Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 216

Thread: The 8000t "harrier carrier" concept?

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Tampa, Florida USA
    Posts
    11,705

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Unicorn
    Compare the loss rate of the Sea Harrier / Harrier / AV8B with similar single engine fighter aircraft such as the F16.

    I think that you will find it's loss rate is higher, mostly because of the unforgiving marine environment that it operates in but otherwise not out of line for similar single engines fighter aircraft such as the F16, Mirage 2000 etc.

    The RAAF experienced a significantly higer loss rate for the single engined Mirage IIIs it operated compared to the twin engined F/A-18's that replaced it. Some of it is due to greater reliability of the more modern engines and technology of the Hornet, but mostly due to the fact that if one engine starts acting up, you can shut it down and still get home on the other.

    Unicorn
    Study after Study have shown Single vs Twin Engine losses being nearly identical..................

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The centre of the known universe
    Posts
    868
    The Harrier is a superb machine, a lot is made of technical concerns and being a tough bird to fly, and it does need good engineering support, but if well maintained and with properly trained pilots it offers great versatility and military effectiveness. Pretty tough too. In 1982, when talking about losses, if you figure in the intensity of operations, from carriers in such a hostile environment and given the opposition the losses were remarkably light, when the task force went South many naval officers were expecting to lose the entire force in action.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    118
    Exactly. Remove combat losses from the Sea Harrier statistics including the aircraft were lost operating in war conditions not allowed in peace time, and then calculate how many of the UK fleet of Sea Harriers were lost each year and you will find the resulting attrition rate to be one of the lowest of any UK type.

    Furthermore, if you wish to pinpoint the losses due to its STOVL capability, look at each loss to determine if STOVL was the root cause and then see how many were lost. You will find that leaves a very small number.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    474
    Funny, the RAAF has lost a total of three F/A-18 aircraft in 20 years of operation, whereas they lost a much larger number of Mirages in a similar period, undertaking less demanding activities (and no combat operations) whereas the RAAF's Hornets have undertaken combat ops in Iraq.

    The RAAF is sold on the benefits of twin engine aircraft, and its one of the issues they have with the F35 that it is a single engine aircraft.

    An engine failure on a Hornet is a "divert to nearest runway and broadcast an alert". An engine failure on the F35 is most likely a lost aircraft.

    Unicorn.
    Last edited by Unicorn; 10th August 2006 at 22:44.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    It is by the juice of sapho that thoughts acquire speed,
    the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The centre of the known universe
    Posts
    868
    Twin engine does give some back up for sure, something useful if the RAF swaps out the F3's at Mount Pleasant....

  6. #126
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    118
    The usual reply for what it's worth is that a 2 engine aircraft is twice as likely to have an engine problem in the first place and anyhow, modern engines are so reliable who cares.

    Analyzing war losses (a slightly different thing) the USN found that the situations where one engine was damaged due to enemy action and the other one was OK, was a suprisingly small number. Doesn't seem intuiitive but there you go. They did the study because at first they said no to the F-35 because it only had one engine.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    198
    UNICORN, RAAF started with 75 F18's, I believe they only have 71 now.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    950
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbinia
    Twin engine does give some back up for sure, something useful if the RAF swaps out the F3's at Mount Pleasant....

    ....for what?

    The Falklands garrision force will probably get the cut in the next defense review.

    Of course, limited capabilty Tranche 1 and 2 Eurofighters could hypothetically replace the four plane Mount Pleasant flight. Logistics might be a nightmare for a new type operated in small numbers and relative isolation, and the limited fuel capacity of the Eurofighter might unduly risk the lives of the pilots.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by TinWing
    ....for what?

    The Falklands garrision force will probably get the cut in the next defense review.

    Of course, limited capabilty Tranche 1 and 2 Eurofighters could hypothetically replace the four plane Mount Pleasant flight. Logistics might be a nightmare for a new type operated in small numbers and relative isolation, and the limited fuel capacity of the Eurofighter might unduly risk the lives of the pilots.
    The UK won't pull out of the Falklands in my view. The reason is oil. The islands are surrounded by a hugh oil field. The only problem at the moment is that the sea is too deep and the oil too expensive to extract. But in a few years when oil becomes more scarce...

    The UK is currently increasing the level of military infrastructure on the islands.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    429
    As long as the majority of the people on the islands want to remain British, Britain has an obligation to protect them.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The centre of the known universe
    Posts
    868
    I was talking about the existing problem in rotating the F3's down there, when I was down there it was a nightmare as they had huge problems making the trip.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,364
    Nowadays though, they just remove the wings, and fly them down in a C-17 apparently, and have found it much easier. Even though you need to do some reassembly, it is less hassle to reassemble the aircraft than to fly it all the way down there.

    As for abandoning the islands, I doubt it, as already mentioned, there is a huge oil field round the islands, which will become economically viable in a few years time. The oil drilling technology just a few years back meant that drilling at any major depth was not economically viable, but with increased oil prices and improved drilling technology, deep drilling is now possible. Unless of course the government 'negotiates' away the islands, as they seem to like doing.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The centre of the known universe
    Posts
    868
    Deep water drilling is no great shakes, 2000m+ is no problem with the latest deep water mooring systems and DP, and shipping companies have invested heavily in very high power anchor handlers like UT742's for deep water work. The problem down there is whether the oil is worth the effort. In 1997 the drilling program was terminated after a few months because they found nothing viable, I know as the company I worked for (not at that time) made millions as their equipment had been chartered for the whole program and the termination charges made them an absolute fortune.
    Never realised they rotated the F3's in C17's now, thanks for the info! That will make life a LOT easier.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Nimrod
    As Scooter says there will be a whole bevy of second and third hand Harriers creeping onto the market in years to come, some of which will find buyers and hence will need ships to fly from.
    From who? Most Harrier users will be retiring them with something perilously close to zero safe flying hours left. Building new ships to fly them off seems pointless, since the ships would outlast new Harriers, let alone clapped-out old ones.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Tampa, Florida USA
    Posts
    11,705

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by TinWing
    ....for what?

    The Falklands garrision force will probably get the cut in the next defense review.

    Of course, limited capabilty Tranche 1 and 2 Eurofighters could hypothetically replace the four plane Mount Pleasant flight. Logistics might be a nightmare for a new type operated in small numbers and relative isolation, and the limited fuel capacity of the Eurofighter might unduly risk the lives of the pilots.


    I would leave the F-3's at Mount Pleasant to the very end! The have good range and make good interceptors. Really, with only four aircraft there value is basically just a polical deterrent!

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Tampa, Florida USA
    Posts
    11,705

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug97
    As long as the majority of the people on the islands want to remain British, Britain has an obligation to protect them.

    The vast majority want to stay that way..............

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    96

    Small Carrier designs

    On my HD I found this foto of a small carrier - some sort of mini Invincible dating from 1983. After all this thread was about these minicarriers .
    Does anybody know more about this design? It looks like a low cost alternative to a new Invincible - perhaps it was also offered to autralia?
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The centre of the known universe
    Posts
    868
    If you're into small carriers are you familiar with the proposal for micro-carriers for the WW2 German Navy? Air group would have been about 6 Ju87 bombers.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    canberra aust
    Posts
    358
    Hi Shiplover - The thread seems to have changed, so does this model have one prop. or two Seriously I assume it is a British design [Invincible like] which yard put it forward, do you know.

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    687
    On my HD I found this foto of a small carrier - some sort of mini Invincible dating from 1983. After all this thread was about these minicarriers .
    Hay Shiplover
    I do not know if it would be much smaller than the Invincible class, from the pic, but I think it looks more a purposeful looking design - with its superstructure/island design



    If you're into small carriers are you familiar with the proposal for micro-carriers for the WW2 German Navy? Air group would have been about 6 Ju87 bombers.
    Can you tell or show us more of these proposed German micro-carriers Turbinia?
    Any Pics?

    Regards
    Pioneer

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    96

    German Mini Carrier design

    The foto of the model I posted yesterday shows a design by a british yard. I had to much confidence in my memory and didn't take notes. So I don't know more about it. Somehow I think it was a Yarrow design but I am far from sure.

    Here is the smallest german mini carrier I have found.

    It is named "Kleiner Flugzeugträger" which simply means small aircraft carrier.

    Wilhelm Hadeler is the designer of the Graf Zeppelin and published some articles about design studies of the German Nazi Navy. There were ships of 6.000 ts like this one, up to 70.000 ts diesel powered monsters with 28cm guns. They are studies - not more - and probably have been made to keep the designers busy to protect them from beeing send into the war.
    The design I present here is credited with the following dimensions: 140/161m lenght; 16m beam at waterline level, 5,5m draught. Engines are unknown. My guess 2*16.000 hp diesel engines. The hangar was to be 112 * 13m, the flight deck 155*28m Aircraft complement is unknown - perhaps a dozen Me 109.
    Another design of 12.000 ts was probably never drawn.

    The Hansa design was the one some of this board might have in mind.
    It has 9.000 ts: 132/129m lenght. It should have had 3 Me 109 and 4 Ju 87. Flight deck: 143*28. The ship should have had two hangars. The plan was to rebuilt Freighters to escort carriers.
    No conversion was started with.
    The next designs are beyond 10.000 ts
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Projektskizzen20Hansa.jpg 
Views:	523 
Size:	138.4 KB 
ID:	137919   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Kleiner Flugzeugträger.jpg 
Views:	654 
Size:	156.9 KB 
ID:	137920  

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Tampa, Florida USA
    Posts
    11,705

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by shiplover
    The foto of the model I posted yesterday shows a design by a british yard. I had to much confidence in my memory and didn't take notes. So I don't know more about it. Somehow I think it was a Yarrow design but I am far from sure.

    Here is the smallest german mini carrier I have found.

    It is named "Kleiner Flugzeugträger" which simply means small aircraft carrier.

    Wilhelm Hadeler is the designer of the Graf Zeppelin and published some articles about design studies of the German Nazi Navy. There were ships of 6.000 ts like this one, up to 70.000 ts diesel powered monsters with 28cm guns. They are studies - not more - and probably have been made to keep the designers busy to protect them from beeing send into the war.
    The design I present here is credited with the following dimensions: 140/161m lenght; 16m beam at waterline level, 5,5m draught. Engines are unknown. My guess 2*16.000 hp diesel engines. The hangar was to be 112 * 13m, the flight deck 155*28m Aircraft complement is unknown - perhaps a dozen Me 109.
    Another design of 12.000 ts was probably never drawn.

    The Hansa design was the one some of this board might have in mind.
    It has 9.000 ts: 132/129m lenght. It should have had 3 Me 109 and 4 Ju 87. Flight deck: 143*28. The ship should have had two hangars. The plan was to rebuilt Freighters to escort carriers.
    No conversion was started with.
    The next designs are beyond 10.000 ts

    More than likely way to slow to operate with the Fleet and wouldn't have lasted long against the RN.........

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The centre of the known universe
    Posts
    868
    I'll see if I can scan in an image, the ships I'm talking of were a new build proposal, not conversions, and were very small for carriers. The German Navy was never interested in them, but the SS expressed an interest and it seems at one point Himmler had ambitions on a naval counter part to the Waffen SS military units, something the Navy must have had nightmares over. By the time of the proposal German surface units were confined to Northern Norway and the Baltic unless they took huge risks, and the materials situation was too dire to support such a program and the SS dropped the idea, but it's an interesting little piece of German naval ideas seldom remembered today.

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Tampa, Florida USA
    Posts
    11,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbinia
    I'll see if I can scan in an image, the ships I'm talking of were a new build proposal, not conversions, and were very small for carriers. The German Navy was never interested in them, but the SS expressed an interest and it seems at one point Himmler had ambitions on a naval counter part to the Waffen SS military units, something the Navy must have had nightmares over. By the time of the proposal German surface units were confined to Northern Norway and the Baltic unless they took huge risks, and the materials situation was too dire to support such a program and the SS dropped the idea, but it's an interesting little piece of German naval ideas seldom remembered today.

    I wonder if a Light Cruiser or even a Large Destroyer Hull would have worked? Interesting idea nontheless...............

  25. #145
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    118
    shiplover,
    thank you very much for sharing the picture of the british carrier. I am not sure but I think it is a Vickers design that was offered to the Shah. He was considering a purchase before his downfall and, of course, after that the potential order melted away.

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    96

    Mini Invincible

    Hello Ronoo

    You might be right with the Vickers design, but it was not offered to the Shah if the information I have is correct that the origine of this design was 1983. So this would more probably be a design proposed for navies with Colossus class carriers, especially for Australia after the Invincible deal fell through.
    The Shah was offered Invincible class carriers and those Harrier Carriers this thread started with. I read this in german Naval magazines dating from the late 70ies.

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The centre of the known universe
    Posts
    868
    The KFT carriers discussed in Germany, principle dimensions,

    Displacement-3500T
    Lengh-101.6m
    Beam-17m
    Draught-4m
    Flight deck lengh-90m
    Air component-6 or 7 aircraft, probably Ju87
    No details on engines or speed in my source book. I'll try and scan the plans in when I get time, there was no island, the wheelhouse was under the fwd. lip of the flight deck with a catapult at the fwd extremity of the flight deck.

    I really don't know what these would have been useful for. The RN and USN had a genuine need of cheap, easy to replace CVE's for convoy escort and supporting amphibious ops, but Germany had no deep sea trade to protect, was not in the amphibious assault game and no surface action groups really needing support after late 1943, and even if they did 6 or 7 Ju87's wouldn't be much of an air group. Can't quite figure out why this idea was even discussed, the Navy expressed doubts that such a small ship could even operate as a carrier.

  28. #148
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    118
    shiplover, you may be correct but don't forget a picture of a model in 1983 doesn't mean the design originated then.

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    canberra aust
    Posts
    358
    Hi Shiplover - The Invincible model you posted could have been proposed to Oz after the Falklands War .After that event Oz attempted to revive the sale of the Invincible however Britian advised that the RN was aiming at a 3 Invincible type force & the sale was dead. The British proposal was that the Hermes be either sold or leased to Oz on very favorible terms as a stopgap measure on condition that an Invincible type be built for us in British yards. To ofset this cost the replacement for the LSL Sir Lancelot would be built in OZ,an LSL of that type ,the Tobruk had already been built in OZ, & is still in use. The then Fraser Govt. lost the upcoming election & the incoming Hawke Govt. killed the carrier replacement for good, they did however confirm the purchase of the 76 FA/18s chosen as replacement for the Mirage 111s by the Fraser Govt.

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    canberra aust
    Posts
    358
    Another reason that I forgot to mention that makes this design a likely contender is that the Sea dart launcher was not part of the original sale deal & Oz had no plans to replace it with another SAM ,a CIWS was proposed instead. There is no provision for a SAM on this model however there is no provision that I can see for a CIWS either, anyhow it is a good looking ship.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES