Courageous Class Extended?

[Dorknought]

freeing up Ark Royal and any proposed follow on class for service closer to home?

IIRC the Ark Royal was designed for the Pacific. In Wintons book on Carrier Glorious, the captain wanted all the AA guns removed as he regarded them as useless but he wanted the weight saved to give a faster ship, the crew regarding his desire as 'faster than a fart in a gale!'

The idea of more than one launching point ie the 2 flight decks persisted. US carriers had cross deck catapults on the hangar deck into the Essex class.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...raft-carrier-hangar-catapults-of-world-war-ii

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Some one in the Navy kidnap members of the Treasurers family forcing them to free up funds for the navy to build new carriers from 1933

Then by the time 6 fleet carriers have been laid down - turn the Outrageous class into aircraft maintenance ships / training ships / aircraft delivery ships etc

Other than maintaining them and perhaps fitting a large crane capable of lifting AC from one carrier to another - use the funds on new builds!

Of course they can still act as Fleet carriers!

 

[Astrodragon]

There were some other reasons why C&G weren't reconstructed (apart from the mentioned structural issues)

The machinery was old. Doing such a big reconstruction (because of the structural issues it wouldn't have been a small one) would have been fairly pointless without doing something about the machinery. But doing all that wasn't much cheaper, or quicker, than building a new carrier.

The ships were needed in the 30's - removing one or both for the length of time required for a large modification would have been a problem.

They carried 48 planes. While extending the flight deck and hanger would have allowed more planes, first, thanks to the RAF, the planes weren't there, and second the aviation fuel storage was already considered too small for the number carried. And its very hard to add more fuel to RN safety standards.

In the end, building more new carriers was seen as a much more efficient option.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The most useful conversion would have been rebuilding Furious to match her sisters rather than leaving her as a flush decked carrier. That cost her a quarter of her aircraft capacity.

 

[NHBL]

If you have the funds for a major refit, perhaps use them to replace HMS Eagle. She could be replaced at any time, since she was old enough to be considered "Experimental: by the terms of the Washington treaty. Argus is in the same category--perhaps replace both of them with one more modern ship.
Article VII

The total tonnage for aircraft carriers of each of the Contracting Powers shall not exceed in standard displacement, for the United States 135,000 tons (137,160 metric tons); for the British Empire 135,000 tons (137,160 metric tons); for France 60,000 tons (60,960 metric tons); for Italy 60,000 tons (60,960 metric tons); for Japan 81,000 tons (82,296 metric tons).



Article VIII
The replacement of aircraft carriers shall be effected only as prescribed in Chapter II, Part 3, provided, however, that all aircraft carrier tonnage in existence or building on November 12, 1921, shall be considered experimental, and may be replaced, within the total tonnage limit prescribed in Article VII, without regard to its age.

 

[Astrodragon]

By the time they were ready to replace Eagle, tonnage limits on carriers had expired.
Better would have been to rework them as Escort/transport carriers, with additional torpedo protection

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

IIRC the Ark Royal was designed for the Pacific. In Wintons book on Carrier Glorious, the captain wanted all the AA guns removed as he regarded them as useless but he wanted the weight saved to give a faster ship, the crew regarding his desire as 'faster than a fart in a gale!'

The Ark had lots of stern overhang (118') in order to fit into constricted harbours in the Mediterranean as well:

Also, here is Furious in her 1919 condition, with her 18" turret landed, an aft flight deck installed, and two narrow decks bridging the two flight decks around her superstructure:

 

[jsb]

She could be replaced at any time, since she was old enough to be considered "Experimental: by the terms of the Washington treaty.

that all aircraft carrier tonnage in existence or building on November 12, 1921, shall be considered experimental,

But so can all the LLC as they where clearly in "existence" on November 12 1921........

Also, here is Furious in her 1919 condition,

HMT simply needs to open the chequebook in 34 and build three Arks not simply one (OK 27,000t with more protection would be better).

 

[Astrodragon]

But so can all the LLC as they where clearly in "existence" on November 12 1921........


HMT simply needs to open the chequebook in 34 and build three Arks not simply one (OK 27,000t with more protection would be better).

I'm having a sense of deja vu here

 

[MatthewB]

The most useful conversion would have been rebuilding Furious to match her sisters rather than leaving her as a flush decked carrier.

They didn’t leave Furious as a flush deck carrier, with an island added in the 1930s.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

But left the exhaust gasses venting over the stern rather than through a funnel at the rear of the island. They gained advantages in ship control but it did nothing to increase aircraft capacity.

 

[NHBL]

But so can all the LLC as they where clearly in "existence" on November 12 1921........

HMS Furious was an aircraft carrier prior to November 12, 1921, and so is legally "Experimental."
Conversion of HMS Glorious and HMS Courageous started after that, so they were not "Experimental." They were Large Light Cruisers when the treaty was signed, and conversion to carriers was started afterwards, muck like Lexingtons and Amagis.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

According to R.A Burt in British Battleships 1919-45 Glorious had the, "Tail of flight deck extended aft in downward curve." This made it easier for aircraft to land. The book also says, "Although such a success, and planned for Courageous during her next refit, it was never implemented, even in her refit of 1939."

Proposed Conversion to Single-Hangar Ships, 1938

Towards the end of 1938 the question was raised as to whether to convert both Glorious and Courageous to single-hangar ships.

The apparent advantages – it would be easier to handle the aircraft, protect them with armour plating and perhaps increase capacity – seemed attractive at the time. There were two essentials for single-hangar ships: the hangar had to be at least 62ft wide so that aircraft could be stowed three abreast; height had to be sufficient to allow of three gallery decks of reasonable width for accommodation. To achieve these dimensions beam would have to be increased by about 14 feet. To support such an extension of the entire hull, however, would require a great deal of reconstruction which would put the ships out of service for a considerable time (see drawing). As newer aircraft carriers were under construction (Ark Royal) and the cost of conversion would be high, the project was shelved and then discarded.

The legend of the drawing is

Proposed conversion to ‘single’ hangar ship, 15 November 1938

The Scribd website has a copy of the book.

 

[jsb]

HMS Furious was an aircraft carrier prior to November 12, 1921, and so is legally "Experimental."
Conversion of HMS Glorious and HMS Courageous started after that, so they were not "Experimental." They were Large Light Cruisers when the treaty was signed, and conversion to carriers was started afterwards, muck like Lexingtons and Amagis.

That I think very much depends on your interpretation of,

however, that all aircraft-carrier tonnage in existence or building on 12 November 1921 shall be considered experimental, and may be replaced, within the total tonnage limit prescribed in Article VII, without regard to its age.

Clearly the ships existed its just a matter of if they counted as CVs? note that if they didn't count they would break the rules as they are over 10,000t and 8"? I admit OTL RN would never be willing to open that can of worms due to IJN/USN response but with hindsight its no worse than any of the other semi-legal interpretations of the treaty ie Lex tonnage 3000t/allowance etc.

 

[NHBL]

That I think very much depends on your interpretation of,
Clearly the ships existed its just a matter of if they counted as CVs? note that if they didn't count they would break the rules as they are over 10,000t and 8"? I admit OTL RN would never be willing to open that can of worms due to IJN/USN response but with hindsight its no worse than any of the other semi-legal interpretations of the treaty ie Lex tonnage 3000t/allowance etc.

The ships clearly existed, and conversion to CV's was authorized by the treaty. The RN had the choice of scrap or convert. IMVHO, it's pretty clear cut--they were not CV's in existence at the time, so not "Experimental," though Argus, Eagle, and Furious were all CV's at that time.

 

[PMN1]

The ships clearly existed, and conversion to CV's was authorized by the treaty. The RN had the choice of scrap or convert. .

As I understand it, they could have been kept as Large Light Cruisers, they were not included in any of the Treaty Restrictions.

 

[jsb]

The ships clearly existed, and conversion to CV's was authorized by the treaty. The RN had the choice of scrap or convert. IMVHO, it's pretty clear cut--they were not CV's in existence at the time, so not "Experimental," though Argus, Eagle, and Furious were all CV's at that time.

I really don't think its that "clear cut",

- They did clearly exist, but this might be interpreted as allowing replacement as existing? (but this opens up IJN/USN to do the same)
- Conversion did not name them in any way and therefore its questionable if they had to be scraped,

However, any of the Contracting Powers may, provided that its total tonnage allowance of aircraft-carriers is not thereby exceeded, build not more than two aircraft-carriers, each of a tonnage of not more than 33,000 tons (33,528 metric tons) standard displacement, and in order to effect economy any of the Contracting Powers may use for this purpose any two of their ships, whether constructed or in course of construction, which would otherwise be scrapped under the provisions of Article II.

WNT
BUT they are not named in article II....

The Contracting Powers may retain respectively the capital ships which are specified in Chapter II, Part 1. On the coming into force of the present Treaty, but subject to the following provisions of this Article, all other capital ships, built or building, of the United States, the British Empire and Japan shall be disposed of as prescribed in Chapter II, Part 2.

Chapter II, Part 1
Ships which may be retained by the British Empire
Name Tonnage
Royal Sovereign 25,750
........(C,G&F are not on list)
Total tonnage 580,450

The point is they where not considered capital ships, but "large light cruisers" so are not named by the treaty? (note that USN/IJN both kept old cruisers over 10,000t 8".)

Anyway RN was allowed

for the British Empire, 135,000 tons (137,160 metric tons)

of CVs so they could have kept C&G and built three new 27,000t ships anyway or probably four 22,000t ships. (the old ships being saved by 2LNT in 37 assuming OTL Ark royal dates)

 

[Dorknought]

She could be replaced at any time, since she was old enough to be considered "Experimental: by the terms of the Washington treaty

The London treaty removed the experimental - replace any time provision and the under 10,000 tons doesn’t count to carrier tonnage.

 

[jsb]

The London treaty removed the experimental - replace any time provision and the under 10,000 tons doesn’t count to carrier tonnage.

Can you help tell me what part of the treaty said that?
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_London_Treaty_1930.php

 

[MatthewB]

But left the exhaust gasses venting over the stern rather than through a funnel at the rear of the island. They gained advantages in ship control but it did nothing to increase aircraft capacity.

Here’s Furious. The hangars look sufficiently commodious. I don’t think moving the funnels would have made a good ROI.