Alternative Invincible Class Ideas

[Anderman]

During the development of the Invincible a 12 500 t helicopter cruiser was planed as an alternative to the later build ships does somebody has more data or drawings on ship ships ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_class_aircraft_carrier

thanks

Edit: looks like this topic was already there http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4143.0.html

 

[TinWing]

During the development of the Invincible a 12 500 t helicopter cruiser was planed as an alternative to the later build ships does somebody has more data or drawings on ship ships ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_class_aircraft_carrier

thanks

Edit: looks like this topic was already there http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4143.0.html

Here's the answer to your question:

http://books.google.com/books?id=BivKTPcx3woC&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=rebuilding+the+royal+navy+study+21&source=bl&ots=CnKnOS5Ej-&sig=G7seTAFCgAuuiT9IeMwPaDQ6FUE&hl=en&ei=TLRDS5uGGJO1lAf_se2UBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Obviously, there was a progression from steam to gas turbine, but the Invincible class underwent a very predictable design evolution.

 

[uk 75]

Although the subject of British helicopter cruiser/escort cruisers
has been well trodden, the question here is a fair one. Apart from
the drawings in Brown/Moore "Rebuilding the Royal Navy" there are
serious gaps in the availability of images of what proposals for the
ships were.
I have two particular gripes.

The 1962 Escort Cruiser with Seadart and Ikara which nearly got
ordered is nowhere to be found, despite the fact that there must
be some kind of sketch somewhere.

The alternatives looked at in 1966 when Invincible's design was
chosen included a version of the Type 82 (Bristol) stretched
to carry helos. Again not a sniff of a sketch.

UK 75

 

[Tzoli]

Speaking of Alternative Invincibles.
From another naval forum (Battlecruisers) a member posted an artist impression of a catamaran hulled Invincible variant likely from the 1990's:

 

[uk 75]

A fun bit of photoshooting influenced by the weird and wonderful ideas here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/avpro-projects.316/page-2#post-107281

Sadly none of them led anywhere and current RN ships are still pretty similar to their predecessors.

 

[F.L.]

A nice artwork of a early Invincible-class :

 

[TomS]

A nice artwork of a early Invincible-class :
View attachment 719101

Stand by for heavy rolls!

Looks like the artist has sketched in an extra Type 909 dome in place of the actual Sea Dart launcher. And Exocet is already gone.

 

[Hood]

Yeah Wilf Hardy overcooked the roll on that one! Unless Harrier can operate in a Force 12 crosswind!

 

[TomS]

Yeah Wilf Hardy overcooked the roll on that one! Unless Harrier can operate in a Force 12 crosswind!

Though this is a real shot. Rudder hard over for the breakaway.

 

[BlackBat242]

Though this is a real shot. Rudder hard over for the breakaway.

View attachment 719160

But it is not launching aircraft, as it was in the drawing.

 

[EwenS]

Though this is a real shot. Rudder hard over for the breakaway.

View attachment 719160

On 29th May 1982 Invincible was operating off the Falklands in heavy weather and executed a starboard turn while SHAR ZA174 was taxying for take off. The combination of the turn, heavy seas and high winds caused a list. Add in a wet deck and a heavily load, and the SHAR skidded sideways and over the edge of the deck. Fortunately the pilot was able to eject before the aircraft hit the sea to be rescued by one of Invincibles helicopters.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Stand by for heavy rolls!

So, Tuesday in the winter North Atlantic?

Notable in that shot that the Exocet space was not repurposed for anything, just remained a void.

Yeah, it's rather horrible just how few ships carry antiship missiles. Sticking a pair of Exocet or Harpoon canister launchers there (8 missiles) wouldn't seem to be particularly expensive...

 

[Dilandu]

Yeah, it's rather horrible just how few ships carry antiship missiles. Sticking a pair of Exocet or Harpoon canister launchers there (8 missiles) wouldn't seem to be particularly expensive...

Well, if Britain decided to go with Otomat instead of Exocet, it would probably be worth it; Otomat was of longer range and far greater capability (as soon as they managed to make datalink work).

 

[Martes]

As soon as you manage to strap the Harpoon to the Harrier, it more or less solves the problem - at least for small carriers.

 

[Dilandu]

As soon as you manage to strap the Harpoon to the Harrier, it more or less solves the problem - at least for small carriers.

Not exactly. It solves the long-range strike problem, but not self-defense. Invincibles at least have Sea Dart to hit the surface targets within horizon.

 

[Scott Kenny]

As soon as you manage to strap the Harpoon to the Harrier, it more or less solves the problem - at least for small carriers.

You mean Sea Eagle?

But that still means you have either airborne strike capability OR self-defense CAP. Not both at the same time.

 

[Martes]

Invincibles at least have Sea Dart to hit the surface targets within horizon.

Even that was removed, but if you get a surface target that approached the carrier within the horizon, the carrier is already in the deepest of possible troubles.

But that still means you have either airborne strike capability OR self-defense CAP. Not both at the same time.

With 12 to 18 harriers onboard? I would suppose you can rather easily dispatch 4-6, in the latter case even 8 with a strike package, launching the missiles from a relatively comfortable distance at low altitude and quickly returning, while the CAP does it's job.

 

[Dilandu]

Even that was removed

After Cold War, when the possibility of carrier being forced to defend herself was deemed remote.

if you get a surface target that approached the carrier within the horizon, the carrier is already in the deepest of possible troubles.

Yep, but British themselves demonstrated, that it's possible just before Falkland War - during joint exercises, the HMS Glamorgan, pretending to be a civilian ship, was able to sneak upon the USS Coral Sea and "launch a missile salvo" essentially point-blank. That, despite Americans actively seeking the destroyer and already "sinking" three British frigates, that acted as decoys.

 

[Martes]

Yep, but British themselves demonstrated, that it's possible just before Falkland War - during joint exercises, the HMS Glamorgan, pretending to be a civilian ship, was able to sneak upon the USS Coral Sea and "launch a missile salvo" essentially point-blank. That, despite Americans actively seeking the destroyer and already "sinking" three British frigates, that acted as decoys.

That's clearly a CAP/AEW and escort problem. Nobody approached the ship, nobody tried to divert it. Nobody even bothered to send a helicopter to check it out. Pure sloppiness.

And yes, it was exactly a case of deepest trouble, because after the launch the ability of the carrier to sink the attacking ship couldn't change anything.

 

[Dilandu]

That's clearly a CAP problem. Nobody approached the ship, nobody tried to divert it. Pure sloppiness.

It was in the area of highly intence merchant traffic, and HMS Glamorgan played its role rather good - including having all lights on ship shining brightly at night (so it created immediate expression of a civilian liner just minding her own buisness) and putting officer with good Indian accent on communication (so when US destroyer inquired the Glamorgan, it replied that its merely an Indian cruise ship). The ruse worked perfectly, and on Coral Sea nobody suspected ahything till Glamorgan called the carrier from 11 miles distance and announced that she already launched all her "Exocet" and carrier have about twenty seconds till they strike.

 

[Martes]

It was in the area of highly intence merchant traffic, and HMS Glamorgan played its role rather good - including having all lights on ship shining brightly at night (so it created immediate expression of a civilian liner just minding her own buisness) and putting officer with good Indian accent on communication (so when US destroyer inquired the Glamorgan, it replied that its merely an Indian cruise ship). The ruse worked perfectly, and on Coral Sea nobody suspected ahything till Glamorgan called the carrier from 11 miles distance and announced that she already launched all her "Exocet" and carrier have about twenty seconds till they strike.

Yes, I am familiar with this story
And no, presence of anti-ship missiles would not save the Coral Sea in this scenario. Because they wouldn't think to use it, just like everything else they did have.

But in case of a real war, you don't allow civilian traffic anywhere near the carrier, and the least you try to do, is order the civilian ship to divert. And if the ship refuses or tries to wiggle it's way out, you already know something is fishy.

 

[Archibald]

Guess why we French call the British "perfidious Albion" ? This is a textbook case LMAO.

 

[Scott Kenny]

With 12 to 18 harriers onboard? I would suppose you can rather easily dispatch 4-6, in the latter case even 8 with a strike package, launching the missiles from a relatively comfortable distance at low altitude and quickly returning, while the CAP does it's job.

6-8 SHAR for CAP, whatever's left for strike. And your strike package needs at least a couple of fighter escorts as well, so you're down another 2-4 SHAR. At worst you're talking 4 SHAR with two Sea Eagles each.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Guess why we French call the British "perfidious Albion" ? This is a textbook case LMAO.

And they make the really sneaky bastards Submarine captains.

 

[Martes]

6-8 SHAR for CAP, whatever's left for strike. And your strike package needs at least a couple of fighter escorts as well, so you're down another 2-4 SHAR. At worst you're talking 4 SHAR with two Sea Eagles each.

The need for fighter escort for the strike group depends on a situation (i.e. attack against a non-carrier group outside of shore-based aviation cover wouldn't require it), but even so - 8 missiles on SHAR are better than 4 exocets on the carrier I see on the concept art images, and have a lot of more range.

On the other hand, installing something comparable to Tomahawk, with hundreds of miles of range on the Invincible could have been an interesting extension of her capabilities. If the numbers were sufficient.

 

[Dilandu]

On the other hand, installing something comparable to Tomahawk, with hundreds of miles of range on the Invincible could have been an interesting extension of her capabilities. If the numbers were sufficient.

Well, the P-700 Granit would likely took too much space underdeck, but P-500 Bazalt was more compact, and probably at least a pair of launch tubes would fit in available space on Invincible...

 

[Martes]

Well, the P-700 Granit would likely took too much space underdeck, but P-500 Bazalt was more compact, and probably at least a pair of launch tubes would fit in available space on Invincible...

Granat (RK-55) is what you are looking for

But since the subject here is the real Invincible, the option of installing a couple of 8-cell Mark 41 VLS was, I suppose, quite real, if somewhat costly and requiring additional kowtow before the DC overlords.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Well, the P-700 Granit would likely took too much space underdeck, but P-500 Bazalt was more compact, and probably at least a pair of launch tubes would fit in available space on Invincible...

I suspect that the USSR would have been reluctant to sell them, though.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Granat (RK-55) is what you are looking for

But since the subject here is the real Invincible, the option of installing a couple of 8-cell Mark 41 VLS was, I suppose, quite real, if somewhat costly and requiring additional kowtow before the DC overlords.

A Tomahawk Armored Box Launcher, like what was fitted to the Iowas and Sprucans, would be more likely.

 

[Martes]

A Tomahawk Armored Box Launcher, like what was fitted to the Iowas and Sprucans, would be more likely.

Probably depends on the time of installation (I doubt that the VLS option would be available before very late 80's), so ABL indeed is the easiest and earliest of the options. Having them at Falklands would have opened interesting possibilities.

I suspect that the USSR would have been reluctant to sell them, though.

Regardless of availability, Invincibles are too small for such missiles, that's why I suggest the Tomahawk. It's both relatively compact and can strike targets at enormous distances.

 

[Firefinder]

Also depends on WHERE to put the launchers cause the Invincibles...

Didn't have much in free deck space that wasn't flight deck as is.


Honestly the OG Harpoon Can like Launcher would have made since on them.

 

[Dilandu]

Granat (RK-55) is what you are looking for

C-10 Granat did not have anti-ship version.

 

[Dilandu]

But since the subject here is the real Invincible, the option of installing a couple of 8-cell Mark 41 VLS was, I suppose, quite real, if somewhat costly and requiring additional kowtow before the DC overlords.

ABL launchers, frankly, looks more realistic. Mk-41 became available at the very end of Cold War, and clearly would not be available for RN till 1990s at best. They would also require clearing under-deck space to fit.

IMHO, but it would be more practical to fit a pair of ABL box launcher on Invincible. Especially considering that the goal is BGM-108B TASM, not the strategic nuclear missile.

 

[Martes]

C-10 Granat did not have anti-ship version.

Especially considering that the goal is BGM-108B TASM, not the strategic nuclear missile.

That's where I am not completely sure. TLAM option would be very, very nice, and ABL supported it as well.
While Invincible could have used the SHAR for anti-ship missile delivery, having very-long-range land attack would have greatly extended her capabilities (because it's range is longer than SHAR+any missile it can carry combined). Imagine she could strike Argentinean mainland airbases while remaining in the exclusion zone. And even a whiff of possibility of mounting nuclear warheads would have construed a serious deterrent.

Also depends on WHERE to put the launchers cause the Invincibles...

Didn't have much in free deck space that wasn't flight deck as is.

ABLs/VLS/Harpoons can fit near the Dart, where the Exocets were to be located, and it was possible to carve a little deck space near the superstructure as well, so she could fit about 16 missiles if really needed.

 

[Dilandu]

That's where I am not completely sure. TLAM option would be very, very nice, and ABL supported it as well.

Yes, but it would be almost impossible to persuade USA to provide Britain with ANOTHER strategical nuclear system. USSR would not be happy, and it could have adverse effect on talks about nuclear weapon limitations.

TASM, on the other hand, could be presented as "just anti-ship missile".

Imagine she could strike Argentinean mainland airbases while remaining in the exclusion zone.

There was no conventional-armed Tomahawk in 1982.

 

[Dilandu]

ABLs/VLS/Harpoons can fit near the Dart, where the Exocets were to be located, and it was possible to carve a little deck space near the superstructure as well.

My IMHO, the Otomat would be the best solution. It have range advantage over Exocet and and Harpoon, and its the only Western anti-ship missile, comparable in "smartness" with Soviet ASM's.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yes, but it would be almost impossible to persuade USA to provide Britain with ANOTHER strategical nuclear system. USSR would not be happy, and it could have adverse effect on talks about nuclear weapon limitations.

TASM, on the other hand, could be presented as "just anti-ship missile".

Honestly, the TASM was poorly thought out. It's way too long-ranged to use except in full war, there's no way to be sure that whatever radar contact it locked onto wasn't some civilian ship. IMO it should have had only slightly more range than a Harpoon but far bigger warhead (Harpoon has ~500lbs, real-TASM had ~1000lbs, better-TASM should have had either a warhead on the order of 1200lbs or a BROACH-style with a precursor shaped charge to let the 1000lb warhead go another compartment deeper before detonating).

There was no conventional-armed Tomahawk in 1982.

Technically, there were no Tomahawks in 1982, whether nuclear or conventional. Tomahawks were introduced in 1983.

 

[Dilandu]

Honestly, the TASM was poorly thought out. It's way too long-ranged to use except in full war, there's no way to be sure that whatever radar contact it locked onto wasn't some civilian ship. IMO it should have had only slightly more range than a Harpoon but far bigger warhead (Harpoon has ~500lbs, real-TASM had ~1000lbs, better-TASM should have had either a warhead on the order of 1200lbs or a BROACH-style with a precursor shaped charge to let the 1000lb warhead go another compartment deeper before detonating).

Agreed. Its main problem was, that for long-range missile it was very dumb; no datalink back to the ship (which, for example, Soviet P-35 have in early 1960s), no external targeting, no complex attack capability, no IFF. Harpoon's brains weren't exactly suited for 400 + km range, and subsonic speed forced avcomplex seeking patterns. Basically it was "better than nothing" missile, designed soley to partially compensate for the massive range advantage Soviet ASM's possessed.

 

[Martes]

There was no conventional-armed Tomahawk in 1982.

It's very close shave by dates, but -

Merrill served as the Navy's test platform for the Tomahawk Cruise Missile Program receiving armored box launchers and test launching a Tomahawk on 19 March 1980.

Anyway, putting political considerations aside, what I am trying to say is IF you want to put any anti-surface missiles on the Invincible, those missiles should rather replicate the Tomahawk both by size and range, otherwise they are more or less redundant. The other default option reverts to Harpoon, but technically you can fit both, because you can place the Harpoon launchers on the superstructure. When those requirements are determined, the missiles are either purchased or locally developed.

Honestly, the TASM was poorly thought out. It's way too long-ranged to use except in full war, there's no way to be sure that whatever radar contact it locked onto wasn't some civilian ship.

AWACS/satellite guidance? Use against land targets?

 

[Dilandu]

Anyway, putting political considerations aside, what I am trying to say is IF you want to put any anti-surface missiles on the Invincible, those missiles should rather replicate the Tomahawk both by size and range, otherwise they are more or less redundant. The other default option reverts to Harpoon, but technically you can fit both, because you can place the Harpoon launchers on the superstructure. When those requirements are determined, the missiles are either purchased or locally developed.

Why aren't you willing to consider Otomat?

AWACS/satellite guidance? Use against land targets?

BGM-109 TASM wasn't actually able of any of this.