A better Fleet Air Arm?

[Some Bloke]

How about this for a POD? HMS Vindictive is never converted back in to a cruiser in 1924. While the immediate impact is not huge (a few more aircraft orders for the FAA) the fact that the RN has one more carrier means that it has a larger aviation community with more influence in naval policy; this may set up Rip 89's idea for abolishing dual control in 1930.

As for converting the C class to carriers, I'm not so sure seeing as some of this class were converted to AA use. Why not convert the remaining Hawkins class for Trade Protection carriers? (There were suggestions in a seperate thread of having 1 continuous hangar bay plus deck parks doubling the number of aircraft carried from 12 to 24, I think the deckparks are a stretch on a ship that small, but maybe 18 aircraft, somewhat cramped but fit for purpose). A general point on the Trade Protection Carrier idea, how does this affect naval procurement during the war? IOTL proposals for converting merchant ships for the purpose were considered as earlier as 1939, but until 1941 the Royal Navy only had CAM and MAC ships plus Lend Lease escort carriers.

Also, with the Illustrious Class, I think 60 aircraft AND equivalent protection to OTL is somewhat optimistic on cost grounds. However, there were some suggestions of reducing the side armour (ta, Astrodragon, makes sense seeing as the main perceived threat IOTL came from level bombers, hence the need for an armoured flight deck). I can't see how this could affect things all that much, but, say for the sake of argument this allows 40 aircraft rather than 36 and maybe add the Formidible style half hangar right from the off (adding 14 as opposed to OTL's 12) extra fighters you'd have a fairly decent carrier, still exceptionally well protected by the standards of other navies and a respectable fighter complement of 54.

2 Ark Royals and 6 Illustrious, plus cruiser conversion trade protection carriers, again cost and capacity, something has to give. Are the other 4 Illustrious an analogue to OTLs Implacable and Audacious classes? In which case I'd point to the necessity for design evolution (maybe have the other four tentatively ordered as Illustrious class and the order changed during the design phase).

This completes my thoughts on the pre war carrier fleet, next stop, what's on em.

 

[rip89]

How about this for a POD? HMS Vindictive is never converted back in to a cruiser in 1924. While the immediate impact is not huge (a few more aircraft orders for the FAA) the fact that the RN has one more carrier means that it has a larger aviation community with more influence in naval policy; this may set up Rip 89's idea for abolishing dual control in 1930.

As for converting the C class to carriers, I'm not so sure seeing as some of this class were converted to AA use. Why not convert the remaining Hawkins class for Trade Protection carriers? (There were suggestions in a seperate thread of having 1 continuous hangar bay plus deck parks doubling the number of aircraft carried from 12 to 24, I think the deckparks are a stretch on a ship that small, but maybe 18 aircraft, somewhat cramped but fit for purpose). A general point on the Trade Protection Carrier idea, how does this affect naval procurement during the war? IOTL proposals for converting merchant ships for the purpose were considered as earlier as 1939, but until 1941 the Royal Navy only had CAM and MAC ships plus Lend Lease escort carriers.

Also, with the Illustrious Class, I think 60 aircraft AND equivalent protection to OTL is somewhat optimistic on cost grounds. However, there were some suggestions of reducing the side armour (ta, Astrodragon, makes sense seeing as the main perceived threat IOTL came from level bombers, hence the need for an armoured flight deck). I can't see how this could affect things all that much, but, say for the sake of argument this allows 40 aircraft rather than 36 and maybe add the Formidible style half hangar right from the off (adding 14 as opposed to OTL's 12) extra fighters you'd have a fairly decent carrier, still exceptionally well protected by the standards of other navies and a respectable fighter complement of 54.

2 Ark Royals and 6 Illustrious, plus cruiser conversion trade protection carriers, again cost and capacity, something has to give. Are the other 4 Illustrious an analogue to OTLs Implacable and Audacious classes? In which case I'd point to the necessity for design evolution (maybe have the other four tentatively ordered as Illustrious class and the order changed during the design phase).

This completes my thoughts on the pre war carrier fleet, next stop, what's on em.

With the C Class I was assuming due to better fighter cover there was less of a percived need for dedicated AA ships, but your probably right. Yes the 4 the other illustrious carriers have been orderd as such and not yet evolved.

I was going for armoured box protection as didnt this provide better protection against torpedos? As for cost there is only actualy 1 more modern carrier proposed here than in OTL (an extra Ark Royal), the 4 converted cruisers would have been AA ships anyway and the others have been retained as the international situation gets worse.

In an earlier post I propsed a torpedo bomber called spearfish this wouldnt be OTL spearfish - I just like that name

 

[Astrodragon]

The ABH is completely separate from the TDS.
The first few ABH had very this side armour because people still thought a carrier could be attacked by destroyers/cruisers (it was basically cruiser-level protection)

Once they realised this simply didnt happen they thinned it right down to around an inch or so (giving protection against strafing as well as structural strength), thus allowing more planes.

In the 30's, the armoured deck is still going to be seen as important. The RN knew they would be facing 500lb bombs from Germany and Japan, so armouring against them does make sense - even when the LW went to 500kg bombs, the decks were still useful as they reduced the effective range of the attackers considerably.

We'd be looking at something like the Implacable class, which carried 60-70 aircraft in 1945, and could have handled around 80 of the earlier types.

The FAA aircraft werent actually too bad in the 30's, apart from the lack of a fighter. The Skua and Swordfish were good planes relative to the opposition, but thanks to the RAF concentrating its efforts on land planes and ignoring the FAA there were no follow-on designs.
An early light fighter is easy to develop, then theyd need replacements coming in 39-40. The Hercules is available then, and would be fine as a power plant.
The Sea Fury is dependent on the Centaurus. This could easily have been produced earlier but there was assumed to be no need. Now if Bristol are kicked into not messing about with a number of engines that werent much use and concentrate on it, the Centaurus would be ready by 41. Youd need a driver for the Fury, though, I think the idea came out of the Fw190. Say an early intelligence report on the Fw or the Zero kicks Hawker into the idea of a light naval fighter with a very powerful engine. There was no real reason why the Sea Fury couldnt have been available by 1942 (now that would have given the Japanese a shock!!!), there arent any tech reasons stopping it (although it wouldnt have the performance of the 45 model, it would still be way ahead of anything else at the time)

The Centaurus could also power a big TBS to give a useful performance

 

[merlin]

I figure if the FAA had had the Henley it would have gone the same way as the Blackburn Skua e.g. Killing the Konigsberg, getting misused as a fighter and relegated to target tug.

Don't agrre - unlikely to get the Sea Henley in service early enough to replace the Skua, before Norway. Seems plausible to me though to have Operational Training Squadrons up at Hatson (Shetland), that is called upon to assist the Swordfish of Ark Royal and Glorious to deal with the 'Twins'. Following their 'success' (I wouldn't claim they could have sunk them), Henleys again with Swordfish inflicted substantial damage to the Bismark i.e. knocking out secondary turrets, range-finders, and inflicting casualities on the crew. However, with advances in bombs, better engines, at Cape Matapan - the Italian Battleships did not escape.

Unlike the Skua - the Henley was faster 292 mph, and with an overload could carry 1,000 lb load.

Hence, as I have said elsewhere here, Sea Henley FDB, Sea Hurricane, Sea Dante (Boulton-Paul P.88a Hercules 4 x 20 cannon), - with replacements evolving from Griffon/Centaurus fighter - early Fury, and Torpedo Bomber - early Spearfish or torpedo optimised Barracuda.
I don't see earlier changes with Swordfish due to launch speed of Torpedoes.
I think, the Venom - too lightweight, think though the Gloster F.5/34 has possiblilities, and possible to convert the Rocs back to Skuas!

 

[Astrodragon]

The FAA dont really need a better dive bomber than the Skua before 1940. especially if you take out most of the forward firing guns and ammo - that would give you a better load, more range. Or the weight to put a heavier engine in, extend the range and speed.
In terms of bombs, in this time period you either want a 500lb (long range, will take out anything other than a BB) or 2,000lb (for BB's), but no plane of 1940 could divebomb with a 2,000 pounder. I never understood why the USN used 1,000lb bombs.

In fact an improved Skua could probably do fine if the Sea Fury can come along in 1942 (which could carry a 2,000 lb bomb), as long as you dont expect it to be a bomber as well!

Annoyingly (thanks, Air Ministry) the effort was there as well - use the effort building the Henly to improve the Skua and start early on a swordfish replacement (using the hercules, Centaurus to come later), and instead of building the Defiant build a decent fighter.

As was said earlier, a Swordfish replacement needs torpedoes that can be dropped at higher speeds for full effectiveness, but a plane with more speed and a higher load would be very useful - allowing radar and a torpedo with more range, you could do things like attack enemy carriers at night - that wont do quite as much damage as a day attack (planes wont be fuelled or armed), but will still be very damaging and pretty safe for the strike force

 

[Just Leo]

The Blackburn Skua with retractable undercarriage was slower and had less range than the Aichi "Val". The only good thing you could say about it was that it was a dive bomber at a time when they had a viable need for them. The RN had a momentary brain cloud and forgot that the best use for aircraft carriers is force projection. RN doctrine was that carriers cannot operate within range of land-based air power because land-based had superior performance. They validated this concept by ordering aircraft which could not meet with air power of any type.

Sir Sydney Camm was responsible for the design of Hawker aircraft. He built a great number of outstanding aircraft, but one could suspect that his successes led to a certain smugness. After the performance advantage of the Spitfire over the Hurricane was validated, the thin elliptical wing was not copied and applied until the Tempest. The Typhoon failed as a fighter because of wing thickness and the Mach effects on the tail. The Tornado preceded the Typhoon and was fitted with the under-powered RR Vulture engine. After cancellation of the engine, a still prototype Centaurus engine was fitted to the Tornado, and performance was considered superior to the Typhoon. However, the project officer, an air marshall, declared that the Napier Sabre engine was chosen. The Tornado and Typhoon had structural differences and the Centaurus would only fit into Tornado, not Typhoon. Camm eventually built thin wings for the Tempest, powered by Sabre, and just in time to miss the war, the Centaurus. It was then discovered that the Centaurus Tempest, although possessing the best performance of all, suffered from a Corsair-like visibility problem. The solution was the Fury/Sea Fury, post-war. I'm just saying this because the Sea Fury wasn't a break-thru aircraft, but was decidedly evolutionary, derived from a series of disappointments. Incidentally, Camm was provided with swept-wing data at a very early date and refused to pay it any regard or credence because "we won the war".

The Sea Hurricane was never fitted with folding wings, limiting the number carried on deck. Since it already was at a performance disadvantage against the Zero, it's just as well it did not become a major type.

 

[Just Leo]

What would the Fleet Air Arm think of this? British torpedoes didn't get Torpex warheads until 1943, meaning less bang for the pound. A torpedo with a less demanding delivery envelope would have been nice.

 

[Astrodragon]

I would see development (with the Air Ministry locked safely in the basement) going something like this.

(1) With a new, large carrier being designed (Ark Royal) and expected in service around 1937 (it was delayed a bit due to budget issues), the RN puts out tenders for 3 planes in 1932/3 - a fighter, a dive bomber and a TBS plane (based on joint excercises with the USN, and expectation of how land-based aircraft will develop in the next 5 years). Thats a year earlier than the light radial fighter spec of OTL, but it would be driven by the need to have them ready for the first of the new carriers

The dive bomber is the Skua, a year early. Without having to be specced as a fighter, it would probably lose 2 of the 4 forward mg (and possibly gains a second rear-firing). This makes it a bit lighter, so a bit longer ranged/faster. Not much, however by the standards of the time (it would be ready for service in 37), its a good plane.

The TBS is the Swordfish. The FAA is probably a bit unhappy at the 2 wings, but given torpedo dropping requirements at the time it fills the role needed. A faster plane would be nice, and the Swordfish is probably seen as an intermediate desighn which will be superceded and used off the older smaller carriers rather than the modern ones

The fighter is a heavier, upgraded version of one of the 4 radial engines planes originally specced in 1934. Given the requirement to be in service in 37, development moves faster and youd probably end up with something heavier than the OTL prototypes, probably with a bigger engine. The skua used the perseus, it would probably work for the fighter too. performance should be similar to the Hurricane - probably a bit slower, but more manouverable. Superchargers arent available, but naval fighters dont usually care about high altitude performance at this point in time.

(2) With the above getting into service in 37, normal policy would look at the next generation around 35-36 (it usually hapenned once the prototype was flying and any major bugs fixed). By this point a lot more is known about what planes are going to be flying in 1940, and its clear better planes will be needed.
The Hercules engine will be available now, so it would be sensible to design all 3 aircraft around it.
Planes started in 35/6 will be test flying around 38/9, for an in service date around 1940-41 (this corresponds to a similar timescale for the Fw190, but started a bit earlier)

A fighter could have performance somewhat less than the Fw190 (it would be navalised and heavier), but still better than anything the RN expects to have to fight except for the most modern LW fighters (they dont know about the Zero yet). Since they know that the range of the Bf109 is short, they are probably very happy with that)

A divebomber with a Hercules would be similar to the Dauntless, however the more powerful engine would let it carry more fuel or be faster (better rabge with a 1,000lb bomb, for example). With a later mark of Hercules, it could probably carry a 2,000lb bomb which now makes BB's vulnerable. That alone could be a big driver, it now means they can plan on taking out any of the German heavies if they sortie by dive bombing as well as torpedo planes.

A new TBS (monoplane this time!) would be a lot faster than the swordfish carrying teh same torpedo. Given the obvious ability to launch at a higher speed (so giving less time in the AAA danger zone), its very likely the RN would modify their torpedo to stand higher launch speeds and altitudes (after all, they modded the torps for Taranto quite easily)

(3) Next generation would be specced around 1940. By now the RN has combat experience. Its now a question of do they see the need for a Centaurus powered plane. The existing planes could be modded to take the bigger engine, or new planes developed. Which is probably going to depend on resources - for example, a lightweight Hercules powered fighter could be improved into a Centaurus powered monster by 1942 that wouldnt be that far off a Sea Fury...and it would also be the dive bomber. A heavier TBS could either carry 2 torpedoes (although by now we are getting into issues with the catapalut rating on the earlier carriers), or have a night version with ASV and a heavy load/long range. If this was available in 42 it could ruin the IJN's night quite happily. However I question if the need for it would be seen (might be available as a prototype, though)

 

[David S Poepoe]

How about this for a POD? HMS Vindictive is never converted back in to a cruiser in 1924. While the immediate impact is not huge (a few more aircraft orders for the FAA) the fact that the RN has one more carrier means that it has a larger aviation community with more influence in naval policy; this may set up Rip 89's idea for abolishing dual control in 1930.

I don't think the further conversions of members of the Hawkins class cruisers will help. The Vindictive was never really converted back to a cruiser, but was eventually recommissioned as a repair ship. Finances are tight, as well is tonnage because of the treaties.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

How about this for a POD? HMS Vindictive is never converted back in to a cruiser in 1924. While the immediate impact is not huge (a few more aircraft orders for the FAA) the fact that the RN has one more carrier means that it has a larger aviation community with more influence in naval policy; this may set up Rip 89's idea for abolishing dual control in 1930.

For an airgroup for this ship I would think 10 Swordfish 5 fighters with two extras of each stored in crates. Should improve convoy survival rates, and if the other Hawkins are taken in hand when the Washington treaty expires might prevent the use of fleet carriers on anti submarine sweeps saving the Couragious.

 

[danwild6]

What would the Fleet Air Arm think of this? British torpedoes didn't get Torpex warheads until 1943, meaning less bang for the pound. A torpedo with a less demanding delivery envelope would have been nice.

What aircraft is that?

 

[rip89]

Thank you to everyone for the high quality of replys, whilst I consider myself knowledgable on these matters some of you are a lot more than that!

Whilst not wishing to stop the discussion on aircraft or aircraft carriers (I could talk about them all day) I think we should also discuss what effect this better FAA would have on the war.

For these purposes assume the airgroup is roughly what Astrodragon said, at the start of the war a navilised beefed up version of one of the lightweight fighters, a slightly faster dedicated dive bomber Skua, and the Swordfish, from 1940/1941 Hercules powerd replacments for all types and 1942/1943 centarus powerd aircraft.

Also the carriers in service 39 are the legacy carriers, 2 x Ark Royals 2 x illustrious with 4 building (these have only an amroured flight deck and are have largeer tonnage carrying 70/80 aircraft) as well as 4 convertd cruisers for trade protection.

So how does such a force effect the war? First of all I see the Norwegian campaign being even more of a beating for the KM, possibly the invasion fails with all the butterflies that has.....

Also any good places on the internet to resaerch about aircraft, navys , the fleet air arm in this period?

 

[Astrodragon]

Thank you to everyone for the high quality of replys, whilst I consider myself knowledgable on these matters some of you are a lot more than that!

Whilst not wishing to stop the discussion on aircraft or aircraft carriers (I could talk about them all day) I think we should also discuss what effect this better FAA would have on the war.

For these purposes assume the airgroup is roughly what Astrodragon said, at the start of the war a navilised beefed up version of one of the lightweight fighters, a slightly faster dedicated dive bomber Skua, and the Swordfish, from 1940/1941 Hercules powerd replacments for all types and 1942/1943 centarus powerd aircraft.

Also the carriers in service 39 are the legacy carriers, 2 x Ark Royals 2 x illustrious with 4 building (these have only an amroured flight deck and are have largeer tonnage carrying 70/80 aircraft) as well as 4 convertd cruisers for trade protection.

So how does such a force effect the war? First of all I see the Norwegian campaign being even more of a beating for the KM, possibly the invasion fails with all the butterflies that has.....

Also any good places on the internet to resaerch about aircraft, navys , the fleet air arm in this period?

Given the sort of carrier force available....
One thing that might well fall out of the above (4 fast converted carriers), is a limited modification of Eagle, Hermes and Argus to basically make them fast CVE's as well (since the disparity in aircraft numbers between them and the CV's is now so great)
So we would have 7 fast-ish CVE's, capable of working with the fleet (to some extent) or convoys.

Assuming that initially the RN is still trying the daft idea of hunting groups, it would be very likely that these would be the carriers used (a fleet carrier being obvious overkill, and the available destroyers limiting the number of groups). So one or two of these might be lost instead of Glorious.
There is also the possibility that was considered OTL prewar (but not implemented due to lack of resources) of adding a light/escort carrier to the groups hunting for raiders. Graf Spee might have been sunk by the FAA before it got to Montivdeo....

If they use some for convoy duty, it should show early just how effective they are at reducing submarine attack. So expect much earlier and greater effort to convert some liners to CVE (they thought about it OTL, this time they have the evidence to show its worth giving the priority needed)

The RN now has a strike force (in 1940) of 4CV's and 3CVL (Courageous, Glorious and Furious). That will make a LOT of difference to Norway. The RN now outnumber the LW in available fighters (especially in the north), and they are good fighters. The LW is going to have a lot more problems north of Bergen, in fact its quite possible they dont take the north part of Norway at all. The RN would also have far more recon and strike capability in the North Sea - this is limitied somewhat by the bad weather, but means life will be a LOT riskier for German heavy units - once the weather clears, there is a much higher chance of being spotted. Even if FAA can only slow them down, they are going to get sunk.
What haooens in Norway would depend again on the offensive against France, but even in the best case for the Germans (OTL) I think they will have higher naval and air losses, which will make SeaLion even more unlikely.

Taranto will be a lot more damaging. I would see it now as a 2 CV strike, thats probably around 80 much more capable aircraft. The Italian fleet is toast this time around. It might even worry the USN enough to make them take the defence of PH more seriously, which would be helpfull.

With less of the Italian fleet not on the bottom of Taranto harbour, convoys in the Med are more successful and take lighter damage, but the RN is still going to have a steady stream of carriers out of action due to damage. And they will want to keep a couple with the Home Fleet to deal with Bismark and Tirpitz. It might be possible to hold Crete, if a CV or a couple of CVL are available, as the RN can then interdict the airborne invasion. That would be even more helpfull for convoys.

With more carriers available, force Z is going to have at least one, and probably another in the Indian Ocean. This should save force Z from being destroyed, although I suspect it would still take heavy damage and would be mission-killed. However this means the RN will have a much better force based on Ceylon a few months later - indeed, this time they may very well seriously challend the IJN Indian Ocean raid, which if it damaged/sunk any Japanese carriers would have a load of butterflies roaming the Pacific Ocean. Deoending on what happens, the RN might actually lend 2 rather than one carrier to the Americans in late 42/3, and if they've excercised together more pre-war it will be much simpler to do any needed mods. That will be interesting politically....

After 1943, any differences reduce - by then, the huge US output of large carriers is going to be dominating the Pacific, and the Italians and German fleets dont really exist any more.

 

[Just Leo]

What aircraft is that?

The aircraft is the Martin Mauler, powered by the P&W R-4360, which produced about the same power as the Centaurus. It's much to pretty to be a British torpedo bomber. The torpedo delivery envelope was much expanded, and the aircraft did not require Fairey-Youngman flaps.

Regarding RN carrier operations, they must learn that Carriers should be treated as assets which must be guarded by a task force capable of addressing certain threats, and they should realize that ASDIC doesn't work that great.

 

[Astrodragon]

The aircraft is the Martin Mauler, powered by the P&W R-4360, which produced about the same power as the Centaurus. It's much to pretty to be a British torpedo bomber. The torpedo delivery envelope was much expanded, and the aircraft did not require Fairey-Youngman flaps.

Regarding RN carrier operations, they must learn that Carriers should be treated as assets which must be guarded by a task force capable of addressing certain threats, and they should realize that ASDIC doesn't work that great.

I see early war using CV's as part of a mixed force - the idea of a carrier-centric force isnt there yet, and in any case it has serious issues in the North Sea and Atlantic due to the weather. With the far more effective carrier groups, the carrier will slowly dominate the strike group, especially once radar allows fix and strike in poor weather and at night, but this will take a few years.

They have CVE's as a riskable asset for convoy protection and so on, so the bigger carriers arent likely to be going anywhere on their own anyway. They probably will be only lightly escorted by USN standards, but that isnt such a problem for the RN until 1942, as the nature and composition of the threat they face is different. For example, in Atlantic operations they would be with probably a couple of BB plus an A/S screen - they dont need to worry about air attack, sub attacks is unlikely at normal fleet speeds, and any German surface ship is a target, not a threat...

One other point I missed earlier. If the RN is controlling its own air for much of the 30's, and given more carriers and more A/S aircraft available on decks (particularly the fast CVE's), it would seem reasonable they would spend a little effort on the A/S bombs used by the aircraft, instead of ignoring any problems as the RAF did. Working A/S bombs/depth charges/rockets will make the U-boats life a bit more interesting in the early war years