NATO LPH based on USS Iwo Jima

[uk 75]

The US Navy's Iwo Jima class helicopter carriers were the closest the US came to a Harrier carrier when one was used as an interim Sea Control Ship. The US Marines went on to operate its Harriers from Tarawa and Wasp class ships. But the compact Iwo Jimas might have been a quick and dirty solution to putting a mix of Harriers and helos for countries like Brazil, Canada, France and Netherlands which had to replace their old carriers.
Spain and Italy built their own ships, but these did not arrive till the 80s. An Iwo Jima based design could have been added to US orders and been in service from the early 70s.

 

[Volkodav]

A modified LM2500 GT powered Iwo Jima was offered to the RAN as a V/STOL / Helo carrier in the late 70s.

 

[apparition13]

Canada looked at them as possible ASW helicopter carriers in the run up to the Iroquois class DDH. They would have carried 18 Sea Kings.

Information is in the PhD thesis The Annapolis Riddle: Advocacy, Ship Design and the Canadian Navy's Force Structure Crisis, 1957-1965 : https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/handle/1974/8298, specifically Chapter 5, starting on page 246 (257 of the pdf), which explains why they decided against them.

It also has some very interesting ship designs that led up to the Canadian DDH-280 design.

 

[SSgtC]

Using them in a dedicated carrier role would be a mistake IMO. Particularly for a smaller country that doesn't have the fleet train that the USN does. They had extremely limited aviation stores storage (ammunition, fuel, spare parts and a small hanger). To make them a true carrier would require nearly a full redesign of the ships internal layout and replacing the island with something much smaller. It's doable, but how much less than a clean sheet design would it cost? One optimized from the start as a carrier? Just for reference, the Príncipe de Asturias is just over 16,000 tons. Yet she can carry 4 more aircraft than an Iwo Jima can. Despite the Iwo Jima being some 2,000 tons bigger. Really better off going with a ship designed as a carrier from the start.

 

[Archibald]

The kind of threads I like. Uk75 point is that Iwo Jima as build were plentiful and available, and in the 70's they operated Harriers on top of that. But SSgtc clearly underlined their weaknesses, however.

Still daydreaming about a TL where the WWII light & escorts, plus the Essex, plus the Iwo Jima, are sold to worlwide navies in some kind of "Amazon black friday" discount sale.

Mighty USN surely had a shitload of hulls in service and in storage.
24 Essex
2 Saipan
5 Independance (one lost, two sold to France, another sold to Spain)
8 Iwo Jima
And a colossal number of Commencement Bay, Casablanca and others oldies...

 

[apparition13]

The kind of threads I like. Uk75 point is that Iwo Jima as build were plentiful and available, and in the 70's they operated Harriers on top of that. But SSgtc clearly underlined their weaknesses, however.

The Thesis I linked too also says that there were concerns about seaworthiness in the North Atlantic given Iwos only had one screw. Chapter 5 goes into more detail on that issue as well.

 

[Volkodav]

The kind of threads I like. Uk75 point is that Iwo Jima as build were plentiful and available, and in the 70's they operated Harriers on top of that. But SSgtc clearly underlined their weaknesses, however.

The Thesis I linked too also says that there were concerns about seaworthiness in the North Atlantic given Iwos only had one screw. Chapter 5 goes into more detail on that issue as well.

Still reading but the references to dominant personalities is very interesting as I had previously noticed how the opinions of certain individuals, regarded as experts, carried more weight that the actual professional subject matter experts in the Australian Cabinet papers I have read. It was one such "expert" weighing in with his two cents worth while summerising the findings of various committees and reports from the service chiefs, that drove the final nails into the RAN carrier replacement proposals, which included a the modified Iwo Jima.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Was he one of the die-hard FAC-M advocates?

 

[Volkodav]

Was he one of the die-hard FAC-M advocates?

No worse, he was the ten additional P-3C Orions to replace the P-3Bs in service would deliver more capability than a helicopter carrier, Seakings and Seaharriers and were more critical to Australian defence than the RAN being about to operate beyond RAAF fighter cover advocate. He maintained this stance even after the Falklands, adding that the only carrier worth buying was one that could operate the RAAFs incoming F/A-18s, but it was unaffordable so no carrier at all was the best option.

A real case of garbage in garbage out (GIGO), the minister is fed doctored garbage with a summary written by an individual with an agenda, no hope of a balanced decision.

An acquaintance of mine who worked on and off in government for years pointed out that the inner circles of defence parliamentary advisors are full of passed over Majors , Lt Colonels, Lt Commanders, Commanders, Squadron Leaders and Wing Commanders, all pre-equipped with agendas and chips on their shoulders in regards to their former superiors.

 

[Volkodav]

I feel as if i am hijacking this topic, probably time for me to back off a bit or formulate a new topic.

 

[Darthtabby]

Does anyone have information on what the Iwo Jima class ships cost when they were built?

 

[Pioneer]

The Thesis I linked too also says that there were concerns about seaworthiness in the North Atlantic given Iwos only had one screw. Chapter 5 goes into more detail on that issue as well.

Yeah, that single screw arrangement has always played with my head, whether it was as a LPH or a light carrier.....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Archibald]

By the way, the USA proposed to loan an Iwo Jima to the RN during the Falkland war if either Invincible or Hermes were sunk.

https://news.usni.org/2012/06/27/reagan-readied-us-warship-82-falklands-war-0

A pair of Iwo Jima had been cleared to operate Harriers, since one of them had been used as a makeshift Sea Control Ship in the early 1970's - it was USS Guam.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Yeah, that single screw arrangement has always played with my head, whether it was as a LPH or a light carrier.....

There are three reasons: it's cheaper, it's less expensive, and it doesn't cost as much.

 

[Pioneer]

There are three reasons: it's cheaper, it's less expensive, and it doesn't cost as much.

Yeah, regardless, with the USN experience of WW2, all but 14-odd years earlier. With some 1,800 Marines and a crew of some 600+, and some 25 x aircraft on board...
Why the hell would such a combat experienced Navy delibratly sacrifice such basic and fundamental redundancy for one shaft? Again, it's got me stuffed, regardless of cost.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Yellow Palace]

Yeah, regardless, with the USN experience of WW2, all but 14-odd years earlier. With some 1,800 Marines and a crew of some 600+, and some 25 x aircraft on board...

The experience of WW2 was that single shaft propulsion was absolutely fine for amphibious ships. All the APAs and AKAs had one shaft. Note that they didn't just have one shaft - they only had one engine driving it. That's actually a very significant saving. As far as vulnerability goes, the USN was building high-speed frontline combatants with one shaft right up until 1987. It was building single-shaft auxiliary ships until 2012.

The reason that the LSDs and LPDs had two shafts was that you can't get a single propeller large enough to handle a reasonable amount of power into a form that has a dock.