Late 1960's USN Fletcher-class 'Harrier Carrier' concept

[Pioneer]

Here's a really interesting account I found on Project Terminated, by Ronnie Serrano:

'... a couple drawings were done by Pierre Mion for the U.S Navy in the late-1960s which shows using converted Fletcher-class destroyers into makeshift "Harrier Carriers". The plan at the time is to convert the older Fletchers into small carriers to house at the time proposed AV-8A Harriers for use in roles such as convoy protection, anti-shipping/submarine, fleet protection, and amphibious assault roles. The modified Fletchers would carry 1-2 AV-8A Harriers in which they can be rearmed and refuel at any point in time. Also, the Harrier Carriers still had fighting capability with them retaining some of their armament such as their MK-30 127mm cannons. However, while the concept had potential in which the proposal could be done with little problem, the U.S Navy had little interest in the concept and it was later abandoned.'

Does anyone else have anything on these 'Fletcher-class Harrier Carrier' concepts?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pirate Pete]

Have to say, I don’t give much chance for the forward flight-deck version lasting particularly well in an Atlantic (orPacific) storm!
think the second illustration could be construed as being a bit ‘generous’ with the amount of space available for more than one aircraft.

 

[Dilandu]

Could be interesting export proposal for third world navies...

 

[Archibald]

"Micro carrier" would be an appropriate name !

 

[archipeppe]

Could be interesting export proposal for third world navies...

With only one little issue: since Harrier is out of production and the F-35B is out of many third world countries money pockets, there's no cheap VTOL airctaft to put on its deck.

 

[Tzoli]

Could be interesting export proposal for third world navies...

With only one little issue: since Harrier is out of production and the F-35B is out of many third world countries money pockets, there's no cheap VTOL airctaft to put on its deck.

In the late 1960's? Even by late 1970's early 1980's when the Fletchers really at their end life this is not a bad idea, even limited off shore air striking capability or anti Pirate duty.
Imagine some Arabian Sheiks buying these together with Harriers and now imagine those pesky Somali Pirates got greeted with a Harrier or two!

 

[riggerrob]

Have to say, I don’t give much chance for the forward flight-deck version lasting particularly well in an Atlantic (orPacific) storm!
think the second illustration could be construed as being a bit ‘generous’ with the amount of space available for more than one aircraft.

Agreed!
I can remember many days onboard HMCS Athabaskan and HMCS Iroquois they piped "forward decks out of bounds" - because of large waves washing the decks - but somehow we launched Sea Kings from the aft flight deck a few of those days.
They'd pipe "Flying stations. No smoking aft of frame 44."

 

[JohnR]

What a waste of a potentially still useful warship, at best helicopter facility could be fitted. Trials and experience a proven that the most appropriate platform for a Harrier was a 'through deck'. I'm reminded of the appalling stupid Skyhook, concept, how much would the fitting of the handling equipment cost, and would that be better spent in hull structure. I was always taken by the Vosper Mini Harrier Carrrier.

 

[Dilandu]

In the late 1960's? Even by late 1970's early 1980's when the Fletchers really at their end life this is not a bad idea, even limited off shore air striking capability or anti Pirate duty.
Imagine some Arabian Sheiks buying these together with Harriers and now imagine those pesky Somali Pirates got greeted with a Harrier or two!

Quite a lot of other nations might be interested in such proposal, too. Especially considering that rather significant number of "Fletcher" were sold to different navies, and so many nations have experience to operate them.

 

[Tzoli]

What is more interesting is that the flight deck is actually the hanger itself as well! The sides would open up providing even more surface area and the roof was rolled up (Probably some lightweight material of fabric and aluminium?) . Check the rollers at furthest parts of the flight decks.

 

[Dilandu]

With only one little issue: since Harrier is out of production and the F-35B is out of many third world countries money pockets, there's no cheap VTOL airctaft to put on its deck.

Er... this is late 60s project, when F-35 did not exist even in theoretical research...

 

[Dilandu]

What is more interesting is that the flight deck is actually the hanger itself as well! The sidis would open up providing even more surface area and the roof was rolled up (Probably some lightweight material of fabric and aluminium?) . Check the rollers at furthest parts of the flight decks.

Yep, quite unotrodox design. Albeit if I recall correctly, the similar solution was used by French on T-53 class La Galissonnière destroyer:

 

[archipeppe]

With only one little issue: since Harrier is out of production and the F-35B is out of many third world countries money pockets, there's no cheap VTOL airctaft to put on its deck.

Er... this is late 60s project, when F-35 did not exist even in theoretical research...

Sorry I think you was referring today....

 

[Archibald]

Reminds me of "Hunt for red october" when they use a two seat Harrier to transfer Jack Ryan from Kennedy to Invincible...

Starting from the old and diminutive Fletchers, imagine the number of ships that could become "Harrier carriers"... (shall we call them CHARRIERS ? non mais faut pas charrier non plus !)

Category:World War II naval ships of the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Hood]

It would be tricky to land a Harrier on a pitching destroyer deck in heavy seas, especially for a bow-located deck.
The wire arrester gear is a novel concept though, not sure where that comes from or whether it was the Mion's own idea. That could be potenially highly hazardous if you picked up that wire too fast as you come in to hover.

 

[Sherman Tank]

What a hopelessly... well let's say optimistic design. Bearing in mind what D.K. Brown wrote about how operating one or two Harriers turned out to be almost as expensive as operating a dozen or so, there's absolutely no way a Fletcher could've successfully been used in this way even if you could safely land a V/STOL on that tiny deck.

 

[Tzoli]

You guys think this design would be an all weather attack conversion proposal. Indeed small flight deck on a WW2 destroyer hull isn't the best option but very economical, and most likely be used in clear or light weather and not in every Sea State!
I seriously doubt that operating 1-2 Harriers are as costly as operating an entire wing!

 

[JohnR]

IMHO this conversion would have amounted to little more than a 1960's equivalent to a WWII CAM Hurricarrier.

 

[Fluff]

Really of all the things to use a WW2 Fletcher? There were already plenty of heli equipped ships in use, not to mention lots of old aircraft carriers, remodeled as Commando/anti-sub, and whatever. Better to develop a RATO assist VTOL to get a harrier up with a full fuel load and missiles.

And if you really need another ship then surely Atlantic conveyor types would be more use. Or assuming you are trying to escort a convoy, just put a harrier on the large fuel/grain ship.

 

[Pioneer]

IMHO this conversion would have amounted to little more than a 1960's equivalent to a WWII CAM Hurricarrier.

What you suggest about 'a post-WWII CAM arrangement is probably true, but it would only take one Harrier to shoot down a marauding Bear or Badger just the same....


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Archibald]

I'm quietly keeping a list of all the *alternate carriers concepts* the USN studied at some point or another... CVV, VSS, SCS, strike cruiser, and this one...

It is no surprise the advent of the Harrier stimulated the imagination of many. Now was a combat aircraft able to hover like an helicopter... similar "frenzy" happened with other varied VSTOL concepts - V-22, CL-84, Convair 200, Lockheed Cheyenne, Rockwell XFV-12...

 

[Yellow Palace]

I seriously doubt that operating 1-2 Harriers are as costly as operating an entire wing!

In ship design terms, it is. You need the same deck run to take off, you need the same maintenance shops, and so forth. Once you've provided those facilities, the additional cost to enlarge them for the rest of the squadron is pretty marginal.

Something like a converted WW2 destroyer would only be able to support VTOL operations with limited maintenance. The CAM role is about all it would be fit for, with the key difference of being able to use the fighter again.

 

[Hood]

The D. K. Brown statement was in relation to studies made with the Type 43 DDG with two Harriers with a weird short deck overhanging the portside.
Brown states that during these studies it was found to be uneconomic to operate less than six Harriers from one ship. The maintenance spaces and ground crew for one Harrier were almost as large as those for six Harriers.
It seems as though some of the frigate studies Brown mentions were largely a critique of the commercial shipyards that were offering single-Harrier frigate concepts during the early 1980s.

 

[Sherman Tank]

The D. K. Brown statement was in relation to studies made with the Type 43 DDG with two Harriers with a weird short deck overhanging the portside.
Brown states that during these studies it was found to be uneconomic to operate less than six Harriers from one ship. The maintenance spaces and ground crew for one Harrier were almost as large as those for six Harriers.
It seems as though some of the frigate studies Brown mentions were largely a critique of the commercial shipyards that were offering single-Harrier frigate concepts during the early 1980s.

Yes, you're right about this.

My point in bringing this up was that if you can't economically operate two Harriers on a clean sheet design like the Type 43 you sure as hell can't do it with a conversion of a much smaller Fletcher.

 

[archipeppe]

Anyway we must not forget that Italian Navy for the first one to operate Harrier from a cruiser's deck, specifically it happened on 24 October 1967 when a RAF Hawker Siddeley P-1127 executed several take-offs and landings from the rear deck of Andrea Doria Crusier (D-553), moored in La Spezia harbour, validating the concept.

 

[riggerrob]

It would be tricky to land a Harrier on a pitching destroyer deck in heavy seas, especially for a bow-located deck.
The wire arrester gear is a novel concept though, not sure where that comes from or whether it was the Mion's own idea. That could be potenially highly hazardous if you picked up that wire too fast as you come in to hover.

Yes,
Landing is only half the hassle. The first time they landed a helicopter on a USN ship, it almost slipped over the side!
Immediately securing the airplane to the deck is difficult with all that hot exhaust.
The third challenge is towing the airplane into the hangar before it slides overboard.

I still prefer the British "Skyhook" concept from the 1980s. Mounting it amidships would minimize pitch and yaw, but the crane would still have to work hard to match the ship's roll to the almost stationary hovering Harrier. Semi-automatic re-fuelling extends the Harriers' combat-radius well beyond the destroyer screen.
e would still need to work hard to match the ship's role to the Harrier in a stationary hover. The "Skyhook" concept included a fuel hose through the "hook". They also sketched a cradle full of bombs and external fuel tanks for semi-automatic re-loads..

 

[Yellow Palace]

Mounting it amidships would minimize pitch and yaw, but the crane would still have to work hard to match the ship's roll to the almost stationary hovering Harrier.

Therein lies the problem with Skyhook. It didn't work, at least not with the technology of the time. The crane couldn't be made to work hard enough, fast enough, to cancel out the motion of the ship.

It could probably be done today. Some offshore vessels have cranes with active heave compensation, which does essentially the same job. But they are huge compared to regular cranes of the same capacity.

By the time you'd built a small Harrier carrier with one (or two), added the maintenance facilities needed to make the Harriers useful, and then added enough aircraft to justify the cost, it would be big enough that you wouldn't need Skyhook any more.

 

[Archibald]

With goddam algorithms, nowadays it would be possible to make pigs, iron or washing machines fly... quadcopters, cough, SpaceX water towers, cough...

 

[Yellow Palace]

With goddam algorithms, nowadays it would be possible to make pigs, iron or washing machines fly... quadcopters, cough, SpaceX water towers, cough...

Not just algorithms, but also the mechanical and electrical engineering needed to make a crane with respond quickly enough. The equipment is big because it needs powerful motors, powerful cooling systems, and to be beefy enough to handle all of the above.

On top of all that, anything that lifts people or explosives has higher safety factors applied. Humans require 100%, I can't remember what it is for explosives. Combining both would probably be even more demanding.

 

[Fluff]

And if you then mapped the effect your trying to achieve, it could probably be done today by a drone, or a missile....

 

[Pioneer]

What is more interesting is that the flight deck is actually the hanger itself as well! The sidis would open up providing even more surface area and the roof was rolled up (Probably some lightweight material of fabric and aluminium?) . Check the rollers at furthest parts of the flight decks.

Yep, quite unotrodox design. Albeit if I recall correctly, the similar solution was used by French on T-53 class La Galissonnière destroyer:

View attachment 646886
View attachment 646887
View attachment 646888

Also found this pic, emphasising Alouette III onboard:

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Foo Fighter]

I must admit the software (Crane) glitch that throws your Harrier into the water could be a comic moment for some but the pilot, might have a slightly different view. Something like the small carrier conversions the IJN are acquiring would for me, be a better blend of cost and ability. Could just be me.

 

[TomS]

I must admit the software (Crane) glitch that throws your Harrier into the water could be a comic moment for some but the pilot, might have a slightly different view. Something like the small carrier conversions the IJN are acquiring would for me, be a better blend of cost and ability. Could just be me.

JMSDF, not IJN. That's a really important distinction, neh? Especially for the neighbors.

And those DDHs are essentially the same full load displacement of an Invincible CVL (the Izumos are larger!) So not exactly "small" ships.

 

[EwenS]

What is more interesting is that the flight deck is actually the hanger itself as well! The sidis would open up providing even more surface area and the roof was rolled up (Probably some lightweight material of fabric and aluminium?) . Check the rollers at furthest parts of the flight decks.

Yep, quite unotrodox design. Albeit if I recall correctly, the similar solution was used by French on T-53 class La Galissonnière destroyer:

View attachment 646886
View attachment 646887
View attachment 646888

Also found this pic, emphasising Alouette III onboard:

Regards
Pioneer

Or the Wasp on the Type 81 Tribal frigate.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I must admit the software (Crane) glitch that throws your Harrier into the water could be a comic moment for some but the pilot, might have a slightly different view. Something like the small carrier conversions the IJN are acquiring would for me, be a better blend of cost and ability. Could just be me.

JMSDF, not IJN. That's a really important distinction, neh? Especially for the neighbors.

And those DDHs are essentially the same full load displacement of an Invincible CVL (the Izumos are larger!) So not exactly "small" ships.

Brains AWOL again. Thinking of the Fuso earlier. Sorry folks.

 

[PMN1]

How about this for foldaway......

 

[TomS]

How about this for foldaway......

View attachment 677675

You're late, April Fools was last month!

 

[Julio Garay Terrazas]

How about this for foldaway......

View attachment 677675

I see a typical 60s fantasy.

 

[Graham1973]

How about this for foldaway......

Which issue of 'Popular Mechanics' did you find that one in?

 

[David Chessum]

With goddam algorithms, nowadays it would be possible to make pigs, iron or washing machines fly... quadcopters, cough, SpaceX water towers, cough...

Not just algorithms, but also the mechanical and electrical engineering needed to make a crane with respond quickly enough. The equipment is big because it needs powerful motors, powerful cooling systems, and to be beefy enough to handle all of the above.

On top of all that, anything that lifts people or explosives has higher safety factors applied. Humans require 100%, I can't remember what it is for explosives. Combining both would probably be even more demanding.

It can be done.

A few years back a company built a device that they mounted on an oil rig support ship - it basically extended a long gangway, the end of which was completely stabilised in 3 dimensions while the ship bounced around underneath it. The idea was that they would put the end of the gangway onto the oil rig, and personnel could simply walk between the ship and the oil rig - it was much quicker, cheaper and safer than transferring them by helicopter, and could be done in much rougher seas.

Regards

David