| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
MDP78 |
HMS Hermes |
Lead | |
|
Registered Member
Posts: 16 ( 7-May-2009 21:45:14) |
I bought the Neil McCart book on HMS Hermes a few years ago. I've always been interested to know why, in Chapter 8 he mentioned that a refit between
'64 and '66 work was carried out with a view to making it not too difficult to carry out urther work to allow the ship to carry F4, which it was
planned it would from 1968. Everything else I've ever read about Hermes bascially states Hermes + F4= no chance. How did McCart end up dropping such a
clanger?
|
||
ashley |
|||
|
Posts: 101 ( 7-May-2009 22:38:36) |
I thought that Hermes was too small to operate the F4, I've seen a picture ( bow on) with a Mk2 Sea Vixen on the Cat, it takes up 3/4 the span of the deck
at that point ! I'm not sure, if anyone ever worked out if they could fit the long cats that R09/R05 had, looking at the picture, it would seem a very
tight fit !!
Only a guess, not got anyother info. Ashley |
||
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 3635 ( 8-May-2009 01:26:24) |
The 64-66 refit included more powerful arresting gear and a longer BS-4A cat on the port bow. This enabled her to operate Buccaneers with a full combat load.
This cat was equal in rated performance to the "short" BS-5 that Ark Royal carried on her bow. Both of them were only capable of launching the F-4 with a minimal "air-defense" load... and not even a full fuel load. Thus, Hermes could have only operated them in a self-defense mission... not in a full combat mode. Incidentally, Hermes did cross-deck some USN F-4Bs shortly after she recommissioned... while operating beside a USN carrier. These were landed/launched with a light fuel load and no ordnance. |
||
Nathan |
|||
|
Posts: 2357 ( 8-May-2009 09:21:04) |
Interesting info bager1968. It seems possible then that Hermes was intended not to operate F4s herself but to have a limited capability to launch and recover
lightly laden F4s when operating with Eagle, Ark Royal and CVA01. Perhaps that is the source of the confusion.
|
||
Tony D |
|||
|
Posts: 2477 ( 8-May-2009 15:45:22) Da Boss |
Nathan wrote: Hermes would at least have given "orphaned" F4s a home should one of the other carriers been disabled or had her flight deck obstructed for a long period of time. |
||
Obi Wan Russell |
|||
|
Posts: 504 ( 8-May-2009 17:42:22) |
I think the intention was that Hermes would indeed have her own sqn of Phantoms for air defence, directly replacing the Sea Vixens. She already carried a sqn
of Buccaneer S2s for the strike role so although her overall strike capability would be less than the other carriers, it would still be formidable. She would
though have been seen as a stopgap until one of CVA-01s two sisters was commissioned (Denis Healy himself said that the number of carriers in the program never
fell below three, as this was seen than as now as the minimum number needed to guarantee one forward deployed at all times). Victorious would have been more
difficult to convert for Phantoms unless a waist cat was fitted so besides Eagle and Ark Royal only Hermes was a candidate. Also remember that when she began
her 1964-66 refit and certainly when that refit was being planned 63-64 the RN had five ctol carriers + 2 LPH and was still hoping to get four CVAs (down from
the original five planned in 1962), and although the Phantom was in the frame for the Vixen replacement full data of the F-4s launch and deck landing
characteristics were probably not known to the RN at the time. Based on available data for the F-4B, operating from Hermes seemed a reasonable proposition
albeit with some restrictions, which were acceptable if the aircraft was limited to air defence operations.
|
||
MDP78 |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 17 ( 8-May-2009 20:39:50) |
Seems not completely impossible that Hermes could have operated in a light strike/fleet air defence role in a limited capacity then?
Further to the above, could we have scaled down the CVA-01 project to something appoximating to Clemenceau and continued flying F4s and S2s albeit with fewer aircraft that Ark Royal/Eagle or CVA-01 were capable of? |
||
Admiral Beez |
|||
|
Posts: 5035 ( 9-May-2009 06:31:05) |
Begs the question, just how small does a carrier deck need to be before F4s can not land and take off, regardless of fuel or weapons load?
|
||
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 4298 ( 9-May-2009 12:45:16) |
How big? About the length required to land a F4 is how big.
One DAW study circa 1953 is 695ft, of parallel design, the landing zone slightly to one side with a parking zone balancing it. Small island from the CVE
types and two 200ft long catapult tracks. One split lift up front ahead of the catapults and likely room for 8 Scimitars in the hanger.
|
||
Obi Wan Russell |
|||
|
Posts: 507 ( 9-May-2009 17:19:35) |
MDP78 wrote:Why would you want to reduce the size of the carrier? Cost and size for CVs are not directly linked, but size and capability are. This is why the CVFs are as large as they are for a relatively small air group. Ship steel is still cheap and air is free, whereas engines, radars, weapons and communication suites are very expensive. Nowadays an air defence missile system with Aster 15 is actually more expensive than the steel for the whole of a CVF. A carrier's primary weapon system is her aircraft, and that capability increases exponentially with size. Also with increased size, habitability for crew goes up as crew number requirements are based on the needs of the ship and air group, not necessarilty just it's displacement. Modern automation reduces overall manpower requirements too. Hence the crew for a CVF isn't proportionally larger than that of an Invincible. As a simple thought excercise, if all the components of HMS Hermes post 66 (my favourite incarnation of the ship) eg engines, radars, comms, weapons, flight deck equipment (cats and wires etc) were installed in a hull of 40,000 to 50,000 tons instead of the actual hull of 28,000tons, the resulting carrier wouldn't be much more expensive to buy, ie for a ship nearly twice the size it would only be in the region of ten per cent more more expensive, but it would be more than twice as capable. The problem historically is that this equation is 'beyond the ken' of most politicians to grasp, hence the association of size with cost, and also larger hulls tend to 'attract' more weapons and sensors to 'fill up' the extra volume. Resisting that temptation is a matter of discipline for the designers and the Navy buying the ship. The US Spruance class DDs are a good illustration, criticised for being relatively lightly armed for their size, they were nonetheless excellent ASW escorts with good habitability and excellent potential for modernisation, and relatively inexpensive. |
||
SPD67 |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 23 (10-May-2009 23:02:14) |
Slightly OT, but did the RN ever consider buying the A-4 to fly from her smaller carriers? They were operated from HMAS Melbourne, you could have had a low
cost low risk strengthening of the FAA, and Commonwealth compatibility as well.
|
||
StevoJH |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 964 (11-May-2009 04:20:09) |
SPD67 wrote: All the active RN carriers could already carry both the Buccaneer and the Sea Vixen, both of which were more capable then the A4, so why switch to them? |
||
HK |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 62 (11-May-2009 04:37:40) |
SPD67 wrote:Probably because both "small" carriers (Hermes & Victorious) could operate the Buccaneer S2 from 1964 onwards. The Buccaneer was a much better strike aircraft that the A-4, especially in terms of payload/range and avionics. Also, it could fold up so well that its deck spot factor was almost the same as the A-4, so very little benefit to replacing Buccaneers with A-4s. If a new plane type should have been added to Hermes & Victorious, it should have been the F-8 Crusader in the air defense role.... |
||
StevoJH |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 965 (11-May-2009 04:47:18) |
Only problem with the Sea Vixens was that they didn't carry sparrows, limiting them to WVR and that they didn't have a gun.
|
||
jock |
|||
|
Posts: 1119 (12-May-2009 11:40:44) |
"HMS Hermes 1959-1984" by Tony Dyson on page 32 has a photo of a USN F4 in 1963 sitting on Hermes's deck, having crossed deck from USS Ranger.
|
||
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 4306 (12-May-2009 14:13:11) |
The pilot must have had some balls to do it.
Must have landed with just dregs on the fueltanks. |
||
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 3640 (13-May-2009 04:31:54) |
While Ranger did have one squadron of F-4Bs on her 11/62-6/63 trip to Japan, Hong Kong, and Vietnam, I question whether the BS-4 catapults she had at the time
could launch even a bare-minimum-fuel F-4.
Can you see if the port cat is longer than the starboard one... or if there is an "Alaskan highway" (a narrow one) outboard of the island? If either is present, then the photo was taken after her 1964-66 refit, as both those were installed then. If they are absent, then the 1963 date is correct. Here is a 1959 photo of her with the short cats:
|
||
alejandrogrossi |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 6 (28-Jun-2009 04:00:17) |
Hi
Can actualy reintall the cats, arested wire and mirrows on the INS Viraat, an operate them like a ligth CV? Wich colud be the airgroup taht can operate? |
||
StevoJH |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 1152 (28-Jun-2009 04:11:19) |
alejandrogrossi wrote: Hi, Can you please either start a new thread of your own or ask all your questions in one single old thread rather then brining back six seperate threads? Regarding Hermes/Viraat, it would not be economical to run any sort of modernisation or life extension on her at this stage as she is now over 50 years old and will be leaving service within the next 2-3 years at the maximum. Realistically She should have left service at least 10 years ago as i'm fairly sure she wouldn't be in the best material state by now, no matter how much the Indian Navy has spent on maintaining her. She's an old ship, the best thing to do with her is replace her as soon as possible. |
||
Admiral Beez |
|||
|
Posts: 5140 (28-Jun-2009 21:13:55) |
StevoJH wrote: Presumably the Vixen could carry a gun pod and could have a sparrow capable intercept radar fitted. The Vixen's biggest challenge is that it's too slow. |
||
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 4412 (28-Jun-2009 22:46:51) |
The Vixen's biggest challenge is that it's too slow. Thats a more contreversial statement that you might realise, DH110 was more than able to match the Javelin for supersonic dives, the problem was the
structure could take some of the vibrations and forces this produced, leading upto the disasterous air show flight that killed a number of spectators when the
machine broke up in flight.
Sea Vixens chief failing is that even with upgrades it does'nt fit what the RN was looking for. It did'nt carry enough of the new heavy AAMs, did'nt have enough speed and did'nt have enough endurance. While you could fix in part some of this, you could'nt fix all of it together on the machine without going to such extremes as to effectively design and build a new aircraft. |
||