Courageous Class Extended?

[Peg Leg Pom]

And...... since we can’t extend the flight deck forward, can we reestablish the forward flying off deck from the upper hangar? Though I think the bow door may be too narrow for anything but smaller fighters.

It's too short for modern aircraft, and too close to the water for use in any but the calmest of weather even if a catapult was fitted. The flying off decks also sloped down towards the bow which didn't help things. It was a reasonable idea for small light aircraft such as the Fairey Flycatcher but very soon became useless.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

If I could choose upgrades for the three Courageous ships it would be:

1) New twin catapults and arrestor systems for heavier weight aircraft
2) Move Furious’ exhaust to an expanded island, same as the other two ships
3) Change to square lifts
4) Replace 16 × 1 – QF 4.7-inch AA with new AA
5) Add radar
6) Flatten entire flight deck
7) Add avgas capacity (if possible)

And...... since we can’t extend the flight deck forward, can we reestablish the forward flying off deck from the upper hangar? Though I think the bow door may be too narrow for anything but smaller fighters.

A solid set for the most part, but there are a few issues.

For AA, it really depends on what year they're being refitted to determine what's ready in time and what would fit. For instance, the QF 4.5" is a better weapon all around than the older 4.7"- it fires a heavier projectile farther and faster and the mounts train and elevate better. The problem is that the 4.5" is also heavier, and in ships as light as these, that's a real concern.

For more avgas and stores, you could bulge them, but that takes time and money, and lots of both- which may leave them out of action at a critical time. The Courageous class' hull form, being quite shallow also isn't ideal. They already couldn't make their designed 32 knots despite their machinery making more horsepower than expected, and a shallow draught on very fine ships such as these leaves them vulnerable to heeling excessively during high speed turns. Bulging can mitigate that, but expect to lose a knot or two.

As for a lower catapult, in addition to it being all but useless in moderate to heavy seas, it would need a very short stroke and as a consequence, exert a lot of force on the aircraft being launched. You'd be restricted to a narrow range of types.

 

[MatthewB]

In calmer Indo-Pacific waters the flying off deck may be useable, but maybe not.

Then we need to make better use of that empty space forward. Too exposed to store the ship’s boats, maybe added anti-aircraft mounts? Or a lightly-built, though weatherly enclosure forward for added stores?

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

In calmer Indo-Pacific waters the flying off deck may be useable, but maybe not.

Then we need to make better use of that empty space forward. Too exposed to store the ship’s boats, maybe added anti-aircraft mounts?

That's a possibility; you'd just have to be mindful of total weight of the guns and mounts, as they would contribute much in the same way a flight deck would.

If you were rebuilding the ships to such an extent, building them new bows and extending the deck forward to a new hurricane bow would be the way to go. It would be difficult, but not impossible, especially with bulging as lost fineness could be recovered that way. The big issue is that until WWII, aircraft weights weren't enough of a necessity to give cause for such invention.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

 

[Dorknought]

There was no compulsion to convert or scrap C&G like there was for the USN and IJN ships. The conversions were done at Naval dockyards while the Government was propping up the shipbuilding industry with subsidies. Building purpose built ships of 27,000 tons would produce better ships and maintain shipbuilding after the G3 program was stopped. Cut 2 Kent’s (keeping C&G as cruisers) and the cost of conversion gives £8m to put to new carriers and the subsidies were IIRC in the order of £7m per year so there is money. Aircraft will still be the problem. The over 10,000 tons just applied to new ships and C&G were not named to be scrapped just like the USN armoured cruisers.
As gun ships they were successful in that up against a screen of Light cruisers, the smaller ships just fled at 2nd Heligoland with survival as their aim. Other roles could be found - giant fast minelayers or a platform for long range torpedoes in a fleet action.

 

[NHBL]

15" guns can frighten anything smaller than a battleship! One of them would give Captain Langsdorf brown pants! Neither ship could resist the other's shellfire, but one shell might wreck a panzerschiff.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

It's a poor warship that risks wrecking itself every time it fires its main guns. As gun boats the follies were useless. Personally I think the RN was already planning to convert them before the Washington Treaty, which is the reason they weren't scrapped immediately the war ended.

 

[Jellico]

15" guns can frighten anything smaller than a battleship! One of them would give Captain Langsdorf brown pants! Neither ship could resist the other's shellfire, but one shell might wreck a panzerschiff.

One of the best theories I have heard about the LLCs was that they were the last RN pre-Dreadnought cruisers. Small cruiser hulls weren't great at long distance high speed runs. Big hulled cruisers and liners (AMCs) could manage such runs with ease. It was part of the reason for battle cruisers.
The LLCs were a ship capable of chasing these ships that could be built before the war ended, unlike a full BC. Much like the earlier armoured cruisers the LLCs firepower comes from rapid fire triple 4". It is as good an explanation as any. As the war went on the big Germany raiders didn't materialize so new uses for the ships had to be found. Apparently there is a captain's report saying the C&G performed well in this role at the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight though without much result.

As I have gotten I have learnt to take anything Jacky Fisher said in public with a huge grain of salt. I sometimes think the Baltic Scheme was a convenient catch-all to get what ever he wanted built.

 

[NHBL]

One of the best theories I have heard about the LLCs was that they were the last RN pre-Dreadnought cruisers. Small cruiser hulls weren't great at long distance high speed runs. Big hulled cruisers and liners (AMCs) could manage such runs with ease. It was part of the reason for battle cruisers.
The LLCs were a ship capable of chasing these ships that could be built before the war ended, unlike a full BC. Much like the earlier armoured cruisers the LLCs firepower comes from rapid fire triple 4". It is as good an explanation as any. As the war went on the big Germany raiders didn't materialize so new uses for the ships had to be found. Apparently there is a captain's report saying the C&G performed well in this role at the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight though without much result.

As I have gotten I have learnt to take anything Jacky Fisher said in public with a huge grain of salt. I sometimes think the Baltic Scheme was a convenient catch-all to get what ever he wanted built.

According to Wiki, Courageous had fuel for 6000! nautical miles at 20 knots. That is a very impressive mix of range and speed for the time. I'd guess that she might be able to get 1500 miles or more at flank speed--fuel consumption skyrockets as you go faster. I sure don't see why that much range would be needed for a Baltic operation.

She would actually be able to do the same jobs as many cruisers, but with a bigger intimidation value.

In wartime, she looks enough like HMS Repair and HMS Refit--err Repulse and Renown--that a dummy turret could do some good.

 

[Astrodragon]

Or ignore C&G and build 2 27,000 ton Ark Royals in the late 20’s. You’ve learnt enough from Argus, Furious, Eagle and Hermes. Keep Courageous and Glorious as gun ships and carrier escorts.

Actually, no.
The design of pretty vital features like accelerators and arresting gear wasn't available till 1933.
The also vital barrier was only finalised in 1938.
A 1920's design would have serious flaws for modern aircraft operations

 

[steamboy]

Problem with the Folleys was they they were very very lightly built to get that speed. To the point that they were not really structually sound for their guns and during the 2nd Battle of Heolgand Bligh they suffered from self inflicted damage by driving into rough seas too hard as well as internal damage from firing their main guns. The Furious when she fired her 18-inch gun was shearing bolts throught the hull :s

 

[Dorknought]

A 1920's design would have serious flaws for modern aircraft operations

but if you build big enough then you get longevity. Here is 1920's design Saratoga operating modern late war aircraft:

 

[Dorknought]

The design of pretty vital features like accelerators and arresting gear wasn't available till 1933.
The also vital barrier was only finalised in 1938.

But these can be refitted just as they were with Glorious and Courageous.

 

[Dorknought]

self inflicted damage by driving into rough seas too hard

I think in the inquiry on this they found that the sea state was underestimated and this would have bent most ships. There was also a lack of experience in handling large +30knot ships.

 

[Dorknought]

Here, 4 8" triples on a rebuilt Courageous class as station flagship.

 

[Jellico]

but if you build big enough then you get longevity. Here is 1920's design Saratoga operating modern late war aircraft:

The Lexingtons got a free pass written into WNT for them and they still cheated from day 1. And they were still inefficient with their aircraft loads compared to smaller 1930s carriers.

None of that is going to be acceptable with a freshly designed 1930 build.

Let's be honest. Carriers have relatively short cruiser style build times. Smart planning starts the pre-war builds after the battleships and before the cruisers. Do you really need more than a skeleton force more than 5 years before a major war?

 

[steamboy]

Here, 4 8" triples on a rebuilt Courageous class as station flagship.

I like this. The Folly's would have probably been more useful if they'd had 8 x 9.2's instead of 4 x 15-inch guns.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I like this. The Folly's would have probably been more useful if they'd had 8 x 9.2's instead of 4 x 15-inch guns.

Especially with Green boy style shells

I still think they served Britain better as early carriers

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

The Lexingtons got a free pass written into WNT for them and they still cheated from day 1. And they were still inefficient with their aircraft loads compared to smaller 1930s carriers.

None of that is going to be acceptable with a freshly designed 1930 build.

Let's be honest. Carriers have relatively short cruiser style build times. Smart planning starts the pre-war builds after the battleships and before the cruisers. Do you really need more than a skeleton force more than 5 years before a major war?

Not to mention that Lady Lex and Sister Sara displaced 36 000t standard/ 47 000t deep to Outrageous and Laborious' 24 000 standard/ 27 000 deep while Curious was lighter still at 22 000/ 26 000. Lex and Sara are nearly twice the size.

One thing about the Follies that is often overlooked is that they were very good technology demonstrators. They were the first ships in the Royal Navy to use small-tube boilers and geared rather than direct-drive turbines. Furious was the first to mount an 18" gun, and was valuable in demonstrating the blast effect of such a weapon- if the N3 class battleships were built, that would have had to be considered in their design. They were the first fast carriers in the RN as well, and demonstrated their usefulness in that role.

Sure, they were never the best battlecruisers, and they weren't the best carriers (for long in the RN at least), but they were very valuable in showing what works and what doesn't.