STOVL Carriers compared
I was writing a long narrative for this but it was just a load of waffle so I’ll let the illustrations do most of the speaking. As per my other threads all the illustrations are by me, photos found on the web. And this is strictly amateur web research so apologies if I got anything wrong. Hopefully there’s something of interest!
Part 1: Comparison on contemporary and near-future STOVL carriers
Meet the contenders for the crown
These are the ‘Harrier Carrier’ types currently in service or just entering service.
Brief intros:
Wasp Class: Characterized by tall slab sides to facilitate a large floodable well-deck at the stern for landing craft and hovercraft. Among the class of eight the exact weapons fit and placement varies so I’ve used USS Wasp as the example. I’ve taken the Wasp class as representative of the Tawara class also.
Cavour: Just entering service. Has an air-defence fit similar to a destroyer.
Juan Carlos I: Amphibious dock like the Wasp, but with prominent ski jump on starboard bow. Noticeably light armament though design could mount more. Two derived ships are being purchased by Australia where they almost certainly will deploy JSF fighters at least on occasion, although that is some years off and beyond the scope of this comparison.
Note that in the photo the ship has only just been launched and is missing much equipment.
INS Virant: Formerly HMS Hermes of Royal Navy. Some armament modifications since sale to India.
Invincible class:
The above pic is the now retired HMS Invincible at a late stage of her active career but whilst Sea Dart was still fitted. The example ship I use in this comparison is Ark Royal which differs in armament and has the Sea Dart removed. But I love the pic and it illustrates the Harrier capacity.
Principe de Asturias: Spanish light carriers built to US Sea Control Ship concept of 1970s.
Giuseppe Garibaldi: Italian light carrier.
Chakri Naruebet: Thai light carrier built in Spain. Often described as a smaller version of the older Principe de Asturias, the design also has some refinements. Thailand cannot afford to operate this ship at anything light the tempo of the Western carriers and has not bought more recent models of the Harrier (relying on a handful f ex-Spanish early model Harriers) so the ship is more of a prestige symbol than a fully utilized warship.
Orientation:
Defensive weapons:
Air wings:
Air defence fighter fit:
Deck facilities:
An observation about the trade-off between jet ops and amphibious assault role: Some of the STOVL carriers are also Landing Platform Docks (LPD). This means that they have a large floodable well-deck at the rear for landing craft/hovercraft/amphibious vehicles to come in and out off. Generally in a hybrid carrier/LPD you end up with the hanger deck above the well-deck which results in a rather tall ship, in turn limiting the width of the flight deck. For instance, the 40,000 ton Wasp class LPD has a flight deck of about 8067m2 which equates to 0.17m2 per ton. Whereas Cavour, which is amphibious logistic capable (both air-assault and RORO) but lacks the dock, has a flight deck to tonnage ratio of about 0.26m2 per ton, over 50% more! Clearly this is an advantage for the Cavour as a “Harrier carrier”.
Side by side comparison of ‘pure’ carrier with LPD carrier:
And also, the assault ships tend to be much slower than the ‘pure’ carriers which reduces survivability when they operate as light fleet carriers because they are less mobile and cannot keep up with maneuvering warships (so the whole fleet would have to go slower to protect them).
The reckoning:
Whilst Wasp has by far the best amphibious capability (rivaled only by Juan Carlos I?), it’s not much of a Harrier Carrier without a Ski-Jump. Cavour overall is the most capable. The argument should be how the best of the harrier carriers (Cavour) matches up to the much larger CTOL carriers (and RN’s Queen Elizabeth class quasi-CTOL) carriers. It’s the newest and the best in a 1:1 comparison. I think any navy, including the USN/USMC would be proud to have a Cavour class carrier.
In fact, going by what has been released about the USMC’s next amphibious assault carriers (USS America class) they too seem inferior to Cavour as ‘pure’ carriers because they are essentially a Wasp class ship without the dock, retaining the smallish flight deck and missing a ski-jump in favour of helicopter landing spots.
2. Large through-deck helicopter carriers that could be used as STOVL or VTOL carriers
By: Obi Wan Russell - 28th December 2008 at 14:14
Great pic
I never realized the AV-8B Harrier II was so smoky!!
Regards
Pioneer
It’s not exhaust smoke, the pilot has a big cigar in his mouth and the canopy open ’cause it’s a nice day!;):D:diablo:
By: Pioneer - 28th December 2008 at 11:09
Wow Planeman
That’s some serious work and effort you have done here!!
Thanks for your effort
Regards
Pioneer
By: Pioneer - 28th December 2008 at 11:02
Description: An AV-8B Harrier II takes off from the flight deck of Spanish aircraft carrier SPS (Strategic Protection Ship) Principe de Asturias (R 11) during an air defense exercise as part of NATO Exercise Brilliant Midas 2006
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=39850hi-res: http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/061007-N-3888C-001.jpg
Great pic
I never realized the AV-8B Harrier II was so smoky!!
Regards
Pioneer
By: pilatus - 20th December 2008 at 02:17
I havent seen a picture of a SHAR in ages and that one just reminded me how beautifull an aircraft they actually are, both in FRS1 and FA2 models.If worst always comes to worst the RN could always buy the SHAR’s of the indian navy!please note sarcasim:diablo: seriously though, what a waste!
By: Wanshan - 20th December 2008 at 00:35
The second one is commander Bond’s plane! 😀
By: Arabella-Cox - 19th December 2008 at 22:10
LOL I agree! :diablo:
Fot hose who don’t know SHAR is short for “Sea HARrier”. And that includes both Sea Harrier variants. The so called early FRS1 and the later FA2. Compare the pointed versus bulbous radar nose.
Sea Harrier FRS1 from aeroflight.co.uk © Joop de Groot
Sea Harrier FA2 from militaryaircraft.de © Ulrich Grueschow
\Dan
PS sorry for the larg pics
Sorry, I thought only the FA2 was referred to as the SHAR??? ME BAD
By: Z1pp0 - 19th December 2008 at 19:56
The motion is seconded! Scooter, go and stand in the corner!
LOL I agree! :diablo:
Fot hose who don’t know SHAR is short for “Sea HARrier”. And that includes both Sea Harrier variants. The so called early FRS1 and the later FA2. Compare the pointed versus bulbous radar nose.
Sea Harrier FRS1 from aeroflight.co.uk © Joop de Groot
Sea Harrier FA2 from militaryaircraft.de © Ulrich Grueschow
\Dan
PS sorry for the larg pics
By: Obi Wan Russell - 19th December 2008 at 18:31
Eh? The SHAR is the Sea Harrier …
The motion is seconded! Scooter, go and stand in the corner!
By: j2222 - 19th December 2008 at 18:22
The SHAR weren’t avialable during the Falkands War. Just the early marks of the Sea Harrier…………
Eh? The SHAR is the Sea Harrier …
By: Arabella-Cox - 19th December 2008 at 17:35
Very interesting … one error I spotted, RN SHARs could onl ycarry 2 AIM9s during the Falklands War, not 4 … that capability came right at the end. Great read/diagrams!
The SHAR weren’t avialable during the Falkands War. Just the early marks of the Sea Harrier…………
By: j2222 - 19th December 2008 at 07:33
Very interesting … one error I spotted, RN SHARs could onl ycarry 2 AIM9s during the Falklands War, not 4 … that capability came right at the end. Great read/diagrams!
By: Arabella-Cox - 19th December 2008 at 05:41
Aka Cavour? Parlare Italiano instead of Habla Espanol, but else ..
While I personally like the Cavour. I was thinking of something a little simplier…..
By: Distiller - 19th December 2008 at 04:52
Seems like Spain would want to start marketing a slightly enlarged version. With the forthcoming F-35B nearing production……….This type of Carrier could do really well in Navies from around the globe.:D
Aka Cavour? Parlare Italiano instead of Habla Espanol, but else ..
By: Arabella-Cox - 19th December 2008 at 04:50
Very much the case a very well thought out design, on the other hand the Invincible class which is seen by many as the definitive “Harrier Carrier” is not an optimum design for the task by any measure. They might be bigger but they don’t make best use of the 20,000ish tons! Considering they were built to operate ASW helicopters only with Sea Dart for self defense the specification was not optimized for Harrier operations. On the other hand the RN makes do with what it has and has got their moneys worth out of them.
I must admit that I am surprised that the Ark Royal is going to be retired before Illustrious, considering that she is the biggest and newest in the class and she spent most of the 90’s stripped to the bones for a deep refit followed by another extensive refit in the last few years. She also makes a logical back up to Ocean.
I wonder what country could possbily be interested in the Ark Royal yet have access to the F-35B??? Could offer a lot a capabilities on a reasonable budget………..
By: Arabella-Cox - 19th December 2008 at 04:44
May be.
Main problem would be elevator dimensions. Enough the stern one, but a bit narrow the one fore the island.
Probably a reinforcement of the deck would be desirable (for the stronger and hotter stream of the F-35 prop) but I’m not sure of that.
Otherwise she has a 12º ski-jump. Hangar size is not bad: 2.400 sq m vs, for instance, 2.800 sq m of Cavour. Air fuel capacity is also pretty fine for a ship of her size (1500 cubic m.).Regards
Seems like Spain would want to start marketing a slightly enlarged version. With the forthcoming F-35B nearing production……….This type of Carrier could do really well in Navies from around the globe.:D
By: santi - 18th December 2008 at 20:02
The Principe de Asturias seem a little on the small side to effectively operate the F-35B???
May be.
Main problem would be elevator dimensions. Enough the stern one, but a bit narrow the one fore the island.
Probably a reinforcement of the deck would be desirable (for the stronger and hotter stream of the F-35 prop) but I’m not sure of that.
Otherwise she has a 12º ski-jump. Hangar size is not bad: 2.400 sq m vs, for instance, 2.800 sq m of Cavour. Air fuel capacity is also pretty fine for a ship of her size (1500 cubic m.).
Regards
By: Obi Wan Russell - 18th December 2008 at 16:19
Very much the case a very well thought out design, on the other hand the Invincible class which is seen by many as the definitive “Harrier Carrier” is not an optimum design for the task by any measure. They might be bigger but they don’t make best use of the 20,000ish tons! Considering they were built to operate ASW helicopters only with Sea Dart for self defense the specification was not optimized for Harrier operations. On the other hand the RN makes do with what it has and has got their moneys worth out of them.
I must admit that I am surprised that the Ark Royal is going to be retired before Illustrious, considering that she is the biggest and newest in the class and she spent most of the 90’s stripped to the bones for a deep refit followed by another extensive refit in the last few years. She also makes a logical back up to Ocean.
Just proves these descisions should be kept well away from the pollies! At least following the recent announcement about the delay to the completion of the CVFs the defence secretary said the Invincibles would be kept in service until their replacements were ready, so talk of 2012 and 2015 OSDs should be dropped. Perhaps a little sanity will prevail and the order of decommissioning will be reversed. BTW, Ark isn’t physically bigger than either of her sisters, though when commissioned she had a larger displacement, this was due to modifications such as a larger ski jump and extra weapon sponsons as well as internal changes. Subsequent refits to all ships of the class evened out these differences so all should be considered the same size (ie displacement/length/beam/draught etc).
The ships designers have said that despite not getting official sanction for Harriers to be included until 1975 (two years after Invincible had been laid down), Provision for the carriage and operation of a small sqn of Harriers had been included in the design from the start. Istalling the ski jump ramp was the only major modification post 1975 and pre commissioning.
By: Fedaykin - 18th December 2008 at 12:28
Optimised for STOVL operations. No wasted space or weight, maximum length deck that can be squeezed in, etc. May not be able to operate it at maximum T/O weight, but probably better than anything else the same size, & some larger ships.
Very much the case a very well thought out design, on the other hand the Invincible class which is seen by many as the definitive “Harrier Carrier” is not an optimum design for the task by any measure. They might be bigger but they don’t make best use of the 20,000ish tons! Considering they were built to operate ASW helicopters only with Sea Dart for self defense the specification was not optimized for Harrier operations. On the other hand the RN makes do with what it has and has got their moneys worth out of them.
I must admit that I am surprised that the Ark Royal is going to be retired before Illustrious, considering that she is the biggest and newest in the class and she spent most of the 90’s stripped to the bones for a deep refit followed by another extensive refit in the last few years. She also makes a logical back up to Ocean.
By: swerve - 18th December 2008 at 10:22
The Principe de Asturias seem a little on the small side to effectively operate the F-35B???
Optimised for STOVL operations. No wasted space or weight, maximum length deck that can be squeezed in, etc. May not be able to operate it at maximum T/O weight, but probably better than anything else the same size, & some larger ships.
By: Fedaykin - 18th December 2008 at 01:50
As Invincible has been mothballed, have those Goalkeepers been removed and will they end up on Ark Royal? (assuming they are preferred to Phalanx)
Nope the Phalanx will stay to the end with Ark Royal, its not worth the effort for the amount of time she will still be in service. Goalkeeper needs holes to be cut in the deck anyway to allow for all its systems.
Sign In
November 16, 2008 at 8:54 pm