Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 216

Thread: The 8000t "harrier carrier" concept?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    115

    The 8000t "harrier carrier" concept?

    I've been reading about a concept of a 8000t carrier that has been proposed some time ago, but I cannot find a single picture, nor any data.
    Are there any pictures of this ship?
    How many harriers could be carried aboard, and how big the hangar was to be?
    George Costanza: It became very clear to me sitting out there today that every decision I've made in my entire life has been wrong. My life is the complete opposite of everything I want it to be. Every instinct I have, in every aspect of life, be it something to wear, something to eat - it's all been wrong.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Argo
    I've been reading about a concept of a 8000t carrier that has been proposed some time ago, but I cannot find a single picture, nor any data.
    Are there any pictures of this ship?
    How many harriers could be carried aboard, and how big the hangar was to be?
    There was a time during the 70's and 80's when it seemed most ship architects and ship builders had some kind of Harrier carrier on the drawing board.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,896
    Try this thread - Lets see some mini/small carriers http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...small+carriers

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    canberra aust
    Posts
    358

    harrier carrier specs.

    First time on any forum.Here are the specs. for the Vosper Thornycroft Harrier Carrier concept. These were posted on another Forum several yrs. ago & also match the specs. printed in the book Wings Across the Ocean a history of Aust. Naval Aviation.I don't have a pic.
    Full load disp. 7200t
    Length overall 135m
    Length at waterline 122m
    Flight deck beam 28m
    waterline beam 21.2m
    Draft 6.5m
    Ships fuel 740t
    Aircraft fuel 570t
    Range @ 16kts. 4500nm
    Max speed 25kts.
    Max power 32000 shp Gas Turbines
    Fresh water 70t
    Provisions for 60 days
    Naval Aviation Stores for 45 days
    Max complement 385
    The ship was to be fitted with 3 twin 40mm Breda guns.It was to be powered by 9 gas turbine generators driving 2 electric motors.Four of the turbines were to be locatedaft right below the flight deck and five below the starboard island superstructure.Capacity was to be 8 Harriers & 2 Helos. The article noted that the ship would be ideal for disaster releif as up to 20mw of power could be generated and transferred ashore.
    The book I mentioned also lists the carriers & carrier concepts submitted to the Aust. Govt. as a replacement for the HMAS Melbourne in1977.Icould list these ships & specs. if you like

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    115
    Thanx to everyone, especially you tiddles for the data. I went crazy searching for that.

    The book I mentioned also lists the carriers & carrier concepts submitted to the Aust. Govt. as a replacement for the HMAS Melbourne in1977.Icould list these ships & specs. if you like
    If you have the time it would be interesting...
    George Costanza: It became very clear to me sitting out there today that every decision I've made in my entire life has been wrong. My life is the complete opposite of everything I want it to be. Every instinct I have, in every aspect of life, be it something to wear, something to eat - it's all been wrong.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    canberra aust
    Posts
    358

    small carrier specs.

    Most of this info has probably been on other threads but here goes.
    In 1977 the Australian govt. issued a requirement to replace the HMAS Melbourne ,a modified Majestic class light aircraft carrier that had been in service since the mid 50s.Some of the replies were for existing designs but most were concepts that were never built
    Invincible l206m b27.5m d6.38 disp19500t sp28k load14helos&harriers.
    Spanish SCS l195m b29m d6.63 disp.14814t sp24k load16helos&harriers.
    Garibaldi l180m b23.5m d8.28 disp13238t sp29.5 load16helos&harriers.
    LHA[Tarawa] l249.9m b8.4m d7.9m disp39900t sp25k load30heolos&harriers
    PH75 l209m b28.3m d? disp18100t sp28.4k load 20helos&harriers
    MACSHIP l181m b32.5m d6.0m disp12500t sp28k load 14 helos&harriers
    Harrier Carrier l135.65m b21.2m d6.5m disp.7200t sp25k 10helos&harriers
    Gibbs&CoxSCS Same as Spanish SCS
    Mod.LHA[Tarawa] l249.9m b32.2m d9.9m disp53800t sp24k lload50helos&harriers
    DD963AC[Spruance Hull] l172m b24.4m d7.44m disp12500t sp29k load8helos&harriers
    McMullen 193.85m b26.82m d7.63m disp20801t sp? load22helos&harriers
    Rosenblatt SCS[Avariation on the Spanish SCS ] l178m b24.4m d6.7m disp14000t sp? load 16helos&harriers
    Protean [3designs] l198.2to245m b27to32m d6.8to7.5m disp20000to32000t sp25to27.5k load14,16,or20 helos&harriers
    LPH[Mod.Iwo Jima] l198m b28.7m d8.7m disp21407t sp24k load22+helos&harriers.
    Some of these figures are a bit loose as the breadth of some are wl. &some are oa.,also some of the loads are a bit off but overall they are reasonably OK.
    Three were shortlisted .Spanish SCS ,Garibaldi, mod.Iwo JimaLHA.The Navy liked the Spanish SCS but there was some doubts over who owned the design However the UK decided to sell the Invincible & the total cost including mods.spares, training etc was to be $AUD478 million .The three designs shortlisted were costed at $AUD 700million+The Australian Govt. took up the UK offer ,but shortly after that, the Falklands War started & the UK kept the Invincible,not long after there was a change of Govt in Australia & the whole idea was scrapped.There is quite a lot more to this but it has nothing to do with this thread.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,269
    Last edited by paralay; 3rd June 2011 at 18:32.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Under the Sea, down in the merky depths
    Posts
    6,550
    I wish I could find info on some of these proposals, not the ones that were build but the ones that weren't.

    As it stands the RAN had accepted HMS Ark Royal as the Melbourne replacement, sadly the Argies put paid to our replacement carrier plans and we never took the American option of a Wasp Class because it was far too expencive at the time. In hind sight, we should have taken the Wasp it would have been the best option especially with the recent disaster relief missions we've been doing lately.
    It's a good thing you are short, that way you don't have to live up to a high IQ!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    canberra aust
    Posts
    358

    air capable spruance

    I am new to forums so I hope the pic of the dd963ac air capable spruance has uploaded.I saw a thru deck version of this concept on this thread but I think it is a nice model & wishfull thinking. This ship was supposed to use the Spruance hull & machinery & the model has found some new revolutionary way of operating Gas Turbines without Inlet or Outlet funnels
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Under the Sea, down in the merky depths
    Posts
    6,550
    Tiddles: mate we had that design on this forum before. The 963CV was to have operated VSTOL S-3 Viking sized aircraft that never materialised. Go back to page tow of that "Small Carriers" thread.

    Here are the pics though:


    It's a good thing you are short, that way you don't have to live up to a high IQ!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Under the Sea, down in the merky depths
    Posts
    6,550
    Just looking at the San class ships (more specifically the San Marco with the mods applied) and I was wondering if this type of vessel could actually be a contender for a "Mini Carrier" role? I know it has a small hanger for only two helo's but what if the base design was re worked and the Amphibious role deleted, would it be a contender? How many Harriers (Or the like) do you think you could fit on this type of vessel? Obviously the deck space will have to be increased slightly as will the lift.

    It's a good thing you are short, that way you don't have to live up to a high IQ!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    canberra aust
    Posts
    358

    san class carrier

    Ya. Mate I mentioned that I had seen pics of the dd963 on this thread, anyhow i doubt if there is much that has not been on before.[Wake up Australia] I am not sure where Argo wanted to go with this thread but the idea of a Croation small carrier tooling up & down the Aegean is fairly exotic.All that nonsense aside the pic of the San ...... is cool and quite flattering compared some i have seen since the port deck extension & sponson rearrangement.
    I have a question for you ,I have never seen anything about a 2 helo hanger, where is it? The elevator near the island is 13.5m by 3.5m which I think would not accomadate any italian helos maybe it does!
    The vehicle deck is listed as 100m by 20.5m however is it high enough to take a helo or maybe part of it is.
    Last edited by tiddles; 17th July 2006 at 14:27.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The centre of the known universe
    Posts
    868
    Whatever happened to Israel's ambitions to purchase a small LPHD/STOVL carrier?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Under the Sea, down in the merky depths
    Posts
    6,550
    Tiddles: Mate the hanger deck is part of the transport deck and occupies the forward section of it, HH-3H's are easily accomidated in there and are capable of fitting on the lift- though for more troop movement you would have either three AB-139's or five AB-212's instead of the two HH-3H's. Interestingly enough, on the San Marco, the forward and aft deck spots are for EH-101's but these machines are too big to fit on the lift or inside the ship, so I guess that in times of war, these ships would be in company with one of the two carriers.

    I still think that Italy should finish the San Gustino in the same configuration as the other two san class vessels giving a fleet commonality, but I think the Oto gun on the forward deck is a clear statment that this vessel is a self contained unit capable of all methods of breaching beach heads in one hull rather than needing support of other units like the other two. I was sure that there were originally four San units but I can't see any reference to the last one (San Gustino, San Gregorio and San Marco).

    Turbina: Mate like a lot of the IDF/N's plans, they have to be put on hold, Currently the IDF/N is buying two new Type 212/214's to supplement it's fleet of Three Dolphin class SSK's. A replacement for the Sa'ar 4.5's has just been released and rhoumor has it that they are looking at the Formidable class FFG's that the RSN has just received. The Eliat class (Sa'ar 5's) are also going to be replaces as the IDF/N has had so much trouble with this class particularly in seakeeping (very top heavy and roll too much).
    It's a good thing you are short, that way you don't have to live up to a high IQ!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The centre of the known universe
    Posts
    868
    Thanks for the info, I never really understood why the IDF wanted a baby carrier as they don't need it for Medi ops and they lack the resources for long range expeditionary warfare with a mini carrier/LPHD. The Sa'ar 5 design has been a bit of a pig in a poke really, top heavy, no growth potential, cramped layout and nothing like the capability the brochures claimed for it. For the price they'd have been better either paying a bit more for a full blown frigate, or going for a less ambitious but realistic, heavily armed OPV/FAC. The T212/214's should be a big boost in capability for them, they're superb boats.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Tampa, Florida USA
    Posts
    11,700

    Lightbulb

    I wouldn't be surprised to see this type become widely used with the advent of the forth coming F-35 Lightning! The overall design in cheap to produce and economical to operate...........

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,896
    Argo, I think this is what you are looking for
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    canberra aust
    Posts
    358
    Interesting pic. No ski-jump, it would have been a job and half to get off such a small ship with much of a load onboard a Harrier.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,896
    Quote Originally Posted by tiddles
    Interesting pic. No ski-jump, it would have been a job and half to get off such a small ship with much of a load onboard a Harrier.
    I would imagine this pic was created before the ski-jump became the accepted way of operating Harrier's off small ships. If I remember correctly the flightdeck of this concept had a turntable to make it easier to turn the Harrier's around on the narrow deck.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Under the Sea, down in the merky depths
    Posts
    6,550
    Turbina: Mate it might interest you to know that the IDF has an Island base just off the coast of Somalia, it's a former Soviet base that is now run but the Israeli's though the land is still owned by Somalia and they pay for it each year.

    To say that they lack expiditionary warfare experience is not entirely accurate. Each year they hold excercises in which they practice sailing down to this island and raiding it, the people on the island practice defending it so there is a huge precedence here for such a role. A small Carrier in the class of Chakri Narubet does tend to make sence now as does F-35B's in IDF/AF service, still since they receive their anual defence budget from the US as an aid package, I think it would be more up to America to allow the IDF/N to have such a vessel in service.
    It's a good thing you are short, that way you don't have to live up to a high IQ!

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Tampa, Florida USA
    Posts
    11,700

    Lightbulb

    Really, 8,000 tons is a little on the small side. I would think 15,000-20,000 tons would offer much more capability.........

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The centre of the known universe
    Posts
    868
    Israel's likely opposition would be countries like Egypt, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and possibly Jordan. Some of them would be met with naval action in the Medi, but others would need any naval group to passage through the gates of hell or Hormuz, probably making a forced package, and would need a huge support tail of tankers (once you start intensive air ops the fuel demand increases massively, not just for the aircraft but for the vessel) and replenishment ships, and would need a strong escort group as any naval forces in the Gulf or Red Sea are sitting duck targets to aircraft operating from Saudi, Egyptian or Iranian bases. Israel just doesn't have the escort vessels (the Sa'ar 5 are seriously limited in endurance and lack the air warfare capabilities needed to provide good area air defence) or supply capacity, not to mention forces operating in the Gulf or Red Sea would probably operate in isolation from the rest of the IDF. Really, at the moment the only navy in the world capable of extended expeditionary ops far from home not as part of a multi-national force is the USN. This would make sense if they wanted to operate with the USN, but the diplomatic baggage of Israel would far outweigh the contribution of a LPHD I think.
    Interesting info on the IDF Somali base, thanks.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,549
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbinia
    Israel's likely opposition would be countries like Egypt, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and possibly Jordan. Some of them would be met with naval action in the Medi, but others would need any naval group to passage through the gates of hell or Hormuz, probably making a forced package, and would need a huge support tail of tankers (once you start intensive air ops the fuel demand increases massively, not just for the aircraft but for the vessel) and replenishment ships, and would need a strong escort group as any naval forces in the Gulf or Red Sea are sitting duck targets to aircraft operating from Saudi, Egyptian or Iranian bases.
    The drawback to that is that the tankers needed to replenish the air cover would (1) probably be a lot more than Israel has & (2) would themselves be vulnerable, rendering even more tankers necessary to fuel the escorts for the tankers. An Israeli naval force forcing the Straits of Hormuz just isn't feasible, as long as any country bordering the Red Sea is hostile, & has a functioning air force.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The centre of the known universe
    Posts
    868
    I agree, there is no way the Israeli Navy could operate in either the Red Sea or Gulf without active Arab support, unless they have a monumental shipbuilding program of tankers, supply ships, air warfare destroyers/frigates etc. and that is unlikely to happen.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbinia
    I agree, there is no way the Israeli Navy could operate in either the Red Sea or Gulf without active Arab support, unless they have a monumental shipbuilding program of tankers, supply ships, air warfare destroyers/frigates etc. and that is unlikely to happen.
    I have always seen the Israeli navy as Israels weakest arm with a focus more on coastal defence, as always Israels millitary strength is derived from the quality of its airforce.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,271
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveO
    I would imagine this pic was created before the ski-jump became the accepted way of operating Harrier's off small ships. If I remember correctly the flightdeck of this concept had a turntable to make it easier to turn the Harrier's around on the narrow deck.
    As a side note doesn't the Admiral Kuznetsov have a turntable on its hanger deck.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    122

    Drawing and artist impression

    Drawing and artist impression of harrier Carrier for you. VT along with Vickers looked at other designs such as the MAC, versatile carrier (V-VAC) and FLC. Prehaps the V-VAC was the most promising design.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	UK- VT Harrier Carrier_1.jpg 
Views:	3352 
Size:	19.6 KB 
ID:	134641   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	UK- VT Harrier carrier_a1a.jpg 
Views:	1911 
Size:	137.9 KB 
ID:	134642  
    Last edited by JAZZ; 19th July 2006 at 10:15.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    canberra aust
    Posts
    358
    I have had the specs. on this ship for years, but often wondered what it would have looked like.Now I know.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,896
    Nice find JAZZ It seems you can always count on the guys with zz at the end of their name to deliver cool pics

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    96

    Harrier Carrier

    Helo boardmembers!

    I am new to this board and try to post drawings I made of the Harrier Carrier.
    I hope it works - if not I am willing to send them to those interested.
    I am a shiplover and I like small Carrier Concepts.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Harrier carrier außengerade.jpg 
Views:	1544 
Size:	31.4 KB 
ID:	134821   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	HarrierCarrier Deck.jpg 
Views:	5015 
Size:	63.4 KB 
ID:	134822  

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