Looking for a way to improve Naval Aviation prewar in the 1930's.

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by Naval Aviation Fan, Aug 26, 2019.

  1. Threadmarks: Initial thoughts

    Naval Aviation Fan Member

    Aug 20, 2019
    Hey everybody, I'm looking at trying my hand at a few, brief atl, where, among other things, the US gets it's shit together with respect to combat readiness and inter-service cooperation. I'm also of a mind to improve naval aviation by circumventing the naval treaties, and stuff like that.

    I don't want to end up writing an Ameriwank, but my goal going into to this is to get a better starting forces readiness over otl for the USA.

    One thing I want to have as a common POD, is having Howard Hughes altered into someone that has interest in naval aviation, as well as float planes, seaplanes, and amphibious planes.

    There was a thread recently that asked about something I had not previously heard of, something called a Flying Deck Cruiser and that inspired me to start thinking about alternatives to that.

    So, in this first thread, I'm going to try to identify problems with the FDC, and get around those, and get us to a place where we can get better Naval Aviation training prewar.

    So, a few of the common problems with any type of earlier/additional carriers, is that all of them are warships, and thus would count against the tonnage allotments allowed by treaty, and that they would cost money to build, maintain, upgrade/refit/rebuild and operate, all of which has to come out of the navies budget.

    My proposed solution is to take a rich & famous American, Howard Hughes, and have him get an earlier start of the Hughes Aircraft Company of OTL, and marry that with my fictional Hughes Shipping Company & Hughes Shipbuilding Company, that builds really big, impressive merchantmen...

    Before I get started on that, though, I need help finding a shipyard in the 1900-1925 time-frame, that might be suitable for purchase and construction of what I am looking for. What I am looking for is an 'ego class' project, one like "To build the largest Merchant ships in the World" type thing, as both Sr and Jr wanted to be the best at what they did.

    From the Wiki, for the Liberty Ships, I have these specifications:
    Since I have no knowledge about shipbuilding, I'm going to extrapolate from here...

    So the values in red I need folks to discuss and post for themselves, the only dimension I really, really want to keep in the 100 ft beam, as this will allow for follow on classes to look very similar in scale.

    We are naturally going into the whole 'converted merchantmen into cheap, barely survivable carrier trope', but here I am going to create a reason for such a historically huge merchant ship to come into existence, and be in ongoing production, in the early 1930's, as an ego boost for Jr.

    So, tell me what you think, and please offer advice on any dimensions for the "Hughes Titan class cargo ship" For instance, as the ship is larger and wider than a liberty ship, I gave 4 more boilers, and and extra engine to these monsters, is that enough to maintain speed? I also took a stab at the increase in cargo capacity and displacement, are those numbers anywhere close to what they should be?
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2019
  2. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Feb 2, 2013
    You might want to look at the Hog Island WWI Emergency Fleet Construction program ships

    Pretty much WWI Liberty Ships, first modular ship construction. Henry J didn't invent that, he just enlarged it

    an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Samaritan_(AH-10)

    And after the War, they big yard didn't do much more building
  3. Naval Aviation Fan Member

    Aug 20, 2019
    Oh my! What a fantastic purchase opportunity if I can wrangle the details out!

    Upon reading further, it stopped building ships in 1921, and was demolished quickly, and eventually sold to Philadelphia in 1930. So, to get the thing intact, I'll need Sr to buy it before it gets to whacked. Daddy bites the dust in 1924, so this might just be doable!!!

    Thank you sir.
  4. Jellico Well-Known Member

    Dec 14, 2017
    That is what we call a money pit.

    Basically the emergency program flooded the market with merchant hulls and kept building because of pork. Then all the ex-German merchant hulls got released on top of that.

    Likewise " really big, impressive merchantmen" doesn't make sense if the infrastructure doesn't exist to handle the surge as they unload. And this is pre-containers so some poor bastard(s) has to go inside and empty them by hand.
  5. sonofpegasus Well-Known Member

    Mar 19, 2012
    Can I suggest Oil Tankers. Get HH seriously interested in oil, say due to aircraft fuel. Look at the Sangamon class escort carrier. These were originally built as Cimarron-class oil tankers. with oil there is not the same dockside bottle neck as mentioned by Jellico above. Another possibility is the flight deck mail ship concept, basically this is a fast liner/cargo-liner built to at least fly off mail plains. OTL some ships were fitted with catapults to launch mail carrying aircraft. Between the wars there was a real problem with over capacity in the Merchant fleet and ship building generally so this will have to be either butterflied away or used to provide cheap resource for your protagonist. Please have your protagonist buy Palmers Ship yard in Jarrow in 1930 and save it as his European base of operations.
  6. Naval Aviation Fan Member

    Aug 20, 2019
    What I have in mind isn't trying for sustained 50-ships-at-a-time construction efforts, more like just enough shipbuilding going on to operate 6-8 slipways at most, so as to have the facility mostly pay for itself. That and building ships for their own merchant shipping line. When did cargo ships start using containers? IIRC, it was a French invention, and got into use sometime after WWII? Don't quote me on that, lol.

    Edit: Arrrgh, now I need to google that real quick...


    Over an hour later...
    So, way to long to quickly summarize here, but a very interesting read, and no, I did NOT recall correctly.:oops:
    I cannot see my way clear of the lack of containerization, but what I had in mind may be something that could speed up loading/unloading times in port, so possibly worth construction of limited numbers of ships, in a steady, ongoing process.

    You may! In fact you beat me to the punch on this point. In fact, all three of the following points. Nicely done. HH Sr patented a new oil drilling bit, that was something special in it's day, and formed the base of the wealth that became HH Jr's fortune in 1924 upon Sr's death. So this idea really meshes with OTL quite nicely. I had a murky notion floating around in the back of my head about trying to pioneer offshore drilling platforms in the early to mid 1930's, but have not yet done any real reading up on that. On the very rough drawing board is where I'm thinking about having HHJr getting into the Oil exploration business, both in undeveloped nations, and offshore around the world, but again, that will possibly be a dedicated thread dealing with all things Oil.

    Well anticipated, again. I want to cover the seaplane tender/launcher in a dedicated thread of it's own, and this means more research time to gain enough knowledge to have at least a small clue before I begin. I'm looking at seaplane tenders going into all the far off corners of the world's oceans, on various adventures and endeavors, both for profit, pleasure, record settings, and just because. I was thinking about seaplanes that could go out to whips that didn't have their own aircraft, and take out some welcome to where ever items, as well as providing a jump start for customs/navigation stuff, and being able to take off passengers and mail, as well as anyone sick/injured.


    Hmmm. I'll have to think about that one. The guy is rich as heck, but there is a limit to what one guy can do. Now, OTOH, if you could give me ideas that would be profitable joint business ventures (say, perhaps something like, oh, I don't know, something that really cannot travel around the world on it's own, but could, if built in such a location, prove to be quite a good investment for North Sea/Baltic Sea AO's, then...)
    Ramontxo likes this.
  7. Jellico Well-Known Member

    Dec 14, 2017
    It is not just dockside. You need to get your cargo away from the docks. That means rail and rolling stock.

    This is where a Brunel would be handy with fingers in both sides of the transport pie.

    Tankers are probably your best bet as noted above. But remember that we are talking 15,000 tons or so.
    Butchpfd likes this.
  8. PMN1 Member

    Jan 25, 2006
    Those look like slips so why what look to be caissons at the end?
  9. Astrodragon Coffee-seeking Dragon

    Sep 24, 2008
    UK - Oxfordshire
    While your aim is worthy, I think you're aiming at the wrong target.
    America had plenty of spare industrial power to increase naval aviation and ships, they just didn't want to spend the money.

    So you have a number of things to fix before any steel arrives on the slipway.
    America has to decide on a bigger navy. This is an issue, as they were pushing in OTL for more, tighter, armament treaties. And challenges to the USN didn't really raise their head until the mid30's at the earliest. Now they can build carriers to their hearts content from 1937 onwards, but in OTL the will to do so wasn't there. That needs to change.

    The USN preferred smaller carriers. While the naval treaty had no overall tonnage limit, carriers size was restricted. A point which needs to be taken into account.

    Where and when is the threat that makes the USA increase naval spending considerably? Without a threat, or a perceived threat, the money isn't coming.

    If the money does come, the US Admirals will say 'thanks very much' and spend the bulk of it on new battleships. This isn't changing until war actually happens.

    In peace, building a merchant ship so it can be a carrier doesn't make sense unless your Japan and haven't got any free resources. The bulk of the cost of a carrier over its life is the men and aircraft, you save little by a slow, easy to sink merchant ship. In peace, you build more proper carriers.

    There's a start :)
    Naval Aviation Fan likes this.
  10. CV12Hornet Well-Known Member

    Sep 25, 2013
    Er... there was a tonnage limit on carriers. 135,000 tons total, Washington Naval Treaty.
    Naval Aviation Fan and Anderman like this.
  11. McPherson McPherson; a guy who needs a shave.

    Oct 29, 2017
    Somewhere where rockets fly.
    You need to change a few parameters to your PoD hypothesis.

    Then educate the Congress. Three important words: "combat sortie radius". And a two word solution that does not impinge on ANY naval treaty, because it is lighters, ro/ros (LSTs in that era), fast tankers, ammunition ships, subsidized ocean liners (i.e. troop transports), break bulk subsidized cargo ships (STUFT ships that will mimic AKs, tenders, and other assorted auxiliaries), floating dry docks, ocean going tugs, etc., that can be summarized as the "fleet trains".

    He was already, but he was insane. (Spruce Goose syndrome.)

    The IJN lost their marbles, but they were in the ballpark out in left field. Instead of seaplane tenders and passenger ships, the correct hull to use was Mister Oil Tanker.
    1. Not efficient for aviation at sea.
    2. Not efficient as a gun platform.
    3. Being master of nothing, it will soon obsolesce as the planes become too fast to trap or launch without a catapult.

    A fleet train is part of the navy budget, but if you have subsidized contract shipping *(STUFT) fleet, that can be hid from Congress as part of the Post Office Budget, Department of Commerce and Treasury, too, what the hey? What are all those Coast Guard revenue cutters doing with K-guns and sonars again?
    Why? Buy up William Cramp and Sons, fire the incompetent 1930s management and make it part of Hughes Tool Co.

    You just did (^^^). Philadelphia needs the help.

    Standard Oil needs 20,000 tonne 25-30 knot oil tankers to ship crude to England. Why? Unrefined Venezuelan crude precipitates during shipping? How should I know? Make an excuse and build at least 12 of them, 6 will become flattops.

    General characteristics
    Class & type: Fleet oiler/ notional
    Displacement: 20,000 tons (light); 43,987 tons (full load)
    Length: 820 ft (250 m)
    Beam: 98.425 ft (30 m)
    Draft: 34 ft 9 in (10.59 m)
    Installed power: 60,500 hp (45,515 kW)
    Propulsion: diesel electric, four screws, twin rudders
    Speed: 26 knots (48.15 km/h, 13.38 m/s)
    Capacity: 380,000 barrels (58,000 m3) of fuel oil
    Complement: 2,004 (as aircraft carrier)
    Crew: when as tanker 108 civilians plus U.S. Navy detachment (as USNR)
    Notes: It either is a big tanker or a soon to be modified into aircraft carrier. Obvious hints are the split side by side stacks and the peculiar "pilot house".
    Naval Aviation Fan likes this.
  12. NOMISYRRUC Rostrum Camera Ken Morse

    Nov 7, 2014
    What CV12 Hornet said. Plus this...

    The tonnage quotas came to an end at the end of 1936, but the size of the US Carrier Force was still limited to a maximum of 135,000 tons under US Law. That is why Wasp had to be an "improved" Ranger instead of a repeat Yorktown. The law wasn't changed until 1938 when the permitted tonnage was increased to 175,000 tons. It was this law that allowed Hornet and Essex to be built.

    Lexington and Saratoga absorbed 66,000 tons of the USN's tonnage quota, which left them with 69,000 tons.

    The plan was to build five 13,800 ton carriers and AIUI the USN asked Congress to authorise all five in the late 1920s. Fortunately, Congress only authorised one. I wrote fortunately because the single ship that was built was Ranger.

    When Ranger was revealed to be a failure the USN decided to build two 20,000 ton ships, which became Yorktown and Enterprise, and a second small ship which became Wasp.

    All I can suggest is that Ranger and Wasp are built to designs that have "more balance" that is fewer aircraft, but faster and better protected. Something along the lines of the Saipan class.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2019
    jsb, Naval Aviation Fan and McPherson like this.
  13. riggerrob Well-Known Member

    Sep 11, 2014
    If the USA remains isolationist, funds for an expeditionary army and air force remain constrained. Meanwhile some loophole allows the USN to spend lavishly. they build hospital ships and supply ships with large flat decks. Superstructures get displaced to one side.
    Hughes Oil company invests heavily in off-shore oil drilling rigs. Some are built on catamaran hulls 100 feet wide. Catamarans roll much less in stormy seas. When crews find commuting by boat exhausting, Hughes starts moving drilling crews by flying boat, but soon learn how vulnerable they are to high waves, so start experimenting with landing light planes on their huge catamaran drilling rigs.

    They could also install flush decks on bulk carriers. The biggest hassle would be designing bridge structures off to one side of the deck.

    The whole |flight deck cruiser| concept is a dodge invented by the Russian Navy. A treaty prevent sailing aircraft carriers through the (Turkish) Dardenal (sp?) Straits linking the Black Sea with the Mediterranean Ocean. Russian Navy "through deck cruisers" carried a mixture of helicopters and VTOL fighters. Sine their decks can be as long as regular aircraft carriers (up to 1,000 feet long) they have potential to catapult launch conventional naval fixed wing airplanes.
    Naval Aviation Fan likes this.
  14. PMN1 Member

    Jan 25, 2006
    There were proposals in the UK to build liners with flat tops....useful for ball games.

    Taken from Warships1 I think, there were drawings but I seem to have lost them

    This originally is supposed to have come from the publication “Transactions of the Institution of Naval Architects” Mar 1923 and was proposed by Eustace d’Eyncourt who was the British “Director of Naval Construction” from 1912 to 1923. According to Friedman’s “US Aircraft Carriers” there was a somewhat similar US proposal in 1928 for a 980-foot high speed North Atlantic liner.

    The British proposal was for a 600/80/28 foot, 24 knot mail packet capable of carrying 80% of the first and second class and 40% of the third class passengers of the Mauritania for such routes as the

    GB to NY with aircraft delivering mail to Canada on route

    GB to Australia with aircraft delivering mail to Egypt and India on route

    Vancouver to Hong Kong or Australia.

    No armament was mentioned though it did say it could carry either 18 Sopwith Cuckoos or 21 Parnall Panthers or 21 Nieuport Night Hawks.

    The mast was said to be not a problem because aircraft took off quickly but if it did become a problem an alternate folding mast and derrick was proposed. Bulges were fitted to protect against “icebergs”. The boilers being exhausted out the stern would probably be a problem since it ran right above the First Class lounge and I doubt that people would pay to get overheated. If you notice the B deck amidships is dedicated to lifeboats so I am wondering if during war time the deck could be removed and combined with C deck to create a midship hanger to double the amount of aircraft carried?

    I am guessing that as long as the British did not put any armament on them in peacetime they would not legally be considered warships and would not come under the Washington limits.

    If they were built in the 30s - would there be sufficient aircraft for them by the time of WW2? I don't think 5 would have been built, btw - if 24 knots was meant to be the service-speed, I believe they'd get by with three vessels of that speed to maintain a weekly service (more or less the Holy Grail of transatlantic ocean liner services) on the North Atlantic. If built for the Australia service, I am guessing three might be able to maintain a one-per-fortnight service, and six for a weekly service (but this is solely a guess). P&O Line and Orient Line (the latter being wholly owned by P&O Line, and later merged with it) built their late 40s/early 50s 22knot liners in multiples of three, at any rate - Orient Line built Orcades, Orontes and Orsova, while P&O Line got Himalaya, Iberia and Arcadia, all employed on the London-Sydney service, and all with 22 knot service speed, and top speed notably higher.

    Of course there are other lines that might employ the ships also - Union Castle Line operated a number of mail & passenger services to various British possessions in Africa, Bibby Line operated, apparently in addition to a London-Rangoon service, a number of purpose built troop transports for the British government (and it might be more acceptable in legal terms to use such vessels for this scheme than regular civilian vessels), as did British India Line, which also operated regular passenger, mail and cargo services between the UK and India, and (IIRC) between India and Africa. I am not certain what multiples of compatible vessels would be preferred by these companies, though.

    If we assume that by the start of WW2 a trio or so of such aircraft carrying mail steamers (CVMS?) are available (lets call them Saxonia, Ivernia and Sylvania, all operated by Cunard on a weekly service between Liverpool and Montreal), one wonders how they would have been employed. They might have an effect on aircraft acquisition policies of the FAA, depending on how early they entered service. Would these ships have to be manned by RNR or RNVR or RFA personnel?
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2019
    jsb and Naval Aviation Fan like this.
  15. NOMISYRRUC Rostrum Camera Ken Morse

    Nov 7, 2014
    Building more fast tankers in the 1930s would be a good thing in itself as it would have provided the USN with a larger number of ships to requisition when the Pacific War started.

    The first 12 Cimarrons were built as National Defence Tankers by the US Maritime Commission. It was intended that they would be operated by the oil companies in peacetime and would be requisitioned by the USN in time of war, but 3 of them were commissioned directly into the US Navy.

    The USN would have liked to have had more 18-knot twin-screw tankers of the Cimarron type, but (AFAIK) turbine engines could not be made in the required numbers, which forced it to supplement them with slower single-shaft tankers, some of which had turbo-electric drive instead of geared turbines.

    4 of the first 12 Cimarron class tankers were converted to Sangamon class escort carriers. The USN thought the Sangamon class was better than the cargo ship based CVEs. In common with the Cimarron class tankers they were based on the USN couldn't do this because there wasn't enough capacity to build the turbines (or at least their gearing) in the numbers wanted. However, it did stop building the cargo ship based CVEs as soon as the capacity to build more Sanagmons became available. These ships were the Commencement Bay class.

    In December 1941 the USN itself had 17 old tankers plus another that had been converted to a miscellaneous auxiliary (AG). They had been completed between 1915 and 1922, plus another that had been converted to a miscellaneous auxiliary (AG). Perhaps eighteen 18-knot twin screw oilers could have been built to replace them under the First Vincent-Trammell Act of 1934. They could have been built with features that would have made rapid conversion to aircraft carriers easier.

    The Cimarron class was built by the United States Maritime Commission. According to is Wikipaedia article the Commission was created by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and it...
    Therefore another POD could be that the Maritime Commission was set up earlier as an unemployment relief measure. I would like to say 1931, but as Roosevelt didn't take office until 1933 I think that bringing the Merchant Marine Act forward to 1934 is realistic.

    In addition to bringing the modernisation of the US Merchant Marine forward by 2 years it could also have built more T3-S2-A1 tankers (Cimarron class) and fewer of the smaller and slower T2 single-screw ships. Incorporating features which would have allowed faster conversion to aircraft carriers could have been incorporated in their design.

    I think there is plenty of scope for this. The American Merchant Marine had 389 tankers of 2,836,000 tons, gross (4,449,000 tons, deadweight) in 1939.

    It would also help if measures could have been taken to build up a reserve of geared turbine building capacity in the 1930s.
    McPherson and Naval Aviation Fan like this.
  16. NOMISYRRUC Rostrum Camera Ken Morse

    Nov 7, 2014
    AFAIK the Americans and the British both investigated the possibility of converting liners to aircraft carriers.

    The Americans didn't convert any because they though they weren't worth the effort and the ships were more valuable as troopships.

    IIRC the British did earmark four liners for conversion before the war. However, when the war came there wasn't enough capacity to build and/or convert all the ships that were wanted and other ships took greater priority. Eventually, only one ship was converted and this was the Pretoria Castle.

    Friedman mentions a study to convert the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth into aircraft carriers. However, in common with the American XCV studies it decided that the result would be two unsatisfactory ships. Plus the conversions would take too long and they were more valuable as troopships.
    Naval Aviation Fan likes this.
  17. b0ned0me Well-Known Member

    Jul 31, 2011
    This is certainly true for general cargo and tramps, but there were exceptions. Tankers have already been mentioned but other bulk cargoes such as grain, coal etc were already starting to see limited mechanisation. I believe the first self-unloading (conveyor belts) bulk carrier was a Great Lakes grain carrier around 1900.
    There were also some very very early signs of pre-containerisation by the thirties in special cases where high speed was required such as loading passenger luggage on and off boat trains at the Channel ports.
    But very generally I think large fast ships were only really wanted for passenger liners. Very large slow ships weren’t really much of a thing but could possibly have been with sane PODs.
    Medium sized medium speed ships were a thing in specialist cases such as with cargo liners, reefers etc.

    Something like the SS Almeda Star might give an idea of the slightly more unusual ships that were being operated in niche markets. And the Royal Mail Steam Packer Company might illustrate the outer limits of managerial competence and accounting shenanigans that ship operators could reach interwar.
    Naval Aviation Fan likes this.
  18. NOMISYRRUC Rostrum Camera Ken Morse

    Nov 7, 2014
    For what it's worth the USN did plan to convert the liners Manhattan, Washington, America and Kungsholm to aircraft carriers. They were allocated the hull numbers AVG-2 to AVG-5.

    However, the conversions were cancelled in 1941.

    The first three were commissioned into the USN as troop ships. That is the USS Wakefield (AP-21), USS Mount Vernon (AP-22) and USS West Point (AP-23).

    The Kungsholm became the U.S. War Shipping Administration troop transport John Ericsson in 1942.
    Naval Aviation Fan likes this.
  19. Naval Aviation Fan Member

    Aug 20, 2019
    I haven't got there yet, I'm still looking at what kind of scale of production is needed for a skeleton crew keeping the shipyard in operation at all, and what I can plausibly pull off in the way of the desired atl shipping. My basic plans include limited production and use of ships built for the HSC (Hughes Shipping Company) for making enough cash to keep the thing going at all, with the hoped for prewar buildups from OTL being augmented/speeded up by having the already built capacity ready to hand when the time comes.

    I do have some thoughts on speeding up the cargo handling in the on/off loading steps, but I'm not sure what kind of an improvement they can actually make, and I've never personally seen/read up upon how cargo ships were being loaded/unloaded in WWI as opposed too WWII.

    So, right now I can see a potential improvement in cargo handling, which I can hope to sell as a logical incremental next step, one after the other, when I start having Jr go gallivanting off around the world doing things no one else has done. Two of the things are ship board cranes, and lots of them, and 'deck edge' elevators, with the stipulation that they can deliver cargo/payloads to dockside, or directly into the water alongside. If I can sell folks on the need for these two a historical fabrications, with plausible circumstances to explain away their earlier than OTL development, then I will call that a win. Cargo netting, and elevated track systems dockside and ship borne systems are another two big points I will be introducing. OTL, at least as I understand it, cargo would be piled up on a big net, and then the net would be closed up and used to lift it aboard. At that point, I've no idea if it was then hand unloaded from the netting, or stayed within the netting all the way to the destination port. All my system does is have standardized netting, that are used as a poor mans 'containerization', without the need for any big and bulky containers, and then move them on/off very rapidly in properly equipped ports. Anyway, those are my thoughts so far with respect to cargo handling issues.

    Thanks for the input. I agree with every part of this, and hope to be able to sell my ideas as plausible in context of the larger focus.

    I should probably point out, that I don't intend to discuss Naval building plans at all, until/unless I actually sell folks on the stories I'm going to write, where I hope to explain away why there is a ship sailing the worlds seas that has some crack-brained innovation, that turns out to be 'just the thing' to allow for an improved capability in some purpose build warships later on. So, the shipyard isn't going to be cranking out any serious volume of ships in the interwar period, but rather, steadily building small numbers of ships and keeping itself afloat thereby.

    No. The whole focus is to get some needed improvements over OTL, without impacting either the USN budget nor composition, so:

    None of these ships will be warships!!!

    Although I see where you are coming from, and going to, No. See below.

    Well, my take is yes and no. Previous too experience with the USS Ranger, the Incorrect and inexperienced USN did indeed think ships smaller than the Lexington class would be better than building additional such ships. Once the limitations of the smaller carriers became apparent, the USN went on to build larger carriers of the Yorktown class, after which, the civilian bean counters once again 'screwed the pooch', and the USN was gifted with the glass jawed USS Wasp, which died from a lack of torpedo protection, which she had been built without, partly to save money, and partly to save on total tonnage for the carrier fleet.

    I'm not at the warships building stage yet, I'm currently at the "what can I build, completely off the naval budget, that can have an impact on the US armed forces, when the time comes to build up for the coming war" stage.

    The reason for using HH Jr, is to secure the ability to buy/build all the little things that can make a difference, that no government/navy will fund.

    I won't be building a merchant ship that can be turned into a carrier, what I will be doing is building a series of 'bigger/better' private vessels, every couple years, to support the adventures of HH Jr as he sets himself too the task of setting as many world records as possible, and creating many challenges/competitions for others to strive to overcome. These challenges will just happen to require non-historical ships, with features and capabilities not seen in the years I'm going to be writing about. All of the threads I have in mind will focus on either a single idea, or a handful of very focused and limited new ideas, so that I can properly develop and evolve them into something later on, that may be worthy of publication.

    I need to get everyone on the same page, as it were. Some folks are looking at what I have posted and giving responses that are spot on, while others are missing the mark a bit. There have been many new comments posted since I began this reply, and due to a throbbing headache I'm not sure I can respond to everyone in a timely matter and still advance the concepts I've go in mind. I'm thinking to leave the next post for filling in with replies to all the comments I have missed/couldn't keep up with, and just post a 'mission focus' type reply.

    Working on this, sick as a dog, and fell asleep at the keyboard. Sorry for the delay, and I'll finish this post soon...

    2nd NOTE:
    I think I have gotten current with the thread as it was when I had to take a break, and the immediately following post will be filled in later, with responses to the posts made between then and now. Sorry for the bit of a hassle, but Illness is making it's displeasure known to me...
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2019
  20. Naval Aviation Fan Member

    Aug 20, 2019
    I see that while I was napping, there has been much information posted, so I'll need some time to read everything and rejoin the conversation...