Tiger class cruisers opinions

[Dilandu]

Not really sure Tiger was "good value for money".

True, but it wasn't exactly the project fault that Britain both have little money & government(s) were unable to efficiently utilize whatever money they have.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

So . . . Blake 4 years conversion for 10 years service.

Tiger 4 years conversion for 5 years service.

Not really sure Tiger was "good value for money".

Yes and no. Although the conversions took longer & cost more than estimated, said conversions were still relatively cheap and the ships filled a gap. Plus when the decision to convert them was made the plan was that they'd be in service for longer, but as often happened to HM Forces the plan was overtaken by "Events, my dear boy, events".

That being written recommissioning Centaur as an ASW helicopter carrier instead of converting Blake and keeping Albion in service (as an ASW helicopter carrier) instead of converting Tiger would have put more helicopters to sea albeit at the cost of larger crews (885 v 980 to 1,037).

For what it's worth . . . If the conversions had been completed on time and at cost then:

• 1965-67 (instead of 1965-69) Blake, which if she was still paid off in 1979 would have been 12 years service for 2 years conversion.
• 1968-70 (instead of 1968-72) Tiger, which if she was still paid off in 1978 would have been 10 years service for 2 years conversion.
• 1967-69 (instead of never) Lion, which if she was paid off in 1978-79 like her sisters would have been 9 or 10 years service for 2 years conversion.
  • Blake was converted at Portsmouth.
  • Tiger was converted at Devonport.
  • ITTL Lion was converted at Portsmouth after Blake.
• The estimated cost was £2 million per ship.
• The actual costs were £5.5 million for Blake and £13.25 million for Tiger, but the latter included the cost of her helicopters.
• The actual cost of Blake's conversion would have nearly paid for the 3 conversions that were planned at their estimated cost.

Something that struck me when I was writing this is that Tiger's helicopter cruiser refit at Devonport began roughly when Ark Royal's "Phantomisation" refit at Devonport ended. [Edit: No it didn't. Ark Royal's was about one year into it's 3-year refit when Tiger's the refit began.]

Of course if Tiger had been kept in service to the 10-year-mark then she would have been available for Falklands.

If I remember correctly (1) Tiger and Blake were paid off to provide the crews of Bulwark and Invincible. So all other things being equal one would have been paid off in 1981 instead of Bulwark and the other would have been in service instead of Invincible. And after all the Invincible class was built to replace the Tiger class which in part was why they were called Through Deck Cruisers.

If I remember correctly (2) from another thread here or on Alternatehistory.com Tiger hadn't gone to the breakers when Argentina invaded the Falklands and a feasibility study revealed that she (and Blake) could have been brought back into service. I think the reasons why they weren't were time and/or a lack or personnel.

If I remember correctly (3) from another thread here or on Alternatehistory.com they wanted to retrieve Triumph from the breakers yard but her scrapping had gone too far.

I have remembered correctly that the reactivation of Kent and modifying her to fire Seaslug Mk 2 missiles was seriously considered. https://www.littlewars.org.uk/Seaslug/kent.html

 

[Archibald]

If I remember correctly (2) from another thread here or on Alternatehistory.com Tiger hadn't gone to the breakers when Argentina invaded the Falklands and a feasibility study revealed that she (and Blake) could have been brought back into service. I think the reasons why they weren't were time and/or a lack or personnel.

Yep, Wikipedia mentions that factoid. As for HMS Triumph, would have been funny to see a Colossus / Majestic in the Falklands - wait, Veinticinco de Mayo is already there.

 

[Pirate Pete]

From Page 64 of my copy of "The Postwar Naval Revolution" by Norman Friedman.

View attachment 747198

I can't get into the Naval Weapons website.
Does anyone have the weights for the twin 3in Mk 6 mounting?​

Britain 3"/70 (7.62 cm) Mark 6 - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

Also, screen grabs from the relevant page…

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Yep, Wikipedia mentions that factoid.

According to: https://www.navalanalyses.com/2016/08/warships-of-past-tiger-class-cruisers.html

Just a few days after the Falklands War started in 1982, both Blake and Tiger were rapidly surveyed to determine their condition for reactivation. The survey determined both ships to be in very good condition and were put into dry-dock (Blake at Chatham, and Tiger at Portsmouth) and round-the-clock work reactivation work immediately begun. By mid-May it was determined that the ships would not be completed in time to take part in the war and the work was stopped. Finally, the HMS Blake sold for scrap few months later in August of 1982 and HMS Tiger four years later.

It also says . . .

The original plan retained the full three twin 3 inch mounts however, during the conversion of Blake the plan was changed to allow the cruisers to operate, four (4) of the more capable Westland Sea King carriers, although only three (3) Sea Kings could actually, ever be accommodated and serviced in the longer hangar which extended further into the main structure of the ship, and greater cost and forcing the replacement of the side 3-inch gun mounts (which fire arcs were now too restricted) with much less effective Seacat GWS22.

However . . .

The Invisibles light aircraft carriers that followed later were direct descendants of the escort cruiser with an emphasis on command and control, their original heavy air defence armament and with the air wing consisting of ASW helicopters and Sea Harriers instead of guns.

Not being able to spell Invincible makes me wonder whether other things in the article are wrong.

As for HMS Triumph, would have been funny to see a Colossus / Majestic in the Falklands - wait, Veinticinco de Mayo is already there.

Instead the MoD "stufted" the civilian oil rig support ships MV Stena Seaspread and MV Stena Inspector. Stena Seaspread was returned to her owners in 1983. Stena Inspector was purchased in 1983, renamed Diligence and served with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary from 1984 to 2016.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

For what it's worth Grove is where I remember reading it and (this may be a false memory but) Grove also wrote that a Statement on the Navy Estimates or a Statement on the Defence Estimates from circa 1963-64 said that the Tiger class were to be converted to commando helicopter carriers.

From Pages 251 & 252 of the copy of "From Vanguard to Trident" on Internet Archive.

It will be noted from the above that the active cruiser force was now down almost to the level envisaged in the 1957 White Paper. All three of the Tiger-class ships were now in service, their belated completion (eighteen to nineteen years between laying down and commissioning having become an item of some public and parliamentary concern.14 The fourth cruiser was a World War II "Colony" class vessel, HMS Bermuda, a ship that had received some modifications for peacetime duties but not a complete modernisation. Of the remaining cruisers Belfast, Sheffield, Gambia, and Mauritius were in reserve or under refit. The Swiftsure was in the middle of her large repair, when the decision was med to recommission instead a second commando carrier, HMS Albion; the choice of which ship had the higher priority for scarce resources was a clear one. In 1958 Mountbatten had been replaced by Admiral Sir Chalres Lambe, a very pro-aviation officer. His Naval Staff would see the Albion as a much more flexible instrument than a rather obsolete cruiser, even for flag-showing duties. Moreover, a "large repair" cruiser was almost useless for hot war functions; a commando carrier was at least useful for ASW. The repair was duly abandoned in 1960, and the Swiftsure was towed away from Chatham Dockyard for scrap amid rumors of structural problems. As the "Counties" came into service, the need for conventional cruisers diminished away, but the Tigers could not just be thrown away. This would not only have been politically inexpedient, but they did have some use as commando ships and troop transports, a traditional Cold War cruiser role that he Admiralty had made much of in the days before the commando carriers. A cruiser's guns meant that useful support could be given if required, and to combine this with the capability to transport and land about 450 troops in a more modern manner, it was suggested that some ships―the three Tigers at least―might be rebuilt with a new after section consisting of a helicopter hangar and flight deck.15

And on Page 278 . . .

The Tiger-class cruiser conversions were still to take place, now as an ASW rather than amphibious helicopter role.

That was part of the section on the 1966 Defence Review that started on Page 277 and ended on Page 279.

 

[Scott Kenny]

If we're specifically looking at the Falklands, then we had HMS Glamorgan (County Class) hit by land-launched Exocet while carrying out Naval Gunfire Support in direct support of the Marines during the Battle of Two Sisters (and also firing Sea Slug in land attack mode at Stanley Airport).

In a Third World War scenario that kind of gunfire support might well have seen the whole UK/NL Amphibious Group involved. And potentially a USMC MEB or MEF as well. (Which of course brings in the example of the Iowas).

The risks that have to be considered in NGS don't include simply those to the ship and her crew, but also those to the troops in direct contact, and all those still afloat, whether Navy or land forces.

Didn't Tiger etc at least have some armor? I know, 8000 tons doesn't leave much room for armor, not compared to the US cruisers that were twice the displacement.

If I remember correctly (2) from another thread here or on Alternatehistory.com Tiger hadn't gone to the breakers when Argentina invaded the Falklands and a feasibility study revealed that she (and Blake) could have been brought back into service. I think the reasons why they weren't were time and/or a lack or personnel.

Probably just time, though I'm sure lack of personnel didn't help. Falklands War needed to happen pretty quickly, before the Southern Winter sets in and the seas go from "rough" to "Dive, make your depth 600 feet."

 

[Rule of cool]

Were any RN ships hit by fire from land based guns in the Falklands? IIUC there were 32 x 105mm guns and 4 x 155mm guns as well as a bunch of AA guns of 20-35mm.

The 155mm guns were flown in after the RN arrived and started NGS missions. The Exocet wasn't even started until after the belgrano was sunk and the navy returned to port, and was flown out to Stanley in the last week of the war.

 

[Dilandu]

Didn't Tiger etc at least have some armor? I know, 8000 tons doesn't leave much room for armor, not compared to the US cruisers that were twice the displacement.

Well, the value of armor in 1980s was extremely dubious. It wasn't of much use against shaped charges - and quite a lot of Cold War era anti-ship missiles (including almost all Soviet) have a combined shaped charge/HE warhead. So armor would not protect ship's vitals. On the other hand, armor helped to limit damage from the blast wave and fragments.

 

[Rule of cool]

Ships are armoured against their equals, so the Tigers could keep out 6" shells at reasonable bettle ranges. In the Falklands that means it can deal with the 105mm and 155mm artillery, aircraft guns and rockets, but not aircraft bombs or Exocet.

 

[uk 75]

As with so much British equipment the Tiger conversions were a case of reaching for what was available.
Designing a purpose built helicopter carrier/escort cruiser and brlnging it into service only became possible when these resources were no longer needed for CVA01 and the R class Polaris subs were well under way.
The three newish Tiger class cruisers appeared to offer a cheap and easy way of getting both ASW helicopters and a Task Group command ship to sea quickly.
As so often for the RN shipyards and the MOD did not get the result they wanted.
Blake did get into service before a purpose built ship but Tiger went badly wrong and ended up as "Liger" because of using Lion to finish her.
The three Invincibles ended up taking as long as fixed wing carriers to order, build and deliver. But Britain in those years was summed up by the word "grotty", a state we seem to have returned to sixty years later.

 

[uk 75]

Had the Thatcher Government followed the Callaghan government's 1977 precedent and sent SSNs south sooner the whole sorry saga could have been avoided.
Furthermore the RN were exceeding their authority in telling the PM they could retake the Falklands. Since the 1960s it had been accepted that without fixed wing carrier aviation an opposed amphibious assault could only be carried out with an Allied force (US in NATO).
A braver Defence Secretary than Nott would have reminded Leach of this and saved the lives of UK service personnel. Though had the attempt failed (as was quite likely without Weinberger's help) Thatcher would have joined Eden in the dustbin of history.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Probably just time, though I'm sure lack of personnel didn't help. Falklands War needed to happen pretty quickly, before the Southern Winter sets in and the seas go from "rough" to "Dive, make your depth 600 feet."

Originally in Post 85 of this thread.

According to: https://www.navalanalyses.com/2016/08/warships-of-past-tiger-class-cruisers.html

Just a few days after the Falklands War started in 1982, both Blake and Tiger were rapidly surveyed to determine their condition for reactivation. The survey determined both ships to be in very good condition and were put into dry-dock (Blake at Chatham, and Tiger at Portsmouth) and round-the-clock work reactivation work immediately begun. By mid-May it was determined that the ships would not be completed in time to take part in the war and the work was stopped. Finally, the HMS Blake sold for scrap few months later in August of 1982 and HMS Tiger four years later.

 

[EwenS]

Tiger class armour layout was as follows

Side armour (waterline belt between the 6" turrets, extending up to quarterdeck level abreast machinery spaces - 3.25-3.5"
End armour - 2" to enclose side armour; 1.5" below that.
Horizontal - 2" over area covered by belt
Steering gear - 1.25-1.5" D steel box
6" turrets - 3" front, 2" side 1.5" rear & roof
6" barbettes & ring bulkheads - 1-2"
3" gun bays - 0.5" heat treated high strength steel
Protective plating around part of the bridge, 3" turrets & other control areas etc - 0.375" heat treated high strength steel

 

[Dilandu]

Tiger class armour layout was as follows

Side armour (waterline belt between the 6" turrets, extending up to quarterdeck level abreast machinery spaces - 3.25-3.5"
End armour - 2" to enclose side armour; 1.5" below that.
Horizontal - 2" over area covered by belt
Steering gear - 1.25-1.5" D steel box
6" turrets - 3" front, 2" side 1.5" rear & roof
6" barbettes & ring bulkheads - 1-2"
3" gun bays - 0.5" heat treated high strength steel
Protective plating around part of the bridge, 3" turrets & other control areas etc - 0.375" heat treated high strength steel

I.e. they could stand 6-inch gun hits from circa 12 km, and smaller guns (like 4-5 inch) from more than 10 km.

 

[EwenS]

As with so much British equipment the Tiger conversions were a case of reaching for what was available.
Designing a purpose built helicopter carrier/escort cruiser and brlnging it into service only became possible when these resources were no longer needed for CVA01 and the R class Polaris subs were well under way.
The three newish Tiger class cruisers appeared to offer a cheap and easy way of getting both ASW helicopters and a Task Group command ship to sea quickly.
As so often for the RN shipyards and the MOD did not get the result they wanted.
Blake did get into service before a purpose built ship but Tiger went badly wrong and ended up as "Liger" because of using Lion to finish her.
The three Invincibles ended up taking as long as fixed wing carriers to order, build and deliver. But Britain in those years was summed up by the word "grotty", a state we seem to have returned to sixty years later.

From Water's book again.

Blake's reconstruction time, which started in April 1965, was affected by the slowing of work to an absolute minimum pending the Defence Review and then the following from 1966:-
Being slowed in 1966 due to delays in producing the new plans to accomodate Sea King
Labour shortages
serious fires early in the conversion during July 1966 and then after post refit sea trials in Jan 1969.

During her first deployment in the Far East in 1970 she suffered machinery problems and spent another 28 months in dock having them fixed.



The reasons for the delays to Tiger's rebuild as a helicopter cruiser are given as:-

Feb 1967 planned for 18 months estimated completion July 1969 when Treasury approval granted
July 1967 planned to take 29 months at start of refit accelerated to commence that month, with estimated completion Dec 1969.
July 1968 increased to 44 months with est completion Mar 1971. Reason given as overloaded work programme at Devonport with Ark Royal being the priority and a shortage of ratings to assist the work.
Jun 1970 now 53 months for completion Dec 1971. Reassessment of outstanding work & priority being given to other vessels.
Aug 1970 now 55 months for completion Feb 1972. Impact of additional remediation work following reassessment.
Mar 1971 now 58 months for completion May 1972. Reason was a Nov 1970 reassessment based on improved accomodation and A&As identified.
Feb 1972 now 60 months completion July 1972. Further late 1971 reassessment identified additional work and replacement items following survey.
Tiger & Blake & Sea KIng
As for their ability to carry Sea King, as I noted previously, the hangar as finally built was sized to accomodate 4 Sea Kings. 3 carried abreast lined up fore & aft PLUS a further helicopter at the forward end of the of the hangar carried sideways across the beam of the ship. In addition provision was made to park another across the hangar doors without interfering with a spread Sea King on the single flight deck landing spot. The hangar had a "high hat" area at the port forward end to allow removal of helicopter rotor heads if required. While there were 2 hangar doors, there was NO partition dividing the space inside into two.

Blake took 4 Wessex HAS.3 of 820 to sea in May 1969. The squadron traded these for 4 Sea King HAS.1 in Dec 1972. A detachment of 2 Sea Kings went aboard Blake for a few days in Aug 1973 before the whole squadron embarked in Sept.

826 reduced from 6 to 4 Sea King HAS.1 late 1972 . A detachment of 3 Sea Kings embarked on Tiger for the first time for a few days in Aug 1972, before the whole squadron went aboard in Dec 1972. In 1976 it received 4 HAS.2 and again took these aboard Tiger.

Unusual photo of Blake with all 4 Sea Kings out in the open on the flight deck.

 

[zen]

I didn't realise this has just become another Falklands thread.
Sad really.

 

[Dilandu]

I didn't realise this has just become another Falklands thread.
Sad really.

Well, it's basically inevitable - the decomissioning of the Tiger and Blake happened so close to the start of Falkland War, that the idea of "what if one of them was still in service by 1982?" is the most obvious)

But let's talk about different possibility. How complex and costly may be to refit Tiger-class cruisers for Harrier operations? Their flight decks were big enough, after all.

 

[Archibald]

In November 1973 the two-seat Harrier G-VTOL was landed on the french Jeanne d'Arc helicopter cruiser.

 

[Dilandu]

In November 1973 the two-seat Harrier G-VTOL was landed on the french Jeanne d'Arc helicopter cruiser.

A weird idea; what if Tiger-class cruiser would be refitted with the erectable ski-jump at the rear end of its flight deck? I.e. during landing operation, the ski-jump is lowered down and did not obstruct the approach. And during takeoff, it would be raised using hydraulic pistons.

Yeah, I understood that launching planes backward from the ship stern is not the best idea. But after all, it's Harrier, and it could handle such operation. And it would make possible for Tiger-class ships to launch Harriers with meaningful load.

 

[Archibald]

Check that...

 

[EwenS]

In November 1973 the two-seat Harrier G-VTOL was landed on the french Jeanne d'Arc helicopter cruiser.

On 2 & 3 August 1969 Harrier GR.1 XV742 piloted by HS test pilot Hugh Merewether undertook a series of trials on Blake off the Isle of Wight. These were deemed successful in that they proved the ability of the Harrier to land and take off from the flight deck of Tiger & Blake.

 

[EwenS]

A weird idea; what if Tiger-class cruiser would be refitted with the erectable ski-jump at the rear end of its flight deck? I.e. during landing operation, the ski-jump is lowered down and did not obstruct the approach. And during takeoff, it would be raised using hydraulic pistons.

Yeah, I understood that launching planes backward from the ship stern is not the best idea. But after all, it's Harrier, and it could handle such operation. And it would make possible for Tiger-class ships to launch Harriers with meaningful load.

See the photos above. Insufficient room for a run up to any ski-jump.

 

[uk 75]

One of the gaps in the post 1966 RN "No carriers " fleet was the failure to buy a long range anti ship missile. These were supposed to equip ships, helicopters and SSNs.
Otomat was looked at for this role but (presumably due to cost) Exocet was bought instead. Blake and Tiger were among ships supposed to get Exocet but enough Leanders, T21 and T22 were available.
Otomat was fitted to V. Veneto so would have been available for Blake and Tiger.
Martel was supposed to be the helicopter and SSN launched missile but as discussed in other threads failed to materialise.
A Harrier force (3 to 4 ) equipped with WE177 could have been used from Blake or Tiger to take out a Kiev if things had gone badly for NATO in the N Atlantic.

 

[Dilandu]

See the photos above. Insufficient room for a run up to any ski-jump.

Hm. Purely theoretically - the flight deck of Tiger-class cruiser is about 40 meters. The HMS Invincible initial 6.5-degrees ski-jump was 28 meters long. So it seems that we could squeeze something like that on Tiger's flight deck.

 

[Dilandu]

A Harrier force (3 to 4 ) equipped with WE177 could have been used from Blake or Tiger to take out a Kiev if things had gone badly for NATO in the N Atlantic.

Erm. A Kiev-class carrier was equipped with two M-11 "Storm" medium-range SAM, two M-4 "Osa-M" short-range SAM, two AK-726 dual 76-mm autocannons and four AK-630 batteries (two autocannon turrets in each battery). And Yak-38 could be scrambled also; while planes themselves weren't anything to talk about, their short range AAM's were quite formidable. I kinda doubt that 3-4 Harriers, armed only with freefall nukes, would have any measurable chances to come close enough.

 

[GK Dundas]

Hm. Purely theoretically - the flight deck of Tiger-class cruiser is about 40 meters. The HMS Invincible initial 6.5-degrees ski-jump was 28 meters long. So it seems that we could squeeze something like that on Tiger's flight deck.

Yes , yes you could do that . You could also replace A turret with a trebuchet.
It would make as sense as trying to launch a Sea Harrier from that flight desk.

 

[Archibald]

Yes , yes you could do that . You could also replace A turret with a trebuchet.
It would make as sense as trying to launch a Sea Harrier from that flight desk.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sop3YyStlRU

 

[Dilandu]

It would make as sense as trying to launch a Sea Harrier from that flight desk.

Well, considering that the idea of launching and catching the Harrier from a crane was developed and tested shortly after Falkland War - I'm not sure that my proposal is the most absurd)

 

[GK Dundas]

Well, considering that the idea of launching and catching the Harrier from a crane was developed and tested shortly after Falkland War - I'm not sure that my proposal is the most absurd)

There is that.

 

[EwenS]

Hm. Purely theoretically - the flight deck of Tiger-class cruiser is about 40 meters. The HMS Invincible initial 6.5-degrees ski-jump was 28 meters long. So it seems that we could squeeze something like that on Tiger's flight deck.

But the Harriers / Sea Harriers were beginning their take off runs about 450ft back from the leading edge of the ski-jump to ensure that they had sufficient forward speed to remain airborne (c 90 knots plus benefit of wind over the deck). Without that run up they would simply have dropped into the sea. So vertical take off was the only option for Tiger & Blake.

 

[Dilandu]

But the Harriers / Sea Harriers were beginning their take off runs about 450ft back from the leading edge of the ski-jump to ensure that they had sufficient forward speed to remain airborne (c 90 knots plus benefit of wind over the deck). Without that run up they would simply have dropped into the sea. So vertical take off was the only option for Tiger & Blake.

Erm...

As far as I knew, the ski-jump was initially used to provide STO with bigger load, without much of takeoff run. The long takeoff run was implemented only after Falkland War, with the refit of Invincibles.

I may be mistaken here, of course.

 

[EwenS]

Erm...

As far as I knew, the ski-jump was initially used to provide STO with bigger load, without much of takeoff run. The long takeoff run was implemented only after Falkland War, with the refit of Invincibles.

I may be mistaken here, of course.

Your video seems to be of the trials on the experimental ramp at RAE Bedford sometime around 1977-1979. The aircraft looks like the HSA owned & funded demonstrator G-VTOL used for sales tours around the world. In particular note that it has no underwing or underfuselage weapons pylons / hardpoints. It only adopted an RAF serial ZA250 when carrying out weapons trials.

A Civil Jump-Jet - G-VTOL Is 50 Years Old!

Hawker Association Newsletter 61 Autumn 2021; A Civil Jump-Jet - G-VTOL Is 50 Years Old!

www.cmlx.co.uk

This was Farnborough in 1978. Same aircraft.


This on the other hand is video footage of early Sea Harrier operations on Invincible with aircraft carrying fuel tanks & weapons loads. It dates before the Falklands as the aircraft are in the original Grey / White camouflage & normal roundels (not the low viz ones adopted during and after the Falklands campaign).

There is even some footage of the Blake trials in 1969 and from the RFA tanker Green Rover.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MaVNkX4g1M

 

[Dilandu]

Your video seems to be of the trials on the experimental ramp at RAE Bedford sometime around 1977-1979. The aircraft looks like the HSA owned & funded demonstrator G-VTOL used for sales tours around the world. In particular note that it has no underwing or underfuselage weapons pylons / hardpoints. It only adopted an RAF serial ZA250 when carrying out weapons trials.

Okay, I stand corrected then.

 

[Dilandu]

A question. Do anyone have a good schematics of Seaslug missile launcher? I have some 3D project in mind, and this launcher is pretty complicated. Here is the best I could find:

 

[Rule of cool]

IIUC a Harrier without a ski jump had on a ballistic trajectory about 3 seconds between leaving the deck and hitting the sea, but a 12 degree ski jump extended this ballistic trajectory to something like 12 seconds. IIUC when a Harrier leaves the deck the pilot bangs the nozzles from fully aft to down ~50% so the plane has 50% wing lift and 50% engine thrust lift, and then transitions to fully wing lift as it picks up speed. I don't know how long this process takes, but if it takes 10 seconds the value of the ski jump becomes obvious.

IIUC when taking off from something like a Tiger the ship travels into the wind at an angle, giving the Harrier a bit of WOD. So its not strictly VTO, its VTO +20kts WOD which isn't much but might be enough to enable weapons carriage or something when it otherwise couldn't happen.

 

[Dilandu]

IIUC a Harrier without a ski jump had on a ballistic trajectory about 3 seconds between leaving the deck and hitting the sea, but a 12 degree ski jump extended this ballistic trajectory to something like 12 seconds. IIUC when a Harrier leaves the deck the pilot bangs the nozzles from fully aft to down ~50% so the plane has 50% wing lift and 50% engine thrust lift, and then transitions to fully wing lift as it picks up speed. I don't know how long this process takes, but if it takes 10 seconds the value of the ski jump becomes obvious.

Thanks! By the way, could Harrier use JATO?

 

[PMN1]

Check that...

View attachment 747432

Put a Skyhook on them......

 

[Rule of cool]

Thanks! By the way, could Harrier use JATO?

Dunno, but IIUC the Harrier does have quite a high conventional takeoff and landing speed, 140+kts.

Given that the purpose of JATO is to get enough speed/wing lift to allow short takeoff runs I doubt that the Harrier needs it as it can use a mixture of wing and engine lift for short takeoff runs.

 

[uk 75]

In the period Blake and Tiger were operating as Command Cruisers only RAF GR Harriers were available.
By the time Sea Harrier enters service Hermes can carry all those available with Bulwark still around to provide an option.
Otomat remains the easiest and most useful missile fit.