SKYHOOK Harrier Carrier

All About The British Royal Navy: Past, Present And Future

SKYHOOK Harrier Carrier

Joined: 10 Aug 2007, 10:52

29 Aug 2007, 02:16 #1

The topic title is self explanatory, I think. I thought I'd post this now rather than later, since the electronics fit has me stumped. I just don't know enough about British electronics to be sure what the illustrated equipment is. Can anyone fill me in?

Note: this is why there are no masts at present. No, I did not just forget them!

Anyway, its not finished, but I thought I'd get some opinions regarding the SkyHooks (and everything else) before I went any further.

Do you think the launch rail looks too blocky? I may be able to make it thinner and less solid looking...

Obviously only the first pic is my work, the other two are from the net.
My Masterpiece (?):


And the originals:

Reply
Like

Joined: 22 Aug 2003, 08:05

29 Aug 2007, 10:05 #2

does anybody remember the displacement of that beast?
Reply
Like

Joined: 20 Aug 2006, 18:32

29 Aug 2007, 12:24 #3

6,000 tons
Reply
Like

Joined: 18 May 2006, 20:43

29 Aug 2007, 14:31 #4

Courageous! Very appropriate name!

I'd expect the fit to be as T23 plus a 3d set. Looks like the AAW fit was vl sea wolf.

For a 3d system (we didn't commision any new ones in the 80s or 90s) look to the dutch.
Reply
Like

Joined: 03 Feb 2007, 20:09

29 Aug 2007, 16:14 #5

I always thought the basic flaw in the Skyhook project was that if the ship has a helicopter deck, then the Skyhook is superfluous. Harriers were quite capable of landing on the aft decks of helo equipped ships, and one did so as far back as 1969 aboard HMS Blake. It reminds me of a line from the film 'The Hunt For Red October', where one character asks another about the horizontal doors seen on a Typhoon class sub: " Can you launch a Ballistic Missile horizontally?" and recieves the reply "Sure. Why would you want to?". In this context can you recover Harriers by means of a Skyhook onto a 6000ton ship? Sure. Why would you want to when there is a perfecrly adequate landing pad right behind it? The main reason these types of ships never appeared is because they are too small to carry a worthwhile air group, which also mitigated against ships like the 9000ton Vosper Harrier Carrier, which was a more useful size at least.
As to the radar fit, if it was built in the 70s/early 80s, I'd have thought it would have had the same radar fit as a type 42 batch 3 DDG minus the 909s. Build it in the late 80s/early 90s then the likely fit becomes type 22 batch 3 or type 23. Whilst a 3-d radar would be desirable, it would be unlikely to be bought just for this ship (and any sisters) so standardisation with the rest of the fleet would play a major factor in the choice. Unless it was being built for a foreign Navy, then the prevailling tastes of the recieving nation would be the deciding factor.
Reply
Like

Joined: 27 Jun 2005, 02:28

29 Aug 2007, 18:55 #6

Your drawings looks nice. The original perhaps was too complicated and too expensive for those few aircraft.

In your drawing I see only one small mistake. The flag and the helicopter would collide. If this is your "first" it is a great entry to the "photobucketeers" ;-) Enjoy drawing. It needs a lot of patience. I have been drawing Sea Control Ships for weeks and I still haven't finished.
Reply
Like

Joined: 23 Nov 2006, 23:41

29 Aug 2007, 22:01 #7

Definitely one of Britains dafter ideas arising from the Admiraltys desperation to get airpower to sea in the teeth of ignorant and uninformed Treasury opposition
Reply
Like

Joined: 01 Sep 2003, 18:56

29 Aug 2007, 22:56 #8

The reason for the Skyhooks is that the Harriers in question were supposed to be modified to delete their landing gear, saving weight and freeing up volume for fuel. They would be grabbed by the Skyhook, swung over to a dolley preloaded with weapons, and then launched from the dolley via the ramp system. No good explanation of how they would handle diverts to airfields without Skyhooks...
Last edited by taschoene on 30 Aug 2007, 00:10, edited 1 time in total.
I'm riding 100 miles to fight blood cancer: Please give to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.
Reply
Like

Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 04:45

29 Aug 2007, 23:14 #9

taschoene wrote:
No good explanation of how they would handle diverts to airfields without Skyhooks...


Rubber runway???


"It's a fez. I wear a fez now. Fezzes are cool"
Reply
Like

Joined: 20 Aug 2006, 18:32

30 Aug 2007, 01:35 #10

A more sensible solution below.

Borrowed from http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showth ... 936&page=2

"Originally Posted by tiddles" and then posted above from SteveO
First time on any forum.Here are the specs. for the Vosper Thornycroft Harrier Carrier concept. These were posted on another Forum several yrs. ago & also match the specs. printed in the book Wings Across the Ocean a history of Aust. Naval Aviation.I don't have a pic.
Full load disp. 7200t
Length overall 135m
Length at waterline 122m
Flight deck beam 28m
waterline beam 21.2m
Draft 6.5m
Ships fuel 740t
Aircraft fuel 570t
Range @ 16kts. 4500nm
Max speed 25kts.
Max power 32000 shp Gas Turbines
Fresh water 70t
Provisions for 60 days
Naval Aviation Stores for 45 days
Max complement 385
The ship was to be fitted with 3 twin 40mm Breda guns.It was to be powered by 9 gas turbine generators driving 2 electric motors.Four of the turbines were to be locate daft right below the flight deck and five below the starboard island superstructure.Capacity was to be 8 Harriers & 2 Helos. The article noted that the ship would be ideal for disaster relief as up to 20mw of power could be generated and transferred ashore."

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attach ... tid=134971 below from shiplover.





Above three pics "Originally Posted by tiddles" and then posted above from SteveO
Last edited by Anthony58 on 30 Aug 2007, 01:38, edited 2 times in total.
Reply
Like