Alternative Invincible Class Ideas

[Martes]

Why aren't you willing to consider Otomat?

Otomat falls into Harpoon+ category that I consider a fallback relatively to TLAM, but yes, it's a viable option.

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

That's why I mentioned TLAM in non-nuclear variant. BGM-109C/D

As I understand it, the aim is to add something that the ship cannot do using onboard aircraft.

 

[Martes]

Concerning placement. There is a lot of place near the Sea Dart, and lighter missiles, like Harpoon, can be placed fore and aft of the mast, between the mast and the funnels.

 

[Hood]

The RN bought 37 quadruple-tube sets with 300 missiles. Only 33 sets were actually fitted.
The looked at fitting the Tigers, Type 42 and Type 81, even the Fearless-class LPDs! But all these were rejected for one reason or another.

By the late 1970s thoughts were turning to NATO Second Generation Anti-Ship Missile/Anti-Ship Euro-Missile programme, a sea-skimming 80-110nm missile for the mid-80s (later delayed to early 90s and eventually being abandoned).

TASM was looked at but the RN argued that without OTH targeting systems it was no better than Exocet or Harpoon. There was some momentum in 1981 but it petered out and not until after Desert Storm was Tomahawk actually ordered.

 

[Hood]

Why aren't you willing to consider Otomat?

This is a real project thread, not a wish-list AH thread.
Project threads are for discussing real projects and genuine options, not random musings of "wouldn't it be cool if..."

 

[Dilandu]

This is a real project thread, not a wish-list AH thread.
Project threads are for discussing real projects and genuine options, not random musings of "wouldn't it be cool if..."

Erm, there were already TASM suggested here)

 

[Martes]

The RN bought 37 quadruple-tube sets with 300 missiles. Only 33 sets were actually fitted.
The looked at fitting the Tigers, Type 42 and Type 81, even the Fearless-class LPDs! But all these were rejected for one reason or another.

By the late 1970s thoughts were turning to NATO Second Generation Anti-Ship Missile/Anti-Ship Euro-Missile programme, a sea-skimming 80-110nm missile for the mid-80s (later delayed to early 90s and eventually being abandoned).

TALM was looked at but the RN argued that without OTH targeting systems it was no better than Exocet or Harpoon. There was some momentum in 1981 but it petered out and not until after Desert Storm was Tomahawk actually ordered.

Well, that more or less solves it.

Harpoon was technically possible, TLAM could have been considered.

 

[Dilandu]

Otomat falls into Harpoon+ category that I consider a fallback relatively to TLAM, but yes, it's a viable option.

Well, Otomat Mk-II - capable of mid-course correction from shipboard or helicopter-based control system - is avaliable since late 1970s. While its maximum range is about half ot TASM, it have a significant advantage in terms of targeting and multi-direction attack capability (including simultaneous time-on-target from several directions). And it's much more compact.

 

[Martes]

Well, Otomat Mk-II - capable of mid-course correction from shipboard or helicopter-based control system - is avaliable since late 1970s.

As I said, totally an option. Just keep in mind you need at least 8 of them.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That's why I mentioned TLAM in non-nuclear variant. BGM-109C/D

As I understand it, the aim is to add something that the ship cannot do using onboard aircraft.

Until the BGM-109E came into service, only the TASM was capable of antiship use, and even the -Es needed a sensor upgrade that didn't happen until 2014.

 

[Martes]

Until the BGM-109E came into service, only the TASM was capable of antiship use, and even the -Es needed a sensor upgrade that didn't happen until 2014.

My assumption was that pure land-attack missile with very long range (that extends beyond the range of the SHAR) would better complement the capabilities of the Harrier than additional anti-ship one.

 

[Dilandu]

My assumption was that pure land-attack missile with very long range (that extends beyond the range of the SHAR) would better complement the capabilities of the Harrier than additional anti-ship one.

But Invincible is mainly designed as ocean escort ship, not a strike unit. For her, the anti-ship missile is more reasonable weapon.

 

[Martes]

But Invincible is mainly designed as ocean escort ship, not a strike unit.

Her design process was a bit more complicated than that.

She started as a helicopter ship with more or less anti-submarine focus, there was a lot of struggle to integrate Harriers into her complement, and her tactical niche was only really determined during the Falkland war.

But I am not trying to reconstruct the contemporary considerations, I just point out the options that are technically feasible for her. IMO, Harrier with Harpoon/Sea Eagle gives her sufficient anti-ship capability while ensuring she is in safe range from enemy ships, so if you want to add something, it may as well be different.

 

[Scott Kenny]

But I am not trying to reconstruct the contemporary considerations, I just point out the options that are technically feasible for her. IMO, Harrier with Harpoon/Sea Eagle gives her sufficient anti-ship capability while ensuring she is in safe range from enemy ships, so if you want to add something, it may as well be different.

Not sure that 8x Tomahawks-or-equivalent would be all that viable, unless those are all nukes. While some flavor of AShM means that even if the weather is so bad that the Harriers cannot fly, the ship can still project a threat to anything on the surface.

 

[Martes]

Not sure that 8x Tomahawks-or-equivalent would be all that viable, unless those are all nukes. While some flavor of AShM means that even if the weather is so bad that the Harriers cannot fly, the ship can still project a threat to anything on the surface.

For that it's always possible to place a couple of quadruple harpoon launchers on the superstructure. Maybe even 4, with some effort.

Not sure that 8x Tomahawks-or-equivalent would be all that viable, unless those are all nukes.

There is sufficient place for 16 (4 ABLs), I think, and yes, from that moment the enemy has to consider the possibility they are nukes.

 

[Firefinder]

For that it's always possible to place a couple of quadruple harpoon launchers on the superstructure. Maybe even 4, with some effort.

They were intented to get a set of 4 exocots on the bow by the Seadart launcher.

Cost cut them.

 

[Martes]

They were intented to get a set of 4 exocots on the bow by the Seadart launcher.

Cost cut them.

That's what kind of started this discussion
Why Exocets and what they can be replaced with.

 

[Dilandu]

Why Exocets

Mainly because Britain already ordered MM38 for their frigates and destroyers, so it was a cheapest solution. Not exactly the efficient one; the MM38 range was extremely limited, even the old P-15 Termit outranged it. But the cheapest, and considering how Royal Navy was desperate to save money...

what they can be replaced with.

* Realistically the Otomat is the best solution, since it could be avaliable since 1976 (the Mk-I version) and by 1978-1980 the Mk-II version with greatly improved range (up to 180 km) & datalink capability would be available.

* Besides the Otomat, the Harpoon may be used, but RGM-84B (presumably the RN would be using it, if adopted) would have a range of about 90 km. Nothing better would be available at least till 1980s.

* A surface-launched Sea Eagle could be adopted to provide 100+ km range, but only in 1980s.

 

[Martes]

The RN bought 37 quadruple-tube sets with 300 missiles. Only 33 sets were actually fitted.

As was mentioned here, there are exactly 4 surplus launchers available, but yes, Otomat Mk-II looks very good in this context.

 

[Dilandu]

P.S. Also, I should point out, that while Otomat Mk-II initially did not have land-attack capability, it's TESEO command datalink made it possible to implement such relatively easily. The ship/helicopter tracked missile could be command-guided to designated point, and ordered to dive down with relatively modest software upgrade. Yes, it would be not the ideal solution - the Otomat wahread is only about 210 kg (combined of 65 kg main HE/shaped charge and sixteen 10-kg fragmentation/incendiary submunitions) - but much better than nothing.

So my idea:

* In 1970s Royal Navy decided that Exocet did not provide enough range to be useful in open sea, so instead it decided to look for Otomat

* The Mk-I Otomat is installed on County-class and Leander-class instead of Exocet in late 1970s.

* For the Mk-II Otomat, Britain decided to develope (in cooperation with OTO Melara) its own modification, with unitary 225-kg HE/shaped charge warhead, and the guidance upgrade to allow land-attack capability.

* The Mk-II Otomat in 1978-1980 is retro-fitted to Invincible-class carriers, maybe some County-class destroyers (with the helicopter guidance TESEO datalink)

So by 1982, the Royal Navy would have 150+ km range missile, with secondary land-attack capability.

 

[Archibald]

Would come in handy to demolish goddamn Port Stanley airfield, along with the 4.5 inch naval guns.

with the helicopter guidance TESEO datalink

Wonder if the helicopter could be replaced by a Sea Harrier ? far less vulnerable.

 

[Dilandu]

Wonder if the helicopter could be replaced by a Sea Harrier ? far less vulnerable.

Not sure. If I recall correctly, the TESEO datalink required the helicopter to hover steadily, so missiles could use it at reference point for navigation command.

The alternative is the ERATO missile control system (export variety), that replaced the helicopter with direct missile-ship datalink. Problem is, that it require the missile to fly high enough to stay within the radar horizon of the ship, and thus limit the maximum range. For coastal strikes, though, the missiles would fly high anyway, so it's not exactly a big problem.

 

[Dilandu]

P.S. After some consideration, I actually think that the Otomat original dual warhead - a 65 kg HE/shaped charge & 160 kg of incendiary submunition - may work good enough against "soft" targets like airfields. Especially if the fuze could be rigged to work at preset altitude, spreading the bomblets around.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

As I'm in a flippant mood this is the Alternative Invincible class.


Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5d/CVA-01_Other_Side.jpg

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

My serious answer is illustrated by this image from Message 9.

1. The Sea Dart needs to be in a different position so the flight deck can be extended over the bow.
2. The lifts interfere with the runway.
3. According to Hobbs the flight deck wasn't wide enough for Sea King size helicopters to land alongside the island.

However, making the hull wider would mean more powerful machinery was required so what was gained by the larger hull would have been lost by the larger air intakes and exhausts required by the more powerful gas turbines. Therefore, the hangar may have been just as narrow and the flight deck may not have been any wider due to an even wider superstructure. Although the hull would also have been longer which would have produced a longer hangar and flight deck.

Or have about the same size hull with turbo-electric drive so the gas turbines could be carried higher in the ship. That way the air intakes and exhausts consume a smaller percentage of the hull's volume and the island could be shorter and narrower. That increases the width of the hangar, the width of the flight deck would be wider due to beside the narrower superstructure and it might be possible to move the lifts so they don't obstruct the runway.

However, turbo-electric drive gas turbines were probably beyond the state of the art at the time.

I thought Paul Beaver wrote that the Invincible design included 3 Sea Wolf systems until the early 1970s when Lord Carrington had them removed. However, what he actually wrote on Page 13 or Modern Combat Ships 2 "Invincible" class was.

It is surprising then, that when the CCH plan was sent to the Admiralty Board for approval in the late 1960s (which was followed by ministerial approval by Lord Carrington, then Secretary of State for Defence, in 1971), the inclusion of point defence missiles on the fo'c'sle and ship's quarters was deleted for economic reasons, with the feeling that there were enough Sea Wolf-equipped escorts to deal with this thread, assuming that the CCH/CAH would not venture to sea alone.

He didn't say which point-defence missiles were on the foc's'le and ship's quarters. They could be GWS.24 Sea Cat (also fitted to the Type 21 frigates) and not GWS.25 Sea Wolf for all we know. And it's the only place where I've seen this mentioned.

 

[EwenS]

According to Hobbs the flight deck wasn't wide enough for Sea King size helicopters to land alongside the island.

I don't know where that came from but it wasn't true.

 

[H_K]

Anti ship missiles (Exocet, Otomat, Harpoon whatever) should go on escorts, especially the T42s which lacked SSMs. Kind of a waste on a carrier.

Sea Dart vs Sea Wolf… personally I would have picked Sea Wolf, backed by some 40mm guns with anti-sea skimmer capability ((Breda Fast Forty or Bofors Trinity… I know not in RN service).

As for aviation, the best way to increase aircraft capacity IMHO would have been CODAG propulsion, with a pair of cruise diesels up to 18-20kts and a pair of Olympus gas turbines for sprints above 20kts. This would have reduced too end speed by ~2.5 knots, but improved range and aviation fuel stowage (since less fuel oil needed), and most importantly it would have greatly reduced intake/uptake volume and increased hangar and deck space.

CODAG might have been done by taking HMS Bristol’s COSAG propulsion setup and replacing the 2 steam turbines with 2 Pielstick diesels. Or they could have gone with a 3 shaft setup, ie. cruise diesels driving lateral propellers (e.g. 2x 8.8 MW Pielstick engines similar to HMS Ocean) and gas turbines driving a centerline propeller (similar to the twin LM2500 setup on the US Sea Control Ship).

 

[Dilandu]

Anti ship missiles (Exocet, Otomat, Harpoon whatever) should go on escorts, especially the T42s which lacked SSMs. Kind of a waste on a carrier.

Let's face it, Invincible with Harriers aren't exactly very good as carrier. The Sea Harrier combat radius on anti-ship missions is about 400 km (460 for FA.2 version). It's well within the range of, for example, P-500 Bazalt or P-700 Granit anti-ship missiles, and just slightly more than improved P-35 Progress missile. So the standoff capability for Invincible is pretty much nonexistent already.

 

[uk 75]

The Invuncible class were not carriers but ASW cruisers with a Task Group Comnand role and a secondary role as Commando helicopter carriers.
Their small Harrier force is intended to ward off Bear and Badger snoopers.
If you look at early artwork for the ships they resemble fatter longer Type 82s with SAGW and SSGW forward.
Friedman describes post 1966 RN SSGW as being SS12 (short) MM38 (medium) and OTOMAT (long) range SSGW. The long range does not materialise in the 70s.
Once the new Conservative Government decides the ships are ASW carriers (CVS) they stopped being refered to as Command Cruisers (Through Deck Cruisers in every day use). The third ship is renamed Ark Royal because of HM The Queen Mother's (and public) affection for the carrier.
But they are not Carriers. The limits imposed by their Escort Cruiser origins stay with them throughout their lives. At the end they even reverted to being purely helicopter carrying ships.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Invincibles are SCS or CVS, ASW carriers and convoy flagships.

Giving them some AShMs of whatever type assists them in projecting a threat to anything on the surface.

Because even in wartime, they're not going to be carrying lots of Harriers. They need the deck space for Sea Kings. So you're looking at most a dozen Harriers, and more likely just 6-8: just enough for the CAP. If you have more Harriers, you can task them with an AShM strike.

But jeez, the biggest flaw with the Invincible design is the elevator locations. They really needed to be deck edge or maybe at the stern, to get them out of the way of flight operations!

 

[Dilandu]

The Invuncible class were not carriers but ASW cruisers with a Task Group Comnand role and a secondary role as Commando helicopter carriers.
Their small Harrier force is intended to ward off Bear and Badger snoopers.

Exactly. That's why for them both the Sea Dart (long-range SAM) and Otomat (long-range ASM) make perfect sence.

 

[uk 75]

I would like to know more about why OTOMAT was not adopted for RN Surface Ships.
I suspect that cost was the main reason. RN fitted Exocet in cumbersome mountings for four boxes in place of a 4.5" gun in County and Leander class ships. Replacing these with OTOMAT might have been difficult.
Type 21 and 22 get lighter fittings. It would have been better to have OTOMAT instead.
It may be that Harpoon was what the RN wanted all along but could not get until the Batch 3 Type 22s.

Some sources say the Exocet was dropped on the Invincibles (as on T82/42) because Seadart had a surface capability.

Phalanx/Goalkeeper was fitted post Falklands. The Seawolf four missile launcher should have replaced them but cost again.

 

[Dilandu]

I would like to know more about why OTOMAT was not adopted for RN Surface Ships.

Money seems to be the main reason, as well as time; while Exocet was ready by mid-1970s, Otomat was ready only by late 1970s, and by that time Exocet was already in service & likely used as justification "it is good enough, there is no desperate need for longer-range missile, we should save money".

 

[Dilandu]

Some sources say the Exocet was dropped on the Invincibles (as on T82/42) because Seadart had a surface capability.

A possibility, yes. The range of MM38 was pretty limited - about 40 km - and not much better than Sea Dar.

 

[Hood]

It's worth remembering that the RN insisted on fitting the Exocet box launchers with splinter protection. With the larger Otomat boxes that might have posed topweight concerns with smaller ships.

Otomat may have opened the door to MILAS later, which would have been a handy capability for some of the escorts.

 

[Dilandu]

It's worth remembering that the RN insisted on fitting the Exocet box launchers with splinter protection.

Hm! I didn't knew that! Thank you for the data!

 

[Scott Kenny]

It's worth remembering that the RN insisted on fitting the Exocet box launchers with splinter protection. With the larger Otomat boxes that might have posed topweight concerns with smaller ships.

And of course the Tomahawks were in Armored Box Launchers, so they'd also have topweight concerns.

It'd be tight fitting 2x ABLs in the starboard bow of an Invincible, between the Gunwales, the Goalkeeper, and the Sea Dart.

Otomat may have opened the door to MILAS later, which would have been a handy capability for some of the escorts.

35+km "ASROC"? oh, that would be very nice!

 

[Grey Havoc]

By the late 1970s thoughts were turning to NATO Second Generation Anti-Ship Missile/Anti-Ship Euro-Missile programme, a sea-skimming 80-110nm missile for the mid-80s (later delayed to early 90s and eventually being abandoned).

NATO ASSM evolved into the Anglo-French-Geman ASSM (from 1981 onwards French-German ANS) program:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/ans-french-german-supersonic-antiship-missile.3367/