A larger audacious class carrier
- Thread starter HMS Audacious
- Start date
Convince the Admiralty to forgo the Audacious class in 42/43 (maybe convince them to prioritise the remaining I's first), and then use Pacific experience to jump to something like the Malta class in '43/44. With no Audacious class to complete post WW2 at least 2 of the Malta's get finished instead?
Summerville takes the KB by 'burglary' at night during the Indian Ocean raid and gives them a sound thrashing
It's a clear run thing with the KBs surviving carrier's aircraft nearly finding the British fleet the next day and after some post analysis coupled with several other ops an armoured carrier capable of carrying 100 plus aircraft is designed and 4 are laid down in 1944-45 - 2 are eventually finished in the 50s and serve on into the 80s
Vanguard is halted and the last of the Is are prioritised
It's a clear run thing with the KBs surviving carrier's aircraft nearly finding the British fleet the next day and after some post analysis coupled with several other ops an armoured carrier capable of carrying 100 plus aircraft is designed and 4 are laid down in 1944-45 - 2 are eventually finished in the 50s and serve on into the 80s
Vanguard is halted and the last of the Is are prioritised
Under that plan, would the A class have been laid down before your proposed 44/45 hulls? In which case is there a risk of OTL them being cancelled and some of the A's being built instead?
No focus is made on the last 2 Is to get them finished while the As are cancelled before the first one is laid down (all this following a successful attack on the IJNs Indian Ocean raid and following USN success at Midway)
The DNC goes back to the drawing board and comes up with a much larger carrier - capable of independent action and supporting a larger airgroup for longer - this design finished in 44 and the Ms are laid down accordingly
The DNC goes back to the drawing board and comes up with a much larger carrier - capable of independent action and supporting a larger airgroup for longer - this design finished in 44 and the Ms are laid down accordingly
1933
The RN gets back control of the RNAS from the RAF . The admiralty immediately put plans into play. They contact the fairey aviation company about building a new fighter and a new torpedo-bomber-recon planes.
At the same time the plans for a dedicated carrier build is put to tender. Cammel laird in Liverpool gets the contact to build three 25 000 tonne aircraft carriers capable of carrying up to 65 aircraft in one large hanger .
The RN gets back control of the RNAS from the RAF . The admiralty immediately put plans into play. They contact the fairey aviation company about building a new fighter and a new torpedo-bomber-recon planes.
At the same time the plans for a dedicated carrier build is put to tender. Cammel laird in Liverpool gets the contact to build three 25 000 tonne aircraft carriers capable of carrying up to 65 aircraft in one large hanger .
Given the treaty in effect at the time those new orders would be 135000t/6 = 22500t or 135000t/5 = 27000t (preferable). The USN showed that you could add non-standard displacement for torpedo protection and air defence while still honouring the agreement. Up to 30,000t plus fuel and water? An Essex class?
More likely that more than one yard would get an order. Denny's shipyard off the lower Clyde at Dumbarton would offer early welding and water test tank design. As long as these ships start to the same spec, yards had a lot of leeway on how they turned out. The mid July 1943 Malta class orders were to four yards:
Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Co., Govan, Scotland
Vickers-Armstrong, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
John Brown & Co., Clydebank
Cammell Laird, Birkenhead
(then Harland and Wolff, Belfast, Northern Ireland)
The mid war order for something 850ft+ long at the water could only be placed in a few places. Given British Empire dry dock limitations a spec for 850ft at the water is probably a firm limitation.
I wonder if you could have centre-line deck lifts at each end of the main, upper, hanger that also service third length service and storage hangers below? The third of a main hanger in between would allow extra height for the boiler and machinery spaces. This might compensate for the length limit. Although hanger height would struggle to exceed 17ft. The taller overall structure than the Midway class offers a drier sea-keeping.
Always fun to limit bunker and aircraft fuel storage to save volume for other requirements. This creates a need for a fleet of RAS support vessels that make a great template for HMS Unicorn and Light/Escort Carriers.
Last edited:
Anderman
Donor
During the design studies which lead to the AFD carries the Admiralty or the DNC came to the conclusion that 33 planes is maybe not enough. So DNC starts a design study for a AFD carrier for 80 planes. Similar to later Malta-class but with an AFD.
In 1942 this design gets laid down instead otl Audacious class.
In 1942 this design gets laid down instead otl Audacious class.
Even more in 1940/41 invasion/BoA panics all shipbuilding is reviewed....
- Vanguard and Lions are cancelled
- Implacable and her sister cancelled
- Many cruisers cancelled such as Bellona group Didos and Minotaur class
(this means more escorts, CVEs and landing craft built so overall better for RN)
Post war RN will need new ships and with start of Koran war HMG concedes that it can lay down four super carriers (1952 class but in 51) to replace the four now heavily worn I class in the fleet.... cuts in 54 lead to only three completing.
Build the malta class rather than the audacious class?
I'm not sure how you'd manage this though, especially given the dockyard constraints on ship size. I'm not even sure it would be desirable from a WW2 point of view.
The Audacious class were the result of a gradual improvement/updating of the Implacable class design during the period in which it wasn't possible to actually lay down a new carrier. The Malta class was the result of a "clean sheet of paper" design incorporating war experience, especially US.
In fact, US experience with the Midway class showed that the design was too large to be effective with 1940s aircraft, and the first US postwar carrier designs were armoured flight deck versions of the Essex class. It was the desire to fly off the large bombers needed to carry nuclear weapons in the 1940s and early 1950s that lead to super carriers. The issue with smaller planes was that, given the time to launch and recover planes, a single carrier could only launch 6 strikes of 40 planes a day while maintaining station (i.e turning into the wind to launch and recover and then sailing back to the original position). Thus any more than about 100 planes on a carrier would not increase the number of strikes it could launch. Any extra planes above about 100 would reduce the number of sorties/plane rather than increase the total number of sorties. Very large carriers were only desirable from the 1950s when planes got bigger.
I'm not sure how you'd manage this though, especially given the dockyard constraints on ship size. I'm not even sure it would be desirable from a WW2 point of view.
The Audacious class were the result of a gradual improvement/updating of the Implacable class design during the period in which it wasn't possible to actually lay down a new carrier. The Malta class was the result of a "clean sheet of paper" design incorporating war experience, especially US.
In fact, US experience with the Midway class showed that the design was too large to be effective with 1940s aircraft, and the first US postwar carrier designs were armoured flight deck versions of the Essex class. It was the desire to fly off the large bombers needed to carry nuclear weapons in the 1940s and early 1950s that lead to super carriers. The issue with smaller planes was that, given the time to launch and recover planes, a single carrier could only launch 6 strikes of 40 planes a day while maintaining station (i.e turning into the wind to launch and recover and then sailing back to the original position). Thus any more than about 100 planes on a carrier would not increase the number of strikes it could launch. Any extra planes above about 100 would reduce the number of sorties/plane rather than increase the total number of sorties. Very large carriers were only desirable from the 1950s when planes got bigger.
First have the Admiralty decide that all 6 armoured carriers are too badly damaged to be worth rebuilding due to them receiving more damage 1942-45.
Second have a more austere Austerity Era so that all 3 Audacious class, all 8 Centaur class and the 3 ships that became the Tiger class cruisers are cancelled in the period between VJ Day and February 1946.
Then 5 aircraft carriers of the 1952 Carrier class would be built in the 1950s effectively taking the place of the OTL Ark Royal, Centaur, Eagle, Hermes and the rebuilt Victorious. Theseus and Ocean would have "proper" conversions into commando carriers in the late 1950s-early 1960s because Albion and Bulwark would not be available ITTL.
The only realistic way is a British economy that performs better from 1942.
Riain
Banned
Following the lead of Guy Mollet the British withdraw a draft of funds from those available under IMF loans, allowing them to withstand the run on the pound following Operation Musketeer and win major political concessions from Nasser, including his public support for CENTO. The 1957 Defence White paper declares that the future defence policy of Britain is to deter WW3 with its nuclear arsenal using BAOR, RAFG and Atlantic Strike Group 2 as the tripwire and to fight limited wars such as Korea, Suez and the ongoing insurgency in Malaya with conventional forces, conscription is ended.
The 1964 Labor government makes swinging cuts to Defence expenditure, cancelling the HS681 in favour of the Shorts Belfast, cancelling the P1154 in favour of the P1127 and informing the RN that they will make do with 3 strike carriers, the CVA01 and 02 and the recently rebuilt 54,000t HMS Eagle. In 1965 the CVA01 is laid down and CVA02 in 1968.
The 1964 Labor government makes swinging cuts to Defence expenditure, cancelling the HS681 in favour of the Shorts Belfast, cancelling the P1154 in favour of the P1127 and informing the RN that they will make do with 3 strike carriers, the CVA01 and 02 and the recently rebuilt 54,000t HMS Eagle. In 1965 the CVA01 is laid down and CVA02 in 1968.
The 1970 operational cost of such a super carrier should be 50 million pounds per year and a battle group of 2 CG & 4 DDG should bring that up to 112 million per year. Two out of 3 groups could remain operational any given year costing twice that amount, which would be almost 1/2 of the total budget. Subs [ballistic & hunters] should require another 99 million pounds. The commando capability each year should be 35 million for 2 commando carriers and 2 LDP, leaving just 107 million pounds for escorts and convoy escorts. That amount could fund 20 DD size escorts or 37 smaller FF escorts.
Riain
Banned
I agree with your costing, IIRC you got it from Hansard, but question your CBG composition and amphibious availability.
In 1970 the RN had 8 DLG, no CG or DDG: so a CBG escort would be 1 or 2 DLG and 3 or 4 DD/FF.
All 4 big amphibious ships wouldn't be in full commission at once. At least 1 would be in refit and another is use as a training ship, leaving an ARG centred on a Commando carrier and LPD.
This should reduce the burden on the budget a bit.
Sure but any time the building of CV01 & 02 were discussed a number of cruisers were also planned...by the 1970s this shifted to DDG , but the battle group has to be taken in account. In Pugh THE COST OF SEA POWER he notes the 1970 fleet as being two large carriers and two small-helicopter carriers plus 2 LPD, that left enough to operate 27 U-Boat + 6 DDG & 59 DD/FF.
After a DDG & 6 escorts per Carrier/Amphib , that leaves only 23 frigates for convoy escorts.