No Audacious or Centaur Class Carriers.

So what if at the end of WWII Britain cancelled all of the Audacious and Centaur class carriers due to being flat broke. The Colossus and Majestic class are continued because they're either nearly complete or there is a potential export market for them. The government knows jets are the future and that it's likely that the cancelled carriers would need to be adapted to operate them, which is how they justify the cancellation.

By 1948 and the Berlin Airlift this choice is looking less wise than it did in 1945.
By 1949 and the Soviets detonating their first A Bomb it looks like it might have been a mistake.
June 1950 Oh ***k war in Korea and a Communist China, now what do we do?
 
June 1950 Oh ***k war in Korea and a Communist China, now what do we do?

I don't know, buy an ESSEX class ship or two from the US? Not sure about the crew requirements though, were the US ships more crew intensive?
 
Britain doesn't buy foreign warships, it steals them. (Sorry takes them as prizes of war) No there'll be a crash building program while as otl the Light Fleets fight in Korea. The Oh ***k is because all the existing assumptions about the post war years have just been thrown out of the window and they have to act without spending years planning things.
 
So what if at the end of WWII Britain cancelled all of the Audacious and Centaur class carriers due to being flat broke. The Colossus and Majestic class are continued because they're either nearly complete or there is a potential export market for them. The government knows jets are the future and that it's likely that the cancelled carriers would need to be adapted to operate them, which is how they justify the cancellation.

By 1948 and the Berlin Airlift this choice is looking less wise than it did in 1945.
By 1949 and the Soviets detonating their first A Bomb it looks like it might have been a mistake.
June 1950 Oh ***k war in Korea and a Communist China, now what do we do?

In all 3 cases - increased spending on the Army and Airforce would make more sense and none of the situations required a group of fleet carriers as the solution

Long range strike aircraft being the then answer would be seen as a more cost effective solution were there was no Ark, Eagle and Centaurs - but we might see a CVA-01 Analogy ship actually in service by the 70s when that concept was proven not to work?
 
1952 fleet carrier design........?
Okhh5jA.png

http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=9478
 
Is that similar to the French carriers that were built in the 50s?
Its a "bit" larger,

Rough estimates for the four designs were:
Displacement (deep): 52,000 tons
Length: 815ft
Beam (waterline): 115ft
Beam (flight deck): 160ft
Draught (deep): 33ft 6in
Machinery: 200,000hp for 30kts ('deep and dirty' in tropics)
750,000gal aviation fuel (including 250,000gal AVGAS)
Armament: 4x2 3in L/70
Armour: 2in plating to waterline, 2in NC on flightdeck
Radar: 2x Type 894 3-D

v from wiki Clemenceau-class,

Displacement: 22,000 standard; 32,780 maximum
Length: 265 m (869 ft)
Beam: 51.2 m (168 ft)
Draught: 8.6 m (28 ft)
Propulsion: 6 × boilers 4 × steam turbines 126,000 shp
Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h)
Range: 7,500 miles
Armament:
8 × 100mm
Aircraft carried: 40
Aviation facilities: Angled flight deck for CATOBAR operations
 
Top