A better CVA-01 or why didn't Britain simply use the US Designs?

[Cryhavoc101]

This idea has been playing around my head for the last couple of days - apologies its a bit of a mind dump

A recent thread on this here forum focused on the UKs 1966 Defence White paper that saw the scrapping of both the Type 82 Destroyer project and the 55,000 Ton CVA-01 design of Carrier in favour of an RAF centred defence policy that ultimately never materialised.

Now all things being equal prior to this Britain would probably have built 4 of the Missile Cruisers/Heavy Destroyers and 2 of the Carriers (replacing the then existing carriers in service by 1970-75.

However as we know the RAF told porky pies about their capability including apparently moving Australia closer to Singapore and the Labour government insisted that the US was going to buy British ships and goods (which they didn't).

Also that land based TSR2 could perform the role of carrier based air groups was the other lie and despite it being challenged by both the Labours own minister of Defence and the then Conservative shadow Minster of Defence the government went ahead and cancelled the design.

All things considered CVA-01 wasn't a very good design of carrier - its chief designer Louis Rydill said the following:-

I interviewed the last chief designer of CVA-01, Louis Rydill, just before he died, and he confirmed that he had said that the day the project was cancelled was the happiest of his life. However, that was not because he did not believe in the carrier case. It was because he felt that he had been forced to make so many compromises, and introduce so many risky design elements, because of size and budget restrictions, that the whole project had become a nightmare.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28128026

I find myself in agreement with him

At 55 thousand tons the CVA-01 seems far less capable than the marginally heavier US Kitty Hawk class (60,000+ tons) ie Kitty Hawk design could carry 90 odd Aircraft and CVA-01 could carry 50 - and it seems madness to me here and now that such a compromised committee design was going to get the go ahead.

So what are the challenges and POD's that would have enabled Britain to firstly built 2 or possibly 3 UK 'Kitty Hawks'?

What changes would this have created to subsequent events?

What changes would this have made to subsequent British aircraft design collaborations - ie Improved Phantom Designs, A British multi-role version of the F14 Tomcat (in both Navy and RAF Service) in the 80s instead of the 2 Tornado designs.

Perhaps an extended development cycle of the Buccaneer? Perhaps an S3 variant and beyond?

 

[hipper]

This idea has been playing around my head for the last couple of days - apologies its a bit of a mind dump

A recent thread on this here forum focused on the UKs 1966 Defence White paper that saw the scrapping of both the Type 82 Destroyer project and the 55,000 Ton CVA-01 design of Carrier in favour of an RAF centred defence policy that ultimately never materialised.

Now all things being equal prior to this Britain would probably have built 4 of the Missile Cruisers/Heavy Destroyers and 2 of the Carriers (replacing the then existing carriers in service by 1970-75.

However as we know the RAF told porky pies about their capability including apparently moving Australia closer to Singapore and the Labour government insisted that the US was going to buy British ships and goods (which they didn't).

Also that land based TSR2 could perform the role of carrier based air groups was the other lie and despite it being challenged by both the Labours own minister of Defence and the then Conservative shadow Minster of Defence the government went ahead and cancelled the design.

All things considered CVA-01 wasn't a very good design of carrier - its chief designer Louis Rydill said the following:-

I interviewed the last chief designer of CVA-01, Louis Rydill, just before he died, and he confirmed that he had said that the day the project was cancelled was the happiest of his life. However, that was not because he did not believe in the carrier case. It was because he felt that he had been forced to make so many compromises, and introduce so many risky design elements, because of size and budget restrictions, that the whole project had become a nightmare.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28128026

I find myself in agreement with him

At 55 thousand tons the CVA-01 seems far less capable than the marginally heavier US Kitty Hawk class (60,000+ tons) ie Kitty Hawk design could carry 90 odd Aircraft and CVA-01 could carry 50 - and it seems madness to me here and now that such a compromised committee design was going to get the go ahead.

So what are the challenges and POD's that would have enabled Britain to firstly built 2 or possibly 3 UK 'Kitty Hawks'?

What changes would this have created to subsequent events?

What changes would this have made to subsequent British aircraft design collaborations - ie Improved Phantom Designs, A British multi-role version of the F14 Tomcat (in both Navy and RAF Service) in the 80s instead of the 2 Tornado designs.

Perhaps an extended development cycle of the Buccaneer? Perhaps an S3 variant and beyond?

Kitty hawk was larger and thus more expensive than CVA01.

 

[Riain]

900' and 55, 000 ton is as large as a ship can be accommodated in British facilities, building a bigger carrier comes with such massive overheads that it isn't cost effective. That said cva01 was a bit over complicated, particularly expanding the alaskan highway concept for support vehicles to drive outside the island into a taxiway for aircraft. The design was also deficient jn deck space given the displacement.

 

[Zheng He]

What about going with the US CVV design that was popular with some of the defense reformers in the media and in Congress?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Carrier_(Medium)

 

[TFSmith121]

The simplest option for two effective fleet carriers in

The simplest option for two effective fleet carriers for the RN in mid-1960s would have been to have asked the US if Bunker Hill and Franklin could be purchased and modernized up to the SCB-27 (Oriskany) standard, and (presumably) then some... (27D?)

Phantoms would have been a stretch, but not impossible, given a rebuild from the hangar deck upward.

Both ships, despite suffering severe damage in WW II, had been rebuilt to essentially brand-new status in 1945-46; Franklin was in maintained reserve until 1966 and Bunker Hill until 1973.

The Forrestals and Kitty Hawks were too large for British dockyards (heck, the Midways, as converted, were too large), and CVV was a late 1970s design.

Best,

 

[marathag]

Honestly, they should have built copies of the Modernized SBC-125 Essex class.


Hurricane bow, wide blisters, Angled Deck, Steam Cats, deck edge elevator.
300,000 gallon avgas capacity
40,300 tons, 31 knots

70 aircraft, up to 80,000 pounds: The USN operated A-3 Whales from these, after all

A lot more bang for buck, here.

Or redo the Ark Royal design to be more like these.

In any case, a couple new 1966 carriers in this class will be very handy later, being able to operate 'real' full sized aircraft in the years to come

Edit: Ninja'd

 

[TFSmith121]

Except they didn't even need to build them...

Except they didn't even need to build them...

Great minds think alike.

24 Essex class ships were built, and only about two-thirds were ever in commission in the USN simultaenously during the Cold War; Franklin and Bunker Hill had been re-built, almost from the keel up, and kept in maintained reserve from two decades by the mid-60s.

Something similar would have made great sense for the French, as well, rather than Clemenceau and Foch; may have had harbor issues there, as well, however.

Too much ship for any of the other NATO or Allied navies, however.

Best,

 

[TheMann]

If the RN was serious about its ability to advance its carrier aviation, its best bet would have been making a space-efficient design, like a bigger Clemenceau-class, to serve its needs. Along the way, it would move off its older carriers, selling off Hermes and Victorious and scrapping Centaur, while Eagle and Ark Royal soldier on until the RN is able to acquire its new carriers. Essex class carriers were never gonna happen, the RN would never stomach its pride to that degree. These carriers should be designed from the word go to the very limit of RN dockyards and base harbors, but in a design that maximizes deck space and hangar size and allows it to use the Phantom and Buccaneer as much as possible.

 

[marathag]

Essex class carriers were never gonna happen, the RN would never stomach its pride to that degree. These carriers should be designed from the word go to the very limit of RN dockyards and base harbors, but in a design that maximizes deck space and hangar size and allows it to use the Phantom and Buccaneer as much as possible.

Ah, an warmed over Essex it is, then

To operate Phantoms, the landing patch was supposedly too short, but did operate the A-3, a much heavier bird But with the RN building these, no need to stick to Panama Canal limits, wider beam and a longer angled deck may just allow that.

Building new in a UK yards salves the pride, and keeps the UK shipworkers something to do, rather than in US yards.

Plus, will need room for storing the Rum Ration, for a couple years, anyway. Just won't do to repurpose a paint locker or something.

But since the RN threw the Phantom, Buccaneer and every other non jump jet/helo capability with the next batch of CVs, I think a UK built Essex is a better call

 

[TFSmith121]

EXCEPT ... they couldn't manage the new construction/conversion

If the RN was serious about its ability to advance its carrier aviation, its best bet would have been making a space-efficient design, like a bigger Clemenceau-class, to serve its needs. Along the way, it would move off its older carriers, selling off Hermes and Victorious and scrapping Centaur, while Eagle and Ark Royal soldier on until the RN is able to acquire its new carriers. Essex class carriers were never gonna happen, the RN would never stomach its pride to that degree. These carriers should be designed from the word go to the very limit of RN dockyards and base harbors, but in a design that maximizes deck space and hangar size and allows it to use the Phantom and Buccaneer as much as possible.

EXCEPT ... they couldn't manage the new construction/conversion of the ships they did have, much less procurement and the LCC costs of the Phantom/Buccaneer generation of aircraft, along with the SSBNs, SSNs, DLGs, frigates, etc.

If the wanted any sort of fleet carriers to replace Eagle, Ark Royal, and Victorious in their Sea Vixen/Scimitar guise, then a pair of Essex class CVs would still have been much less expensive, and much more capable, than any new build.

If they were going to go to the Invincible type, obviously, that's a different story - but that's not what the question was; it was how to replace CVA 01 and CVA 02 without breaking the bank.

They could have asked the French to build two more Clemenceaus, I suppose.

Crusaders and Corsairs (in place of the Etendards), maybe?

Best,

 

[Riain]

With carriers the devil is in the details. While the SCB125 Essex class could operate the A3 it hit the deck at 87kts and so imparted much less energy to the deck than the (not much) lighter Phantom which hit the deck at over 120kts. What's more the SCB125s had considerably less hull tonnage than the HMS Eagle, 31,000t std compared to 43,000t std which is why the SCB125s never operated F4s but the Eagle (trials) and Ark Royal did. The SCB125 is simply not suitable for the RN.

Britain's problem at the time wasn't ship design it was political interference, keep the pollies out of the design and something good will get built. Using an American design over a British design would not get the ships built, the pollies will see to that.

And lets not pretend it was about money, the Government decided against a 5 million pound refit of the Eagle to accommodate Phantoms and instead decided on a 32 million refit on Ark Royal that was only intended to last until 1972. They also spent 13 million rebuilding the Tiger into a helicopter cruiser, 32 and 13 is 45 million pounds that would build 2/3 of CVA01.

 

[TheMann]

With carriers the devil is in the details. While the SCB125 Essex class could operate the A3 it hit the deck at 87kts and so imparted much less energy to the deck than the (not much) lighter Phantom which hit the deck at over 120kts. What's more the SCB125s had considerably less hull tonnage than the HMS Eagle, 31,000t std compared to 43,000t std which is why the SCB125s never operated F4s but the Eagle (trials) and Ark Royal did. The SCB125 is simply not suitable for the RN.

Britain's problem at the time wasn't ship design it was political interference, keep the pollies out of the design and something good will get built. Using an American design over a British design would not get the ships built, the pollies will see to that.

This is pretty much it. Britain in the post-war era had pretty much every one of military projects end up bogged down in political interference, development problems or financial difficulties. British shipyards can easily design and build a carrier, the CVA-01 was trying to have it all and eat its cake too, which was its primary problem in the first place.

 

[Archibald]

This is pretty much it. Britain in the post-war era had pretty much every one of military projects end up bogged down in political interference, development problems or financial difficulties. British shipyards can easily design and build a carrier, the CVA-01 was trying to have it all and eat its cake too, which was its primary problem in the first place.

The big difference between the A-3 and F-4 is that the latter is a supersonic aircraft, and thus is less optimized for subsonic flight, hence the higher landing speed.

The Foch and clemenceau are like modernized SBC-125 - too small for RN expectations. The old PA58 Verdun, or the charles de gaulle, are representatives of enlarged, 45 000 tons Clemenceaus, but that's still too small for the RN.
The biggest roadblock is that early in the 60's the RN wanted a long range interceptor akin to the (not build yet) F-14 Tomcat. Can't remember what specification that was, OR.406, think about the Supermarine type 583. Even the upgraded Phantom wasn't up to their dreams.

 

[brazen]

Every naval ship is a compromise of designs though, Louis Rydill may have been unhappy that some of his pet designs had not been used.

Essex class are a no go for me, the cost of modernization, establishing a spares pool at each operating port for items that have very little in common with standard RN kit and bringing it inline with RN sensors would be prohibitively expensive, plus it's old, too small and it's manning costs are too high due to Steam machinery.

It would be cheaper to completely refit Eagle and Ark Royal.

 

[Riain]

....................It would be cheaper to completely refit Eagle and Ark Royal.

The Eagle only needed 4 DAX II arrestor gears and water cooled Jet Blast Deflectors, it would have only cost 5 million pounds and made the ship last until the early/mid 80s.

 

[BlueTrousers]

Why on earth would the Royal Navy want to replace its' worn out, endlessly refitted, WW2-era aircraft carriers with someone else's worn out, endlessly refitted, WW2-era aircraft carriers that wouldn't even have been compatible with the British logistic system?

Not refitting Eagle for Phantoms was criminal; she was a far better ship than Ark Royal. I've roughly hashed out a timeline where she gets the required refit and the Ark goes off to the breakers instead. Maybe it's my biases, but it turns into a bit of a Britwank.

CVA-01 itself wasn't quite right as a ship, and was very much on the bleeding edge. One of the ship's problems was that displacement had been taken as a measure of cost, and thus was held down. This meant lots of advanced technology that was lightweight, but expensive. Simpler, heavier, but cheaper equipment and structural design would have made for a bigger but ultimately more affordable ship with more room to grow.

The idea that Britain couldn't build anything bigger than CVA-01 is a little disingenuous; not only had British shipyards built thousand-foot, thirty-knot ocean liners, but at the time CVA-01 was being planned BP was having full on 250,000 deadweight tonne supertankers built in British shipyards.

As ever, though, the defence budget is the sticking point. If fleet carriers - even cheap ones - are built, something else has to go.

Something similar would have made great sense for the French, as well, rather than Clemenceau and Foch; may have had harbor
issues there, as well, however.

From the hangar deck down, the Clemenceau class actually were SCB-27Cs.

 

[Pseudo]

The RN doesn't need to copy anyone's designs, it and other services simply need a government, MoD and industry culture of competent and purposeful procurement.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Why on earth would the Royal Navy want to replace its' worn out, endlessly refitted, WW2-era aircraft carriers with someone else's worn out, endlessly refitted, WW2-era aircraft carriers that wouldn't even have been compatible with the British logistic system?

Not refitting Eagle for Phantoms was criminal; she was a far better ship than Ark Royal. I've roughly hashed out a timeline where she gets the required refit and the Ark goes off to the breakers instead. Maybe it's my biases, but it turns into a bit of a Britwank.

CVA-01 itself wasn't quite right as a ship, and was very much on the bleeding edge. One of the ship's problems was that displacement had been taken as a measure of cost, and thus was held down. This meant lots of advanced technology that was lightweight, but expensive. Simpler, heavier, but cheaper equipment and structural design would have made for a bigger but ultimately more affordable ship with more room to grow.

The idea that Britain couldn't build anything bigger than CVA-01 is a little disingenuous; not only had British shipyards built thousand-foot, thirty-knot ocean liners, but at the time CVA-01 was being planned BP was having full on 250,000 deadweight tonne supertankers built in British shipyards.

As ever, though, the defence budget is the sticking point. If fleet carriers - even cheap ones - are built, something else has to go.

From the hangar deck down, the Clemenceau class actually were SCB-27Cs.

This is pretty much my point - the existing refitted Audacious class were already doing the the job that a improved Essex could do - with the advantage that they could operate Phantom - which in 1966 was undisputably better than any similiar UK Aircraft and that is the main driver for a larger carrier IMO.

Also like the Post War Essex they were a bit long in the tooth and like the Essex class ships were unlikely to be very useful beyond the late 70s and getting very expensive to maintain.

I think they should and could have done the following

Refitted Eagle to enable her to operate Phantom - Ark Royal can soldier on in semi reserve operating older fighters and Buccaneer.

Then build 2 x 60,000 plus ton "Queen Elizabeth" class carriers based on the Kitty Hawk design "To the maximum limits of the UK ship yards and with out any canal limits placed on them" to be in commission in 1970 and 1975 respectively - the intention being to keep Queen Elizabeth in long term refit/reserve after 1977 and then alternating ships over the next 25 years or so always keeping one in service.

Ark Royal to be paid off in 1970 and Eagle to pay off in 1975

Fast jets by 1970 are to be limited to F4, Buccaneer, Gnat (replaced by Hawk in mid 70s) as the principle trainer and Harrier - all in both RN FAA and RAF Service.

Hermes to be made into a Commando carrier as the core of a Amphibious force (with Intrepid and Fearless)

All other 'Carriers' and fast jet types to be payed off/retired by 1970

I suspect that whatever happens HMS Bristol will remain the sole Type 82 and the lessons learned from this ship will result in the type 42 as per OTL - although hopefully the proper full length version will be built.

I consider the above to be less wasteful and no more expensive than what ultimately occoured!

 

[TFSmith121]

But what the UK could have done and what was done were

Two different things. My point on Franklin and Bunker Hill is they were, essentially, new ships after the late war re-builds with next to no mileage, and - absent the cost of modernization - might have been available essentially for free to the British or French. The question of what an Ultimate modernization would have looked like for either navy is an interesting one.

Certainly an Essex or a maintained and modernized Eagle would have been more capable than an Invincible.

Best,

 

[BlueTrousers]

After nearly thirty years of sitting idle, they were a long way from essentially new. A lot of things on a ship deteriorate with time, whether the engines are running or not. Cold reserve like that only makes sense for war mobilisation, and by the 1970s or 1980s not even that.

The Invincibles were actually more capable than either in the role they were envisaged doing... for all of eighteen months, before the role changed. To keep the Royal Navy in the fleet carrier business, you need to keep the strike role at the forefront. It would have been possible to do much better with Harriers, if the will had been there when the Invincible class was designed - but they were meant to be anti-submarine cruisers, not diminuitive fleet aircraft carriers.