Escort Cruiser or Light Carrier

[uk 75]

The Royal Navy in the 1960s and the US Navy in the 1970s were keen to deploy helicopters plus vstol air defence aircraft on a single hull.
The RN opted to use a cruiser rather than a light carrier as the basis for this ship. Originally it hoped it could build six cruisers but.as the design grew to be closer to a light carrier only three were built.
The US Navy focussed on a light carrier called a Sea Control Ship. However, there were proposals for air capable cruisers and destroyers similar to the RN ships.
The SCS only served with the Spenish Navy. The USN had enough platforms for ASW helicopters and S3 Vikings ranging from nuclear carriers to frigates.
The Italian Navy started life with ASW cruisers but by the end of the Cold War had built its own light carrier.
France built a one off helicopter training ship which started life armed with the Masurca SAM in drawings and models. In service it received Exocet SSM but no SAMs.
France then intended to build a light carrier for ASW work. But this morphed into a full aircraft carrier before she was built.
The appeal of the helicopter cruiser over the light carrier to European Navies seems as much to do with appearance as with armament (though a medium SAM featured in most).
Canada and the Netherlands both operated light carriers with S2 ASW planes but opted to replace them with ASW helicopters operating from frigates.
The RN could in fact have done the same and instead of three costly ASW cruisers built additional T22 and T42 ships with Seaking and Lynx helps.
Alternatively the RN could have built light carriers able to operate S3 Vikings and Gannet AEW aircraft together with Jaguar.M or F8 Crusader.
France opted to use its Georges Leagues and Tourville ASW ships rather than build more cruisers or light carriers. .The Super Frelon did not become a Gallic Seaking.
It is tempting to ask what could have happened if instead of the above the US had pressed NATO allies to adopt a light carrier design.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The RN could in fact have done the same and instead of three costly ASW cruisers built additional T22 and T42 ships with Sea King and Lynx helps.

I can remember a BBC news report in which the voiceover accompanying the footage of Invincible undergoing her sea trials said that her cost had increased from £60 million when ordered to £175 million which would have paid for three-and-a-half frigates.

Broadsword competed in 1979 cost £68.6 million and Battleaxe completed in 1980 cost £69.2 million and based on that Invincible cost about the same as two-and-a-half Type 22 Batch 1 frigates.

Based on that the money saved by not building the Invincible class would have bought seven-and-a-half Type 22 frigates. One looses the flagship facilities in addition 3 Sea Dart systems, 15-24 Sea Harrier fighters, 27 ASW Sea Kings & 6-9 AEW Sea Kings.

Exeter the first Type 42 Batch 2 was completed in 1980 and cost £60.1 million and based of that nine Type 42s could have been built for the cost of the three Invincibles.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Don't forget Japan, who has conducted a similar evolution from large helicopter-equipped destroyers to light helicopter carriers and, in the case of the Izumos, full-on light STOVL carriers.

The RN could in fact have done the same and instead of three costly ASW cruisers built additional T22 and T42 ships with Seaking and Lynx helps.
Alternatively the RN could have built light carriers able to operate S3 Vikings and Gannet AEW aircraft together with Jaguar.M or F8 Crusader.

Both are IMO non-starters even discounting politics. As NOMISYRRUC notes, building surface combatants instead of the Invincibles makes the RN lose out on a lot of ASW assets, and this is a lesson that multiple navies learned over the course of building helicopter cruisers and destroyers: a light helicopter carrier is simply better and cheaper at the job. It's why the Italians and Japanese switched to building CVHs instead of CGHs. To say nothing of the extra capability the Harrier brings.

The second option probably would've been ideal from a capability perspective, but financially it was a non-starter, as it would've required CATOBAR to operate both.

 

[zen]

It depends on specifics.
The SCS was heavily dependent on other assets to function as a carrier. It was a very barebomes concept not really intended to step on a true carriers toes. Rather provide an efficient platform for a fleet of Helicopters, the Harrier simply expanded this utility.

The French PH75 seems more like a true carrier, as ironically do the Invincibles.
I seem to recall the Italian ship was rather well equipped though.

So opting for such barebones ships means more cost to provide various capabilites on other ships.

 

[uk 75]

The RN usually only had one Invincible available with a second sometimes. Five or so Type 22/42 would have ranged further in the crucial North Atlantiic and Norwegian Sea roles.
RAF Nimrods and US P3s and S3s also played a major role.
The one off Falklands operation was not what the RN was there for. From 1972 to 1982 and 1983 to 1989 the N Atlantic was the zone of operations.
Given the RAF Nimrod force and the demise of fixed wing RN ASW after the Gannet I agree that a modern version of Hermes would not have made much difference.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The RN usually only had one Invincible available with a second sometimes. Five or so Type 22/42 would have ranged further in the crucial North Atlantic and Norwegian Sea roles.

If seven-and-a-half Type 22 had been built instead only two-and-a half would usually have been available with five sometimes and if nine Type 42 had been built three usually would have been available and six at times.

Could they have ranged further into the crucial North Atlantic and Norwegian see without a flagship to co-ordinate them? Or Sea Harriers to to provide visual identification of shadowing Soviet aircraft and then drive them off. Or AEW Sea Kings to give them more time to prepare to engage incoming enemy aircraft and missiles?

Balanced force and balanced fleet may be the correct expressions.

 

[H_K]

I feel like there was nothing wrong with helicopter cruiser concepts like Vittorio Veneto and Jeanne D’Arc. Medium SAM in the bow and ASW helicopters in the stern provides a balanced capability for convoy escort, commando missions etc.

The main reason to go for larger flat decks was to support fixed wing aircraft. Unfortunately Harrier itself was rather sh*** until it got AEW and look-down/shoot down + BVR capability. A-4s or F-8s weren’t much better.

SCS couldn’t operate without an FFG escort providing SAM coverage… not ideal. Garibaldi was a more balanced design but with less aviation capability… not ideal either.

Ultimately give me a 25kt CODOG/CODAG enlarged Vittorio Veneto or small Jeanne d’Arc and that would fit the bill quite nicely IMHO.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The RN could in fact have done the same and instead of three costly ASW cruisers built additional T22 and T42 ships with Seaking and Lynx helps.
Alternatively the RN could have built light carriers able to operate S3 Vikings and Gannet AEW aircraft together with Jaguar.M or F8 Crusader.

Both are IMO non-starters even discounting politics. As NOMISYRRUC notes, building surface combatants instead of the Invincibles makes the RN loose out on a lot of ASW assets, and this is a lesson that multiple navies learned over the course of building helicopter cruisers and destroyers: a light helicopter carrier is simply better and cheaper at the job. It's why the Italians and Japanese switched to building CVHs instead of CGHs. To say nothing of the extra capability the Harrier brings.

What he said. Plus the loss of the AEW assets and perhaps most important of all the command, control & communications assets.

 

[uk 75]

As usual I am grateful to everyone for the information and contributions.

I still suspect that the Invincibles became so big because the RN were desperate to get the Harrier.

A smaller ship like the Italian Veneto would have given command capability and Seadart plus a reasonable number of Seakings. Whether six would have been built is another matter.

I am sceptical as to whether Sea.Harriers could have done much against Soviet long range aircraft and stand off missiles which were the threat in the North Atlantic.
The Yak38s on a Kiev were principally short range defensive aircraft like the initial Sea Harriers.

I am not sure how much command and control a surface action group of T22 and T42 required in the N Atlantic given that they would be part of the NATO fleet.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

A smaller ship like the Italian Veneto would have given command capability and Seadart plus a reasonable number of Sea Kings. Whether six would have been built is another matter.

David Hobbs had a low opinion of the British equivalents (i.e. the Escort Cruisers) that were designed in the 1960s but not built. He thought they were a lot of ship for 6 or 9 Sea King size helicopters and very expensive to build because of the radars, sonars, fixed armament and flagship facilities (which he claimed were most of the cost) to boot.

Invincible and her sisters were fitted with more modern versions of the radars, sonars, fixed armament and flagship facilities of the Escort Cruisers and I suspect than an Escort Cruiser with the same radars, sonars, fixed armament and flagship as the Invincible class would not be significantly cheaper to build or maintain. In fact I suspect that those costs would have been much the same.

 

[Hood]

I still suspect that the Invincibles became so big because the RN were desperate to get the Harrier.

Not really, the 1960s Escort Cruiser was more or less settled as a through-deck type before it was axed in favour of cheaper Tiger conversions. The Command Cruiser that became Invincible took off from there. Around 1970 there were thoughts RAF GR.1s might use it occasionally but the Sea Harrier wasn't really a concept at that time, in fact something better than Harrier was wanted for the 1970s but they had to make do with a warmed up Harrier.

I agree with Nomisyrruc, the end result would not have been much different - apart from the fact had they been built sooner they might have missed the crippling inflation costs of the 1970s so would have appeared cheaper.

There is no alternative to the carrier deck if you are seriously contemplating operating helicopters at tempo without constraints. The few DDHs built were impressive to look at but were relatively constrained when operating larger helicopters like Sea Kings (Vittorio I think mainly operated AB.212s so not quite so congested). Even the Soviets didn't repeat the mistake with the Moskvas and went for the Kievs - now that is a cruiser!

Hobbs may have been right about the cost but I think he rather missed the point - an ASW helicopter is a weapons system, often reliant on its parent ship for cues to the target and control. Would he think it "expensive" to provide a carrier with radars and command links to the plotting room for its fighters? Probably not.

 

[Yellow Palace]

David Hobbs had a low opinion of the British equivalents (i.e. the Escort Cruisers) that were designed in the 1960s but not built. He thought they were a lot of ship for 6 or 9 Sea King size helicopters and very expensive to build because of the radars, sonars, fixed armament and flagship facilities (which he claimed were most of the cost) to boot.

Hobbs is very much of the opinion that anything less than an aircraft carrier is a distraction from aircraft carriers.

I am sceptical as to whether Sea.Harriers could have done much against Soviet long range aircraft and stand off missiles which were the threat in the North Atlantic.

The intent was that the Sea Harrier would drive off the odd Tu-142s or Il-38, rather than defeat regimental raids of Tu-22s. In that capacity, I'm sure it would have been entirely adequate.

As far as exchanging helicopter cruisers (and the INVINCIBLEs were helicopter cruisers) for frigates goes, you're trading one platform that carries nine Sea Kings for two to four platforms each with one Sea King and a towed array.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

David Hobbs had a low opinion of the British equivalents (i.e. the Escort Cruisers) that were designed in the 1960s but not built. He thought they were a lot of ship for 6 or 9 Sea King size helicopters and very expensive to build because of the radars, sonars, fixed armament and flagship facilities (which he claimed were most of the cost) to boot.

Hobbs is very much of the opinion that anything less than an aircraft carrier is a distraction from aircraft carriers.

For what it's worth I noticed that too.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I am sceptical as to whether Sea.Harriers could have done much against Soviet long range aircraft and stand off missiles which were the threat in the North Atlantic.

The intent was that the Sea Harrier would drive off the odd Tu-142s or Il-38, rather than defeat regimental raids of Tu-22s. In that capacity, I'm sure it would have been entirely adequate.

That confirms what I remember reading in Friedman, i.e. that it was to drive of shadowing aircraft like the the ones that you mention, plus a Sea Harrier could visually identify the aircraft before it was shot down.

The Yak38s on a Kiev were principally short range defensive aircraft like the initial Sea Harriers.

Dr Clarke has done a video on the Yak 38 and if I remember correctly its main job was to drive off surveillance aircraft in peace time and therefore not start World War III which was the likely result if said surveillance aircraft were shot down with ship based guided missiles.

I suspect that the Sea Harriers did the same for the Royal Navy in peacetime.

 

[TomS]

I suspect that the Sea Harriers did the same for the Royal Navy in peacetime.

That was the idea. They exercised this a bit in the Falklands, using SHAR to ident and shadow the Argentine 707s that were scouting the Task Force on its way south. But when it came time to actually try to shoot one down, they used Sea Dart. Lack of confidence in Sidewinder's ability to kill a 4-engine aircraft, probably.

 

[CV12Hornet]

I still suspect that the Invincibles became so big because the RN were desperate to get the Harrier.

A smaller ship like the Italian Veneto would have given command capability and Seadart plus a reasonable number of Seakings. Whether six would have been built is another matter.

The fly in the ointment for this comparison is Giuseppe Garibaldi. Conway's 1947-1982 has this to say about Vittorio Veneto:

Veneto has two sets of stabilisers, and is much more effective as an ASW helicopter carrier than the Dorias. Even so, her ability to operate and maintain a large enough number of helicopters to create an adequate ASW screen as well as maintain the helicopters of the rest of the task force is not so great as it should be. A still larger ship is really needed, and this is the genesis of Garibaldi.

The single-end escort cruisers were larger than VV, but had basically the same aircraft capacity, so the operational issues listed above are still applicable, and the Italians plainly agreed given they did end up buying Garibaldi. Also note the bolded: that's another problem with your plan to just buy more Type 22 and 42 ships.

 

[EwenS]

The Yak38s on a Kiev were principally short range defensive aircraft like the initial Sea Harriers.

For the Yak 36M/Yak 38 see Yefim Gordon’s “Yakovlev Yak-36, Yak-38 & Yak-41. The Soviet Jump Jets”. He notes:-

“The project documents defined the Yak-36M as ‘a light VTOL attack aircraft intended for detecting, identifying and destroying small-sized targets (including moving ones) in the enemy’s tactical and close theatre-tactical areas, attacking maritime surface targets and neutralising the enemy’s anti-assault assets’. The aircraft was also to be capable of combatting certain types of aerial targets - helicopters and transport aircraft. The Yak-36M was to fly its missions at low altitude, engaging targets within visual range.”

In production form the Yak-36M became the Yak-38.

Most of the weapons loads envisaged were air to surface. The only air to air weapons were to be the 2 cannon pods with GSh-23L & 2 K-60 AAM (aka the R-60 or AA-8 Aphid)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Hobbs may have been right about the cost but I think he rather missed the point - an ASW helicopter is a weapons system, often reliant on its parent ship for cues to the target and control. Would he think it "expensive" to provide a carrier with radars and command links to the plotting room for its fighters? Probably not.

I interpreted it as an overhead common to all Aircraft Carriers & Cruisers regardless of their size and the smaller the ship the larger the percentage of the total cost.

• The Escort Cruiser, Invincible and CVA.01 all had an Area Defence SAM (Seaslug or Sea Dart).
• The Escort Cruiser, Invincible and CVA.01 all had the most powerful sonar available (Type 184 or 2016).
• The Escort Cruiser, Invincible and CVA.01 all had the most powerful air surveillance radar available (Type 984, 988 or 1022)
  • However, I think that in common with Bristol (the sole Type 82) CVA.01 would have been completed with a Type 965 AKE-2 which would have been replaced by a Type 1022 at some point.
• The Escort Cruiser, Invincible and CVA.01 all had the then-current equivalent to NTDS (CDS, ADA or ADAWS Mk whatever).
• The Escort Cruiser, Invincible and CVA.01 all had extensive flagship facilities together with the necessary command, control & communications equipment.

For example an Escort Cruiser built instead of Invincible would have had Sea Dart, a Type 2016 sonar, a Type 1022 radar and ADAWS Mk 6 which was exactly the same as Invincible along with exactly the same flagship facilities and C3 equipment as Invincible - therefore exactly the same cost.

By the same token a CVA.01 type Strike Carrier built instead of Invincible would have had Sea Dart, a Type 2016 sonar, a Type 1022 radar and ADAWS Mk 6 which was exactly the same as Invincible along with exactly the same flagship facilities and C3 equipment as Invincible - therefore exactly the same cost.

My guess is that an Escort Cruiser built instead of Invincible would in common with Invincible have had 4 Olympus Gas Turbines in the COGAG arrangement (but they may have been less powerful versions of the engine) and therefore little of no money saved there.

I deliberately wrote CVA.01 type Strike Carrier rather than CVA.01 class Strike Carrier because I think it would not be the CVA.01 design as we know it. This is because I think that if a trio of Strike Carriers in the same displacement bracket as the Real-CVA.01 was built instead of the Invincible class they would have 6 Olympus Gas Turbines in the COGAG arrangement driving three shafts instead of the Real-CVA.01s steam turbines driving three shafts. If they were rated at the same shaft horsepower as the Olympus engines in the Invincible class they'd cost 50% more. Except that as 9 sets of machinery need to be built instead of 6 economies of scale may come into play so they'd cost less than 50% more.

 

[zen]

It is tempting to ask what could have happened if instead of the above the US had pressed NATO allies to adopt a light carrier design.

A good question might be "which light carrier design?"

Because if we were talking about the VSS of 35,000tons with 2 catapults.....then we're into something much more substantial than the SCS.

 

[uk 75]

Thank you again to everyone for entering into the spirit and coming up with lots of info.
One point I made has not been taken up.
In the 1960s US allies had S2 ASW aircraft but the S3 Viking required a bigger carrier so helicopters were used.
Years ago the splendid Sentinel Chicken did artwork for RN and other navies S3. They would have been expensive but...

Post in thread 'RN post war carrier conundrums' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/rn-post-war-carrier-conundrums.10464/post-406093

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Thank you again to everyone for entering into the spirit and coming up with lots of info.
One point I made has not been taken up.
In the 1960s US allies had S2 ASW aircraft but the S3 Viking required a bigger carrier so helicopters were used.
Years ago the splendid Sentinel Chicken did artwork for RN and other navies S3. They would have been expensive but...

Post in thread 'RN post war carrier conundrums' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/rn-post-war-carrier-conundrums.10464/post-406093

I suggest that you buy a Scribd subscription and read the Norman Friedman books there. Although a year's subscription to Scribd may be the equivalent to 2 or 3 Norman Friedman books.

I'll be corrected if I'm wrong but as I remember from reading U.S. Aircraft Carriers.

• The S-3 Viking was a consequence of the S-2 Tracker not being large enough to take the electronics needed to hunt the latest generation of Soviet submarines.
• The S-3 Viking was designed to be operated from SCB.27C Essex class of which the USN intended to retain 6 as ASW Support Carriers to protect the force of 15 Attack Carriers that was planned.
• The P-3 Orion had made the CVS force redundant in its current role, but the Attack Carriers (which had been invulnerable to attack by Soviet submarines on account of their speed advantage) were now vulnerable to Soviet nuclear powered submarines (which were faster than their predecessors).
• Therefore, the plan was to keep 6 to allow 2 to be forward deployed at all times. One to support the Attack Carriers in the Mediterranean and one to support the Attack Carriers in the Western Pacific.
• They'd eventually be replaced by new ASW Support Carriers of the SCB.100 type.

Which would be in the Alt 60s US Navy thread by now if you allowed sufficient time for people to answer the questions you had already asked before asking new ones.

For example writing replies to this thread and the Replacing Polaris thread has stopped me writing what I'd planned to add to the RAF in 1939 with Better Bombers thread today.

In the 1960s US allies had S2 ASW aircraft but the S3 Viking required a bigger carrier so helicopters were used.

Was that really the cause and effect? I seem to remember several nations continuing to operate their Trackers from shore bases for several to many years after they retired their aircraft carriers. Canada for example.

 

[Hood]

They exercised this a bit in the Falklands, using SHAR to ident and shadow the Argentine 707s that were scouting the Task Force on its way south. But when it came time to actually try to shoot one down, they used Sea Dart. Lack of confidence in Sidewinder's ability to kill a 4-engine aircraft, probably.

GUNS GUNS GUNS!!

The Shars were close enough to the 707s to use their ADENs. Would have got the job done against a defenceless 707 or an Il-38. The Tu-142 had turrets so was actually one of the few defensible MPAs in the world at that time.

Again I need to dig out my info from the files on RN ASW helicopter needs for screening duties (I did say this for another recent thread too, we do seem to tread very similar waters on these questions).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

An edited version of Post 18.

Hobbs may have been right about the cost but I think he rather missed the point - an ASW helicopter is a weapons system, often reliant on its parent ship for cues to the target and control. Would he think it "expensive" to provide a carrier with radars and command links to the plotting room for its fighters? Probably not.

I interpreted it as an overhead common to all Aircraft Carriers & Cruisers regardless of their size and the smaller the ship the larger the percentage of the total cost.

• The Escort Cruiser, Invincible and CVA.01 all had an Area Defence SAM (Seaslug or Sea Dart).
• The Escort Cruiser, Invincible and CVA.01 all had the most powerful sonar available (Type 184 or 2016).
• The Escort Cruiser, Invincible and CVA.01 all had the most powerful air surveillance radar available (Type 984, 988 or 1022)
  • However, I think that in common with Bristol (the sole Type 82) CVA.01 would have been completed with a Type 965 AKE-2 which would have been replaced by a Type 1022 at some point.
• The Escort Cruiser, Invincible and CVA.01 all had the then-current equivalent to NTDS (CDS, ADA or ADAWS Mk whatever).
• The Escort Cruiser, Invincible and CVA.01 all had extensive flagship facilities together with the necessary command, control & communications equipment.

For example an Escort Cruiser built instead of Invincible would have had Sea Dart, a Type 2016 sonar, a Type 1022 radar and ADAWS Mk 6 which was exactly the same as Invincible along with exactly the same flagship facilities and C3 equipment as Invincible - therefore exactly the same cost.

My guess is that an Escort Cruiser built instead of Invincible would in common with Invincible have had 4 Olympus Gas Turbines in the COGAG arrangement (but they may have been less powerful versions of the engine) and therefore little of no money saved there.

By the same token I think an enlarged Invincible with a longer hull (for a longer flight deck & hangar) and a wider flight deck (mainly to make it easier to land helicopters alongside the superstructure, but also a wider hangar) wouldn't cost significantly more due to the "overheads" costing exactly the same.

It may require 4 uprated Olympus Gas Turbines (rather than the down-rated engines that an Escort Cruiser built in its place would have had) to have the same maximum speed as the Real-Invincible. Although I think it would not increase the building cost significantly and may not require extra personnel to operate it.

This is a quote from Page 13 of "Modern Combat Ships: 2 'Invincible' class" by Paul Beaver.

It is surprising then, that when the CCH plan was sent to the Admiralty in the late 1960s (which was sent for ministerial approval by Lord Carrington, the 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 would be enough Sea Wolf-equipped escorts to deal with this threat, assuming that a CCH/CAH would not venture to sea alone. The Board was nearly proved wrong when only two Sea Wolf-Type 22 frigates were present.

As I'm working on the theory that "Steel is cheap and air is free" not deleting them would have increased the cost of the Real-Invincible. However, it would have increased the cost of an Escort Cruiser, an the ALT-Super Invincible described above or a CVA.01 type Strike Carrier built in its place by exactly the same amount.

 

[uk 75]

At the risk of asking more questions and upsetting folk, I missed out on the Beaver book on the Invincibles.
I have never seen Seawolf mentioned in any of the designs shown in books or before Seawolf Seacat.
Ark Royal came back into service fitted for but not with Seacat.
No drawings or artwork for CVA01 show any space for Seacat let alone Seawolf.
But Invincibles did get Phalanx and Goalkeeper so it makes sense that at some earlier stage the design allowed for a point defence missile.

 

[uk 75]

It is tempting to wonder what would have happened if the 1962 Escort Cruiser (of which no illustration or drawing has survived) had been ordered.
We have to remove Polaris and CVA01 to free up the budget but that is the easy part
The good/bad news is that the three Tiger class do not get converted. But they still stay in service into the 70s.
CF299 Seadart and Ikara are not ready for service after trials until then.
But at least the first of class can conduct the trials instead of Bristol. And the new Seakings have a home.
They would have been the RN's first all gas turbine ships unless the Type 21 frigates had beaten them into service.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Hobbs may have been right about the cost but I think he rather missed the point - an ASW helicopter is a weapons system, often reliant on its parent ship for cues to the target and control. Would he think it "expensive" to provide a carrier with radars and command links to the plotting room for its fighters? Probably not.

I interpreted it as an overhead common to all Aircraft Carriers & Cruisers regardless of their size and the smaller the ship the larger the percentage of the total cost.

• The Escort Cruiser, Invincible and CVA.01 all had an Area Defence SAM (Seaslug or Sea Dart).
• The Escort Cruiser, Invincible and CVA.01 all had the most powerful sonar available (Type 184 or 2016).
• The Escort Cruiser, Invincible and CVA.01 all had the most powerful air surveillance radar available (Type 984, 988 or 1022)
  • However, I think that in common with Bristol (the sole Type 82) CVA.01 would have been completed with a Type 965 AKE-2 which would have been replaced by a Type 1022 at some point.
• The Escort Cruiser, Invincible and CVA.01 all had the then-current equivalent to NTDS (CDS, ADA or ADAWS Mk whatever).
• The Escort Cruiser, Invincible and CVA.01 all had extensive flagship facilities together with the necessary command, control & communications equipment.

By the same token a CVA.01 type Strike Carrier built instead of Invincible would have had Sea Dart, a Type 2016 sonar, a Type 1022 radar and ADAWS Mk 6 which was exactly the same as Invincible along with exactly the same flagship facilities and C3 equipment as Invincible - therefore exactly the same cost.

I deliberately wrote CVA.01 type Strike Carrier rather than CVA.01 class Strike Carrier because I think it would not be the CVA.01 design as we know it. This is because I think that if a trio of Strike Carriers in the same displacement bracket as the Real-CVA.01 was built instead of the Invincible class they would have 6 Olympus Gas Turbines in the COGAG arrangement driving three shafts instead of the Real-CVA.01s steam turbines driving three shafts. If they were rated at the same shaft horsepower as the Olympus engines in the Invincible class they'd cost 50% more. Except that as 9 sets of machinery need to be built instead of 6 economies of scale may come into play so they'd cost less than 50% more.

I think the CVA.01 type Strike Carrier built instead of the Real-Invincible would have been about twice as expensive as that ship.

As written before it's not the CVA.01 class as we know it because instead of the steam turbines driving 3 shafts that the Real-CVA.01 class had this ALT-CVA.01 type would have had 6 Olympus gas turbines in the COGAG arrangement driving 3 shafts. I think the notable external difference between the Real-CVA.01 and this ALT-CVA.01 is that the former had 2 macks and the latter would have had separate masts and funnels (in common with Invincible) because the hot exhaust from the gas turbines would have made combined masts & stacks (macks) with radars at the top impractical.

• As already written ALT-CVA.01 would have had the same fixed armament, radars, sonar, ADAWS, command, control & communications equipment and flagship facilities as Invincible. So no increase in cost there.
• I'd forgotten about other electronic items like the ECM and ESM equipment. They'd be the same too and therefore no increase in their cost.
• Both ships had two lifts, but CVA.01s lifts would have to be larger and be able to lift heavier loads. So they'd be more expensive.
• Invincible didn't have 2 steam catapults or arrester gear and ALT-CVA.01 had both so they are additional costs.
• Last, but not least, is the much larger hull. Invincible had an official standard displacement of 16,000 tons but unofficially displaced 19,500 tons (according to Conway's 1947-95) and the Real-CVA.01 was to have displaced 53,000 tons. That's about 2.7 times more.

The extra costs are the 50% more powerful machinery, larger & heavier capacity lifts, steam catapults, arrester gear and the 2.7 times larger hull.

I also think that an ALT-CVA.01 ordered & laid down at the same time as Invincible (14.04.73 & 20.07.73) would take no longer to complete so it would be launched on 03.05.77, completed on 19.03.80 and commissioned on 11.07.80.

According to "Modern Combat Ships: 2 'Invincible' class" by Paul Beaver, Invincible had a complement (ship's company) of 1,000 men (131 officers & 869 ratings) and my guess is that the compliment of an ALT-CVA.01 would have been similar. Most of the increase would be on account of Real-Invincible having 4 Olympus gas turbines driving 3 shafts and ALT-CVA.01 having 6 Olympus gas turbines driving 3 shafts.

The biggest increase would be the complement (air group). Beaver was writing in 1984 when Invincible had a complement (air group) of 200 men (65 officers & 135 ratings). At that time Invincible was normally operating 20 aircraft (8 Sea Harriers, 9 Sea King ASW & 3 Sea King AEW) or 10 men per aircraft. The normal air group of the Real-CVA.01 was projected to be 48 aircraft (18 Phantoms, 18 Buccaneers, 4 AEW, 6 Sea King & 2 SAR helicopters) which would require a complement (air group) of 480 at 10 men per aircraft.

That seems low as the total complement would be about 1,500 men and in the 1970s Ark Royal had a compliment of 2,640 when operating as a flagship and had a smaller air group of about 36 aircraft. But Ark Royal also had bigger and more powerful engines producing 152,000shp and driving 4 shafts. Plus they were steam turbines which needed more men to operate than gas turbines.

Clemenceau & Foch had a total compliment of 1,338 aircraft in the 1980s and they were operating 44 aircraft (10 Crusaders, 20 Etendards & Super Etendards, 10 Alizes and 4 helicopters) so my estimate may not be that inaccurate after all.

 

[zen]

It is tempting to wonder what would have happened if the 1962 Escort Cruiser (of which no illustration or drawing has survived) had been ordered.
We have to remove Polaris and CVA01 to free up the budget but that is the easy part
The good/bad news is that the three Tiger class do not get converted. But they still stay in service into the 70s.
CF299 Seadart and Ikara are not ready for service after trials until then.
But at least the first of class can conduct the trials instead of Bristol. And the new Seakings have a home.
They would have been the RN's first all gas turbine ships unless the Type 21 frigates had beaten them into service.

The Escort Cruiser, would free the demands off of the Frigate and Destroyer mix.
In essence the CG provides a more efficient provision of AAW and ASW defence of major assets (Carriers Assault ships etc...)
If anything more affordable (snd more crew-able) than the abortive Type 82 Bristol Class Destroyer.

Even analysis at the time concluded in favour of the Cruiser, but the 'GP Frigate' that ballooned into a large Destroyer project was so far down the road and it's 'apparent' cost-per-unit less, that ministers favoured continuation.

This would free personnel and resources to ease pressures in the frigate fleet.

 

[uk 75]

I agree that ordering three Escort Cruisers in 1962 would have been better than building the last two Countys and the Type 82.
It is such a shame that we know so little about the ship.
Assuming the same timescale for developing RN Ikara and CF299 Seadart the first ship would not have been in service until the early 70s. But it would have been much more useful than Blake and Tiger or Norfolk, Antrim and Bristol.

 

[zen]

It's more plausible for continuation of funding Type 988 Broomstick 3D radar had they opted for the CGH in '62.
Ironically, it's also a better continuation of the NIGS effort.
Built to Cruiser standards, they would be tougher and impose less demands on replenishment.

 

[Hood]

Some notes on RN helicopters.

The plan for the ASW helicopter fleet in the Escort Cruiser era was a total of 114 NASR.358 helicopters (big tandems):
5 per carrier
5 per escort cruiser (downgraded to 4x Wessex for the Tiger conversions)
6-8 aboard a Helicopter Garage Ship - a tender concept which ultimately emerged as RFA Engadine
4 (+4 heavy lift versions) per Commando Carrier (+14 Wessex HU.5 each)

When NASR.358 was cancelled in favour of Sea King the force was slightly altered.
Eagle and Ark Royal had 8 Wessex that could fit in hangar spaces unused by the Bucc & Vixen but the Sea King could not fit the same spaces so Sea Kings meant losing some fixed wing.
The Tiger conversions needed some redesign to fit the larger Sea King.
The Escort Cruiser would still only carry 5 Sea Kings.

Maintaining two ASW helicopters on task required 5/6 Sea Kings or 8 Wessex. Over 24 hours that required 16 Sea King sorties and 7 flight crews compared to 48 Wessex sorties and 12 crews. So Sea King saved 40 peacetime personnel (72 in wartime) which eased accommodation needs aboard the ships.

5 Sea Kings was considered the minimum for the Command Cruiser, 6 being desirable to allow their use in surface strike. Another 3 would be embarked for AEW. 2 landing spots were desired.
The draft requirement (1968) for the CCH outlined:
6x SH-3D helicopters. All in hangar, preferably 3 abreast. 17ft 6in clear height overall, 19ft to hook any lifting appliance to remove rotor head and gearbox.
Flight deck 180ft long with two operating spots, width 70ft at hangar doors. Sufficient strength to carry a Chinook (30,000lb) for transit ferry purposes.

It's more plausible for continuation of funding Type 988 Broomstick 3D radar had they opted for the CGH in '62.

Funnily enough a memo in 1967/68 (it is undated) stated that if money was to be saved from the CCH programme, it was recommended to replace Type 988 with Types 965 and 992Q to save £1.5M for the least operational penalty. It was pointed out that that would eliminate the case for continuing with Type 988 and weaken case for Type 82. So the CCH requirements kept the Type 988 originally until the radar was indeed killed off.

 

[zen]

1962 is not 1968, much had moved on by then.

 

[Archibald]

1962 is not 1968, much had moved on by then.

By UK aerospace history of carnage and destruction, that's an understatement...

 

[Hood]

True but it shows that fitting CCH with 988 was probably the last chance to make it economical to fit Bristol with it by giving at least three ships (a fleet of CVA-01, Escort Cruisers and Type 42 all with Broomsticks raises a tasty scenario of long-range radar cover, chuck in the new AEW aircraft and not much is going to sneak up on the RN).

 

[zen]

True but it shows that fitting CCH with 988 was probably the last chance to make it economical to fit Bristol with it by giving at least three ships (a fleet of CVA-01, Escort Cruisers and Type 42 all with Broomsticks raises a tasty scenario of long-range radar cover, chuck in the new AEW aircraft and not much is going to sneak up on the RN).

Well not to hijack the thread but had Type 988 been ASWRE C-band 3D radar instead I suspect things would have been easier all round.

 

[Pioneer]

I still suspect that the Invincibles became so big because the RN were desperate to get the Harrier.

Not really, the 1960s Escort Cruiser was more or less settled as a through-deck type before it was axed in favour of cheaper Tiger conversions. The Command Cruiser that became Invincible took off from there. Around 1970 there were thoughts RAF GR.1s might use it occasionally but the Sea Harrier wasn't really a concept at that time, in fact something better than Harrier was wanted for the 1970s but they had to make do with a warmed up Harrier.

I agree with Nomisyrruc, the end result would not have been much different - apart from the fact had they been built sooner they might have missed the crippling inflation costs of the 1970s so would have appeared cheaper.

There is no alternative to the carrier deck if you are seriously contemplating operating helicopters at tempo without constraints. The few DDHs built were impressive to look at but were relatively constrained when operating larger helicopters like Sea Kings (Vittorio I think mainly operated AB.212s so not quite so congested). Even the Soviets didn't repeat the mistake with the Moskvas and went for the Kievs - now that is a cruiser!

Hobbs may have been right about the cost but I think he rather missed the point - an ASW helicopter is a weapons system, often reliant on its parent ship for cues to the target and control. Would he think it "expensive" to provide a carrier with radars and command links to the plotting room for its fighters? Probably not.

Excuse my ignorance, but is there any drawings of this "1960s Escort Cruiser"?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Hood]

Yes - there are quite a few topics on it in the Naval section and in the AH threads - it's as popular a topic as CVA-01.

 

[uk 75]

Yes - there are quite a few topics on it in the Naval section and in the AH threads - it's as popular a topic as CVA-01.

But no drawings or illustrations have survived of the final design cancelled in 1962 which had both CF299 (Seadart) and Ikara. This is a gap even Friedman has not filled nor any of the excellent researchers here. Lots of material was just thrown away in those days so we may never see them.

 

[starviking]

Some notes on RN helicopters.

The plan for the ASW helicopter fleet in the Escort Cruiser era was a total of 114 NASR.358 helicopters (big tandems):

Was the Chinook considered under NASR.358?

I ask because Friedman’s British Destroyers and Frigates book mentions a Bristol-derived ship carrying 4 ASW Chinooks.

 

[starviking]

Yes - there are quite a few topics on it in the Naval section and in the AH threads - it's as popular a topic as CVA-01.

But no drawings or illustrations have survived of the final design cancelled in 1962 which had both CF299 (Seadart) and Ikara. This is a gap even Friedman has not filled nor any of the excellent researchers here. Lots of material was just thrown away in those days so we may never see them.

I’d guess it might be possible to interpolate between the last Sea Slug Escort Cruisers, Sea Dart usage on CVA-01, and the later pre-Invincible studies, to get an educated guess as to what SOME of the Sea Dart Escort Cruisers would have looked like.

I wonder if any Shipbucket maestros have attempted this?

 

[Hood]

Was the Chinook considered under NASR.358?

I ask because Friedman’s British Destroyers and Frigates book mentions a Bristol-derived ship carrying 4 ASW Chinooks.

Yes the Chinook was the favoured choice for NASR.358 before the RN pulled out in favour of the smaller NASR.365 which was also abandoned for building Sea Kings instead (for which Westland already had a production licence).