VSS - VSTOL Support Ship - exotic air group

[Archibald]

Zumwalt forgotten offspring - smaller Sea Control Ship and much larger CVV are far well known.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSTOL_Support_Ship
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sea-control-ship-scs-and-vstol-support-ship-vss.7635/
Whatif VSS happened to be the right size and cost - without the limits of SCS but without the cost of CVV, threatening those precious Nimitz.

This is merely a pretext to get an exotic VSTOL group with

Convair 200 for air defence
> https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...00-201-and-218-sea-control-ship-fighters.103/

AV-8A / AV-16 / AV-8B / BW Harrier for ground attack
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/advanced-harrier-projects.184/
But also
Canadair CL-84 for many roles (think S-3 Viking, S-2 tracker)
> https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/canadair-general-dynamics-cl-84-projects.4267/

And also
Breguet 941S for COD and completing CL-84 (AWACS ?!!)
> https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/breguet-941-stol-and-related-projects.4209/

 

[Sferrin]

 

[Archibald]

Dang. They tested this one on a carrier ? my mind is blown. How about that: astronauts needing carrier qualification ?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Let's not forget 'Type A's such as the Grumman G-698 VTOL (h/t Stargazer2006 for the image below)

 

[Sferrin]

Yep. TONS of light utility concepts were generated in support of SCS.

 

[zen]

Which VSS?

 

[1Big Rich]

Which VSS?

Good point, Zen. There were actually a couple versions, 22,000 and 33,000 tons per Jane's. Their article is reproduced here:

]https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/all.../us-navy-vss-concepts-from-1976-77-t8778.html

The thread also has a couple different aircraft concepts for the VSS.

I think the VSS makes for an interesting 'what-if' scenario for those nations with ex-RN Light Fleets. Had they been built, they might have been a viable replacement for those navies, and a continued production run could have meant new ships instead of second-hand. But that's another thread....

Regards,

 

[Archibald]

The 22 000 tons is a very interesting alternative to Invincibles, Asturias and Doria.

33 000 tons is only slightly smaller than Foch and Clemenceau.

The above could have all kind of interesting consequences for Europe in the 70's. If the Spanish picks the 22 000 ton VSS in place of the SCS to build the Asturias, for example. Putting GB and Italy into weird situations. It could also impact the French navy - split between 18000 tons PH75 to replace Arromanches and 40 000 tons PA75 to replace the Clems...

 

[zen]

If they had come up with the 33,000ton VSS just over ten years earlier.......
For the RN, the MN and the RAN this could have been the solution.

 

[1Big Rich]

If they had come up with the 33,000ton VSS just over ten years earlier.......
For the RN, the MN and the RAN this could have been the solution.

I've thought the same thing Zen. With the capability to operate both conventional and VSTOL aircraft, as I mentioned in the thread I linked above, they might have been ideal for smaller navies. As the table from Jane's shows, they could have had an air group of up to 50+ aircraft, depending on the mix. Conventional fixed wing mentioned specifically were S-3 Viking and A-7 Corsair II, which would seem appropriate replacements for navies operating S-2 Trackers and A-4 Skyhawks.

Regards,

 

[Archibald]

(Montgomery Burns voice impersonation)

Excellent !

 

[Archibald]

I was wondering - what kind of post-WWII world POD would it take, to get more navies with 35 000 tons carriers ?
Such as
- VSS
- second-hand Essex, post 1960
- Bunker Hill & Franklin rebuild
- Centaurs
- Clemenceau class

If crews could be cut to approximately 1000 - 1500, could more navies afford such ships ?

 

[zen]

I think the UK scenario would resolve around alternatives to or of the Centaur Fleet.
Had more been built, these would have been 'sold' to various states. Ideally in place of the Majestic Class.
Having say Canada, Australia, and perhaps France operate such.
This would set things up for such a VSS 35Kton CV production as replacements.

Had larger CVs been laid down instead of the Centaurs, ideally ships delivering capabilites closer to the Audacious Class. Then these could well have been favoured over the Audacious Class and modernisation of the Illustrious/Implacable types.
A large run of ships 840-900ft FD length would be attractive.
From this UK perspective what's needed is more powerful machinery, shafts and props....and ideally, a larger military drydock.

 

[1Big Rich]

I was wondering - what kind of post-WWII world POD would it take, to get more navies with 35 000 tons carriers ?
Such as
- VSS
- second-hand Essex, post 1960
- Bunker Hill & Franklin rebuild
- Centaurs
- Clemenceau class

If crews could be cut to approximately 1000 - 1500, could more navies afford such ships ?

Archibald,

I would think money would be a limiting factor first and foremost. Carriers and air groups can be expensive. A better world economy, combined with more of a threat, might be a path.

That said, the Essex class were manpower intensive. As I recall, they were offered to the RN and RAN (at least) and were turned down. Now a smaller navy might do what the USN did with the ships designated as LPHs, close down half the engineering plant to save manpower. But that is also going to cut down on speed and wind-over-the-deck for launches.

The Clemenceau's are about near the Essex in size and capability, and as none were procured by smaller navies historically, I think they may have the same issues as the Essex class did in finding their way into other navies.

I think the tremendous advantage of the Light Fleets of the RN was they had those large elevators and capable of handling the newer larger aircraft that were coming with the jet age. The first of the Illustrious carriers had smaller elevators, and IIRC only Indefatigable and Implacable had a really large elevator forward.

Now if we can get the supersonic A-7 Strikefighter concept built/re-manufactured from existing airframes in the '80s with a carrier variant, we could have a powerful cheaper supersonic fighter for the smaller navies.

I think VSS would have a place as a replacement as the older carriers age. Planning could begin the late '70s/early '80s for such ships as Melbourne and Venticinco de Mayo.
Canada could be lured back into carriers, and Spain might opt for a larger ship than the historic SCS they built.

I think the UK scenario would resolve around alternatives to or of the Centaur Fleet.
Had more been built, these would have been 'sold' to various states. Ideally in place of the Majestic Class.
Having say Canada, Australia, and perhaps France operate such.
This would set things up for such a VSS 35Kton CV production as replacements.

Had larger CVs been laid down instead of the Centaurs, ideally ships delivering capabilites closer to the Audacious Class. Then these could well have been favoured over the Audacious Class and modernisation of the Illustrious/Implacable types.
A large run of ships 840-900ft FD length would be attractive.
From this UK perspective what's needed is more powerful machinery, shafts and props....and ideally, a larger military drydock.

As I said above, Zen, I think VSS would be an ideal replacement in a navy operating Light Fleets.

Since we're talking about the RN, a manpower saver might be a combined steam-and-gas turbine power plant. The steam could provide range and power the catapults, the gas turbines giving boost for high speed maneuvers. The RN specialized in those plants in the post-war period.

A more modern replacement or refit might use the waste-heat recovery system to provide steam from the heat the gas turbines produce.

I do think a larger carrier like Audacious might have manning issues in smaller navies.

All that said, you both might enjoy this scenario

Regards,

 

[zen]

I think for the UK the first issue is getting facilities able to develop plant, shaft, and props over 50,000shp. Ideally over 65,000shp. But with potential to got to 70,000shp.

On COSAG this would really require earlier effort on a larger plant and GT, scaling up on the work already done. In this the big Gyron or Conway or Similar could be mated with cruiser or capital ship plant machinery.

However the era is more geared to a nuclear solution.

As for AH.com....... no.

 

[Archibald]

I was wondering - what kind of post-WWII world POD would it take, to get more navies with 35 000 tons carriers ?
Such as
- VSS
- second-hand Essex, post 1960
- Bunker Hill & Franklin rebuild
- Centaurs
- Clemenceau class

If crews could be cut to approximately 1000 - 1500, could more navies afford such ships ?

Archibald,

I would think money would be a limiting factor first and foremost. Carriers and air groups can be expensive. A better world economy, combined with more of a threat, might be a path.

That said, the Essex class were manpower intensive. As I recall, they were offered to the RN and RAN (at least) and were turned down. Now a smaller navy might do what the USN did with the ships designated as LPHs, close down half the engineering plant to save manpower. But that is also going to cut down on speed and wind-over-the-deck for launches.

The Clemenceau's are about near the Essex in size and capability, and as none were procured by smaller navies historically, I think they may have the same issues as the Essex class did in finding their way into other navies.

I think the tremendous advantage of the Light Fleets of the RN was they had those large elevators and capable of handling the newer larger aircraft that were coming with the jet age. The first of the Illustrious carriers had smaller elevators, and IIRC only Indefatigable and Implacable had a really large elevator forward.

Now if we can get the supersonic A-7 Strikefighter concept built/re-manufactured from existing airframes in the '80s with a carrier variant, we could have a powerful cheaper supersonic fighter for the smaller navies.

I think VSS would have a place as a replacement as the older carriers age. Planning could begin the late '70s/early '80s for such ships as Melbourne and Venticinco de Mayo.
Canada could be lured back into carriers, and Spain might opt for a larger ship than the historic SCS they built.

I think the UK scenario would resolve around alternatives to or of the Centaur Fleet.
Had more been built, these would have been 'sold' to various states. Ideally in place of the Majestic Class.
Having say Canada, Australia, and perhaps France operate such.
This would set things up for such a VSS 35Kton CV production as replacements.

Had larger CVs been laid down instead of the Centaurs, ideally ships delivering capabilites closer to the Audacious Class. Then these could well have been favoured over the Audacious Class and modernisation of the Illustrious/Implacable types.
A large run of ships 840-900ft FD length would be attractive.
From this UK perspective what's needed is more powerful machinery, shafts and props....and ideally, a larger military drydock.

As I said above, Zen, I think VSS would be an ideal replacement in a navy operating Light Fleets.

Since we're talking about the RN, a manpower saver might be a combined steam-and-gas turbine power plant. The steam could provide range and power the catapults, the gas turbines giving boost for high speed maneuvers. The RN specialized in those plants in the post-war period.

A more modern replacement or refit might use the waste-heat recovery system to provide steam from the heat the gas turbines produce.

I do think a larger carrier like Audacious might have manning issues in smaller navies.

All that said, you both might enjoy this scenario

Regards,

If only I wasn't banned from AH.com.

Then again, a forum tolerating Eric S. "Nazi apologist" Raymond as member...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymondhttps://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ickle-thread-ii.402994/page-294#post-20746783

 

[carvalho2008]

I believe that today it would be possible to make low cost aircraft carriers viable. if you use the VSS as a platform, add an extra flight deck (double deck), the lower deck would be used exclusively for takeoffs with ski jump, and the upper deck only for hooked landings or helicopter takeoff

 

[1Big Rich]

If only I wasn't banned from AH.com.

Then again, a forum tolerating Eric S. "Nazi apologist" Raymond as member...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymondhttps://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ickle-thread-ii.402994/page-294#post-20746783

Gimbutas - and the Nazis - turned out to have been right after all; neolithic Europe really was put to the sword (er, more accurately, the axe) by ravening Aryan blond beasts. No actual credit to the Nazi theorists here because they didn't originate or really develop the Aryan-invasion hypothesis themselves, they just co-opted it. Still, it's an object lesson in the perils of disbelieving fact claims simply because they're advanced by evil people, and in how political revulsion can distort science.

I need to vomit...

Yeah, I don't know what the standard is over there. I'm sure I'll step in it at some point.

I've interacted with Zen on (several) other forums, and he's always thoughtful and respectful. Floored me when I saw he got banned over there...

We've got a pretty good group over at the BC board. We just don't get traffic like we used to, but many still visit.

Regards,

 

[zen]

I think we should leave AH.com to private discussions. It's not really appropriate here in this section and I suspect it would become too heated in the Bar.
Please can we remove references to that site and and discourse about it here.
If there is somewhere where we can engage in such discourse I might contribute. But it definitely inappropriate here.

 

[carvalho2008]

[QUOTE = "carvalho2008, post: 400632, membro: 11524"]

I believe that today it would be possible to make low-cost aircraft carriers viable. if you use VSS as a platform, add an extra flight deck (double deck), the lower deck will be used exclusively for ski jump takeoffs and the upper deck only for hook landings or helicopter takeoff








[/CITAR]

Although the drawing has an illustration flaw, the uper deck doesn´t have a catapult

 

[carvalho2008]

however, it´s necessary to solve how to deflect the blast caused by the lower deck operations and takeoffs.

 

[uk 75]

If the UK had taken a less doctrinaire approach to carrier aviation in 1966 (the words aircraft carrier were banned until Invincible was launched more than a decade later) the UK could have built three Centaur/Hermes size ships similar in appearance to this Vickers Light Fleet
http://www.shipbucket.com/drawings/6016but with a flight deck similar to Hermes.
A 70s US equivalent from Shipbucket

 

[Grey Havoc]

HM Treasury, the gift that keeps giving. [sigh]

 

[Archibald]

As a matter of fact, there were enough V/STOL or CATOBAR aircraft to make a decent airgroup. What lacked was a viable V/STOL (or not V/STOL) Mach 2 fighter.
Basically
- a Crusader successor
- a successul P.1154

By 1965 the Harrier, Forger, Convair 200, show something: the main turbofan exhaust can be tilted downwards to lift a fighter.. rear end.

The teething issue remains: how do you lift the forward fuselage ?

Harrier / P.1154 / P.1216 "take cold air out of the compressor"

Soviet, Convair 200 say "nope. 1 or 2 lift jets, way to go"

Later F-35 says "none of the two - half of both. "
Vertical fan (like a lift jet) but no combustion (cold air, like the Harrier). Basically: a second fan driven by a transmission.

 

[carvalho2008]

If the UK had taken a less doctrinaire approach to carrier aviation in 1966 (the words aircraft carrier were banned until Invincible was launched more than a decade later) the UK could have built three Centaur/Hermes size ships similar in appearance to this Vickers Light Fleet
http://www.shipbucket.com/drawings/6016but with a flight deck similar to Hermes.
A 70s US equivalent from Shipbucket

VSS III, it was a good project for complement Super Carriers, or others alied countries.
20.000 - 29.000 ton
220 meters
i was inspired in this project for compound the double deck aircraft carrier above

 

[carvalho2008]

As a matter of fact, there were enough V/STOL or CATOBAR aircraft to make a decent airgroup. What lacked was a viable V/STOL (or not V/STOL) Mach 2 fighter.
Basically
- a Crusader successor
- a successul P.1154

By 1965 the Harrier, Forger, Convair 200, show something: the main turbofan exhaust can be tilted downwards to lift a fighter.. rear end.

The teething issue remains: how do you lift the forward fuselage ?

Harrier / P.1154 / P.1216 "take cold air out of the compressor"

Soviet, Convair 200 say "nope. 1 or 2 lift jets, way to go"

Later F-35 says "none of the two - half of both. "
Vertical fan (like a lift jet) but no combustion (cold air, like the Harrier). Basically: a second fan driven by a transmission.

we can´t forget the Ryan VTOL F104 too!!

The F104 VSTOL could be a supersonic fighter mach 2

 

[uk 75]

The foolish decision (was it Denis Healey or was it over-zealous Admirals) to banish the aircraft carrier was to give the Royal Navy ships that cost as much as a Hermes/Essex size ASW/Commando ship but with far less capacity. At least QE and P of W are big enough for any necessary mods.
A three ship class (Albion, Centaur and Bulwark) based on a Centaur hull updated with the Invincible powerplants (or more) would have operated RAF Harriers initially and then either Sea Harriers or Convair 200.

 

[zen]

Ahhh the Convair 200.....[drools slightly]
Sorry what was this thread about again

 

[1Big Rich]

uk75, carvalho2008,,

Thanks for the reminder on the Convair 200 series. I should add it to the VSS thread over on the BC board....

Regards all,

 

[Archibald]

Ahhh the Convair 200.....[drools slightly]
Sorry what was this thread about again

No problem: I expressedly mentionned the Convair 200 in the OP. I was wondering if the numbers of lift engines could be cut to one ? Obviously, if it fails during VTOL, the aircraft is doomed... at least that's only two engines instead of three.

There must be a TL somewhere in the multiverse where the Convair 200 pulled a F-35 in the 70's and rescued a number of interesting carriers concepts from the era.

 

[riggerrob]

[QUOTE = "carvalho2008, post: 400632, membro: 11524"]

I believe that today it would be possible to make low-cost aircraft carriers viable. if you use VSS as a platform, add an extra flight deck (double deck), the lower deck will be used exclusively for ski jump takeoffs and the upper deck only for hook landings or helicopter takeoff

View attachment 636431






[/CITAR]

Although the drawing has an illustration flaw, the uper deck doesn´t have a catapult

A couple of navies experimented with dedicated flying-off decks, but abandoned the concept by WW2.

 

[carvalho2008]

stopped being used due to:
a) Stability and balance
b) Super carrier

This caused the ship to become narrow in relation to its length, but in a 218 meter hull, note that it is much wider and more stable

the biggest problem today would be to redirect the fighter blast

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/fne9sw

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/ghlmxh

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/hiaxva

 

[uk 75]

Some good reasons why double-decker carriers might not be a good idea..

 

[carvalho2008]

 

[carvalho2008]

 

[carvalho2008]

Some good reasons why double-decker carriers might not be a good idea..

Master, i didn’t understand what you mean. What’s diference betwen both decks to get fire ??? Both decks exist independent of under deck be a flyIng deck. In the same case, both decks be a lot of aircrafts with the same equipaments, conventional deck or not.

 

[uk 75]

I am no expert on fires but a fire in a contained space is a far worse case than one on an open deck, where planes can be pushed over the edge into the sea. Suffice be it to say that no Navy has adopted a closed flying deck

 

[zen]

A fire in a tunnel is even worse

 

[carvalho2008]

A fire in a tunnel is even worse

But, the CVF´s lower deck is closed too, isn´t it?

All aircraft carrier has a lower deck closed with many aircrafts storaged