HMS EAGLE in the Falklands
- Thread starter flasheart
- Start date
Given the names for CVA01 and 2 were reportedly going to be Queen Elizabeth and Duke of Edinburgh, chances are they get the same names as the OTL carriers now entering service.
Given Liz came up again with the OTL carriers name one after her and the other Eagle which I suspect will become a USS Enterprise deal ITTL. That is a name passed down through the generations in memory of a hero ship.
Good to see the ships start building in 1987 as it means they'll be to far along to be disrupted by a peace dividend after 1992. Even if Hull #2 only starts in 1989 ot should be quite far along and Hull #1 should be fitting out when the cold war ends (that date is unlikely to move much as the economy in the USSR didn't fully go to pot until after 1989).
Except look at the record ITTL:
Ark Royal 2: Seaplane carrier, obsolete nearly at commission, achieved next to nothing.
Ark Royal 3: Helped sink Bismarck (actual killing by other ships) sunk after four years service.
Ark Royal 4: Overshadowed/used as parts hulk by badass.
Ark Royal 5: Never existed, Indomitable instead.
Not a great linerage to name your ship after.
I vote for the ships being named Eagle and Queen Elizabeth in that order since its rather hard to cancel a ship named after the Queen
Alas in this time period the names Renown and Warspite are taken by submarines. On the other hand HMS King George VI is not taken and won't be until the 2030s and I imagine the Queen would be most pleased to have a ship named after her father be commissioned while she's still alive.
Good update. I think the explanation on the catapult system may be messed up though - you seem to have a gas turbine dedicated only to providing steam for the catapult. That doesn’t make sense: there is no reason to put a gas turbine on it as it doesn’t benefit anything. You don’t seem to be using the power for anything, and exhaust temperatures from a gas turbine are quite low giving poor steam conditions.
The best option would probably be to recover some heat from the flue gases on the propulsion gas turbine, and then have a dedicated donkey boiler to boost the steam pressures up to those required (our even going with the donkey boiler alone - this was the OTL plan for CVF before they went STOVL only). Supporting a single industrial boiler per ship is painful but vastly easier than supporting a steam power plant (with turbines, condenser, etc.)
The best option would probably be to recover some heat from the flue gases on the propulsion gas turbine, and then have a dedicated donkey boiler to boost the steam pressures up to those required (our even going with the donkey boiler alone - this was the OTL plan for CVF before they went STOVL only). Supporting a single industrial boiler per ship is painful but vastly easier than supporting a steam power plant (with turbines, condenser, etc.)
Not to mention it is in action currently in the royal navy at this point in time
HMS Bristol used a combined gas turbine steam plant arrangement
Public sentiment aided and abetted by the tabloids would probably lean towards naming one of them Eagle.
