Challenge: max NATO carrier fleet (USN / RN / MN joint effort)

Oh dang the thread title is ackward, doesn't matter.

So what did NATO have for carriers ? USN, RN, MN. Your challenge: max out the output of these three to get NATO a max of CATOBAR carriers by 1975-80.

Basic stuff

USN
- 24 Essex
- 3 Midway
- Supercarriers from Forrestal to Nimitz
- Zumwalt cheaper carriers: CVV (55000 tons), VSS (22 000 tons), SCS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSTOL_Support_Ship

RN
- Centaurs
- Audacious
- 1952 carrier
- 1954 Medium Fleet Carrier
- 1960 a SANER CVA-01

MN
- Clemenceau class
- PA.58 Verdun (= 45000 tons non nuclear CdG by 1965)
- PA.75 / Richelieu / CdG from 1980

While the USN is firmly committed to 60 000 tons + supercarriers (for excellent reasons) the deal is to use Essex, Centaurs, Clemenceaus, Audacious, VSS and CVV or something else to get more decks across more navies, to the benefit of NATO.
 
What POD date and what do you count as MAX, max ships no, max aircraft capacity, max total tonnage?
(do you only count the above ships or any carriers ie RN light fleets and WWII conversions?)

If we can start in 1945 (or during WWII as long as it doesn't butterfly NATO) it gets a bit easier than later on?

I think the easiest is using MAP "Mutual Assistance Program" to bind all the navies together and agree to share designs and construction of ships between NATO?

Say USN & RN are more ruthless (or made to be by higher political command) they cancel USN, Midway class (not started to build more LSTs) and the RN Centaurs & Audacious during the end of WWII to work on the light fleets and help rebuild?

Fleet carriers
Come Korea they start on the 6 Forrestal class in late 1950 (date commissioned),
Forrestal 54
Saratoga 55
Ark Royal 56
Ranger 56
Independence 57
Eagle 58
then they built 6 Kitty Hawk class,
Kitty Hawk 58
Constellation 59
America 60
Illustrious 61
John F. Kennedy 61
Clemenceau 62.....
 
1945 is the POD. Wish I could include the Maltas but they were paper only, and we will be lucky if we get that third Audacious to go along the Ark and Eagle. Plus all the Centaurs that were scrapped.

I think the easiest is using MAP "Mutual Assistance Program" to bind all the navies together and agree to share designs and construction of ships between NATO?

Interesting.
 
Last edited:
Essex, Centaurs, Clemenceaus, Audacious, VSS and CVV or something else to get more decks across more navies, to the benefit of NATO.
ops missed that part :biggrin:....
1945 is the POD. Wish I could include the Maltas but they were paper only, and we will be lucky if we get that third Audacious to go along the Ark and Eagle. Plus all the Centaurs that were scrapped.
With hindsight I think its far better to scrap them all or rather just stop them on Jan 1 1945 as the POD, post war built ships built in peacetime will be better and quickly include better electrics, steel and angled/Jets capable decks......

carrying on my NATO CV fleet is,
1950
USN 12 Essex long hull with the rest of the 24 in reserve 8 Independence-class and 2 Saipan class, RN 6 I class (some in unofficial "reserve" due to WWII damage), Unicorn and a loads 10+6 of light fleets mostly in reserve, some already to others to CAN, AUS, France and Netherlands + lots of CVEs..
1960
3 Kitty Hawk class (+3 building one each for USN/RN/NM), 6 Forrestal class (2 RN), with much of the 1950s ships in service or reserve 24 Essex, 6I &2S , 3Is, Unicorn & Light fleets + CVEs.
1970
1 Enterprise class, 8 Kitty Hawk class (6 USN/1 RN/1 NM), 6 Forrestal class (2 RN), light fleets in service (2 RN, 2 CAN, Dutch, Belgium, Portugal AUS, ) and a reserve of 22 Essex 6I & 2S and 2Is + unicorn + 5 unsold light fleets.
 
1960 a SANER CVA-01

About the only thing wrong with the CVA01 was that deck space was not maximised for the displacement, every other thing was arrived at rationally.

As for getting it approved, have the RN accept a smaller than OTL Tactical Unit, 3 sqns of combat aircraft rather than 4 or 5, so that a single RN strike carrier teamed with an allied (official or potential) carrier. Thus when the 1966 Defence white paper comes out and say Britain will only need carriers in conjunction with Allies those allies include all the navies with ex-RN Colossus/Majestic classes, not just the USN, so the RN builds CVA01 & 02 and Phantomises the Eagle to have 3 strike carriers until the early 80s.

The HMS Hermes was offered to Australia as a going concern in the late 60s. If the RAN used the HMAS Melbourne in Vietnam, perhaps in her capacity as escorting the 1ATF to Vietnam in 1966 or at the USN request in 1966 or 67, then this offer would likely have been taken up. While the RAN isn't NATO it is part of the Western Alliance system.
 
The problem with any of these concepts is manning. No one except the U.S. could afford the crew size of the American carriers, especially the Super Carriers. How is the RN going to pay the crew of a Forrestal even if the U.S. gave them the carrier? There needs to be a reason to justify such an increase in personnel budgets on an ongoing basis.
 
The problem with any of these concepts is manning. No one except the U.S. could afford the crew size of the American carriers, especially the Super Carriers. How is the RN going to pay the crew of a Forrestal even if the U.S. gave them the carrier? There needs to be a reason to justify such an increase in personnel budgets on an ongoing basis.

Britain and France are the only NATO powers to plan for fleet carriers since WW2, and neither went the Forrestal route both preferring their own designs (CVA01/PA58) to meet the their own specific capability requirements. Indeed in the concept definition phase for CVA01 an RN equivalent of the Forrestal with 4 cats and 4 lifts was specifically rejected early on.
 
I think if the RN is going to support new build post war carriers into the 80s it is going to have to dump the Audacious and Centaur classes pretty swiftly. The upside of this is that they can probably be sold on with little wear. Now I doubt that wither Australia or Canada will will take an Audacious, but they might replace their old Majestics with them in the 70s. India might take an Audacious though, perhaps Brazil as well.
Instead hang on to four of the least broken of the Illustrious and Implacable classes until the first proper post war new builds can be turned out.

For the RN I would go with a build schedule like this:

2x 1952 Fleet Carriers-
HMS Queen Elizabeth II, commissioned 1958
HMS Duke of Edinburgh, commissioned 1960

2x CVA-01 (55kton CVA-01 but sane) Carriers
HMS Ark Royal commissioned, 1970
HMS Warspite commissioned, 1974

2x CVA-03 (75kton super CVA-01) Carriers
HMS Victorious commissioned, 1985
HMS Courageous commissioned, 1989


This would require quite a lot of money, and would be bitterly fought by the RAF. Additionally though theoretically the QEII class ships could soldier on until the 90s for a six carrier force it is morel likely that they would be disposed of in the late 70s, QEII herself probably goes to the breakers a few years after Warspite is commissioned . It possible that DoE would be kept on until Victorious is commissioned in '85 so as to maintain a three carrier fleet. Peak RN Carrier fleet would probably be in '76 with four active modern fleet carriers, then a second peak in 1990 when Courageous joins the fleet.
Ark Royal and Warspite probably don't survive long after the end of the cold war, and both are probably gone by 95-96 leaving only the Victorious class ships. Again though India Might take the least battered of the two to replace/augment their Audacious. China probably tries to get their hands on the other for a 'casino' but it will get turned into razor blades in Bangladesh instead.

Around 2015-2020 The Victorious is looking long in the tooth, and probably gets replaced with a single class new build of about the same size. Likely called HMS Eagle. Courageous gets a refit and hangs on until around 2025 when she is replaced by a second single class new build called HMS King Charles III.
 
Last edited:
The 1952 fleet carriers were definitely a major missed opportunity for the Royal Navy. The carriers were estimated at $26 million pounds; instead, the Brits sunk 30 million pounds into rebuilding Victorious, 31 million into rebuilding Eagle, and 19 million into completing Hermes, though admittedly the 1952 carriers probably would've suffered cost overruns.

OTL, in the mid-1950s, the Royal Navy had the axial-deck Eagle and Centaur, Hermes and Victorious in dock being built/rebuilt, and Ark Royal built to an interim angle-deck layout. The question is, which two carriers do the 1952 design replace? And yes, two, because I don't expect funding for more than that. It's a tricky question; ideally, you'd ditch Eagle and Victorious as the two most expensive ships, or Hermes and Centaur as the least capable. But the former means ditching the brand-new Eagle, which would have the treasury out for the Admiralty's heads, and the latter means leaving Eagle unmodernized and thus incapable of handling the new Sea Vixen and Scimitar fighters.

Ideally, someone buys Eagle when offered; good luck with that.
 
Thank you all.

Britain and France are the only NATO powers to plan for fleet carriers since WW2, and neither went the Forrestal route both preferring their own designs (CVA01/PA58) to meet the their own specific capability requirements.

My point exactly. That's why in the first post I put a broad "supercarrier" entry for Forrestal and every other USN carrier that followed.
The max size RN and MN can afford is Midway. Even Forrestal is too expensive. Pretty much 25 000 - 55 000 tons range - Centaur to 1952 carrier, really.

As such...

I was wondering about a kind of CVA-01 - CVV - CdG axis.

That is, CVA-01 successfully build three carriers well into the 70's. Then in the early 70's Zumwalt uses a clever trick: to give more weight to the CVV, instead of OTL "paper design" he explores the feasability of tweaking CVA-01 design to USN needs. Eventually France borrows from both CVA-01 / CVV connection to get something larger than OTL "Clemenceau with nuclear sub engines" CdG.

For the experts here, do you think CVA-01 could have fitted into CVV shoes ? How did they compared ? Might be fun, a british carrier design used as a ploy by Zumwalt to curb cost down and get more decks for the USN...

Note that OTL, Zumwalt SCS did not went to waste: Spain took it over and build Principe de Asturias out of it. Here I try to salvage CVV via CVA-01...
 
Last edited:
Thinking about it, given that the US, UK and France have their own fully developed ship design and building industries I don't think there is much scope for cooperation with carriers beyond common things like cats, arresting gear and the like. For starters all 3 use different measurements, and I'd guess that's merely the tip of the iceberg.

To maximise the number of carriers you need a bunch of different decisions in different countries.
 
How expensive would a FFBNW minimal Forrestal be? (with 1/3 -1/2 airwing)
Does anybody have a rough break down of the cost both building and operating?
Cost of building a Forrestal, absent any infrastructure improvements, was $219 million per ship at the time of construction. Operationally, your guess is as good as mine.
 
Top