A different Royal Navy

I agree but it could have been done better, and since we are on a internet forum in 2016 its far easier :)

I would Concentrate on keeping long term just sufficient programs,
- concentrate early on NA but have the ability to send a force out of area v second rate opposition.
- not develop as much technology and types of ship, ie one class of frigate, by buying in less vital parts hopefully in trade with others.
- develop technology so its easier to fit into ships and you can deal with changes, ie try not to have very long Sea Slug style mags that basically have the ship designed around them!
- try to sell as much equipment as possible, so try to build stuff that others will want at least to licences produce them selfless.

With hindsight the RN had a lot of advanced technology and systems that did work and did even sell well. It has also had relatively few really hard tests since 1945. It wasted a lot of money and effort by not planning better.
So don't develop technology because it is expensive, apart from when you want to develop technology to shrink and standardise equipment, which won't be expensive at all.
Buy in equipment from abroad, ignoring the fact that balance of trade ruled pretty much everything HMG did from 45-80.
 
So don't develop technology because it is expensive, apart from when you want to develop technology to shrink and standardise equipment, which won't be expensive at all.
Buy in equipment from abroad, ignoring the fact that balance of trade ruled pretty much everything HMG did from 45-80.
Trouble is that the technology they wanted was always "almost ready to use". It was just close enough to working that with just a little bit more development money they're sure to get it done. If what they wanted had been a little further out of reach the programmes wouldn't have turned into money pits but been stopped when it became obvious they wouldn't work.
 
Point taken.

Having said that I for one would have liked to have known that the Tiger class cruisers would have cost as much and taken as long to complete as new ships with the same armament. Same for their conversions to helicopter carriers. Ditto for the aircraft carrier rebuilds.

This - Britain would have been better served in 1966+ by looking at what they needed and then using OTS designs or projects that looked to be working or work more efficient and build something from new rather than rebuilding something that is old. Also spending a bit more money in building those ships often resulted in lower lifetime costs (ie type 21 Frigates were 10% more costly to run than the more expensive Lenanders)

CVA-01 for example - its chief designer went to his grave relieved it was never built it was such a mess - a pair of cut down Kitty Hawk/Forrestal's type designs would have served - built leveraging the existing US design plus gas turbine developments in a COGAGOG arrangement (Olympus/Olympus/Tyne) on 4 shafts - Probably be a bit slower on 200K SHP than their USN Half sisters but far more efficient and far less labour intensive and while the trunking for the air intakes might be a problem the air groups are going to be in the 50-60 aircraft range at most anyway (probably far less in peace time).

Therefore the need for a F4-K goes away with the Ark and Eagle operating into the early 70s with Sea Vixen and Buccaneer before being scrapped or possibly sold during the early 70s

Britain buys lots of 'standard' USN Phantom IIs which equip the RAF front line Squadrons and the FAA's units that convert as the Vixen's are taken out of service.

Bulwark and Hermes share the Commando carrier role until the 80s where they and the LPDs are replaced with 3 x 20K ton 'through deck' Commando carriers and a number of RFA operated amphibious support ships

The Strategic Nuclear deterrent is placed into the hands of the RN with the '4' Resolution class SSBNs coming into service from 1967 and replacing he V-Bombers by 1968 - with the V-Bomber force wound down by 1971 and not retained - those squadrons being rerolled as Harrier or Phantom units...or not retained

As for the type 82 - nope - build the original design of the type 42 (with the full length hull and larger magazine) - no need for an effective 1% saving in not building the original full length design (as the final 4 would be)

Britain has an effective ASW design in the Leanders no need for the DDGs to take up that mantel as well (Keep them as dedicated AAA ships) and the type 22 is already on the horizon - I would also build a simpler and cheaper escort than the already cheap Type 21 GP Frigate - perhaps even using the 76mm OTO Melara gun in place of the Mk8 114mm and CODOG rather than the OTLs COGOG making them cheaper to run - nice if the VL Sea Wolf or even the lightweight 4 cell launcher development was continued in the 70s as this would allow for a much lighter and less intrusive installation than the very heavy and deck penetrating 6 cell system and the 4 cell system could effectively replace the Sea Cat system.

The other answer of course is to again look to the US and copy the OHP class?
 
1968

1968 is another year in which the UK's SSBN force comes on in leaps and bounds. HMS RESOLUTION conducts the first Polaris firing by a British submarine off Cape Kennedy on the 15th of Febuary. She goes on to sail from Faslane for her first operational deterrence patrol exactly four months later. The Final boat of the class HMS REVENGE is launched in march. Of the other two boats REPULSE is commissioned in September and is able to sail to relive her older sister on deterrence patrol. This begins a cycle of Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) that continues until this day. RENOWN is commissioned in November.
The rundown of the RAF's V force begins in earnest.

Of the new C class SSN's a third boat COURAGEOUS (the name is changed from SUPERB at the last minute) is laid down on the 15th of June and first of class CHURCHILL is launched on the 20th of December.

EAGLE's refit continues but is now months behind (an admittedly optimistic) schedule and over budget. This is having the knock on effect of pushing back a planned refit for VICTORIOUS. HMS HERMES takes part in exercises with the RAN during which as well as embarking Australian naval officers and government officials RAN aircraft also operate from the vessel. Despite concerns over the ships operating and manpower costs the Australian government signs a letter of intent to purchase HERMES to replace their current carrier HMAS MELBOURNE.

HMS TIGER is decommissioned and begins preparation and training for her upcoming transfer to Brazil. Members of the Brazilian navy begin training with the RN in Portsmouth in preparation for taking over the ship. In order to free up manpower HMS LION is also decommissioned. With no buyer as yet found the ship is laid up in "rotten row" in Portsmouth harbor.

The second Type 82 destroyer HMS SHEFFIELD is laid down. Although the RN is not interested in the Type 42 design some smaller navies particularly the Argentinian navy do make enquiries regarding possible export. A contract is awarded to Vosper Thornycroft on the 27th of February for the design of a patrol frigate to be prepared in collaboration with Yarrow Ltd. These are planned to replace the Leopard and Salisbury-class frigates and will be known as the Type 21's.

The TSR-2 is officially named the Tornado and the first aircraft are received by 232 Operational Conversion Unit where they they recive the designation FGR2.

Having survived the recent defence whitepaper the Anglo-French SEPECAT Jaguar continues with the first prototype flying on the 8th of September. However doubts are surfacing within the RAF about the services need for an extra aircraft type and even the aircraft's suitability for its intended ground attack and training roles.
However to avoid causing a rift with the French who are still somewhat unhappy about Britain pulling out from the AFVG program (despite strong indications that they themselves were looking for a way out) the project will continue for now.
 

Riain

Banned
This - Britain would have been better served in 1966+ by looking at what they needed and then using OTS designs or projects that looked to be working or work more efficient and build something from new rather than rebuilding something that is old. Also spending a bit more money in building those ships often resulted in lower lifetime costs (ie type 21 Frigates were 10% more costly to run than the more expensive Lenanders)

CVA-01 for example - its chief designer went to his grave relieved it was never built it was such a mess - a pair of cut down Kitty Hawk/Forrestal's type designs would have served - built leveraging the existing US design plus gas turbine developments in a COGAGOG arrangement (Olympus/Olympus/Tyne) on 4 shafts - Probably be a bit slower on 200K SHP than their USN Half sisters but far more efficient and far less labour intensive and while the trunking for the air intakes might be a problem the air groups are going to be in the 50-60 aircraft range at most anyway (probably far less in peace time).

Therefore the need for a F4-K goes away with the Ark and Eagle operating into the early 70s with Sea Vixen and Buccaneer before being scrapped or possibly sold during the early 70s

Britain buys lots of 'standard' USN Phantom IIs which equip the RAF front line Squadrons and the FAA's units that convert as the Vixen's are taken out of service.

Bulwark and Hermes share the Commando carrier role until the 80s where they and the LPDs are replaced with 3 x 20K ton 'through deck' Commando carriers and a number of RFA operated amphibious support ships

The Strategic Nuclear deterrent is placed into the hands of the RN with the '4' Resolution class SSBNs coming into service from 1967 and replacing he V-Bombers by 1968 - with the V-Bomber force wound down by 1971 and not retained - those squadrons being rerolled as Harrier or Phantom units...or not retained

As for the type 82 - nope - build the original design of the type 42 (with the full length hull and larger magazine) - no need for an effective 1% saving in not building the original full length design (as the final 4 would be)

Britain has an effective ASW design in the Leanders no need for the DDGs to take up that mantel as well (Keep them as dedicated AAA ships) and the type 22 is already on the horizon - I would also build a simpler and cheaper escort than the already cheap Type 21 GP Frigate - perhaps even using the 76mm OTO Melara gun in place of the Mk8 114mm and CODOG rather than the OTLs COGOG making them cheaper to run - nice if the VL Sea Wolf or even the lightweight 4 cell launcher development was continued in the 70s as this would allow for a much lighter and less intrusive installation than the very heavy and deck penetrating 6 cell system and the 4 cell system could effectively replace the Sea Cat system.

The other answer of course is to again look to the US and copy the OHP class?

There is no 'cut down' forrestall or kitty hawk design waiting in the wings to replace the cva01, so that is not an option. Any design world be entirely new, driven by the same constraints as cva01 and if subject to the same bullshit political pressure over the displacement destined to fail also. British ship design was world class in the 60s, the problem was political interference on technical matters beyond their competence.

As for the Phantom, it was ordered in 1964 when the Eagle had just finished a refit expected to last 20 years, the Victorious was just refitted, the ark was a candidate and the cva01 on the drawing board. These ships drove the adoption of the spey, using j79s again was not an option when the decision was made.
 
Last edited:
CVA-01 for example - its chief designer went to his grave relieved it was never built it was such a mess - a pair of cut down Kitty Hawk/Forrestal's type designs would have served - built leveraging the existing US design plus gas turbine developments in a COGAGOG arrangement (Olympus/Olympus/Tyne) on 4 shafts - Probably be a bit slower on 200K SHP than their USN Half sisters but far more efficient and far less labour intensive and while the trunking for the air intakes might be a problem the air groups are going to be in the 50-60 aircraft range at most anyway (probably far less in peace time).

It sounds like what you're suggesting is a British version of the American CVV Medium Carrier programme 10 years early. Essentially starting the design process from scratch would be very expensive even without the Admiral's tendency to insist on all the newest bells and whistles as soon as someone says they might be possible. Unless you can bring the US onboard the program as replacements for the Midways I just don't see it happening. To actually get such a ship built I think you'd have to start with something like the 1952 carrier design and incorporate what improvements you can without sending the price so high the ships get canceled just as they're about to lay them down, AGAIN!
 
It's weird that there are two conversations going on here- the OP carrying on his wish fulfilment thread blissfully ignorant of any criticism, and the rest of us trying to come up with something plausible.
 
It sounds like what you're suggesting is a British version of the American CVV Medium Carrier programme 10 years early. Essentially starting the design process from scratch would be very expensive even without the Admiral's tendency to insist on all the newest bells and whistles as soon as someone says they might be possible. Unless you can bring the US onboard the program as replacements for the Midways I just don't see it happening. To actually get such a ship built I think you'd have to start with something like the 1952 Carrier design and incorporate what improvements you can without sending the price so high the ships get canceled just as they're about to lay them down, AGAIN!
I'm pleased that someone mentioned the 1952 Carrier because the POD for this is in the wrong place.

I've been thinking for a while that Hermes should have been cancelled in 1946 instead of suspended and plans to rebuild the Illustrious class abandoned altogether before the end of 1949 in favour of a pair of 1952 Carriers. According to Brown & Moore in Rebuilding the Royal Navy the estimated cost of one 1952 Carrier was £26 million in 1953, which according to the Bank of England Inflation Calculator was worth £31.2 million in 1959. They say that the cost of rebuilding Victorious was £30 million, but other sources usually say it cost £20 million and Hermes cost £37.5 million to complete (Marriott, RN Aircraft Carriers 1945-1990). It would have been possible to build a third 1952 Carrier with the money it took to complete the Tiger class.

Therefore after the 1957 Defence Review the RN would still have been 5 strike carriers, but they would have consisted of a trio of 1952 Carriers, Eagle and Ark Royal, instead of Ark Royal, Centaur, Eagle, Hermes and Victorious. According to the Bank of England Inflation Calculator £26 million in 1953 was worth £37.45 million in 1965 and Eagle's 1959-64 refit cost £31 million so with hindsight it might have been worth building a fourth 1952 Carrier to replace Eagle in 1965 instead of rebuilding her.

Even if they ended up costing more than the 1953 estimate they would have been better long term investments. However, I think that the costs and building times of new ships were likely to be closer to the estimates than the rebuilds. That is in part because one of the things that made the completion of Hermes in 1959, the 1950-58 rebuilt of Victorious and the 1959-64 refit of Eagle so expensive was the electronics systems like the Type 984 radar, Comprehensive Display System, Action Data Automation and Direct Plot Transmission. New ships would have had the same systems fitted. It's well known that Victorious was fitted with new boilers, but AFAIK it is less well known that both ships and the Tiger class had their DC electrical systems replaced with AC.
 

Riain

Banned
the cost of rebuilding Victorious was £30 million, but other sources usually say it cost £20 million

The Vic was torn down, rebuilt back up, torn back down again to replace the boilers and rebuilt a second a second time to a different and far more expensive design with the angled deck, steam cats and Type 984 radar. A single tear down that fitted new boilers would have been drastically cheaper!
 
The Vic was torn down, rebuilt back up, torn back down again to replace the boilers and rebuilt a second a second time to a different and far more expensive design with the angled deck, steam cats and Type 984 radar. A single tear down that fitted new boilers would have been drastically cheaper!
IIRC the hull was cut into quarters and then welded back together so that virtually all that was left of the original ship was the hull.

Unfortunately without the angled deck and steam catapults Victorious would not have been able to operate the Buccaneer, Scimitar and Sea Vixen. Before she was rebuilt her catapults, lifts and arrester gear weren't strong enough for the Gannet and Sea Vixen.

Although her modern Action Information Organisation consisting of the Type 984 radar, along with CDS and DPT was expensive it was also necessary to cope with air attacks by fast jets. I can't remember the numbers exactly, but in war games with the USN the non-radar equipped Scimitars aboard Victorious were able to shoot down 19 out of 20 attacking aircraft and drive off the 20th.
 
A major drawback of all the ships laid down before the end of World War Two was their DC electrical systems. They had to be replaced entirely with AC at what seems to have been great expense (e.g. Hermes, Victorious and the Tiger class) or ships like Eagle in her 1959-64 refit and Ark Royal's 1967-70 refit had unsatisfactory combined AC/DC systems.

AFAIK the Americans didn't have this problem with their World War II but ships. Furthermore their World War II ships used electric power for their gun turrets, torpedo tube mountings and fire control directors, but the British used hydraulic power. This also made rebuilding old British ships more expensive than American equivalents because more generating power had to be installed.

Would it have been feasible for the Royal Navy to have adopted 440 volts AC, 3-phase at 60 Hertz in the early 1930s instead of after 1945?
 

Riain

Banned
IIRC the hull was cut into quarters and then welded back together so that virtually all that was left of the original ship was the hull.

Unfortunately without the angled deck and steam catapults Victorious would not have been able to operate the Buccaneer, Scimitar and Sea Vixen. Before she was rebuilt her catapults, lifts and arrester gear weren't strong enough for the Gannet and Sea Vixen.

Although her modern Action Information Organisation consisting of the Type 984 radar, along with CDS and DPT was expensive it was also necessary to cope with air attacks by fast jets. I can't remember the numbers exactly, but in war games with the USN the non-radar equipped Scimitars aboard Victorious were able to shoot down 19 out of 20 attacking aircraft and drive off the 20th.

All of that is true, but the question remains was it good for the RN? If the Vic had new boilers installed on her first tear down she would have been finished as the last axial deck carrier and other carrier would have been rebuilt in the window between her 1955 completion and the start of Eagle's rebuild in 1959. Ideally after that the Ark would have went in for an Eagle style rebuild rather than the Hermes' 1964-66 big refit.
 
All of that is true, but the question remains was it good for the RN? If the Vic had new boilers installed on her first tear down she would have been finished as the last axial deck carrier and other carrier would have been rebuilt in the window between her 1955 completion and the start of Eagle's rebuild in 1959. Ideally after that the Ark would have went in for an Eagle style rebuild rather than the Hermes' 1964-66 big refit.
Except that I think she should not have been rebuilt at all.

I'd prefer to start in 1941, but if POD is October 1945...
  1. Hermes is cancelled along with all of the Daring class the third Audacious. IOTL 8 of the 16 Darings were cancelled in December 1945, the third Audacious was cancelled in February 1946 and Hermes was suspended in February 1946;
  2. The money and material saved on not building the Daring class was used to accelerate the completion of Albion, Ark Royal, Centaur, Bulwark and Eagle. Ark Royal was completed in 1950 to the same standard as Eagle in 1951-OTL and the other ships were completed 2 years earlier to the same standards as OTL;
  3. It would also help if some of the money saved on not building the Daring class was put into accelerating the development of the steam catapult. According to Freidman they were first proposed in 1936, but at that time hydraulic catapults were perfectly adequate;
  4. Similarly I also wish that the man who had thought of the flexible deck had instead thought of the angled fight deck. Then we could have had interim flight decks in 1950-51 instead of 1954-55 and fully angled decks in 1954 instead of 1958;
  5. The Admiralty decides that rebuilding the Illustrious class is a bad idea before June 1948 instead of June 1952. As IOTL the plan was for 6 fleet carriers and 6 light fleet carriers, with the surviving Majestic and Colossus class in reserve. However, the difference was that the fleet carriers would consist of Ark Royal and Eagle plus 4 new ships, while the light fleet carriers would consist of the Albion, Bulwark and Centaur plus 3 new ships;
  6. In the end 3 fleet carriers, named Courageous, Furious and Glorious were laid down in the early 1950s and completed 1958-61. These were paid for with the money spent on Victorious 1950-58, Hermes 1952-59, the Tiger class 1951-61, the 1955-59 refit of Belfast and the aborted refit of Swiftsure;
  7. Meanwhile Ark Royal and Eagle had been brought up to Standard C by fitting them with interim angled flight decks and steam catapults (Eagle got the pair fitted to Centaur IOTL). Initially it had been planned to rebuild Eagle to Standard A 1959-62 and Ark Royal would follow 1962-65. However, when it was revealed that the refits would take longer and cost more than originally estimated it was decided that the remaining life of their hulls and machinery made new ships more cost effective. Therefore a fourth 1952 Carrier named Argus was built to replace Eagle was built in the first half of the 1960s. The 5th ship to have been named Hermes was cancelled by the First Wilson Government;
  8. The Albion and Bulwark were converted to commando carriers at the same time as OTL. Centaur was converted to one in 1961 after she was relieved by Glorious. This gave the Royal Navy an force of 3 commando carriers allowing one ship to be East of Suez at all times;
  9. Courageous was refitted 1964-66 using the money used for the 1964-66 refit of Hermes;
  10. Furious had a refit 1966-68, Glorious had a refit 1968-70 instead of the abortive refit of Victorious and the 1967-70 refit of Ark Royal and Argus had a long refit 1970-72. The combined cost of these refits should be less than the cost of Ark Royal's Phantomisation refit and the conversions of Blake and Tiger into a helicopter carriers. Enough money might be left over to afford a third Fearless class amphibious assault ship so that 3 ships could be East of Suez at all times;
  11. Eagle was paid off in 1964 when Argus completed. Ark Royal should have paid off in 1965 in place of Centaur IOTL, but it's likely that she would have gone into reserve even earlier because of the Royal Navy's 100,000 man personnel ceiling. IOTL the Post 1957 force of 5 strike carriers allowed for 3 to be available at all times. However, in the early 1960s IOTL only 4 out of 5 were actually in commission because one ship (Eagle 1959-64 and Hermes 1964-66) was always having a long refit. Therefore if Eagle was in commission 1959-64 ITTL another carrier would have to be paid off and that would be Ark Royal as she was the least capable ship. In common with Centaur IOTL Ark Royal and Eagle after decommissioning would be used as accommodation ships before being scrapped in the early 1970s;
  12. The 1952 Carrier was designed to operate aircraft with take of weights of 60,000lbs and landing weights of 45,000lbs. Therefore they could operate the Spey-Phantom without further modifications. They might be able to operate the standard Phantom without further modifications. Due to being modern ships with modern machinery and AC electrical systems they probably had service lives of 20 to 30 years, which put the problem of affording ships to replace them would not occur until the first half of the 1970s and could probably be put off another 5 to 10 years;
  13. The problem was that they had even bigger crews than the OTL aircraft carriers which will limit their careers beyond the early 1970s. Furthermore I doubt that they would have been operated at their full aircraft capacity in the 1960s. They probably had air groups the same size as Ark Royal, Eagle and Victorious IOTL. That is 12 fighters, 12 strike, 8 ASW helicopters, 4 AEW and 2 SAR helicopters.
 
This - Britain would have been better served in 1966+ by looking at what they needed and then using OTS designs or projects that looked to be working or work more efficient and build something from new rather than rebuilding something that is old. Also spending a bit more money in building those ships often resulted in lower lifetime costs (ie type 21 Frigates were 10% more costly to run than the more expensive Lenanders)

CVA-01 for example - its chief designer went to his grave relieved it was never built it was such a mess - a pair of cut down Kitty Hawk/Forrestal's type designs would have served - built leveraging the existing US design plus gas turbine developments in a COGAGOG arrangement (Olympus/Olympus/Tyne) on 4 shafts - Probably be a bit slower on 200K SHP than their USN Half sisters but far more efficient and far less labour intensive and while the trunking for the air intakes might be a problem the air groups are going to be in the 50-60 aircraft range at most anyway (probably far less in peace time).

Therefore the need for a F4-K goes away with the Ark and Eagle operating into the early 70s with Sea Vixen and Buccaneer before being scrapped or possibly sold during the early 70s

Britain buys lots of 'standard' USN Phantom IIs which equip the RAF front line Squadrons and the FAA's units that convert as the Vixen's are taken out of service.

Bulwark and Hermes share the Commando carrier role until the 80s where they and the LPDs are replaced with 3 x 20K ton 'through deck' Commando carriers and a number of RFA operated amphibious support ships

The Strategic Nuclear deterrent is placed into the hands of the RN with the '4' Resolution class SSBNs coming into service from 1967 and replacing he V-Bombers by 1968 - with the V-Bomber force wound down by 1971 and not retained - those squadrons being rerolled as Harrier or Phantom units...or not retained

As for the type 82 - nope - build the original design of the type 42 (with the full length hull and larger magazine) - no need for an effective 1% saving in not building the original full length design (as the final 4 would be)

Britain has an effective ASW design in the Leanders no need for the DDGs to take up that mantel as well (Keep them as dedicated AAA ships) and the type 22 is already on the horizon - I would also build a simpler and cheaper escort than the already cheap Type 21 GP Frigate - perhaps even using the 76mm OTO Melara gun in place of the Mk8 114mm and CODOG rather than the OTLs COGOG making them cheaper to run - nice if the VL Sea Wolf or even the lightweight 4 cell launcher development was continued in the 70s as this would allow for a much lighter and less intrusive installation than the very heavy and deck penetrating 6 cell system and the 4 cell system could effectively replace the Sea Cat system.

The other answer of course is to again look to the US and copy the OHP class?

The Type 21 was a very cramped ship with little room for growth. It also had a real problem with hull integrity and they suffered from actual splits in their hulls later on and unlike the older Leander and later Type 22 could not be fitted with a towed array sonar.
 
I'm pleased that someone mentioned the 1952 Carrier because the POD for this is in the wrong place.

I've been thinking for a while that Hermes should have been cancelled in 1946 instead of suspended and plans to rebuild the Illustrious class abandoned altogether before the end of 1949 in favour of a pair of 1952 Carriers. According to Brown & Moore in Rebuilding the Royal Navy the estimated cost of one 1952 Carrier was £26 million in 1953, which according to the Bank of England Inflation Calculator was worth £31.2 million in 1959. They say that the cost of rebuilding Victorious was £30 million, but other sources usually say it cost £20 million and Hermes cost £37.5 million to complete (Marriott, RN Aircraft Carriers 1945-1990). It would have been possible to build a third 1952 Carrier with the money it took to complete the Tiger class.

Therefore after the 1957 Defence Review the RN would still have been 5 strike carriers, but they would have consisted of a trio of 1952 Carriers, Eagle and Ark Royal, instead of Ark Royal, Centaur, Eagle, Hermes and Victorious. According to the Bank of England Inflation Calculator £26 million in 1953 was worth £37.45 million in 1965 and Eagle's 1959-64 refit cost £31 million so with hindsight it might have been worth building a fourth 1952 Carrier to replace Eagle in 1965 instead of rebuilding her.

Even if they ended up costing more than the 1953 estimate they would have been better long term investments. However, I think that the costs and building times of new ships were likely to be closer to the estimates than the rebuilds. That is in part because one of the things that made the completion of Hermes in 1959, the 1950-58 rebuilt of Victorious and the 1959-64 refit of Eagle so expensive was the electronics systems like the Type 984 radar, Comprehensive Display System, Action Data Automation and Direct Plot Transmission. New ships would have had the same systems fitted. It's well known that Victorious was fitted with new boilers, but AFAIK it is less well known that both ships and the Tiger class had their DC electrical systems replaced with AC.
The problem with this is that you are taking the OTL estimates for cost of the 1952 as gospel. If this thread is evidence of anything, it is that these estimates were woefully inaccurate.
 
The problem with this is that you are taking the OTL estimates for cost of the 1952 as gospel. If this thread is evidence of anything, it is that these estimates were woefully inaccurate.
I have already admitted that...
Even if they ended up costing more than the 1953 estimate they would have been better long term investments. However, I think that the costs and building times of new ships were likely to be closer to the estimates than the rebuilds. That is in part because one of the things that made the completion of Hermes in 1959, the 1950-58 rebuilt of Victorious and the 1959-64 refit of Eagle so expensive was the electronics systems like the Type 984 radar, Comprehensive Display System, Action Data Automation and Direct Plot Transmission. New ships would have had the same systems fitted. It's well known that Victorious was fitted with new boilers, but AFAIK it is less well known that both ships and the Tiger class had their DC electrical systems replaced with AC.
 
As all this was supposed to happen under HW's Labour administration can I remember one of my favourite heckles?
Uncle (former AB) Jim Callaghan (in public meeting): And why do I place such great stress on the importance of the navy?
Audience (unanimously): Because you're in b****y Pompey!
(And you can't take Hermes away from Hong Kong before 1967 as she was kind enough to fly me on to the roof of China Products in one of her Wessex)
 
The Type 21 was a very cramped ship with little room for growth. It also had a real problem with hull integrity and they suffered from actual splits in their hulls later on and unlike the older Leander and later Type 22 could not be fitted with a towed array sonar.

Im aware of all that hence the suggestion of using Diesels and a smaller gun - basically the type 21 was the result of the struggle between the Navy (who wanted quality ships) and HMG (who wanted cheap ones) and ended up with something that was neither Quality nor cheap.

Still they found out that you should not use Aluminium ladders and fittings in a ship after that toaster incident nearly killed Amazon in 77!

Personally I am a fan of the type 22 (particularly the batch 3s) and would rather see more of those than the Type 21 (with fewer ships over all as a result) - or possibly a slow fat escort instead of the 21s (I recall the idea was floated in the 70s and 80s for a wider slower hull design)
 
It sounds like what you're suggesting is a British version of the American CVV Medium Carrier programme 10 years early. Essentially starting the design process from scratch would be very expensive even without the Admiral's tendency to insist on all the newest bells and whistles as soon as someone says they might be possible. Unless you can bring the US onboard the program as replacements for the Midways I just don't see it happening. To actually get such a ship built I think you'd have to start with something like the 1952 carrier design and incorporate what improvements you can without sending the price so high the ships get canceled just as they're about to lay them down, AGAIN!

No I am suggesting something that is pretty much the same dimensions as the Forrestal/Kitty Hawk - at the end of the day - steel is relatively cheap - it's the crew and modern 'fittings' electronics cic etc that are the expensive parts (not to mention the embarked air group) - maybe getting the USN involved is possible but they were looking at the Nimitz class by this point so unlikely unless they went for a 2 tier carrier force (theres an idea).

Support infrastructure is another issue but a new Dock was going to be built for the CVA-01s anyway (IIRC the proposed QE2 dock in Portsmouth) - perhaps it could be built with an eye to also supporting USN carriers (CND protesters not withstanding)?

There is no 'cut down' forrestall or kitty hawk design waiting in the wings to replace the cva01, so that is not an option. Any design world be entirely new, driven by the same constraints as cva01 and if subject to the same bullshit political pressure over the displacement destined to fail also. British ship design was world class in the 60s, the problem was political interference on technical matters beyond their competence.

As for the Phantom, it was ordered in 1964 when the Eagle had just finished a refit expected to last 20 years, the Victorious was just refitted, the ark was a candidate and the cva01 on the drawing board. These ships drove the adoption of the spey, using j79s again was not an option when the decision was made.

Well lets make it an option - CVA-01 was gash and everyone knew it - make the decision to build a larger pair of carriers (with an earlier pod if necessary) based on the Kitty Hawk/JFK design and then utilise the Eagle and Victorious with the Sea Vixen / Bucc airgroup until the larger decks are commissioned. Ark Royal is not modernised and sold / scrapped.

By this point Phantom is already worked up in RAF service and FAA flyers can train with them and their USN counterparts - before and during commission.

CVA-01 was going to be 55 Thousand Tons - for another 7 Thousand you can have a Kitty Hawk - if the reason for not building a 'Kitty Hawk' is money - well the same is going to be true of the CVA-01!
 
I'm not sure where you'll find the crew for these ships. Given the date you're looking at a copy of USS John F Kennedy unless you want to start from scratch. JFK's listed as having a crew of 3300 + the air group. Even with the use of advanced technology to reduce the crew you're still going to have to find at least 4000 men per ship. Steel may be cheap and air may be free, but neither apply to the crew and I'm not just talking about the pay. Food, medical facilities, married quarters for the families, training, uniforms, even bedding it all adds up to quite a sum year after year.
 
Last edited:
Top