earliest possible malta class carriers?

So no possible way for the maltas to be laid down pre 1942?

What would be the driver? The Implacable design was only signed off in late 38/early 39. I would assume even at best and you somehow jumped to the Malta design that you'd have to wait for the docks to become available, H&W was the first in '42, are there any other's that could be used first?

And again how do you get the RN to jump from the Implacables to the Malta's within that timeframe?
 
What would be the driver? The Implacable design was only signed off in late 38/early 39. I would assume even at best and you somehow jumped to the Malta design that you'd have to wait for the docks to become available, H&W was the first in '42, are there any other's that could be used first?

And again how do you get the RN to jump from the Implacables to the Malta's within that timeframe?

One of the drivers for larger decks was operating with some of the larger US Carriers - particularly when 'USS Robin' worked with USS Saratoga and British Squadrons / personnel cross decked to the Sara and vice versa to HMS Victorious.

One of the learnings for the British was that they preferred the way in which the USN organised and operated aircraft plus deck usage. In fact IIRC Victorious did not go back to the British way of doing things post her little jaunt in the Pacific

Perhaps have the British Carriers do joint operations with the US earlier say even pre war (or at least pre- US Entry) and have the USN assist the RN in training pilots on their own carriers. This exposes more of the RN Tribe to the larger US decks earlier and this influences later decisions - so the 4 'Malta's' are laid down instead of the 'Audacious's' in 42 / 43
 
One of the drivers for larger decks was operating with some of the larger US Carriers - particularly when 'USS Robin' worked with USS Saratoga and British Squadrons / personnel cross decked to the Sara and vice versa to HMS Victorious.

One of the learnings for the British was that they preferred the way in which the USN organised and operated aircraft plus deck usage. In fact IIRC Victorious did not go back to the British way of doing things post her little jaunt in the Pacific

Perhaps have the British Carriers do joint operations with the US earlier say even pre war (or at least pre- US Entry) and have the USN assist the RN in training pilots on their own carriers. This exposes more of the RN Tribe to the larger US decks earlier and this influences later decisions - so the 4 'Malta's' are laid down instead of the 'Audacious's' in 42 / 43

Were either Saratoga or Lexington doing the neutrality patrols pre Pearl Harbour in the Atlantic, or were they for the smaller Yorktowns, if it were the Yorktowns is there much difference in size compared to the Implacables even if there were joint operations?

Would more Implacables with US style aircraft handling be something the Admiralty look at instead of trying to bring in new designs in the middle of the War? Either way I would think you are still reliant on yard space becoming available?
 
Were either Saratoga or Lexington doing the neutrality patrols pre Pearl Harbour in the Atlantic, or were they for the smaller Yorktowns, if it were the Yorktowns is there much difference in size compared to the Implacables even if there were joint operations?

Would more Implacables with US style aircraft handling be something the Admiralty look at instead of trying to bring in new designs in the middle of the War? Either way I would think you are still reliant on yard space becoming available?

LEX and SARA were always in the Pacific but you could go for a POD that is years before the war given those to giants joined the fleet in the late 1920s. Start some cross pollination early between the RN and USN carrier fleets and have the RN decide that big carriers are the way to go.
 
LEX and SARA were always in the Pacific but you could go for a POD that is years before the war given those to giants joined the fleet in the late 1920s. Start some cross pollination early between the RN and USN carrier fleets and have the RN decide that big carriers are the way to go.

How much cross training/joint training between the RN and the USN in the 30's (and how likely would such operations have been in terms of service politics/International politics)? Even then wouldn't there be more of a chance that the Ark Royal ends up something along the lines of the Yorktown class, or the Illustrious class ending up as something less than an Essex rather than somehow jumping those classes to something like a Malta?
 
The Implacables weren't finished till '44, what's the best date for them finishing, '43? Even if the RN post Implacable design in '39, would there have been the logical demand to jump from Implacable to Malta without the Wartime experience? Even if they had a Crystal Ball in early '39, it would still be post War I'd bet before the Malta's would be finished.
We build them alongside the Implacables. The wartime experience is clear with the Illustrious class, which from 1940 demonstrated proof of the AFD concept and the need for larger airgroup.
 
We build them alongside the Implacables. The wartime experience is clear with the Illustrious class, which from 1940 demonstrated proof of the AFD concept and the need for larger airgroup.

From 1940 when all 2 of the Illustrious had been commissioned (and Formidable was only in November, how much knowledge was she going to add at that stage?), at best you could point to the Battle of Taranto as operational experience in November. Would have thought at best you'd have to wait till '41 for full wartime experience with the Illustrious class and then feed in that information into any design (as in the full year of combat to point out potential combat changes for the next generation).

The Implacables were designed preWar, and laid down in '39, how exactly does Wartime knowledge mean that Malta classes are laid down at the sametime? Even the Audacious class hasn't been thought of at that period, a mroe sensible approach would surely be ordering a couple more Implacables since the design work was done?

I mean the Audacious/Eagle was only Laid down in late '42 with Ark Royal in '43, so at very best I'd say you could suggest they are replaced with Malta designs (if the Yards can handle them) but that still most likely gets you post WW2 dates of Commission.
 
From 1940 when all 2 of the Illustrious had been commissioned (and Formidable was only in November, how much knowledge was she going to add at that stage?), at best you could point to the Battle of Taranto as operational experience in November. Would have thought at best you'd have to wait till '41 for full wartime experience with the Illustrious class and then feed in that information into any design (as in the full year of combat to point out potential combat changes for the next generation).

The Implacables were designed preWar, and laid down in '39, how exactly does Wartime knowledge mean that Malta classes are laid down at the sametime? Even the Audacious class hasn't been thought of at that period, a mroe sensible approach would surely be ordering a couple more Implacables since the design work was done?

I mean the Audacious/Eagle was only Laid down in late '42 with Ark Royal in '43, so at very best I'd say you could suggest they are replaced with Malta designs (if the Yards can handle them) but that still most likely gets you post WW2 dates of Commission.
Agreed.....
 
LEX and SARA were always in the Pacific but you could go for a POD that is years before the war given those to giants joined the fleet in the late 1920s. Start some cross pollination early between the RN and USN carrier fleets and have the RN decide that big carriers are the way to go.

Again I'll draw back to the 1931 fleet requirement was for an aircraft carrier capable of operations 72 aircraft. Again the original Malta design was an armoured carrier. Again we can go pre-war with Japan pulling out of the treaties we could get the Malta's several years earlier.
 
Agreed.....

Seconded - cannot see them getting laid down much before late 42

And instead of the Audacious class - but might still be actually called the Audacious class!

The need for larger Carriers might also butterfly away the Guards Van as well and who knows maybe 2 of the "Malta's" get commissioned in 45 just in time for for the invasion of Japan as a result!
 
Seconded - cannot see them getting laid down much before late 42.
Thirded if there is such a word.
And instead of the Audacious class - but might still be actually called the Audacious class!

The need for larger Carriers might also butterfly away the Guards Van as well and who knows maybe 2 of the "Malta's" get commissioned in 45 just in time for for the invasion of Japan as a result!

In 1936 the plan was to order 2 battleships and 2 aircraft carriers a year in the 1936-37 to 1940-41 financial years as part of the Two Power Standard Fleet (not the same as the pre World War One Two Power Standard). The 5 KGVs and the first 4 Illustrious class were ordered in the 1936 and 1937 Navy Estimates. However due to the economic problems that Rearmament had created the 1938 and 1939 orders were cut back to 2 Lion class and one armoured carrier.

AFAIK 2 Lions and one Implacable class were planned for the 1940-41 programme, but because World War II broke out it was only possible to order one large ship which was the Guard Van.

With hindsight a large aircraft carrier should have been built in her place. I doubt that she would be completed in time to see action in the war, but it would give the Royal Navy a much better post war carrier fleet.

And while I'm at it instead of ordering 8 Centaur class (of which 4 were actually built) the money should have been used to complete the third Audacious and lay down another 2 large aircraft carriers 1944-45. If that had happened the Royal Navy's aircraft carrier fleet in the 1960s would have consisted of 6 large ships of the Audacious and/or Malta classes.

Plus its a pity that it took so long for the Naval Staff to decide that hybrid battleship-carriers were a waste of time. Then the light fleet carrier programme could have been started up to a year earlier and 4 ships laid down in the second half of 1941 for completion in 1944. However, to do that at least 4 of the cruisers ordered in 1941 would have to be sacrificed to provide the slipways, steel and machinery. But that could be a good thing as 4 Centaur class could be built instead of 4 Colossus class.
 
Could we have seen an earlier Implacable class, essentially skipped the Illustrious class and going straight from Ark Royal to Implacable? I don't see it as a concept leap as the Implacables were essentially AFD Illustriouses but with less armour to allow for more aircraft.

We'd need to have aircraft that could fit the low hangar height (see Implacable hangar below), and the compact lifts. This would also limit lend lease aircraft from the USA.

1409441069217


003.jpg


Tarpons (Avengers) will still fit...

561ffeeb6b699879b121ce080adb7245.jpg


Still can't have two full length hangars. http://www.armouredcarriers.com/indefatigable-implacable/ What does the diplacement change to if two full hangars are demanded, like on Ark Royal (91)?
 
Last edited:
Could we have seen an earlier Implacable class, essentially skipped the Illustrious class and going straight from Ark Royal to Implacable? I don't see it as a concept leap as the Implacables were essentially AFD Illustriouses but with less armour to allow for more aircraft.

We'd need to have aircraft that could fit the low hangar height (see Implacable hangar below), and the compact lifts. This would also limit lend lease aircraft from the USA.

1409441069217


003.jpg


Tarpons (Avengers) will still fit...

561ffeeb6b699879b121ce080adb7245.jpg


Still can't have two full length hangars. http://www.armouredcarriers.com/indefatigable-implacable/ What does the diplacement change to if two full hangars are demanded, like on Ark Royal (91)?

That's easy. It was the British who had the aircraft carrier tonnage limit reduced from 27,000 tons to 23,000 tons in the 1936 London Naval Treaty. Therefore all that is necessary is for the British delegation to not press for the reduction. According to Chesnau the Audacious class began as Implacable class ships with full length hangars and was expected to displace about 24,000 tons. However, they would also be more expensive, which is why the Royal Navy wanted aircraft carriers limited to 23,000 tons in the first place. Therefore what might happens is that a mix of 27,000 ton fleet carriers and 13,500 ton light fleet carriers would have been built.
 
That's easy. It was the British who had the aircraft carrier tonnage limit reduced from 27,000 tons to 23,000 tons in the 1936 London Naval Treaty. Therefore all that is necessary is for the British delegation to not press for the reduction. According to Chesnau the Audacious class began as Implacable class ships with full length hangars and was expected to displace about 24,000 tons. However, they would also be more expensive, which is why the Royal Navy wanted aircraft carriers limited to 23,000 tons in the first place. Therefore what might happens is that a mix of 27,000 ton fleet carriers and 13,500 ton light fleet carriers would have been built.

One of my favourite pods it that the British set the limit to 27,000 Tons per carrier - build what are effectively armoured Ark Royals and do not agonise of the "Aircraft Repair ships" (HMS Unicorn) and build 2 or 3 of those with a nod wink 'not an Aircraft carrier honest guvner' attitude - and not count towards the limits!
 
Going Further with the previous posts meme, I would have the HMS Unicorn clones designed like the light fleets designed along commercial build practice, this not only helps the deception about them being only axillaries but enables them to be built in commercial yards and not occupy slips required for "real warships" like battleships, cruisers and armored deck carriers! Now persuade the Admiralty to revive the Mail boat carrier of the late 1920's and you have escort carriers ready in 1939/40. Only problem now is finding the aircraft to go on all these shiny new decks!!
 
One of my favourite pods it that the British set the limit to 27,000 Tons per carrier - build what are effectively armoured Ark Royals and do not agonise of the "Aircraft Repair ships" (HMS Unicorn) and build 2 or 3 of those with a nod wink 'not an Aircraft carrier honest guvner' attitude - and not count towards the limits!

According to Friedman the American delegation at the Washington Conference wanted a 40,000 ton limit for aircraft carriers. However, the British delegation thought that was incompatible with the 35,000 ton limit agreed for battleships and at that time were contemplating a fleet of 5 ships of 27,000 tons, hence the 135,000 tonnage quota. Had the Royal Navy been contemplating a larger feet of larger ships then there it's likely that the Washington treaty would have had larger tonnage quotas for aircraft carriers and allowed larger ships.

However, I think the result of that would be that a mix of Audacious class (a double hangar Illustrious or Ark Royal with an armoured flight deck depending upon how it is viewed) and smaller ships would be built instead of the Malta class.

But altering the Washington Treaty allows the USA and Japan to build more and larger aircraft carriers too.
 
Is a British Taiho out of the question within treaty limitations (2 x full length hangars, but smaller dims), with AFD but only lightly protected sides?

Taiho__class_full.jpg
 
There's no doubt an Audacious-type carrier in the 27kt range would have been better than the Illustrious class, but that still doesn't lead to a Malta.

Until the weights of naval aircraft (and other military aircraft, come to that ) started to go up rapidly after the start of the war, there was no need for a ship the size of Malta as it would actually have been too large! There is a limit to the size of strike that can be controlled efficiently (the late war USN strikes were models of how not to do it, made successful by lack of real opposition). Given the size of the aircraft expected pre-war, and Audacious would have been a very good size for a carrier.

Now if we assume that in 1939, at the start of war, someone correctly works out how big aircraft will be in 5 years (not impossible), then IF the RN wasn't limited by lack of yards a Malta would have made sense to start in about 1941-2 (3.5 years to build). It would then have been available in 1945, carrying around 80-100 of the then current aircraft. But specifying a Malta pre-war requires a level of prescience only possible to German coal merchants.

This is very funny, I am planning something exactly like this, although with a different driver for the change.
 
Top