I'd be cautious about quoting hangar space for ships which were not built, comparing this to ships that were built, and hanging a strong argument off that. For example an Essex in WW2 was supposed to carry about 80 planes but regularly operated 100. Midway was supposed to operate 137 planes but was found in practice not to be able to handle its aircraft any faster than an Essex, so it underutilised its larger airwing. Basically X hangar space doesn't equal Y airwing size which doesn't equal Z capability.
Again I'd also like to point out how US national practice, especially in later years when the British avaition industry was destroyed, allows them to flog their ships and planes harder than the British, the British can't afford to have carriers loaded up with the war compliment in peacetime, it's expenive in itself and wears out ships and planes that much faster and their replacements are hard to come by.
The hanagar Space for CVA-01 and the CVF are known, and were finalised.
The Essex, as far as I am aware was always designed to carry a complement of 100 aircraft, not 80. I believe, was it Lexington that once managed 110 at overload?
Basically X hangar space doesn't equal Y airwing size which doesn't equal Z capability.
No, pysical size, i.e deck space and so on, design layout, number of catapults and so on, as well as training all play their part. With the exception of the training, all other aspects are considerably smaller than that of a Midway skimmer. But by your argument, British and American carrier op's are so different that the vessels themselves in each nations respective service cannot be compared?
I have long been aware of the differences of British and American carrier op's, this doesn't change the fact that the carrier was in almost every respect excluding tonnage little more than an Essex class, granted with a slightly larger hanagar and better armour (as was a feature of British carriers).
the British can't afford to have carriers loaded up with the war compliment in peacetime,
Malta was rated to carry 80 aircraft during WW2, BEFORE the post war economics had set in. Still leaves little room for expansion given a continuation of RN carrier pratice.
In particular I'm thinking of the Supermarine Scimitar which suffered an appalling service accident rate with something like 76 out of the 150 aircraft built being lost in accidents.
Only 76 Scimitars were ever built (excluding protoypes), not 150. But yes, over half (39) were lost during it's service. However, it was not just due to the small carriers that caused the accidents - the aircraft was notoriously maitainence high (almost 1000 hours per flying hour). It's hydraulic and fuel lines leaked like sieve, so much so that when the aircrafts lower cowlings were removed for maintaience, the maintainence guys were often greated by as much as four inches of fluid loshing around in the machine spaces.
The Scimitar was potentially a very capable strike aircraft
It was in reality a very crap strike aircraft. It had been designed as a high powered fleet interceptor and was on the verge of being cancelled when they navy announced that it needed an interim attack aircraft until the purpose built (and anything but doscile) Buccaneer came into service in the 60's. The Scimitar was hatily re-roled for this purpose but lacked the range and payload to be compared with the Buccaneer.
However, where it may have shined was in it's later developments, in particular the Type 756 - a two seat supersonic fighter bomber in the same league as the F-4 Phatmom. It would have given the RN a a strong and flexible fighter for the 60's and 70's, presuming all of the Sciimitars kinks had been sorted out.
Russell
