Aircraft Carrier additions

[navalperson]

I would like to suggest some carrier tech that I would maybe like to see in RTW3
First and foremost would be V/ STOL aircraft which would give helicopter carriers more variation of aircraft to operate. I would also like to see build options of enclosed hangar or open hangers as well as hurricane bow. The final thing would be option to add ski- ramps which would help when jets come into the game. And give smaller carriers the added ability to operate heavier aircraft.

[wlbjork]

With an introduction date of 1969, the V/STOL only just fits into the game period.

Ski ramps are trickier, an artificial one was used in WW2 so the hypothetical ability to build them was around for some time. However it wasn't until the 1970s - just past the tech 'end' date of the game - that the designs were properly examined to establish the optimum angle for launch. This could be added as a 'what if' tech though.

[oldpop2000]

1969 is not a bad date for V/stol aircraft. Just research them and you will find them. Look for the Convair XFY Pogo and the off shoot, the Ryan X-13 and the Lockheed XFV. I've seen the first two taking off. 

[wlbjork]

Jul 29, 2022 8:58:27 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

1969 is not a bad date for V/stol aircraft. Just research them and you will find them. Look for the Convair XFY Pogo and the off shoot, the Ryan X-13 and the Lockheed XFV. I've seen the first two taking off. 

Whilst I don't dispute attempts at V/STOL aircraft prior to the Harrier, I'm not aware of any that were accepted into service. The technology wasn't mature enough despite numerous efforts.

You could add Hawker-Siddeley's P.1127 and P.1154 designs to the list as well - although the P.1127 did evolve into (a) Kestrel and (b) Harrier.

[andrewm]

I have seen a Pogo take off and land, I have also seen the test pilots opinion of the process. On a moving ship crash rates of 50% or more with average pilots would have been reasonable, you may be able to make the concept work with fly by wire flight systems but not before that . So really you need the Pegasus engine or similar for effective Vstols, you could build something like the YAK-38 earlier and get a useless aircraft burdened by an engine which is dead weight except for take off and landing

[cwemyss]

As amazing an accomplishment as Harrier was, it was still really limited in comparison with its non-STOVL cousins. And the Forger, as noted... was basically just taking up space a helo could have used better. It wasnt until the AV-8B and the Sea Harrier came along (mid-80s?) that the Harrier was really a viable fighter solution, and you could argue that STOVL fighters still weren't on par with CTOL fighters until 2015 when the F-35B went operational.

Not to disparage the Harrier... what the Brits and US Marines did with them in various wars was nothing short of astonishing.

To the main point of the thread... carrier/shipboard aviation development stagnated for 30+ years. Obviously F-4 >> F9F >> Hellcat, but once we had catapults and angled decks, the basicss didn't change.
There wasn't incentive for much to change. The USN had plenty of Essex hulls, the Soviets didn't care about blue water capability, and no one else could afford or much needed carrier aviation.

I do wonder what would have happened had great power naval competition continued past 1945. Would someone have pushed engine tech faster to get to STOVL sooner? Would someone have built a STOBAR carrier (Kuznetzov/Liaoning) 30 years earlier than actually happened?

[wlbjork]

Unlikely, as the main driver behind the Harrier wasn't for carrier use but land use.

It was intended as a short range attack aircraft that could be operated from close to the front lines after the USSR invaded Europe and destroyed runways and autobahn.

It was that little facet that resulted in it being eminently suitable to operate from the Invincible-class through-deck cruisers.

Note that the Shar used in the Falklands campaign was the FRS.1 variant of the Harrier I, whilst HMS Hermes operated RAF GR.3 versions of the Harrier I. But yeah, the performance of both the Harrier I and Harrier II wasn't up to the standards of heavier aircraft with longer take-off runs of the same era.

[andrewm]

The Royal Navy always wanted a full sized carrier with conventional aircraft. After a defense review killed the replacements for HMS Ark Royal and HMS Eagle and the Invincible class was ordered as an ASW escort they turned to the RAF's Harrier and got a slightly navalised version the Sea Harrier with a radar but still not capable of carrying radar guided missiles so Sidewinders, Guns, Bombs and Rocket pods. Their intended role was largly killing Bear recon aircraft, after all the RAF had demonstrated* in the defense review they could provide fixed wing air cover anywhere the navy would need it (* By lieing).
So Hermes and Inivincible both went to the Falklands carrying FRS 1 Sea Harriers (800 squadron on Hermes and 801 squadron on Invincible) with a mix of RN and RAF pilots and extra aircraft from the training unit. Later on Harrier GR 3s from No 1 squadron RAF operated from Hermes having arrived on Atlantic Conveyer or with aerial refuelling ferried from Acension island.
After the Falklands war an improved version of the Harrier was developed for the USMC and RAF still a ground attack aircraft which had a navalised version capabale of carrying Sparrow or AMRAAM type missiles which was considerably better but still not a match for an F-18 or F-14 from a real carrier.

The P1154 May have been an improvement but it and many other capable British Aircraft designs were killed of by an egrariously insane defense review by Harold Wilsons government which decided that manned aircraft were completely obsolete and not worth bothering with in 1964 .......

[owe166]

I think it would be better to ask for the carrier parts from RTW2 that aren't working to be confirmed and shown to be working in RTW3. Such as edge lifts and deck parks. Which to my understanding are still not functional in the current RTW2 build...