Alternatives for the Fleet Air Arm in WW2

Granted that in OTL the FAA didn't have not only enough aircraft, but quality aircraft.
Yet, if they had bigger carriers earlier, what would have been their thinking - i.e. what would have been their role. The RN didn't have any obvious adversary that would require a sustained air assault from the sea. The fleet carriers were there to accompany the Battleships, and slow down enemy ships to be finished off - as happen in the Med.
Seems, just as likely, that more emphasis on carrier aircraft would have resulted in an early version of an Escort Carrier. Though rather than being a primitive ship based on a merchant ship, more likely to be similar to the Majestic or Colossus ships.
These, would in the event of war accompany the convoys, guard against U-boats, but also have the capability to disable commerce raiding warships; with a complement of e.g. Swordfish & Sea Henley FDB.
 
Part of the problem

I think with the wartime UK CVs was the two-level hangars on some of them, which made it that much lower in terms of height, which made them that much quicker into obsolescence.

Also with an armored hangar you can't start engines on the hangar deck before taking the a/c up to the flight deck.

KLots of little reasons the US model works better.

Now, if the UK gets imaginative, they could go the US one better, and start looking at angled decks and jets earlier.
 
He also explains that the Admiralty were actually quite keen on carriers in the 30's - he's referring in your quote to some of the battleship admirals in the 40's who seen upset their toys arent in favour any more.

The RN had 6 fleet carriers on order/building in 1939 - more than anyone else, IIRC. Hardly a sign they were ignoring the potential.
And in 1943, they laid down/ordered around 30 carriers...!!

But that was in 43, to get any change in the Illustrious class you have to be thinking from the mid 30's and you have to persuade Admiral Henderson who pushed for armoured box carriers (and the Treasury) that future proofing the carriers by making them bigger than you have the available aircraft for is a good idea - we still have that problem today even with 50 years experience of building ships too small.

Interestingly the RN wanted a 900ft flight deck on the 1930's Ark Royal but couldn't get it into 22,000 tons and IIRC, Friedman mentions the RAF of all people suggesting the Ark's hangers be 18ft?? high to accept taller aircraft but again that couldn't be done in the 22,000 tons the RN wanted to play with.
 
As we've had a rush of technical threads on aircraft in WW2 I've been wondering about larger carriers and better aircraft for the Royal Navy at the start of the war.

First, what if the Illustrious and Implacable had been a bit bigger and a bit less heavily armoured to carry a bigger air group?

Second, what it the FAA had home grown equivilents for American aircraft like the Hellcat, Corsair and Avenger? The RAF started the war with the Hurricane and Spitfire, so why shouldn't the RN start it with a single seat, single engine, eight gun fighter of similar capabilities? Perhaps with a radial engine to tie in with what's been mentioned in the other thread.

There was such a project: the Gloster F5/34

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_F.5/34
 
Is it possible to work out the performance of the F5/34 with a more powerful engine for example the Bristol Taurus or Hercules. Allowing for the fact that navalising the aircraft would add quite a bit of weight.

The Taurus could substitute for the Mercury, but it's not more powerful. Bristol Mercury got 1,000 hp with 100 octane fuel, same league as the Mitsubishi Zero. Theoretically the newer Taurus could become more powerful in time, but it had serious reliability problems. These might be overcome, but that's unknowable.

The Hercules was a bigger, heavier engine. It would take major redesign and the aircraft wont be available in 1939. Bristol Project 153 was Hercules powered and might serve as a mid-war intermediary until the Sea Fury comes on line.
 
Last edited:
Is it possible to work out the performance of the F5/34 with a more powerful engine for example the Bristol Taurus or Hercules. Allowing for the fact that navalising the aircraft would add quite a bit of weight.

Interestingly it seems the Gloster F5/34 was faster than the Hurricane with a 100hp less.

Some of the F7/30 specifications that ultimatley led to the Gladiator were monoplane and in the case of the Bristol design with a semi-retractable undercarriage, would there have been anything to stop the Gladiator being more like the F5/34.
 
The Gloster had high performance by virtue of being light. It wasnt intended as a carrier plane, which would have increased the weight - as would things like ss fuel tanks and armour.

The best bet would have been for the FAA to look at the Gloster specs, liked it, but realised the above problems. Then issued a new spec for a plane with similar or better performance, based on the Hercules, and with the normal carrier fit. Could easily have been ready for production in 1939 (remember, the FAA dont need a high performance plane until the Norway invasion, they do have a few extra months to play with).

And a derivation of that plane (with 2 crew) would have served as a torpedo or dive bomber.
 
Top