WI Malta class aircraft carrier

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good news for the RN bad news for everyone else. The British government was broke in 1945, spending money finishing them means something more important like the Atomic Bomb project is slowed.
 
Not much. Obviously the RN has a contemporary of the Midway Class with all the extra combat power that gives. The only potential difference in Suez is a lesser RAF or French contribution, Suez was a military success but a political and diplomatic disaster.

However unless British governments from 1945 on do a lot of things differently then Britain is still going to experience relative decline culminating in an economic train wreck in the late 60's and mid 70's, this is the subject of a TI I'm working on, resulting in Britain abandoning great power status at some point. As the Maltas would had significantly higher operating costs than the post war carrier in OTL then they could have been dumped even earlier.
 
Ok if they are built, to keep all the Maltas (or at least some) going as the big symbol of how the Royal Navy is still a major player, pretty much every other carrier is either sold or broken up earlier, same for battleships/cruisers.

The RN would try and keep at least one going as long as possible perhaps to the mid 80's, cause they know what ever replacement they get will probably be smaller and have less aircraft. Maybe they sell the Maltas off to India or someone else as they retire them or canabalise them to keep one or two of them going for longer.

But to do this like previously mentioned other projects get put back or delayed so Britain gets nuclear submarines, nukes ect later.
 
Good news for the RN bad news for everyone else. The British government was broke in 1945, spending money finishing them means something more important like the Atomic Bomb project is slowed.

Anything is worth having a carrier class called the Malta class. Thats top grade awesome. :D Anyone know why they named it so?
 
Anything is worth having a carrier class called the Malta class. Thats top grade awesome. :D Anyone know why they named it so?

I think partly as recognition of Malta's pivotal role during the Mediterranean campaign when it was "an unsinkable aircraft carrier." The second ship of the class would have been HMS Gibraltar followed by HMS New Zealand and finally HMS Africa, with the first two they were probably trying to capitalise on traditional notions of British naval power which Gibraltar in particular came to represent.
 

Riain

Banned
The Malta's have several significant advantages in the postwar environment than the Eagle and Ark Royal.

They were as big as the RN could handle, as big as CVA01 in the 60s and CVF now, and they were fast at the full 33kts compared to 30kt of the E & AR. This will come in handy by the late 50s with big, fast jet aircraft.

But the most important thing is their open hangar design, built as a superstructure with the hangar deck (not flight deck as in E & AR) as the strengh deck. This is crucially important when the time comes for rebuilding for steam catapults and angled decks, an open, superstructure hangar means vastly easier and cheaper conversion to modern specs than the massive rebuilds needed by the E & AR. So what you end up with by the 60s is a big fast ship which is easy to keep up to modern specs and whoe airgroup doesn't shrink to 30 planes when Phantoms and Buccaneers enter service. This will keep Britain in the strike carrier game well into the 80s with important butterlies throughout the Cold War.
 
I think partly as recognition of Malta's pivotal role during the Mediterranean campaign when it was "an unsinkable aircraft carrier." The second ship of the class would have been HMS Gibraltar followed by HMS New Zealand and finally HMS Africa, with the first two they were probably trying to capitalise on traditional notions of British naval power which Gibraltar in particular came to represent.

I thought it might be something along those lines. Unfortunately, I dont know much about aircraft carriers, but it would be interesting to hypothesize what effect the carrier and its class might have on Maltese independence later on. Probably no real effect, but knowing us it would have steered Malta to be a bit more pro-British rather than pro-American.
 
what the Malta Class would of looked like

GBCVMalta1.png
 
The Malta's would have been a much better post war carrier than the Audacious class were, largly for the reasons that Riain has already stipulated. however, getting them in service would probably have required them to begin building far earlier, say 1943 at the latest to avoid them being totally cancelled and scrapped on the slips.

However, it should be noted that the constant comparison to the Midways is rather misleading. Instead, in terms of size (but not tonnage), crew and aircraft carrier they would be closer to that of the Essexes - roughly 900 foot long and between 40-50 aircraft. Think USS Oriskany.

As for general service, they would have helped avoid many of the major problems that plagued British carrier ops later on, such as an extensive redesign of the F-4 Phantom to operate off the smaller decks. Consequently they may give the British the edge to stay in the CTOL carrier business for longer, although this is more to do with economics and politics than actual operational experience. They will still also be of poor steel quality (as all wartime builds were) and need a replacement by the 70's at the latest, assuming an early 50's commision date. The they will also become to man as the navy shrinks from the 60's onwards.

I thought it might be something along those lines. Unfortunately, I dont know much about aircraft carriers, but it would be interesting to hypothesize what effect the carrier and its class might have on Maltese independence later on. Probably no real effect, but knowing us it would have steered Malta to be a bit more pro-British rather than pro-American.

I rather suspect that if the Malta's are built (unlikely) it would come at the expense of the Audacious Class. Since the Audacious Class were all renmaed during construction to honour British carriers lost in action during the war, then the Maltas may also be renamed as such - HMS Eagle, HMS Ark Royal, ect.

Russell
 

Riain

Banned
The tonnage of the Malta puts them into the Midway rather than Essex size class, the Essex were basically 'escalator clause' Enterprises of 27000t originally, growing later on of course. Malta class were designed to 47000 and had 33% more engine power than an Essex even if they were of similar length.
 
The tonnage of the Malta puts them into the Midway rather than Essex size class, the Essex were basically 'escalator clause' Enterprises of 27000t originally, growing later on of course. Malta class were designed to 47000 and had 33% more engine power than an Essex even if they were of similar length.

Tonnage does not equal size, as the Audacious Class proved - smaller boats compared to the Essexes with small hulls and hangars yet vastly greater tonnage. The engine power would have to be greater to propel the ships at a sufficient speed due to their greater displacement. In terms hanagar space and aircraft carrier (i.e. the most important factor) they are little more impressive the Essexes. Roughly 40-50 is granted a respectable number but not compared to the 75 of the Midways. if anything they are perhaps between the Essex and Midway, although closer to the latter.

The tonnage of the Malta puts them into the Midway rather than Essex size class

I would also argue that capability, not size is the deciding factor in which class a carrier is placed.

Russell
 
If the UK had of finished Two of the Malta . The British could of keep these ships going as long as the US did the Midway Class until the mid 1990's .
Part of the Reason the Br CVL's class served so long was they were build on merchant ship standers instead of war ship standards .
 
The hangar space would be around 54-56,000 sq ft, roughly equal to HMS Ark Royal and Eagle and bigger than the planned 1952 carrier.
The airgroup in 1960 would be around 64
24 Scimitar
24 Sea Vixen
8 Gannet ASW
6 Gannet AEW
2 Whirlwind SAR

By 1970 I would reckon;
18 Vickers Type 583 (or F-4 Phantom)
18 Buccaneer
8 Wessex ASW
6 Gannet AEW (or Hawkeye or something else but newer than Gannet)
2 Wessex SAR
Total 52


Malta as finished in the 1950's

GBCVMalta2AU.png
 

Riain

Banned
Carrier design and aircraft design has a lot of bearing on capacity. The Audacious class was the final evolution of the armoured hangar concept, a design which limits aircraft numbers in exchange for physical protection. The RN didn't go in for the huge deck parks of the US in peacetime but could have in war, closes and perceived capability gap when it counts.

Also a Skyhawk is not a Buccaneer and a Crusader is not a Phantom. Midways of the Vietnam era carried 36 Skyhawks as part of their 75 planes, if they switched them out for Intruders the 75 would soon drop to 60 or so. In wartime a Malta would gain extra aircraft from the training/base sqns on shore so the 40-50 planes in peacetime would become 60 in wartime. Indeed if the Ark Royal had one more comission and was in service for the Falklands it's feeble airgroup of 26 jets would be bulked out to a far nastier 35 or so jets.
 
I prefer an POD that has both the Audacious and Malta class cancelled so putting extra weight into the 1952 carrier.

For all the advantages of the Maltas over the Audacious class, they were still built with piston aircraft in mind with 30's and 40's engineering and electrical systems whereas the 1952 carriers were designed with jet aircraft in mind and with everything that had been learned about engineering and electrical systems.
 
Carrier design and aircraft design has a lot of bearing on capacity. The Audacious class was the final evolution of the armoured hangar concept, a design which limits aircraft numbers in exchange for physical protection. The RN didn't go in for the huge deck parks of the US in peacetime but could have in war, closes and perceived capability gap when it counts.

Also a Skyhawk is not a Buccaneer and a Crusader is not a Phantom. Midways of the Vietnam era carried 36 Skyhawks as part of their 75 planes, if they switched them out for Intruders the 75 would soon drop to 60 or so. In wartime a Malta would gain extra aircraft from the training/base sqns on shore so the 40-50 planes in peacetime would become 60 in wartime. Indeed if the Ark Royal had one more comission and was in service for the Falklands it's feeble airgroup of 26 jets would be bulked out to a far nastier 35 or so jets.

True, but in the 1980's Midway still carried between 65 and 75 aircraft - mostly Hornets and Corsairs, larger hawkeyes and greyhounds

Hangar sizes are as Follows:

Audcacious - 3400 meters squared
Essex - 4000 meters squared
Midway - 5400 meters squared
Malta - Unknown - was not specified as the final design of the Maltas was never completed but was said by Brown to be smaller than the CVA-01 class, which was 4800 meters squared.

Yes, air complements can be bulked out when needed, but lets keep it to the more common standard load. Given that, it would be between the two carriers (Essex and Midway).

Russell
 
I prefer an POD that has both the Audacious and Malta class cancelled so putting extra weight into the 1952 carrier.

For all the advantages of the Maltas over the Audacious class, they were still built with piston aircraft in mind with 30's and 40's engineering and electrical systems whereas the 1952 carriers were designed with jet aircraft in mind and with everything that had been learned about engineering and electrical systems.

It's a toughie - there was simply no political will to build new vessels in the early 50's, not after the mass expendature during the war when existing hulls would already do.

The best POD would be an early war one. Angle deck technology was actually studied before the war (although in a very limited capacity). Get a POD to have the technology developed a few years earlier and build a vessel to meet those needs during the last years. It's a massive long shot and very unlikley but possible, I suppose.

Russell
 

Riain

Banned
What I'm saying is that it's standard USN practice in peacetime to only keep 50% of the airgroup in the hangar and the rest on the deck but standard RN practice to keep closer to 100% of the airgroup in the hangar. This is why USN airgroups are so much bigger than RN airgroups. The Invincible airgroup is a case in point, they carried 5 Sea Harriers but went to the Falklands with 8 and peaked at 10. The Heremes was the same, it carrier 8 Sea Harriers, went south with 12 and peaked at 15 and 6 GR3s, so the 'standard' airgroup size for the RN is a meaningless term, it has more to do with looking after its aircraft for longer by keeping them out of the weather.

Similarly at least on of the USN carriers which attacked Lebanon in 1983 didn't carry any A7s, it had 24 F14 and 24 A6 which dropped the numbers down from the 'standard' 60 jets to 48. So the 'standard' USN airgroups are often fuzzy as well. And, as standard USN practice dictates, only 24 of these jets would be accomodated in the hangar. This gives USN aircraft shorter ervice lives but since they have continuous production going on this is a deliberayte policy.
 
It still doesn't change the fact that the Malta had a considerably smaller hanagar size compared to the Midway, and was closer in size to the Essex in Crew, size and aircraft carried. Given British naval practice of parking the entire airgroup inside the hanagar, this would still only give the vessel roughly 50 aircraft to play with.

"Standard" numbers refer to the optimum of aircraft carried in operation, as far as I know.

At her peak during the Falklands conflict, Hermes carried close to thirty Harriers.

Russell
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top