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

[Cryhavoc101]

TFSmith you used Aircraft carrier salesman you

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,

But again that means no F4 Phantom beyond the 70s

Buccaneer S2 can operate off a smaller ship than the F4 and the UK had in the mid 60s several Decks that can operate it.

So if the choice is made to not operate 'F4 Phantom' then there is also no need to use the Essex class ships as other decks are already available.

Those 2 rebuilt Essex's might have been available and low milage but they and their technology are still essentially as old as the ships they are replacing.

Sorry no deal.

 

[brazen]

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,

The complete lack of similarity in the US systems vs RN systems, not just in signals and radar, but aircraft handling, propulsion even catering would make for expensive refits, then add in the changes to fit na angled flight deck, all on an aging hull makes no financial sense at all for the RN.

There is a reason why no navy apart from the USN used an Essex class, even when they were offered at cut price deals.

 

[Riain]

If Britain wanted carriers that weren't as good as Eagle and couldn't operate the Phantom then they merely needed to keep HMS Victorious in commission for her full 15-20 year rebuild life rather than pay her off after a minor fire in 1968. Similarly they could have kept the Hermes as a 'strike' carrier post 1972 and even the Centaur post 65. Hell if they wanted to be extravagant they could buy a batch of Spey powered 'Two-sadars' for these smaller carriers.



That would be way cheaper, easier and more effective than getting some of Essex class into the RN.

 

[PMN1]

Proposed Portsmouth CVA01 dock

 

[WILDGEESE]

With my previous "Alternate 1966 Defense White Paper" thread i speculated about the RN ending up with 3 CVA-01 class Carriers.

Now in regards to wether it would be better to have CVA-01, "Kitty Hawk" class or 2nd hand "Essex's" there was a already a design on the blocks in British ship yards already, that was a clean sheet of paper, and that is the "Invincible" class.

All it would mean is a different POD that would allow a change in the design on paper before it being built, as it was originally designed to carry helicopters not Harriers and thus had limited hanger facilities due to inappropriate deck lifts and a dumb shell hanger shape. This had the effect of limiting aircraft capacity to 26 (on Ark Royal), not the 52 that could have been carried.

Here's 2 options.

OPTION 1

Keep to the original length of the design at 677 ft but move the "scissor" deck lifts and replace them with standard edge lifts freeing up hanger and deck space. Then, copy off the USN carrier designs and build a "sponson" overhang on the ship. This would allow the following complement.

Sqns embarked as of 1979

3 x 12 Sea Harrier FRS 1 (Fleet Defence/attack)
1 x 12 Sea King HAS Mk 3 & 4 (ASW)
1 x 4 E-2 Hawkeye AEW

OPTION 2

This option allows the design to be lengthened and widened by around 60%
each way, to around 1,000 ft in length and a hull beam with of 145 ft. Again deck lifts would be of a standard edge design plus a US style "sponson". You could get around 90 aircraft embarked on the vessel.

Sqns embarked 1979

3 x 12 F-4 Phantoms (to be replaced by Tornado F-3 1985 onwards)
3 x 12 SB2 Buccaneers (to be replaced by Tornado GR-1 1985 onwards)
1 x 12 Sea Kings Mk5 or 6 ASW (to be replaced by Merlin 1990 onwards)
4 x E-2 Hawkeye

As you can see, the RN didn't need CVA-01 or 2nd "Essex's of expanded "Clemenceau's"

It all depends on wether the POD is earlier enough though.

Hope this helps.

 

[BlueTrousers]

With my previous "Alternate 1966 Defense White Paper" thread i speculated about the RN ending up with 3 CVA-01 class Carriers.

Now in regards to wether it would be better to have CVA-01, "Kitty Hawk" class or 2nd hand "Essex's" there was a already a design on the blocks in British ship yards already, that was a clean sheet of paper, and that is the "Invincible" class.

All it would mean is a different POD that would allow a change in the design on paper before it being built, as it was originally designed to carry helicopters not Harriers and thus had limited hanger facilities due to inappropriate deck lifts and a dumb shell hanger shape. This had the effect of limiting aircraft capacity to 26 (on Ark Royal), not the 52 that could have been carried.

...

As you can see, the RN didn't need CVA-01 or 2nd "Essex's of expanded "Clemenceau's"

It all depends on wether the POD is earlier enough though.

Hope this helps.

The CVA-01 cancellation was well before the Invincible class was laid down. It's true that they could have been built as strike carriers, but then you're starting design of one carrier after cancelling another as unnecessary.

 

[jsb]

...............
Sqns embarked as of 1979

3 x 12 Sea Harrier FRS 1 (Fleet Defence/attack)
1 x 12 Sea King HAS Mk 3 & 4 (ASW)
1 x 4 E-2 Hawkeye AEW
........................................

Why if you can operate Hawkeye are you limited to Sea Harrier ?

 

[WILDGEESE]

Why if you can operate Hawkeye are you limited to Sea Harrier ?

Sorry filers! . . . . what i meant to type for option one was 4 x Sea King AEW's

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Proposed Portsmouth CVA01 dock

That's brilliant thanks for that - I can picture that in my minds eye quite clearly

So the implication is that if a dock for CVA-01 could be built from scratch then one could be built for a slightly larger Kitty Hawk sized vessel!

 

[Riain]

Is there any source for the plans for the construction of that dock, I'm wondering about the timing? How big is it?

Even if a dock big enough to accommodate a 4 cat/4 lift/4 shaft carrier was built the carrier itself was going to be extremely expensive due to these items in particular. The CVA01 would only have half the flight deck machinery costs and 3/4 the machinery costs of a Kitty Hawk analogue. What's more a Kitty Hawk would require a bigger air group than the RN could afford given that the F4K/M were about 3 times the price of an F4B/C and Britain's F4K/M order was reduced from a planned 400 to 170 IOTL.

 

[Pangur]

Would there have been any advantage in taking the plans for the Midway class, update them so that they refected the exisitng Midways at the time and peraaps replace US electonics with British electronics? They were able to operate Phantoms

 

[Riain]

Would there have been any advantage in taking the plans for the Midway class, update them so that they refected the exisitng Midways at the time and peraaps replace US electonics with British electronics? They were able to operate Phantoms

Despite some compromises driven by politics the CVA01 design was based on RN requirements of the mid 1960s and included contemporary ideas on everything including crew accommodation, aircraft operations and the like. In contrast the Midway class was designed for USN requirements of the Pacific theatre of WW2 when men were plentiful and cheap and aircraft had piston engines and propellers, as such it and the Essex class as well, aren't as suitable as something designed for current requirements. Make no mistake, there is nothing incompetent about British ship design, the somewhat muddled design was a result of the design team reacting to a multitude of politically driven requirements. If the designers had been told to design the best ship to 'x' parameters without all the political bullshit they would have produced a great ship.

I'm getting the urge to do a 2.0 of my unfinished Budget Britwank.

 

[BlueTrousers]

Make no mistake, there is nothing incompetent about British ship design, the somewhat muddled design was a result of the design team reacting to a multitude of politically driven requirements. If the designers had been told to design the best ship to 'x' parameters without all the political bullshit they would have produced a great ship.

There's also the issue that Britain has had a shortage of naval design personnel since the 1920s. This reached a crunch point in the 1950s, where several classes had errors in their design because the RCNC was overstretched.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

True but ASB!

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.

Absolutely but there's the rub. The UK's institutions in the 1950s and beyond were (are still?) simply "not fit for purpose"


I'm torn between simple cock-up and conspiracy theories as the main explanation for this institutional incompetence.


What's the forum's views?

 

[sharlin]

cock-ups, bad decisions, good ideas that turned out to be bad ones (refitting Victorious for example, sounds great but cost HOW MUCH same with the Tiger refits hugely expensive!).

The screwing over of the British aircraft industry along with "Hey USA lets work together :3"

*many millions/billions later*

"Umm..thanks dad we're gonna cancel this now and leave you hanging. Again. See ya."

"B..but..we just spent...all that money and..now we have nothing..."

"Yep thats how the cookie crumbles."

And this happened many times (missiles, aircraft etc). Its not helped by the 'efficiency' of the UK's industry at the time either (yay for wildcat strikes). The whole thing came together to form this damn near perfect storm of derp, idiocy and mad overspending. Add to this being near bankrupt and out of cash for a long time...yeah it was just a massive mess. You'd need a West Germany style economic miracle (or the US to go you know what UK you don't owe us for the lend lease like they did with EVERYONE else) for it to work.

 

[pdf27]

There's also the issue that Britain has had a shortage of naval design personnel since the 1920s. This reached a crunch point in the 1950s, where several classes had errors in their design because the RCNC was overstretched.

I do wonder what might have happened if they'd bitten the bullet back then and based what they were going to build on what they had the design guys available for. At a guess:

• Forget modernising any of the war-built carriers, just replace them with the 1952 fleet carrier design. More expensive, but we only have to design one ship (and as a bonus it gets us out of the CVA-01 pain).
• Forget the Tigers, we can run on the war-built cruisers for a few more years, the design guys are needed elsewhere.
• Forget the Type 15 and Type 16 conversions, or at least rationalise them - that's a lot of work with each ship being so different. If we can do a lot of ships to a single design, go for it, otherwise scrap the lot and build a load of Type 12.
• Don't even think about the Blackwoods - Type 12 isn't much more expensive and more capable. With economies of scale, you can get pretty close, certainly enough to justify losing a hull or two.
• Type 41/61/81 - again, use the Type 12 hull as much as possible. If you need to make it a bit bigger so that it can be done in different versions as needed, go for it - it's still less work than a whole new hull.

So you would end up with a ton of Type-12 style hulls with varying weapons fits, a few very modern fleet carriers, and some WW2 leftovers for replacement in the 1960s. How well would that do in comparison to what they actually had?

 

[sharlin]

So build the fleet round the Leander type ship (which was a good class and gave good service) as well as perhaps as a somewhat enlarged County Class to replace the last of the Cruisers in active service? Call it a 10 ship group with 5 having a helo platform and 5 having a SAM aft. What you need though is something that is not as monstrously huge as the Sea Slug SAM and really this is the ONLY region i'd work with the USA in. Get their SAM systems although retain Sea Cat as its ideal for small ships even if as would later be proven it was a useless weapon system.

 

[pdf27]

So build the fleet round the Leander type ship (which was a good class and gave good service) as well as perhaps as a somewhat enlarged County Class to replace the last of the Cruisers in active service? Call it a 10 ship group with 5 having a helo platform and 5 having a SAM aft. What you need though is something that is not as monstrously huge as the Sea Slug SAM and really this is the ONLY region i'd work with the USA in. Get their SAM systems although retain Sea Cat as its ideal for small ships even if as would later be proven it was a useless weapon system.

The SAM issue doesn't really kick in until a bit after the 1950s, so I'm ignoring it for now - any naval SAM is going to be big, so realistically needs a cruiser-size hull for the first generation.
But yes, the RN in the 1950s designed the Type 11, 12, 12M, 12I, 14, 15 (several versions), 16 (several versions), 41, 42, 61, 62 and 81 (I may be missing one or two) as well as the Tiger class and the 1952 fleet carrier design. All of those escorts require a hull of broadly similar volume and speed, and in many cases shared the same engineering plant. There's an awfully big potential saving at the RCNC (i.e. enough bodies to allow them to do their job properly) if you cancel nearly all of the escort designs and accept a single suboptimal hull for all or nearly all the tasks.

 

[sharlin]

Standarisation on a Type 12 esque hull (especially if you could wiggle it to be a bit bigger and make a Leander type equivalent as they were fine ASW ships) would make a lot of sense and probably be handy for the ship building industry and parts replacement if you've got a universal engine etc.

Using them to replace any WW2 refits etc as well as stopping any other madness with rebuilds etc would probably save a LOT of money. Definately do not upgrade any WW2 carriers and hell i'd not even bother finishing the Tigers, cancel them, scrap them.

I'd still go for a 10 strong County Class (if possible with exocett from the start) with a 50/50 mix of SAM and helo deck/hangar like what the Chiliean navy did.

 

[Pseudo]

I'm getting the urge to do a 2.0 of my unfinished Budget Britwank.

Go on then. I always wanted to see where that thread would have went.