Lost Freeway
Banned
Seriously, there should be a masteraccount award for "asking a question with a blindingly obvious answer."
Ark Royal survives WWII
- Thread starter Peg Leg Pom
- Start date
Bulges will sort out any issues in that area, which really is the least of issues in any refit for an old carrier. Shes still only good until the late 50s even with a refit as a front line attack carrier, it's a better option to scrap most of the WW2 carriers and complete all 4 Audacious class.
The hangar clearance is a major reason why I think its unlikely that Ark Royal would have been rebuilt. Having said that, it might be possible to knock the two hangars into one big one. IIRC this was going to be done to Implacable and Indefatigable before plans to rebuild them along the lines of Victorious were abandoned.
The rebuilt of Victorious was so extensive and so expensive that it would have been better to have scrapped her and built a new ship. That would also have applied to a similar rebuild of Ark Royal.
IIRC the plan at the end of World War II was to rebuild all 6 Illustrious type carriers and complete the 3 Audacious class. By 1950 the plan had been changed to rebuilding only 4 of the Illustrious class and completing 2 of the Audacious class because that was all that could be afforded.
Therefore even if Ark Royal had survived World War II in reasonable condition I think there would have been absolutely no chance of her being rebuilt and serving as an operational aircraft carrier or for there to have been any serious plans to do that in the first place.
However, there is the possibility that she would have been converted into an auxiliary.
According to Norman Friedman the Royal Navy when it was operation gin the Pacific during the latter part of the war was impressed by the US practice of bringing aircraft out to the fleet aboard an auxiliary carrier and then flying them onto the fighting carriers. This led to the requirement for a replenishment carrier. There wasn't the money to do that between 1945 and 1950, but the financial situation improved when the Korean War broke out. According to him Staff Requirements were issued on 30th January 1951. In October 1951 the plan was to take Unicorn in hand in July 1954. However, the project was abandoned in November 1952. Had it been carried out she would have been:
- Fitted with a 103ft BS Mk 4 steam catapult (which would have had reduced performance due to her lower steam pressure).
- Had her flight deck re-plated to allow 25,000lb take-offs and 22,000lb landings.
- Had her forward lift moved to clear the catapult and it would have to be enlarged to meet the requirement for a 52ft by 40ft lift.
- A new heavy crane would also have been installed.
ITTL it might be more attractive to convert a surviving Ark Royal.
- Her maximum speed was 31 knots so she met the speed requirement.
- I have done a crude measurement from the ship-drawing in Chesneau and the hydraulic catapults she was built with seem to be about 140 feet long and the distance between her bow and the forward lift is 180 feet Therefore it looks as if there is room for a full-length (151-foot) BS Mk 4 steam catapult.
- Even if there was only room for a 103ft steam catapult, it would have higher performance due to Ark Royal's more powerful steam plant (102,00shp v 40,000shp).
- Ark Royal's hangars were the same height as Unicorns, but their floor area was about a third greater than Unicorns, i.e. 44,550 square feet v 61,200 square feet (Unicorn 360ft x 62ft and 342ft x 65ft Ark Royal 568ft x 60ft and 452ft x 60ft).
- Ark Royal would have been in the Reserve Fleet since 1947 and therefore been immediately available for conversion. In 1951 Unicorn was supporting the British naval forces in Korea (which is why the OTL conversion was planned to begin in July 1954) and Perseus the other candidate for conversion was in service as the steam catapult trials ship. (My guess is that Ark Royal would have been with the East Indies Fleet at the end of World War II instead of the British Pacific Fleet. She would have taken the place of the escort carriers that were to support Operation Zipper the planned amphibious invasion of Malaya. Following that she (like the Illustrious class) would have spent a year or two as a troop ship bringing servicemen home. Then the Royal Navy's manning crisis would have forced the Admiralty to pay her off into the Reserve Fleet by the end of 1947.)
- Ark Royals lifts (two 45ft x 22ft and one 45ft x 25ft) were narrower than Unicorn's (one 46ft x 33ft forward and one 46ft by 24ft aft) but as the Staff Requirement was for two 54ft x 34ft lifts it might cost no more to enlarge her lifts than Unicorns (and I think there would be no need to move Ark Royal's forward lift back to make way for the steam catapult).
However, the 1954 and 1957 Defence Reviews would still have happened. The first cut carrier force from 12 ships to 6 and the second cut it from 6 ships to 5. Therefore the requirement for a replenishment carrier would have evaporated in 1954 or if she was lucky 1957. In the first case her conversion would have been abandoned. In the second her conversion would probably have been completed in time to serve as a replenishment carrier during the Suez War. However, she would have been paid off by the end of 1958.
Except...
IOTL there were also plans to convert Perseus and Unicorn to submarine depot ships and the light fleet carrier Triumph was converted to a heavy repair ship. If Ark Royal had survived World War II and she had been converted to a replenishment carrier in the early 1950s she might have been retained as a multi-purpose auxiliary in place of the OTL conversion of Triumph. In this role she would have supported the fleet as part of the East of Suez strategy.
However, I think her most likely fate is that she would have been scrapped in the late 1940s because the Royal Navy could not afford to retain her even if it wanted to.
Ark Royal would have been good to about 1970 if rebuilt as extensively as Victorious.
However, I agree that it would have been better to scrap most of the WW2 carriers and complete the Audacious class. Except that only 3 Audacious had been laid down buy the end of 1946 and I think the original Eagle would still have been cancelled in 1946.
You might be interested in this. It's a thread where a class of 35,000 ton aircraft carriers was built in the 1950s instead of modernising Victorious, completing Hermes (cancelled in 1945 ITTL IIRC) and completing the Tiger class cruisers.
https://alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/argus-class-aircraft-carrier-hms-glorious.414501/
Last edited:
Cryhavoc101
Donor
Lack of money had more to do with her short post war career which still went to 1955!
Ark Royal had a beam of 95 feet Audacious 112, that's 17 feet. Admittedly audacious had an armoured deck, but still one hell of a bulge
The damage was never quite made right. IIRC her hull was twisted out of true and one of her shafts was locked out of use. She also sustained damage while part of the BPF, which combined with existing problems led to her withdrawal from action.
While the Armoured carriers were very tough ships it did come with a significant downside. When they were damaged by the enemy, they were very hard to repair, particularly when the damage involved the armoured hangers. This is partly why I could see Ark Royal as being a candidate for reconstruction as the accumulation of uncorrectable damage could have been less extensive than on an Illustrious or Implacable class ship. On the other hand she's an older ship with a smaller hull so modifications would have to be of a more limited nature.
10 ft of bulges will take her up to HMS Victorious post refit beam, if your trying to fit any more on then your wasting your time and your better off lifting the name plate up and sliding a new carrier under it.
A rebuilt Ark Royal will only ever be a carrier capable of carrying Sea Vixens or S2 Buccs, it's never going to make it an Audacious replacement, more along the line of a more capable Centaur.
Probably a single Hanger will be the only option as part of a rebuild if shes deemed suitable, with the added benefit that the lighter hanger and deck construction will make it easier to rebuild with a single hanger as the flight deck isn't the strength deck of the ships girder.
If Ark Royal is rebuilt to the equivalent of an improved Centaur could allow either Albion or Bulwark to be delayed long enough to be completed to the same standard as Hermes and if done instead of the protracted and extremely expensive rebuild of Victorious the conversion of the Ark and delay and redesign on the Centaur would probably still be cheaper. The ark would probably be retired when Hermes and the other Centaur entered service. The RN could go through the 60's and into the 70's with 2 Audacious medium carriers, 2 Hermes light carriers and 2 Centaur Commando Carriers.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
That is somewhat disingenuous - the damage they survived that 'proved difficult to repair' would have destroyed any other class of Carrier at the time they were damaged and Lusty was rebuilt in Norfolk in 6 months which included a major refit - thats a damn sight quicker than building a new one!
Ark Royal would probably have survived the single torpedo hit had she not been abandoned so quickly (a hang up from HMS Courageous taking half her crew with her) however her construction was far lighter than the 6 Armoured Carriers due to a combination of converging design techniques and treaty limited tonnage and she has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving anything remotely approaching the damage Lusty or Formidable suffered.
I think by 1945 she would have been well used and probably worn out.
I know the Ark couldn't have survived the level of damage the armoured carriers could, so did the Admiralty, which is no doubt why she was kept out of the Eastern Mediterranean. Had she survived she'd probably have spent a fair amount of time in the Indian ocean after being repaired.
Yes she'd have spent a hard 6 years but that doesn't have to mean she'd be fit only for scrap, she'd need a thorough refit but the Government would have to judge the expense against the benefits. Would the money be better spent on the Ark Royal or on completing some of the light fleets?
Again I'll compare Ark Royal to the Battlecruiser HMS Tiger. She too had had a long war where she was worked hard, yet she survived the immediate post war cull of ships and some that went to the breakers were no older or harder worked than she was. She went on to serve through to 1931 and probably could have served longer had not the Naval treaties led to her demise. That's 13 years after the end of the war and had she been available, along with the money of course, could have allowed Hood or Repulse to be taken out of service and rebuilt.
Ark Royal has had a hard few years, but is a larger more capable ship and is peacetime built. The Light Fleets are new ships but smaller, less capable and are only meant to have a service life of less than 10 years, indeed none of the Majestic class ever see British service. Do you spend the money on a older ship that needs a bit of work but could potentially see another 10 -15 years service or completing new ships that you plan to dispose of after a year or two?
So I don't see that Ark Royal could not have served on into the 50's if the government chose to keep her.
Yes she'd have spent a hard 6 years but that doesn't have to mean she'd be fit only for scrap, she'd need a thorough refit but the Government would have to judge the expense against the benefits. Would the money be better spent on the Ark Royal or on completing some of the light fleets?
Again I'll compare Ark Royal to the Battlecruiser HMS Tiger. She too had had a long war where she was worked hard, yet she survived the immediate post war cull of ships and some that went to the breakers were no older or harder worked than she was. She went on to serve through to 1931 and probably could have served longer had not the Naval treaties led to her demise. That's 13 years after the end of the war and had she been available, along with the money of course, could have allowed Hood or Repulse to be taken out of service and rebuilt.
Ark Royal has had a hard few years, but is a larger more capable ship and is peacetime built. The Light Fleets are new ships but smaller, less capable and are only meant to have a service life of less than 10 years, indeed none of the Majestic class ever see British service. Do you spend the money on a older ship that needs a bit of work but could potentially see another 10 -15 years service or completing new ships that you plan to dispose of after a year or two?
So I don't see that Ark Royal could not have served on into the 50's if the government chose to keep her.
Last edited:
Cryhavoc101
Donor
Well....if it was upto me it would be the Ark every time. It all depends on the state of her etc in late 45.