A different Royal Navy

[Riain]

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)?



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!

The RN did look at the Forrestal/Kittyhawk, that being the minimum for 4 catapults and 4 lifts but decided against it because of British infrastructure. It is no coincidence that the Malta/1952/CVA01 and current QE2 are all about the same size, that is as big as Britain can maintain without exorbitant and otherwise useless dry-dock infrastructure improvements.

Money for the carrier itself wasn't the problem, if it was the 5 million refit of Eagle would have been pursued rather than the 32 million for Ark Royal. Indeed the money spent was formiable; 32 mil for Ark Royal refit, 185 mil for HMS Invincible, development of Sea Harrier, purchase of 28 Sea Harrier and 235 mil for Indomitable. That is enough to fund CVA01 and 02, but the problem was purely political.

 

[flasheart]

1969

The year that man first walks on the moon is also the year that responsibility for Britain's nuclear deterrence passes to the RN. The final of the R class SSBN's HMS REVENGE formally enters service completing the program. While some at this point still argue that a 5th boat should be built to allow for some redundancy and a "surge" capability this idea is dismissed for a number of reasons. Barrow now has its order book filled with SSN's but by far and away the main reason is cost.
The RAF's V Force is formally stood down from its QRA duties. Of the V bombers themselves the Valiant's had been retired some years earlier over concerns about aircraft fatigue. Some of the younger Victor's will be retained in service and converted into tankers as a way of cheaply boosting the RAF's Air to Air Refueling capability. The rest would be disposed of. The Vulcan while redundant in its strategic bomber role would see further service in a variety of roles such as AAR and Maritime patrol.
The RAF would retain its own nuclear weapons in the tactical role but from now on these were to be carried by the new Tornado's (TSR-2).

Turning to the RN's growing SSN fleet CONQUEROR the second of the new C class boats is launched on the 28th of August. The lead boat of the next SSN class SWIFTSURE is laid down in June. An order is also placed for the next boat to be named SOVEREIGN.

Another first this year is the beginning of the first refit of a British nuclear powered vessel when HMS DREADNOUGHT enters refit in Rosyth.
In Belfast construction of HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH continues but with the rapidly escalating rioting and Irish republican threat security is becoming a very serious concern. With the ship now a prominent part of the Belfast landscape security around Harland and Wolff is massively increased with detachments of soldiers now guarding the ship. Background checks are carried out on all people employed in the yard and some deemed "suspect" are laid off and in a few rather high profile cases actually interned. This further inflames tensions between the populace and security forces. The plan had been for her majesty the queen to launch the ship that bares her name but with things going the way they are this is starting to become doubtful.
Back in Whitehall debate is underway regarding the planned sistership HMS DUKE OF EDINBURGH. According to current plans an order for the ship would have to be placed next year but some within the MOD want to delay or even outright cancel this on the grounds of cost. Others even at this late stage are pushing for a partial redesign of the ship to correct perceived flaws and weaknesses. Not helping the situation is the fact that the project to upgrade Portsmouth dockyard to enable the ships to berth there is falling behind and in danger of going overbudget.
For various reasons the latest being security concerns in Northern Ireland it has been decided that DUKE OF EDINBURGH will be built by Cammel Laird.
HMS EAGLE finally completes her "Phantomisation" refit and begins trials and work up with the RN's newly stood up Phantom squadrons.
HMS VICTORIOUS is now able to begin a short refit to enable her to serve for a few more years until she can be replaced by HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH.
While up to 3 ASW helicopter carrying ships are still planned the project is presently struggling for resources due to its current lower priority. This makes design and development an extremely slow process.

The former HMS TIGER now renamed RIACHUELO leaves Portsmouth for her new home in Rio De Janeiro. HMS LION remains laid up and although officially a buyer is still being sought she is now used as a source of spare parts. Her sister HMS BLAKE finally emerges from a long refit in her new guise as a helicopter and command cruiser.

The first five vessels of the latest batch of LEANDER class frigates are accepted into service. The first of a new type of frigate the Type 21 is ordered in March and laid down as HMS AMAZON in November.

The Tornado tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft enters frontline service with the RAF. Having broken into the export market the previous year with an order for 50 aircraft from the Luftwaffe other countries are queuing up to observe this promising new aircraft. A possible order from the Imperial Iranian Air Force is considered very likely.
While the decision to pursue the TSR-2 program instead of the F-111K was a controversial one it is proving to be the right one. From what information can be gathered from various sources the USAF is apparently extremely unimpressed with the F-111's poor performance and rising costs.

No 1 SQN becomes the first operational squadron to transition onto the new Harrier "jump jet" aircraft at RAF Wittering. This is also the year in which after overcoming various concerns and interests within the US congress the USMC places an order for the aircraft to be designated the AV-8 in US service. Enquiries are made regarding possible licensed production in the US and about possibly developing a navalised version of the aircraft for operation from USN assault ships.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The RN did look at the Forrestal/Kittyhawk, that being the minimum for 4 catapults and 4 lifts but decided against it because of British infrastructure. It is no coincidence that the Malta/1952/CVA01 and current QE2 are all about the same size, that is as big as Britain can maintain without exorbitant and otherwise useless dry-dock infrastructure improvements.

Money for the carrier itself wasn't the problem, if it was the 5 million refit of Eagle would have been pursued rather than the 32 million for Ark Royal. Indeed the money spent was formiable; 32 mil for Ark Royal refit, 185 mil for HMS Invincible, development of Sea Harrier, purchase of 28 Sea Harrier and 235 mil for Indomitable. That is enough to fund CVA01 and 02, but the problem was purely political.

I have seen plans for the big dry dock at Portsmouth so some one had thought of it enough for it for plans to be made? If they were going to build CVA-01 and therefore the dock - its not going to take much more money to build a pair of Forrestal/Kittyhawk half sisters and a slightly larger Dock.

Or leverage the existing 300+ meter long dry docks in the UK - Belfast drydock (Harland and Wolf) and Number 1 Drydock Rosyth (Now Babcock not sure what it was before)

As you say political will is all

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I can't see why extending or building a dry dock would cost so much as to have questions raised about the ship it's designed to hold. When you get right down to it, (and I'm aware I'm over simplifying things) it's a big hole lined with either bricks, stone or concrete with a set of big lock gates on the end. It's not like they have to invent anything to build it or make it work. Other than in size they're no different to what's been used in docks an canals for hundreds of years. The Navy already owns the land where they want to put the thing.

 

[jsb]

The Navy already owns the land where they want to put the thing.

Not sure in UK the land for large docks was very much a problem, so you will need to build out into the sea?

 

[flasheart]

I can't see why extending or building a dry dock would cost so much as to have questions raised about the ship it's designed to hold. When you get right down to it, (and I'm aware I'm over simplifying things) it's a big hole lined with either bricks, stone or concrete with a set of big lock gates on the end. It's not like they have to invent anything to build it or make it work. Other than in size they're no different to what's been used in docks an canals for hundreds of years. The Navy already owns the land where they want to put the thing.

The upgrades to HMNB Portsmouth and the design considerations for HMS DUKE OF EDINBURGH are two separate unrelated issues. As with the OTL QUEEN ELIZABETH class ships this size would require extensions to and strengthening of existing berths, a large amount of dredging work both within the harbor and out in the Solent and according to OTL plans for CVA-01 an extension to or possibly a completely new drydock.

While you are right in that these aren't particularly technically challenging things to achieve the logistical challenges would not be insignificant and please remember that this the MOD and British Civil Service running the show.
Can anyone honestly imagine such a project turning out any other way?

 

[Riain]

I also wonder about the aircraft for these supercarriers, what would the CAG be? A pair of Buccaneer and a pair of Phantom squadrons? IIRC the RN originally wanted 140 Phantoms for FRU trials unit, 766 OCU/HQ sqn and 890/892/893/899 embarked sqns as a one for one Sea Vixen replacement. The RN Buccaneer fleet consisted of a 700 trials sqn, 736 training SQN and 800/801/803/809 operational squadrons.

I don't know if 8 operational squadrons would be enough to make USN size supercarriers worthwhile. Or while we're building new docks and the like are we also expanding the aircraft fleets?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The number of squadrons the FAA was likely to get funded would never justify ships like the Kittyhawks or JFK. They'd end up sailing with their hangers half empty and rather than be seen as a symbol of British naval might would be objects of ridicule. What Britain needs are medium sized ships closer in size to the US Midways but using existing technology in such a way as to reduce the manning requirements. They also need to fix the design early and stop the Admirals from adding on every shinny new toy that comes along. Build them with the technology that exists now, not what's claimed will be available in five years. It never is and it always costs several times more than they claim.

 

[Riain]

The number of squadrons the FAA was likely to get funded would never justify ships like the Kittyhawks or JFK. They'd end up sailing with their hangers half empty and rather than be seen as a symbol of British naval might would be objects of ridicule. What Britain needs are medium sized ships closer in size to the US Midways but using existing technology in such a way as to reduce the manning requirements. They also need to fix the design early and stop the Admirals from adding on every shinny new toy that comes along. Build them with the technology that exists now, not what's claimed will be available in five years. It never is and it always costs several times more than they claim.

During the changeover to the Hornet the USN sent a couple of CVWs out with a pair of Tomcat and a pair of Intruder squadrons, so given their OTL planned Phantom and actual Buccaneer fleets they could have had two similar CAGs or perhaps 2 x 3 sqn and 1 x 2 sqn CAGs.

A simple CVA01 design would have done the job.

 

[jsb]

The number of squadrons the FAA was likely to get funded would never justify ships like the Kittyhawks or JFK. They'd end up sailing with their hangers half empty and rather than be seen as a symbol of British naval might would be objects of ridicule.

Who is going to ridicule them? the USN maybe but anybody else cant really start...

The nice thing is you can always surge any free FAA squadrons onto the one CV that's not in refit for a full air group to send to Falklands or WWIII. Anyway even 2 squadrons of F4Js with a handful of E2s will make any small war like Falklands much easier...

What Britain needs are medium sized ships closer in size to the US Midways but using existing technology in such a way as to reduce the manning requirements. They also need to fix the design early and stop the Admirals from adding on every shinny new toy that comes along. Build them with the technology that exists now, not what's claimed will be available in five years. It never is and it always costs several times more than they claim.

I agree with trying to keep the design simple and reduce manning but not with size, I would go for a very large kittyhawk but try to cut as much as possible fitted for but not with, down to 2 cats and 3 lifts with 8x Olympus for 200,000 shp should still run her to 29kn, nothing but self defence weapons (Sea wolf instead of a Leander rebuild) and a T42 radar fit.
I would just want the size to allow easy use of US design planes such as E2/F4/F18.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Who is going to ridicule them? the USN maybe but anybody else cant really start...

The press, the opposition, the Air Force (as a waste of money), the Navy (as under equipped), every comic in the country (compared to building a mansion and only living in a couple of rooms because you can't afford the furniture).

 

[jsb]

(compared to building a mansion and only living in a couple of rooms because you can't afford the furniture)

I agree it would get derided, but with hindsight (or even just logical reasoning ) its a choice between living in a mostly empty mansion or a small shed in the garden that costs 60+% for 20% of the comfort...
(Yes I don't think the RN by itself could have sold my plan with the environment they are working in, but with hindsight it would even be cheaper due to cost of the FW)

 

[Riain]

Given kittyhawks did have cvw of 24 f14 and 24 a6 for a short time in the early 80s the cva01 having 36 phantom and buccaneer is 75% of the capability on 75% of the displacement. A good match really.

 

[Simon]

This is rarely acknowledged on this board but was so important as to approach national obsession. It pervaded popular culture to the extent that even in the ('60s original) movie The Italian Job jailed crime boss Mr. Bridger wouldn't sanction robbing the Bank of England because he was worried about the balance of payments. When the balance of payments gets a mention in a 'caper' movie you know its a thing.

[SNIP]

IIRC the balance of payments were regularly reported on by the television evening news programmes during the 1970s, to the extent that governments of both parties were constantly worried about it. Not wholly surprising considering industrial conditions during the period and that up until the early-1970s the UK had been mostly breaking over the long-term when it started to turn negative.

 

[Riain]

IIRC the balance of payments were regularly reported on by the television evening news programmes during the 1970s, to the extent that governments of both parties were constantly worried about it. Not wholly surprising considering industrial conditions during the period and that up until the early-1970s the UK had been mostly breaking over the long-term when it started to turn negative.

I'm no economist so don't really know how it works but I suspect that a significant part of the extra cost of the spey phantom was acceptable because of balance of payment issues.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Given kittyhawks did have cvw of 24 f14 and 24 a6 for a short time in the early 80s the cva01 having 36 phantom and buccaneer is 75% of the capability on 75% of the displacement. A good match really.

You need to add in the Squadron of A7 corsairs, Squadron of Vikings, detachment of Hawkeyes and Prowlers, Seakings and a COD or 2 not to mention 4 catapults and 4 lifts vs 2 and 2 - its not even close to 75%

Its not the relative size and capability of CVA-01 that sticks in my craw but the number of wholly unnecessary 'features' that detracted from its primary goal of being an aircraft carrier - keeping CVA-01 as a pure carrier and it would have worked - as it was ....I mean what's with the cut out area at the stern....oh I see - Sea dart launcher - its a CCG as well is it? - and the positioning of the 'island' with the - I got nothing - and the almost angled deck - FML what a mess - lets fit mine sweeping gear to it while were at it!

 

[pdf27]

A lot of it makes far more sense when you start to understand the state of technology at the time. The Sea Dart launcher is a good example - at the time it was assumed that any incoming warheads would be nuclear-tipped, so escorts would be some distance from the ship they were escorting to ensure that one warhead didn't kill the entire group at once. This is a problem for air defence systems, since hitting a crossing target is vastly harder than hitting one that is coming straight at you: essentially the only effective way to provide an air defence capability to the carrier was to fit Sea Dart to it unless you can afford to lose your entire close escort. Note that Charles de Gaulle is fitted with Aster and the Invincible class had Sea Dart...
Similarly with the very shallow angle on the deck - look at it carefully and it will become apparent that the design actually gives you more useable deck space: the area outboard of the landing deck isn't really of much use unless you put an additional lift in this area, but the area inboard of it is - shifting the landing deck so it is a bit more parallel to the keel means that the deck area is better used. If you're limiting yourself to 2 lifts (only really a problem if you're following the USN route of putting up very large strikes in a short period of time - something the RN doesn't ever really seem to have done) you save a whole load of structural issues with cutting holes in the main load-bearing part of the ship.

CVA-01 was a problem child because they had too many contradictory requirements on too small a tonnage, but overall I'd have to say the designers did a pretty good job with what they had to work with. None of the design decisions (even the Alaskan Taxiway, which to some extent is included in the new Queen Elizabeth design) are batty - they are sound decisions made to comply with an unsound requirement.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

A lot of it makes far more sense when you start to understand the state of technology at the time. The Sea Dart launcher is a good example - at the time it was assumed that any incoming warheads would be nuclear-tipped, so escorts would be some distance from the ship they were escorting to ensure that one warhead didn't kill the entire group at once. This is a problem for air defence systems, since hitting a crossing target is vastly harder than hitting one that is coming straight at you: essentially the only effective way to provide an air defence capability to the carrier was to fit Sea Dart to it unless you can afford to lose your entire close escort. Note that Charles de Gaulle is fitted with Aster and the Invincible class had Sea Dart...
Similarly with the very shallow angle on the deck - look at it carefully and it will become apparent that the design actually gives you more useable deck space: the area outboard of the landing deck isn't really of much use unless you put an additional lift in this area, but the area inboard of it is - shifting the landing deck so it is a bit more parallel to the keel means that the deck area is better used. If you're limiting yourself to 2 lifts (only really a problem if you're following the USN route of putting up very large strikes in a short period of time - something the RN doesn't ever really seem to have done) you save a whole load of structural issues with cutting holes in the main load-bearing part of the ship.

CVA-01 was a problem child because they had too many contradictory requirements on too small a tonnage, but overall I'd have to say the designers did a pretty good job with what they had to work with. None of the design decisions (even the Alaskan Taxiway, which to some extent is included in the new Queen Elizabeth design) are batty - they are sound decisions made to comply with an unsound requirement.

I get the issues with the design limitations on such a hull and do respect some of the very smart answers to them but see here's the thing - why does the Kitty Hawks/Nimitz class and Enterprise not mount an SM1 (or better) launcher then?

They faced the same issues and had far greater tonnage with which to resolve them - and yet no equivalent to the Sea Dart is fitted - I can only assume that a DDG or CG escort would have remained with them at all times nuclear threat be damned and the fitting of such a weapon system was considered detrimental to the vessels primary mission (as do I) - which is the launching and recovery of jet planes.

I can just about understand the Invincibles mounting Sea dart as their mission was different, they were hybrids and the concept of them acting as a cruiser was part of their early design and they do not have Phantom or Tomcat owning the airspace - Sea Harrier came later and SHAR II with its superb radar and BVR missiles later still - Seadart would be removed from the British carriers during the 90s (ie ASAP during their first real refits) as the slight increase in deck space was considered more important than a Long range SAM system.

As for the French? Yes the the CdG does have a VL SAM system but note its position (another pair of 8 cells is similarly outboard on the port side amidships) - not interfering with deck ops or impinging upon the potential deck area - in fact no more intrusive than systems like the Rolling airframe launchers do on the USN ships in terms of 'interference' and given the technology involved makes sense for CdG or any other modern CV.

 

[pdf27]

They faced the same issues and had far greater tonnage with which to resolve them - and yet no equivalent to the Sea Dart is fitted - I can only assume that a DDG or CG escort would have remained with them at all times nuclear threat be damned and the fitting of such a weapon system was considered detrimental to the vessels primary mission (as do I) - which is the launching and recovery of jet planes.

The USN doctrine required them to launch alpha strikes, i.e. get pretty much their entire air wing off the deck within a few minutes. That drives the 4 catapults, 4 lifts, etc. - and means that deck space is at a major premium, making the penalty for fitting a SAM system is much larger than for CdeG or Invincible.

 

[Riain]

You need to add in the Squadron of A7 corsairs, Squadron of Vikings, detachment of Hawkeyes and Prowlers, Seakings and a COD or 2 not to mention 4 catapults and 4 lifts vs 2 and 2 - its not even close to 75%

No, for a short while in the 80s as Hornets replaced A7s some carriers, JFK and Ranger definitely and I think America and another did cruises without the A7 squadrons. It had something to do with the catapult needing modification to accept the Hornet, it wasn't a big refit but the schedule meant that several carriers did cruises with a second Intruder squadrons rather than the two A7 squadrons, Marine A6 squadrons had to go to sea to make up the numbers. So aside the cats and dogs which RN carriers also had in their own form at this time USN carriers core airgroup was 48 aircraft, not the usual 60 which required 4 cats and lifts.

I get the issues with the design limitations on such a hull and do respect some of the very smart answers to them but see here's the thing - why does the Kitty Hawks/Nimitz class and Enterprise not mount an SM1 (or better) launcher then?

They did, but were removed in the 70s.

Its not the relative size and capability of CVA-01 that sticks in my craw but the number of wholly unnecessary 'features' that detracted from its primary goal of being an aircraft carrier - keeping CVA-01 as a pure carrier and it would have worked - as it was ....I mean what's with the cut out area at the stern....oh I see - Sea dart launcher - its a CCG as well is it? - and the positioning of the 'island' with the - I got nothing - and the almost angled deck - FML what a mess - lets fit mine sweeping gear to it while were at it!

CVA-01 was a problem child because they had too many contradictory requirements on too small a tonnage, but overall I'd have to say the designers did a pretty good job with what they had to work with. None of the design decisions (even the Alaskan Taxiway, which to some extent is included in the new Queen Elizabeth design) are batty - they are sound decisions made to comply with an unsound requirement.

What needed to happen was Parliament too stop carrying on about tonnage, why they cared that it was 53,000t rather than 57,000t is beyond me, and maximise the aircraft operating ability at the expense of secondary stuff like Sea Dart even though it did put them out of step with carrier design at the time.