a class of dedicated assault ships of that size - they would have to displace the true carrier fleet, which is a non-starter. A true carrier is a much more capable and flexible asset. I do think, though, that the Albion class would be a more useful type with a full through-deck and hangar, though this was perhaps deliberately avoided. The cries of "ooh, it's got a flat deck so it must be a carrier!" would have put CVF at risk...

As for your SHar FA.3 - just do it! No reason the Invincibles couldn't carry such an aircraft.

[darthspud]

Aren't the Wasp class  somewhat smaller than Littoral Carriers such as the Cavour?

They would seem to be more like the old Bulwark type of vessel rather than Ark Royal carrier type.

[Captain Canada]

Great idea for sure...and you could also have Osprey on board

[Weaver]

Aren't the Wasp class  somewhat smaller than Littoral Carriers such as the Cavour?

They would seem to be more like the old Bulwark type of vessel rather than Ark Royal carrier type.

The Wasp displaces 10,000 tons more than the Cavour, is 9m longer but 7m narrower in beam. Draught is almost the same (less than a metre difference). I think what this tells you is that the Wasp is designed for volume while the Cavour is designed for deck area, which makes sense since she doesn't have a well-deck, just loading ramps.

[Old Paul]

Some useful tips.

Just to clarify - the Wasp LHD in the title is just to distinguish the design from USS Wasp CV-7. I should have made that more clear, perhaps. The plan is to build carriers, not assault ships. I also want an extended life Sea Harrier - nothing against the Lightning II but I just think, like most modern aircraft, it's a tad ugly. Also, this isn't about getting the best result for the Royal Navy, just something good enough. So, a possible development for sanity checking...

The SDR in 1998 is looking at a carrier in the 30-40,000 tonne range. Looking around the world, the Admiralty see that the existing Wasp-class are a suitable size, but are too slow, optimised for amphibious assault and with a relatively small air group. Taking this as a benchmark, design work proceeds to develop something of a similar size with reduced accomodation for a small (size to be determined) Royal Marine force, fitted for but not with davit launched LCVP's, 36 aircraft and helos and a speed of 28 knots.

It is realised that this is not the best solution, but it is hoped to life extend existing SHAR's and to fund an updated variant. A potential order for three ships would allow for one operational carrier, one "commando carrier" (hence the figleaf of an RM complement) and one in maintenance.

These proposals are accepted and HMS Furious is laid down in [2001?], followed by Glorious in [2002?] and Courageous in [2003?], Furious commissioning in 2006. (USS Makin Island had a five year cycle from laying down to commissioning) By 2010, the Royal Navy has all three Furious-class CV's in commission and operational.

In the meantime, the Admiralty had also requested that BAe/McDonnel Douglas start work on an upgraded Sea Harrier. This is to have the same capabilities as the AV-8B/GR9, but mounting Blue Vixen and an internal Mauser BK-27 and powered by a further uprated Pegasus engine. Initial work indicates that this can all be accomodated within a single seat version of the existing T.12/T.12A airframe.

(And this will hopefully lead in to my first official What If...and my first serious (?) modelling for about 40 years)

Any thoughts?

[Army of One]

Would you use the fuselage stations for other ordinance then...? Why the BK27 instead of prodded ADEN cannon...? I love Harriers and would always have the prodded cannon.......how about extra fuel instead....?? Love the idea anyway and would love to see it made......

[Thorvic]

I wouldn't focus on the LHA aspect as in 98 we had HMS Ocean well in hand by then, the foucus of these ships would be as STOVL carriers capable of operating Harriers but designed to have those eventually replaced by the JSF. These ships would be direct replacements for the Invincibles but with a suitable capacity in hanger and deckspace for a worthy number of aircraft (something that seriously handicapped the CVS).

To be honest they should have used the Harrier II as a basis for the FA2, as the Harrier fuselage limitations were known about before the SHAR was developed and they should have really stuck with the AV-16 as the basis for the SHAR, rather than cancelling that and letting McDD take the data and rejoin the revised programme as junior partner on the AV-8B that stemmed from the AV-16  .

Go for it with the FA-3, using the T-12 as a basis is an interesting idea.

[Old Paul]

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.