WI Malta class aircraft carrier
- Thread starter Anderman
- Start date
- Status
D K Brown - graduated RN College 1953, retired 1988 as Deputy Chief Naval Architect of the Royal Corp of Naval Constructors and latterly Vice President of the Royal Institution of Naval architects.
I suspect that he knows of which he speaks
edit:- in his 'Nelson to Vanguard' he details the development of the Malta class, which seems to have a bit of a convoluted process, but the aircraft capability, at design stage, was to be 45/45 ftr/tbr's, gving a total of 90 aircraft, with a deep displacement of 60k tons and capable of 32 knots deep (33.5 std)
Last edited:
johnalbion
Banned
worst lead
Napoleon Bonaparte once said "The British Soldier is the best in the world and the worst lead" He would have not been too far off base to say the country in general then with almost no break up until now. I want to give a very critical and somewhat protracted response to the discussions about the Malta Class carriers. If i offend anyone please forgive me and accept that i love the UK with all my heart that even though my body was born in the USA my soul without doubt comes from Britain and my love for the Royal Navy is equal to any and second to none. I served on aircraft carriers, USS Lexington, Enterprise, John F. Kennedy and HMS Invincible.
It is clear that all the time and money spent refitting and completing the Illustrious, Audacious, Centaur class carriers would have been so much better spent if it all went to the completion of all 4 of the Malta class. Now some would say it is easy to say this in hind sight. But is it really? At the end of 1945 the Midway class was completing, Jet aircraft were on the way, it had to be assumed they would be needed on aircraft carriers. From the operation of the 6 Illustrious carriers and therefore the Centaur class that they would not be able to be modified to be able to carry a large enough air group to do much more than defend themselves and since the Malta class was designed with the knowledge that a large air group was needed. It should have also been easy to realize that a carrier that can only handle 25 to 30 aircraft needed a ships complement almost as large as one that has 100 aircraft and therefore made no sense to go down that road. All of this should easily have been concluded with the slightest examination of the situation. These ships could have remained viable for 60 years. Who would have imagined that little HMS Hermes would still be fully operational after all the Invincible's had been sent to the scrap yard. Had just one Malta been in commission (or The Ark Royal for that matter) the Falklands war would never had happened.
The arguments about the docks. There is some validity here however, their lordships at the admiralty knew this and still wanted these ships. Let’s look at the huge failure of leadership here by both the government and the navy. Putting aside the unmitigating intelligence disaster about what the real situation was with the other powers at the time and stupidity of agreeing to and the execution, where the UK was the only country that did cheat of the Washington Treaty, it was known before and after agreeing to this treaty that the new ships of the future were going to be much bigger than they were in WW.I. The Hood class and the post war planned battleships and battlecruisers made that clear. Since the treaty made no mention about docks and ports why for god sakes did not those in charge not take the opportunity to have the docks and ports enlarged or developed for the future? They already saw the weakness of the WW.I battleships had due to forced narrow beams. They had to be able to assume that situation would always remain if something was not done.
The third argument was the money. Yes Britain was in trouble financially after the war but not so much so that even the labor government knew and planned for a combined armed force of over 1,000,000. Attlee stated the need for this because of the probability the Americans would go home again and the obvious danger from the Soviet Union and his belief that the UK would lead the Brussels Treaty countries. (What NATO was called before the Americans joined).
How about that money. I wonder how in the world Attlee and his people thought Britain was going to remain a world power by shedding the Empire with all its resources without regard. Yes some countries had to be let go. But not all of them. Singapore for one could have been kept and everything invested in it instead of Hong Kong. What a cash cow that would have been to Britain even today. Then there is Malta who wanted to stay British, even possessions like the Bahamas, Caribbean Islands, Guyana, Seychelles could have been kept and the money brought in from tourism alone would have been huge. There are many more examples. Another interesting fact along these lines is in the 1950's there was a debate whether Britain should concentrate on developing its relationship with the Commonwealth or joining Europe. Polls revealed by a large margin to go with the Commonwealth. What did the man in the street understand that those in government missed?
The election of labor after WW.II was the wrong party at the wrong time an unmitigating disaster for Britain's defense and financial future. Labor’s biggest crime was force feeding the message to the British people they should be ashamed of the empire and themselves for building it. Just listen to Churchill’s campaign speeches in 1950. In order to be great you have to first believe you are great and with that belief the British public might have taken to the streets about the state of the nations armed forces like it did during 1910 with the we want 8 and we won't wait battleship campaign. The Navy league at this time tried hard to get the message out in its editorials in the "The Navy Magazine" but not enough people were listening.
Simply put, Britain can afford a lot more for defense then it spends. The country is hopelessly poorly managed and it will not be long before the armed forces will be nearly extinct or other nations will demand Britain's removal from the UN security council, and rightly so, as they are much stronger than her. WW.II and the Falklands should have taught the lesson of what happens when the wrong impression is given.
Talking about the present, it is my belief based on some, all be it simplifications that Britain's economy can with much better management afford six Nimitz class carrier battle groups with 25 SSN's and 10 SSBn's and an RAF twice the size it is now, a Marine force of 50,000 and Army of 150,000. I know some of you may think that is crazy but i do not. Compare the size of the Navy in 1960 and now, the percentage of GDP that went to defense compared to now and the value in real terms of the nation’s GDP then and now, then one can see what i am saying. We live in a very dangerous and crazy world and it is not going to get better anytime soon. The world has not seen the end of the Hitler’s, Stalin’s, Mussolini’s etc. They are walking among us right now just waiting for their chance to do it again.
Britain cannot defend herself or help her Commonwealth partners properly without America. Depending on America is, in my opinion a fool’s errand. There really was never any special relationship; The United States always had it as its goal to bring an end to the British and French empires so it could move in with its own brand of economic imperialism. Lend lease during WW.II had a lot of strings attached, the first one being the end of the Imperial preference system. America saw lend lease as a win win for America and lose lose for Britain. They were right. America is now in terminal decline and will collapse. Thanks to her own mismanagement, corruption and stupidity. I foresee the break-up of the US like the USSR, there are signs everywhere of the states rebelling against Washington and it will be forced to retreat from the world. In my opinion Britain better wake up because America will forsake Britain in a minute when it is in her interest to do so.
I know this is protracted from the Malta Class but discussions like this needed to be in the back drop during the decisions on defense procurement, like the Malta's. I am hoping the lessons of the 1950's i.e. the Malta class will cause right minded people to remember Prime minister Palmerstons famous quote.Britain has no permanent allies, just permanent interest.
John Regina Former US and Royal Navy Person
Napoleon Bonaparte once said "The British Soldier is the best in the world and the worst lead" He would have not been too far off base to say the country in general then with almost no break up until now. I want to give a very critical and somewhat protracted response to the discussions about the Malta Class carriers. If i offend anyone please forgive me and accept that i love the UK with all my heart that even though my body was born in the USA my soul without doubt comes from Britain and my love for the Royal Navy is equal to any and second to none. I served on aircraft carriers, USS Lexington, Enterprise, John F. Kennedy and HMS Invincible.
It is clear that all the time and money spent refitting and completing the Illustrious, Audacious, Centaur class carriers would have been so much better spent if it all went to the completion of all 4 of the Malta class. Now some would say it is easy to say this in hind sight. But is it really? At the end of 1945 the Midway class was completing, Jet aircraft were on the way, it had to be assumed they would be needed on aircraft carriers. From the operation of the 6 Illustrious carriers and therefore the Centaur class that they would not be able to be modified to be able to carry a large enough air group to do much more than defend themselves and since the Malta class was designed with the knowledge that a large air group was needed. It should have also been easy to realize that a carrier that can only handle 25 to 30 aircraft needed a ships complement almost as large as one that has 100 aircraft and therefore made no sense to go down that road. All of this should easily have been concluded with the slightest examination of the situation. These ships could have remained viable for 60 years. Who would have imagined that little HMS Hermes would still be fully operational after all the Invincible's had been sent to the scrap yard. Had just one Malta been in commission (or The Ark Royal for that matter) the Falklands war would never had happened.
The arguments about the docks. There is some validity here however, their lordships at the admiralty knew this and still wanted these ships. Let’s look at the huge failure of leadership here by both the government and the navy. Putting aside the unmitigating intelligence disaster about what the real situation was with the other powers at the time and stupidity of agreeing to and the execution, where the UK was the only country that did cheat of the Washington Treaty, it was known before and after agreeing to this treaty that the new ships of the future were going to be much bigger than they were in WW.I. The Hood class and the post war planned battleships and battlecruisers made that clear. Since the treaty made no mention about docks and ports why for god sakes did not those in charge not take the opportunity to have the docks and ports enlarged or developed for the future? They already saw the weakness of the WW.I battleships had due to forced narrow beams. They had to be able to assume that situation would always remain if something was not done.
The third argument was the money. Yes Britain was in trouble financially after the war but not so much so that even the labor government knew and planned for a combined armed force of over 1,000,000. Attlee stated the need for this because of the probability the Americans would go home again and the obvious danger from the Soviet Union and his belief that the UK would lead the Brussels Treaty countries. (What NATO was called before the Americans joined).
How about that money. I wonder how in the world Attlee and his people thought Britain was going to remain a world power by shedding the Empire with all its resources without regard. Yes some countries had to be let go. But not all of them. Singapore for one could have been kept and everything invested in it instead of Hong Kong. What a cash cow that would have been to Britain even today. Then there is Malta who wanted to stay British, even possessions like the Bahamas, Caribbean Islands, Guyana, Seychelles could have been kept and the money brought in from tourism alone would have been huge. There are many more examples. Another interesting fact along these lines is in the 1950's there was a debate whether Britain should concentrate on developing its relationship with the Commonwealth or joining Europe. Polls revealed by a large margin to go with the Commonwealth. What did the man in the street understand that those in government missed?
The election of labor after WW.II was the wrong party at the wrong time an unmitigating disaster for Britain's defense and financial future. Labor’s biggest crime was force feeding the message to the British people they should be ashamed of the empire and themselves for building it. Just listen to Churchill’s campaign speeches in 1950. In order to be great you have to first believe you are great and with that belief the British public might have taken to the streets about the state of the nations armed forces like it did during 1910 with the we want 8 and we won't wait battleship campaign. The Navy league at this time tried hard to get the message out in its editorials in the "The Navy Magazine" but not enough people were listening.
Simply put, Britain can afford a lot more for defense then it spends. The country is hopelessly poorly managed and it will not be long before the armed forces will be nearly extinct or other nations will demand Britain's removal from the UN security council, and rightly so, as they are much stronger than her. WW.II and the Falklands should have taught the lesson of what happens when the wrong impression is given.
Talking about the present, it is my belief based on some, all be it simplifications that Britain's economy can with much better management afford six Nimitz class carrier battle groups with 25 SSN's and 10 SSBn's and an RAF twice the size it is now, a Marine force of 50,000 and Army of 150,000. I know some of you may think that is crazy but i do not. Compare the size of the Navy in 1960 and now, the percentage of GDP that went to defense compared to now and the value in real terms of the nation’s GDP then and now, then one can see what i am saying. We live in a very dangerous and crazy world and it is not going to get better anytime soon. The world has not seen the end of the Hitler’s, Stalin’s, Mussolini’s etc. They are walking among us right now just waiting for their chance to do it again.
Britain cannot defend herself or help her Commonwealth partners properly without America. Depending on America is, in my opinion a fool’s errand. There really was never any special relationship; The United States always had it as its goal to bring an end to the British and French empires so it could move in with its own brand of economic imperialism. Lend lease during WW.II had a lot of strings attached, the first one being the end of the Imperial preference system. America saw lend lease as a win win for America and lose lose for Britain. They were right. America is now in terminal decline and will collapse. Thanks to her own mismanagement, corruption and stupidity. I foresee the break-up of the US like the USSR, there are signs everywhere of the states rebelling against Washington and it will be forced to retreat from the world. In my opinion Britain better wake up because America will forsake Britain in a minute when it is in her interest to do so.
I know this is protracted from the Malta Class but discussions like this needed to be in the back drop during the decisions on defense procurement, like the Malta's. I am hoping the lessons of the 1950's i.e. the Malta class will cause right minded people to remember Prime minister Palmerstons famous quote.Britain has no permanent allies, just permanent interest.
John Regina Former US and Royal Navy Person
Last edited:
My twopenn'orth...
...US policy never has been to encourage British postwar power - they wanted no Empires (except their own) and systematically reneged on agreement after agreement. I recall the fury of Aneurin Bevan over the way Britain was refused access to nuclear weapons technology and also the rapidly-cancelled offers of free Scout launchers, the Skybolts that went west as soon as Britain was committed to them, and the continuing rumours that the Tridents do not have independent launching capability.
Britain's still paying off WW1 debts to the USA that had no intention of writing off. I recall that Roosevelt sent a cruiser to South Africa to collect the gold after it was said that this (dug up in the Transvaal) was Briotain's last gold reserves.
Face it, folks - the USA does not want Britain 'Great' in anything but the name. And as for successive French governments-!
I'd better stop before I burst a blood vessel (no, not a Blood Transfusion Agency tanker).
...H'mm - anybody for a British-Nordic Alliance that replaces NATO? TL, anybody?
...US policy never has been to encourage British postwar power - they wanted no Empires (except their own) and systematically reneged on agreement after agreement. I recall the fury of Aneurin Bevan over the way Britain was refused access to nuclear weapons technology and also the rapidly-cancelled offers of free Scout launchers, the Skybolts that went west as soon as Britain was committed to them, and the continuing rumours that the Tridents do not have independent launching capability.
Britain's still paying off WW1 debts to the USA that had no intention of writing off. I recall that Roosevelt sent a cruiser to South Africa to collect the gold after it was said that this (dug up in the Transvaal) was Briotain's last gold reserves.
Face it, folks - the USA does not want Britain 'Great' in anything but the name. And as for successive French governments-!
I'd better stop before I burst a blood vessel (no, not a Blood Transfusion Agency tanker).
...H'mm - anybody for a British-Nordic Alliance that replaces NATO? TL, anybody?
Last edited by a moderator:
You offer a rather interesting, if somewhat paranoid and bitter, opinion of the relationships between the US and UK.
Any citations to support the claim that the United Kingdom is still repaying the World War I debts? I was under the impression the UK stopped making payments on those in 1932 and the US has not enforced payment on those debts since then.
ETA: Let's not forget the UK received about $30 billion (1940s dollars!) in Lend-Lease supplies for free with no repayment demanded. Hardly the sort of action by the US if had wanted to ruin the Empire.
Last edited:
Well, we certainly have two people here who are a little paranoid about the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. I find that perhaps a little surprising, under the circumstances....
It does have to be said that mismanagement, particularly in the defense field, is a problem Britain has, but they are by no means unique in this regard, believe me. As far as how much Britain could afford, could they afford six Nimitz class vessels? Maybe. Would that make sense for the UK considering its social issues, debts and economic state? Not even a little bit. The entirety of the West has to some extent or another gotten stupidly complacent and letting their industrial ability to go pot to such an extent is not a good thing by any stretch. Money going towards such vessels would IMO be better spent on rebuilding Britain's industrial capacity, paying the most attention to high-end goods where the higher wages of the UK are less of an issue. I would say the same to my native Canada, too, and have on a number of occasions.
Sticking to the topic, the Malta class carriers would probably have been an invaluable asset, and they would certainly have led to the dismantlement of the other RN carriers, especially if more than the first two are built. Russell is right about getting them built earlier being important, and the problem of corrosion as a result of low-grade steel is a very possible issue, too. If those can be avoided, finishing four Maltas by 1953ish and retiring the others could well end up being a net benefit to Britain's manpower problems post-war (four Maltas instead of all of the other carriers could be a big benefit in that regard) and the Maltas could like Britain's Midways, ageless monsters which just keep on getting the job done.
It does have to be said that mismanagement, particularly in the defense field, is a problem Britain has, but they are by no means unique in this regard, believe me. As far as how much Britain could afford, could they afford six Nimitz class vessels? Maybe. Would that make sense for the UK considering its social issues, debts and economic state? Not even a little bit. The entirety of the West has to some extent or another gotten stupidly complacent and letting their industrial ability to go pot to such an extent is not a good thing by any stretch. Money going towards such vessels would IMO be better spent on rebuilding Britain's industrial capacity, paying the most attention to high-end goods where the higher wages of the UK are less of an issue. I would say the same to my native Canada, too, and have on a number of occasions.
Sticking to the topic, the Malta class carriers would probably have been an invaluable asset, and they would certainly have led to the dismantlement of the other RN carriers, especially if more than the first two are built. Russell is right about getting them built earlier being important, and the problem of corrosion as a result of low-grade steel is a very possible issue, too. If those can be avoided, finishing four Maltas by 1953ish and retiring the others could well end up being a net benefit to Britain's manpower problems post-war (four Maltas instead of all of the other carriers could be a big benefit in that regard) and the Maltas could like Britain's Midways, ageless monsters which just keep on getting the job done.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
This is a good and well-informed post, but let's keep contemporary political issues out of the AH discussion forums and in Chat where they belong.
That's blatant off-topic trolling and conspiracy mongering. Keep it out of the discussion forums. I'm going to kick you for a week because you have a history of being uncivil.
Shadow Master
Banned
I have a question here.
My (admittedly uninformed) point of view is that the late/post war carriers were much delayed and redesigned?
What if the Malta's had been given the go ahead, at the cost of all other carriers, and still been delayed long enough that the jets would have come into their own before the design could have been finalized (much less built), whould this have likely led to the RN having 50,000 ton carriers comissioned in the 1950's that already had angled flight decks? And would this then have made it likely that the replacements would be at least of equal size/capabilities?
Please excuse me if this question is rather silly, but I have not really done enough research of late/post war RN carriers to know better. Still interested to know the why or why not's.
My (admittedly uninformed) point of view is that the late/post war carriers were much delayed and redesigned?
What if the Malta's had been given the go ahead, at the cost of all other carriers, and still been delayed long enough that the jets would have come into their own before the design could have been finalized (much less built), whould this have likely led to the RN having 50,000 ton carriers comissioned in the 1950's that already had angled flight decks? And would this then have made it likely that the replacements would be at least of equal size/capabilities?
Please excuse me if this question is rather silly, but I have not really done enough research of late/post war RN carriers to know better. Still interested to know the why or why not's.
BlondieBC
Banned
I hate to defend the Sea Lords, who I think generally are overrated from the 1890-1950 time frame, but the budget issues were real. The British bankrupted themselves in WW1. There were mutiny with the crews of ships, marines refusing to go ashore. The Sea Lords were justly concerned with the inability to pay for the operating costs of existing ships, much less built a lot more new ships, or for even a lower priority of building docks for ships that might be built in prior decades. The Washington Treaty as at least a good decision, if not the best path forward.
Now there were solutions to the problem, but they lay with the British people and the British political leaders, and the windows for most of the POD's had long past by 1920. Simply put, a medium size island could not afford the world largest Navy by far after the other European powers had caught up in the industrial revolution. All the options for maintaining the power of the British Empire involved at a minimum the "English Empire" becoming the "Empire of white speakers of English not in the USA" or becoming the "Indian Empire". I believe either option was unthinkable to the English ruling class in 1880-1910, and likely unthinkable to the majority of the English. This issue of only wanting an empire as large as could be dominated by England proper goes back to the 1760's, at least, and is one of the route cause of each territory lost to the Empire.
And possibly a conscious decision to use higher quality steel in hulls expected to see considerable postwar service. So the later Illustrious/Implacable class, Vanguard(?), KGV's and Audacious class.
The steel used would have been similar to that used in the Colossus class. Which carried on for over 50 years after the war...
So I dont really see how the steel is a lifetime issue.
So I dont really see how the steel is a lifetime issue.
PA.58 was the project name. There are two among the pictures on the link below
http://s22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Carriers/CVA 01 and PA 58/
Russell
johnalbion
Banned
You are so very right and one of the few people to reconize that the US is an Empire. It always was. After the articles of confederation was completed James Madison said "We have laid the foundations of a great Empire" Do you think he did not understand the meaning of the word empire? The Mexican-American war, War of 1812, Spanish American war, annexation of Hawaii, Panama and the Monroe doctrine was all about Empire and almost everything the US teaches its people about those periods is a lie. Even the story that is taught about the American Revoloution is mostly lies. For example: All americans, with the exception of a few were taught and believe there were 13 colonies only. Well there were 15 the othe 2 are not mentioned because they did not revolt and it would mess up the story.
The US exploited WW.I and II to the full and saw the opportunity to destroy Britain and France's empire in the process. The USA was always anti-British, Suez being a great example. The US threatened Britain numerous times with a run on the pound if they did not do what america wanted. It is a real shame that at the beggining of WW.II Britain and France did not take the pound and France off the gold standard for the duration of the war. That would have saved them both financialy like it did for america in 1969.
The Nordic alliance is not only a good idea but its time is now before the USA collapses, I do not think the threat from russia is over. I do not believe Moscow will allow its traditional territories to remain independent for ever. You know you have to hand it to the French. When the USA refused to share nuclear technology like it was supposed to and as agreed during the manhattan project, France stood up to Washington and told it to pack sand, kicked all US bases out of France and at great national sacrafice developed its own weapons, missiles, reactors and submarines. Now that is pride. I wish Britain had done the same.
Okay. In your SECOND post you make a whole hearted endorsement of a post that resulted in a member being kicked.
Generally, that would be a kick for you as well, however, seeing that you have chosen to start off with a troll, lets just cut to the chase.
Banned for trolling straight out of the gate.
To Coventry with you!
Generally, that would be a kick for you as well, however, seeing that you have chosen to start off with a troll, lets just cut to the chase.
Banned for trolling straight out of the gate.
To Coventry with you!
Besides, it was Thomas Jefferson who talked about the United States being an empire--but an Empire of Libety. Jefferson was using the contrast between the terms of empire and liberty to stress how different the goals that the US aspired to were from those of empires such as the British Empire or the Spanish Empire, for example. Jefferson's phrase an example of a rhetorical device known as an oxymoron.
I am impressed with johnalbion's misquote both mis-attributing the source and taking the quote it out context to create an opposite and false meaning.
I am impressed with johnalbion's misquote both mis-attributing the source and taking the quote it out context to create an opposite and false meaning.
- Status