Callaghans follies (1970s new build fleet carriers)

[NOMISYRRUC]

Although I've poo pooed the idea so far, @Riain wrote a thread where CVA.01 was still cancelled in 1966, but the Heath Government revived the project in 1970 and 2 modified CVA.01s were built instead of the Invincible class. The main change was that the steam plant of the Real-CVA.01 class was replaced by 6 Olympus gas turbines driving 3 shafts in a COGAG arrangement.

I thought he was being too prudent and wrote that the UK could have afforded to build & operate 3 ALT-CVA.01 class instead of the 3 Invincible class. That is ALT-CVA.01 would have been built instead of the OTL-Invincible, ALT-CVA.02 would have been built instead of the OTL-Illustrious and the ALT-CVA.03 would have been built instead of the OTL-Ark Royal.

I argued that the building cost of 3 ALT-CVA.01s would have been no more than double the building cost of the 3 OTL-Invincible class on the theory that "Steel is Cheap & Air is Free".

• The fixed armament, sensors, C3 facilities and other electronics on the ALT-CVA.01 class would have been exactly the same as the OTL-Invincible class. Therefore, their cost would have been exactly the same.
  • Before anyone points it out the disadvantages of mounting a radar atop a funnel fed by three Olympus gas turbines, may I point out that the ALT-CVA.01 class wouldn't have had a Type 988 sited atop of one of the funnels. Instead (and in common with the OTL-Invincible class) it would have had a Type 1022 radar sited atop the bridge.
• Most of the aircraft for the air groups already existed. That is the F-4Ks, Buccaneers & Sea Kings, while the money spent on the first 34 Sea Harriers should be sufficient to buy enough E-2Cs & C-2As to equip the AEW & COD flights. Therefore, purchase cost of the air groups would have been the same.
• The OTL-Invincible class had 4 Olympus gas turbines driving 2 shafts and the ALT-CVA.01 class would have had 6 Olympus driving 3 shafts. Therefore, the cost of the machinery for 3 ALT-CVA.01 class would have been no more that 50% more than the cost of 3 sets of machinery for the OTL-Invincible class. The reasons why I think it would have been no more than 50% more is because economies of scale might come into play.
  • A shore based prototype of the machinery for the Invincible class (consisting of 2 Olympus GTs driving one shaft) was built IOTL and the cost of the TTL equivalent built for the ALT-CVA.01 class would have been exactly the same because it would have been exactly the same because it would have consisting of 2 Olympus GTs driving one shaft as well.
  • 6 production versions of the above were built for the 3 OTL-Invincible class were built IOTL and 9 production versions would have been built for the 6 ALT-CVA.01 class built ITTL. However, the machinery for 3 ALT-CVA.01s may not have been 1.5 times more than the cost of the machinery of the 3 OTL-Invincible class due to economies of scale.
• The ALT-CVA.01 class had a hull that was much larger than the OTL-Invincible class and would cost more. However, my suspicion is that the increase in the hull's cost would have been less than the increase in the hull's size.
  • That is, the OTL-CVA.01 displaced 53,000 tons and the Real-Invincible displaced 19,500 tons, which is 2.7 times more in size, but I think it wouldn't cost 2.7 times more to build.
  • Furthermore, the cost of the hull would in relative terms have been a small proportion of the total cost.
• Both designs had 2 lifts with the ALT-CVA.01's being larger & being able to lift heavier weights than the OTL-Invincible's, but will they cost significantly more? And even if they do, will it be a big enough difference to significantly increase the total cost of building the ship?
• That leaves the cost of 6 steam catapults and 3 sets of arrester gear. I've no idea how much they would have cost.

The stumbling blocks would be the running costs, but I think most of them could be overcome.

• My guess is that in common with the OTL-Invincible class only 2 out of 3 ALT-CVA.01s would be in commission with the third ship in refit/reserve.
• The books that I've read say the crew of the CVA.01 class ranged between 2,700 & 3,200 a difference of 500 men, which I think (but do not know) depended upon the size of the air group.
• The OTL-Invincible class had a crew of 1,200 (according to "Modern Combat Ships 2 'Invincible' class" by Paul Beaver) which was divided into a ship's company of 1,000 and an air group of 200. Therefore, we have to find between 1,500 and 2,000 extra men. Or do we?
  • The ship's company of ALT-CVA.01 might not be a lot larger than the OTL-Invincible, because the only significant differences are the machinery that is 50% larger, the steam catapults and the arrester gear.
  • Although the sources usually say that the Real-CVA.01 would have carried 18 Phantoms, 18 Buccaneers, 5 AEW & COD aircraft and 9 helicopters for a total of 50 aircraft in peace (with the capacity for a total of about 60 aircraft in war) my guess is that the peacetime air group would have been of a similar size to Ark Royal in the 1970s, that is 12 Phantoms, 14 Buccaneers, 5 AEW & COD and 9 helicopters for a total of 40 aircraft.
  • The OTL-Invincible class operated about 20 aircraft consisting of 8 Sea Harriers, 9 ASW Sea Kings & 3 AEW Sea Kings, which is virtually a one-to-one substitution for the AEW, COD & ASW aircraft aboard ALT-CVA.01.
  • Therefore, all we need to find is the personnel for the Phantom & Buccaneer squadrons.
    • IOTL the RAF formed 2 Phantom maritime fighter squadrons from the 52 F-4Ks purchased for Ark Royal & Eagle and 2 (for a short time 3) Buccaneer maritime strike squadrons, to take the place of the Buccaneer squadrons aboard the strike carriers.
    • ITTL (1) the Phantom & Buccaneer squadrons aboard Ark Royal go ashore at the end of 1978 as IOTL, but instead of being disbanded and their aircraft used to form the RAF's second maritime fighter and the short-lived third maritime strike squadron, they remain ashore until ATL-CVA.01 (built instead of the OTL-Invincible) was ready.
    • ITTL (2) the RAF Phantom maritime fighter squadron formed in 1969 with the F-4Ks intended for Eagle & the 2 Buccaneer maritime strike squadron formed in the 1970s would be disbanded in late 1981 and their aircraft would be used to form the Phantom & Buccaneer squadrons that embarked on ALT-CVA.02 which was built instead of the OTL-Illustrious.
    • ITTL (3) a third air group wasn't formed for ALT-CVA.03 (which was built instead of the OTL-Ark Royal) because one of the 3 ALT-CVA.01 class was always in refit/reserve.
      • Therefore, the air group of ALT-CVA.01 would transfer to ALT-CVA.03 when the latter was completed and the former would go into refit or reserve.
      • However, the RN would have had a Phantom training squadron and a Buccaneer training squadron, which in an emergency could have been used to bring the air groups of the other ships to full strength.
    • To summarize.
      • The RN would have had 2 more Phantom squadrons & 2 more Buccaneer squadrons in the 1980s ITTL.
        • And.
      • The RAF would have had 2 fewer Phantom squadrons & 2 fewer Buccaneer squadrons ITTL.
      • This is where the aircraft & personnel for the balance of the ALT-CVA.01s air groups would have come from.

The RAF also had an AEW squadron that replaced the AEW Gannets aboard the strike carriers. This was initially equipped with converted Shackleton MR aircraft which were replaced by the Sentry AEW Mk 1. There may be no need for this squadron ITTL and the money used to run it IOTL would be spent on the air groups of the ALT-CVA.01 class ITTL. This also avoids the Nimrod AEW programme, which ran from about 1977 to 1986 and by fortunate coincidence coincides with when the OTL-Illustrious & Ark Royal were built. Therefore, if there was no Nimrod AEW programme ITTL the money saved could be spent on building ALT-CVA.02 and 03.

However, the problem with @Riain's ALT-CVA.01 was where does the steam to run the catapults come from when it has gas turbines instead of steam turbines?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Not harriers, why would you put those on a carrier with catapults and arrestor wires the most likely jets would be the F-4s which would be replaced by either a British design or, if Britain keeps its Streak of buying American aircraft the F-14 in the early 90s

As much as I'd love to see an F-14 (with uprated Speys replacing the Achillies heel engines), the cost of operating them would be too much.

F-4s and Buccaneers (maybe going to the S3* version), or the plans for the navalised Tornado go through, to start with, with the F4s eventually replaced by Hornets until the Eurofighter comes out slightly differently so the naval version the French wanted gets built and adopted by the RN too.

FWIW I think the Phantoms & Buccaneers would have been run on until the 1990s when they'd have been replaced by F-18s or for long enough to be replaced by navalised Typhoons.

There should have been enough Buccaneers to keep the 2 RN squadrons at full strength until then, because IOTL the RAF's force was reduced from 4 to 2 squadrons when the 2 RAF Germany squadrons converted to the Tornado in the 1980s. There would only have been the 2 RAF Germany squadrons ITTL and when they were disbanded their aircraft would have been used as an attrition reserve to maintain the 2 RN squadrons at full strength.

The number of F-4Ks that were available was smaller than the number of available Buccaneers so it would be harder to keep the RN's Phantom squadrons at full strength until they were replaced. Fortunately, the RN would have been able to buy second-hand Phantoms from the USN which is exactly what the RAF did IOTL. They wouldn't have had the same engines as the F-4Ks but it might have been possible to navalise some of the RAF's F-4Ms which would have been transferred to the RN and the extra second-hand Phantoms would have taken their place in the RAF.

I've already written that the money spent on the Sea Harriers purchased pre-Falklands IOTL was spent on Hawkeyes & Greyhounds to replace the Gannet ITTL. The money spent on the Sea Harriers purchased post-Falklands IOTL & the money spent on the AEW Sea King IOTL would have been available to spend on something else ITTL. The something else could have been more second-hand Phantoms for the RAF & navalising the F-4Ms transferred from the RAF to the RN.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Why not go the whole hog and switch to full gas turbine propulsion? Add a couple of extra diesel generators to provide the electricity for steam generators to make steam for the catapults.

Maybe Gas Turbine turbo electric (so a forerunner to the current setup on the Big Lizzie and POW). 4-6 Olympus generators for propulsion (land based Olympus generator sets were introduced in the 60s and produced 20MW each) and 4-6 Diesel Generators for hotel services, electronics etc and steam generation. Would that need less manpower than steam propulsion?

4 Gas turbines and 4 DGs were standard on Frigates/Destroyers prior to the electric age, so you are should not require that much more in the engineering department than them to man it.

I agree. See what I wrote in Post 41, which was based on an idea by @Riain. Plus you have solved the problem of how to generate the steam for the catapults.

 

[PMN1]

Did the UK ever experiment with Internal Combustion catapults?

The US did and from what i've have read the issues were fixable.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

F-4s and Buccaneers (maybe going to the S3* version), or the plans for the navalised Tornado go through, to start with, with the F4s eventually replaced by Hornets until the Eurofighter comes out slightly differently so the naval version the French wanted gets built and adopted by the RN too.

They'd keep the F4's and Buccaneers until they're replaced with F/A 18's shortly after the first Gulf War, mainly because by then the Buccaneers airframes are worn out.

Developing carrier versions of the Tornado or Typhoon that only the RN would buy would be a waste of resources.

 

[sparky42]

They'd keep the F4's and Buccaneers until they're replaced with F/A 18's shortly after the first Gulf War, mainly because by then the Buccaneers airframes are worn out.

Developing carrier versions of the Tornado or Typhoon that only the RN would buy would be a waste of resources.

On the other hand, would the development of the Typhoon be different and keep the french in if there were going to be two carrier users?

 

[I lurk therefore I am]

On the other hand, would the development of the Typhoon be different and keep the french in if there were going to be two carrier users?

The reason the French pulled out of Eurofighter was because they wanted a navalised version to replace their outdated F8s and Etendards (and to use French engines). Germany was opposed to a naval version. Not sure if the other partners cared.

If the UK has a requirement for a naval version as well, Eurofighter is more likely to turn out like OTL Rafale. (With or without German participation).

 

[I lurk therefore I am]

I agree. See what I wrote in Post 41, which was based on an idea by @Riain. Plus you have solved the problem of how to generate the steam for the catapults.

The RN never really did triple screws much though. Using a turbo electric set up means you use the same number of engines, but have 4 propellers (and no long shaft runs).

Big Lizzie uses 2 x 36MW gas turbine generators and 4 x 20MW motors. This CVA-01 could use an earlier attempt at such a configuration with 4 Olympus (total 80MW) and enough motors for 4 props, with an additional 2 big diesel generators for enough power for going in and out of harbour or backup if an Olympus goes down.

Add the heat exchangers to the Olympus exhaust for steam generation (and a couple of DGs as back up.)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The RN never really did triple screws much though.

So what? Not using it much IOTL doesn't stop the RN from doing it more ITTL. Plus two of the classes that did use triple screws were the King George V and Illustrious classes which AFAIK had no problems with their machinery. And IIRC from Friedman triple screws provided better anti-torpedo protection because the hull could be divided into 3 longitudinal compartments instead of the two that were possible with two or four shafts. That being written, would your ALT-CVA.01 with turbo-electric drive have allowed it to have a better anti-torpedo protection scheme than my version?

Using a turbo electric set up means you use the same number of engines, but have 4 propellers (and no long shaft runs).

I'm not a marine engineer, so if you think turbo-electric would be better than direct-drive, then fair enough.

Big Lizzie uses 2 x 36MW gas turbine generators and 4 x 20MW motors. This CVA-01 could use an earlier attempt at such a configuration with 4 Olympus (total 80MW) and enough motors for 4 props, with an additional 2 big diesel generators for enough power for going in and out of harbour or backup if an Olympus goes down.

If you need a POD for the development of turbo-electric gas turbine propulsion I suggest that the Hotham trials weren't cancelled. HMS Hotham was a turbo-electric driven Captain class frigate and the plan was to replace one of the steam turbines with a gas turbine so its performance could be measured against the remaining steam turbine.

Add the heat exchangers to the Olympus exhaust for steam generation (and a couple of DGs as back up.)

May I use that system to generate the steam for the catapults in my ALT-CVA.01?

 

[jsb]

Most of the aircraft for the air groups already existed. That is the F-4Ks, Buccaneers & Sea Kings, while the money spent on the first 34 Sea Harriers should be sufficient to buy enough E-2Cs & C-2As to equip the AEW & COD flights. Therefore, purchase cost of the air groups would have been the same.

The RAF would have had 2 fewer Phantom squadrons & 2 fewer Buccaneer squadrons ITTL.

Is this not where it falls down as the main drive to cut the CVs was simply to save the cash as they needed to spend it on forces to defend the UK and NATO? Did RAF not really need the Navy F4Ks it got as fighters with nothing else between obsolescent Lightings and the first Tornado F3s in 1987...?

Plus two of the classes that did use triple screws were the King George V

Are you sure any RN BBs had triples? POW sinking report for example from Wikipedia,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinki...t_by_K_Denlay_COPYRIGHT_Expedition_Job_74.jpg

 

[I lurk therefore I am]

So what? Not using it much IOTL doesn't stop the RN from doing it more ITTL. Plus two of the classes that did use triple screws were the King George V and Illustrious classes which AFAIK had no problems with their machinery. And IIRC from Friedman triple screws provided better anti-torpedo protection because the hull could be divided into 3 longitudinal compartments instead of the two that were possible with two or four shafts. That being written, would your ALT-CVA.01 with turbo-electric drive have allowed it to have a better anti-torpedo protection scheme than my version?

I'm not a marine engineer, so if you think turbo-electric would be better than direct-drive, then fair enough.

If you need a POD for the development of turbo-electric gas turbine propulsion I suggest that the Hotham trials weren't cancelled. HMS Hotham was a turbo-electric driven Captain class frigate and the plan was to replace one of the steam turbines with a gas turbine so its performance could be measured against the remaining steam turbine.

May I use that system to generate the steam for the catapults in my ALT-CVA.01?

Pretty much the only RN capital ships to have 3 screws were Ark Royal and the Illustrious class. KGVs and later carriers went back to 4 shafts

Turbo electric allows far better compartmentisation as it takes out the long propeller shaft runs, which are a major flooding risk, and you can split up machinery spaces more. It also allows the engines to be run at their most efficient speeds more often. The downside of turbo electric is greater weight of steel from all those extra compartments, but you are using much lighter gas turbines.

Yep, that is what the turbine exhaust heat exchangers are for - generate steam for the catapult (with a diesel generator backup for emergencies)

 

[Dalriadan Archangel 21]

I agree. See what I wrote in Post 41, which was based on an idea by @Riain. Plus you have solved the problem of how to generate the steam for the catapults.

Why not make them nuclear and solve all the problems?

Plenty of designs available in the timeframe.

 

[sparky42]

Why not make them nuclear and solve all the problems?

Plenty of designs available in the timeframe.

Money, space on the reactor production line even once a design is picked, the additional upgrades to dockyards, money, even more delays for a contract and the increased possibility of cancellation for overruns…
And Money.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Have an earlier Falkland's like kick up (early /mid 70s) with the RN showing how necessary carriers are

Enough so that they are moved up the priority list of 'Things we would like to have' to the point where they happen

An analogous Thatcher type government are obliged to maintain a more powerful navy with carriers due to their increased popularity by the general unwashed electorate (a new period of 'New Navalism' if you like similar to that nationalistic fever that drove the large amount of RN ship building that existed from 1889 to 1914) and the Conservatives somehow find the money to keep them and due to teh navys new found popularity they do not get 'John Nott'd'.

 

[HMSAnson]

I’ve seen the specs for the maximalist design; while over 1000 feet long it was still a good fifty feet shorter and a lot lighter than a Forrestal.

Excerpt from Wikipedia

Considerationsedit​

Once the Chiefs of Staff had given their approval to the idea of new carriers being necessary, in January 1962 in the strategic paper COS(621)1 British Strategy in the Sixties, the Admiralty Board had to sift through six possible designs. These ranged from 42,000 to 68,000 tons at full load. The largest design, based on the American Forrestal class, had space for four full-sized steam catapults but was rejected early on as being significantly too costly, particularly in terms of the dockyard upgrades that would be needed to service them.

 

[sparky42]

Excerpt from Wikipedia

Considerationsedit​

Once the Chiefs of Staff had given their approval to the idea of new carriers being necessary, in January 1962 in the strategic paper COS(621)1 British Strategy in the Sixties, the Admiralty Board had to sift through six possible designs. These ranged from 42,000 to 68,000 tons at full load. The largest design, based on the American Forrestal class, had space for four full-sized steam catapults but was rejected early on as being significantly too costly, particularly in terms of the dockyard upgrades that would be needed to service them.

Not sure what you are trying to prove? If the largest design topped out at 68k full load and the Forrestals were 81k full load, that suggests a hell of a lot of changes of a design to shed over 10 thousand tons to the point where I would still question how it could be “based on the Forrestal” in anything but the most broadest sense of the meaning.

 

[sparky42]

Have an earlier Falkland's like kick up (early /mid 70s) with the RN showing how necessary carriers are

Enough so that they are moved up the priority list of 'Things we would like to have' to the point where they happen

An analogous Thatcher type government are obliged to maintain a more powerful navy with carriers due to their increased popularity by the general unwashed electorate (a new period of 'New Navalism' if you like similar to that nationalistic fever that drove the large amount of RN ship building that existed from 1889 to 1914) and the Conservatives somehow find the money to keep them and due to teh navys new found popularity they do not get 'John Nott'd'.

Not to be a smart arse, but how reliable was Ark Royal by that period? And what state was the Argentinian military to try and force an early Falklands in that period?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Not to be a smart arse, but how reliable was Ark Royal by that period? And what state was the Argentinian military to try and force an early Falklands in that period?

No its a valid question.

Ark Royal Served into the late 70s.

And I was deliberately vague in suggesting "An earlier Falklands like" scenario - it does not have to be the Falklands / Argentina - not sure what though?

And a mid 70s Falkland's would see the Argentine Airforce not then starved of US spares and expertise etc as the US Heavily sanctioned Argentina in 1978 after the details of Argentina's dirty war became public knowledge in the USA.

 

[HMSAnson]

Not sure what you are trying to prove? If the largest design topped out at 68k full load and the Forrestals were 81k full load, that suggests a hell of a lot of changes of a design to shed over 10 thousand tons to the point where I would still question how it could be “based on the Forrestal” in anything but the most broadest sense of the meaning

It’s basically a forestall scaled down

 

[HMSAnson]

Not to be a smart arse, but how reliable was Ark Royal by that period? And what state was the Argentinian military to try and force an early Falklands in that period?

Ark was in a sorry state even in 1978 by 1980 she was In an even worse state
Quote from Viscount Long 30th July 1980 in the House of Lords:
Unfortunately, the ship is now in a very dangerous state; she will not last another winter where she is, and therefore must be towed away as soon as possible.