PA-58 Verdun aircraft carrier

Archibald

Banned
Starting a thread of its own. PA58 (tentatively Verdun) Enlarged Clemenceau for nuclear strike, influenced by USN Skywarriors and Vigilantes flying out of Forrestal supercarriers. Killled by SLBNs, but could be adapted to conventional carrier role along Foch and Clemenceau.

Could the Royal Navy be interested by such carrier in the late 50 's ?
Is it a match for CVA-01 requirements ?
And what aircrafts on the flight deck ?

(For the record, Masurca was France Sea Slug - big and long range naval SAM)

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,16711.15.html

index.php



index.php
 
Last edited:
Starting a thread of its own. PA58 (tentatively Verdun) Enlarged Clemenceau for nuclear strike, influenced by USN Skywarriors and Vigilantes flying out of Forrestal supercarriers. Killled by SLBNs, but could be adapted to conventional carrier role along Foch and Clemenceau.

1) Could the Royal Navy be interested by such carrier in the late 50 's ?
2) Is it a match for CVA-01 requirements ?
3) And what aircrafts on the flight deck ?

(For the record, Masurca was France Sea Slug - big and long range naval SAM)

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,16711.15.html

index.php



index.php
1) The RN was interested in such a ship IOTL because it did a series of studies into trade protection aircraft carriers displacing between 28,000 and 35,000 tons between the demise of the 1952 Carrier and the start of CVA.01 in 1960.
2) No it didn't because it was limited to Sea Vixen and Buccaneer type aircraft.
3) Don't remember and I haven't looked at my copies of Brown and Friedman yet.

However, you wrote that PA58 was cancelled to pay for the French SSBN programme. But I thought it was cancelled in 1958, which AFAIK was the height of the Algerian War and at that time about 600,000 of the French Army's 800,000 men were deployed there. Therefore I always assumed that it was cancelled because of the cost of the Algerian War.

To me the 1958 defence cuts seem to be the French equivalent to the British 1957 Defence Review. That is we can't afford to maintain a large and modern army in Europe supported by an equally large and modern tactical air force. Therefore we are going to disband most of both and maintain peace with the USSR through nuclear deterrence. The surviving conventional forces will be restructured to fight guerrilla wars in the third world, with the aim of stopping small wars escalating into the big one.

In addition to cancelling PA58 the French Government cancelled or cut back most of its aviation projects, exactly like Duncan Sandys did. However, the French project that was too far advanced to cancel was Mirage III.
 
According to Friedman in British Carrier Aviation, these are the details of the 28,000 ton and 35,000 ton aircraft carriers, developed by the DNC in 1954 and presented to the Sea Lords on 17th December 1954.

There were no details on the number and length of the catapults and lifts or whether they would have had angled fight decks. The book did not mention the Type 984 radar, Comprehensive Display System or Direct Plot Transmission, but if built they would probably have had all three.

35,000 ton carrier

47 aircraft (21 in a permanent deck park and 26 in the hangar) as follows:

12 Scimitars
12 Sea Vixens (or Scimitars)
9 Buccaneers (or additional Gannets)
8 Gannets (or additional Buccaneers)
4 AEW
2 plane guard helicopters

Armament would be four twin 3in/70

Three shafts (48,000 shp each, which was 3,000 shp more per shaft than CVA.01) would drive the ship at 29.9 knots, deep and dirty, and endurance would be about 5,000nm at 20 knots.

28,000 ton carrier

38 aircraft (18 in a permanent deck park and 20 in the hangar) as follows:

12 Scimitars
12 Sea Vixens
4 AEW aircraft
2 helicopters
8 Gannets and Buccaneers

Armament was limited to twin 40mm guns.

Two shafts (50,000 shp each) would drive the ship at 28.4 knots, deep and dirty, and endurance would be 5,500 nm at 20 knots.
 
Could the Royal Navy be interested by such carrier in the late 50 's ?
Is it a match for CVA-01 requirements ?
And what aircrafts on the flight deck ?
It's definitely the kind of ship the Royal Navy wanted. However, it's French, so no chance getting them to order a couple. What it might do is inspire some sort of 'keeping up with the Joneses' effect.
1) The RN was interested in such a ship IOTL because it did a series of studies into trade protection aircraft carriers displacing between 28,000 and 35,000 tons between the demise of the 1952 Carrier and the start of CVA.01 in 1960.
2) No it didn't because it was limited to Sea Vixen and Buccaneer type aircraft.
3) Don't remember and I haven't looked at my copies of Brown and Friedman yet.
PA58 wouldn't be limited to that kind of air wing - expected aircraft were a naval derivative of the Mirage IV. If you can handle that, Phantoms aren't a problem. Were not far off the 1952 Fleet Carrier in size here.
 
PA58 wouldn't be limited to that kind of air wing - expected aircraft were a naval derivative of the Mirage IV. If you can handle that, Phantoms aren't a problem. Were not far off the 1952 Fleet Carrier in size here.
Is that dimensions or displacement? PA 58 was 35,000 tons and the 1952 Carrier was 53,000 tons.


I agree that PA58 might have been able to operate Phantom class aircraft, because after I got up this morning I read the Conway's entry on PA58. According to them PA58 was to have had a pair of 75m (or about 225ft) steam catapults, which were longer than the 199ft units fitted to Ark Royal when she was "Phantomised." However, I'm not convinced that PA58 would have met the CVA.01 specification in terms of the size of the air group and the maximum size of aircraft, that is weight and dimensions.

CVA.01 would have been capable of operating Tomcats which according to my source (Salamander's Modern Naval Aviation, John Jordan, 1984) had a maximum weight of 33.7 metric tons. CVA.01s hangar was 80 feet wide, which could take two Tomcats abreast (it's swept wingspan was 38 feet). However, as Clemenceau's hangar was 72-78 feet wide, PA58, which had 9 feet more beam, might have had a hangar might have been wide enough for 2 Tomcats abreast too.

According to Conway's the Mrage IVM of 1958 had a length of 19 metres, a wing-span of 12 metres and a take-off weight of 20 metric tons. However, as built the Mirage IVA had length 23.49m, a wing span of 11.85m and a loaded weight of 31.6 metric tons - over 50% heavier than the aircraft projected in 1958. By contrast Buccaneer was 19.33 m x 13.41 m with a maximum weight of 28.123 metric tons. The F-4S was 17.76 m x 11.7 m, with a maximum weight of 26.308 metric tons.

As an aside I doubt that Mirage IVM would have entered service with the Aeronavale had PA58 been built because I suspect that its landing speed would have been too high. I also suspect that the landing speed of the proposed Mirage IIIM was too high for Clemeceau and Foch, which led to American Crusaders being purchased instead and the development of the Mirage G.
 
Last edited:
Some more information about the 35,000 ton aircraft carrier proposed in 1954, which comes from Rebuilding the Royal Navy by D. K. Brown and George Moore.

The specification of the ship, was nearly the same as outlined by Friedman, the only difference was that she had 45,000 ship on each of her 3 shafts, instead of 48,000. The ship would have had an angled flight deck (the angle wasn't stated, but as this was 1954 it would have been fully angled like Victorious after she was rebuilt) and two steam catapults (their length wasn't stated, but probably the longest version of BS Mk 4). The crew would have consisted of 300 officers and 2,100 ratings, the same as Victorious after she was rebuilt.

By May 1954 the ship had been included in the £1,610 Million Plan, with the aim of producing Staff Requirements in the autumn of 1954, laying the ship down in August 1957, with completion in May 1962. A second ship was planned and the projected cost was £18 million per ship.

For comparison, Brown and Moore say the timetable for the 1952 Carrier in September 1952 was as follows:

01/09/1952 - Preliminary Studies complete.

01/12/1952 - Sketch Design to Board and commence Building Drawings and Specifications.

01/12/1953 - Building Drawings to the Board.

01/01/1954 - Order Ship.

01/05/1954 - Lay Down Ship.

01/07/1955 - Steel Deliveries complete.

Mid 1956 - Launch ex-Machinery or mid 1957 with Machinery.

31/12/1958 - Complete Ship.

That is exactly 4 years to build a ship displacing 53,000 tons from placing of order to completion and 44 months from laying down to completion. The 35,000 ton ship was projected to take 57 months to build from laying down to completion. At cancellation in July 1953 as part of what became the 1954 Defence Review (also known as the Radical Review) the projected cost was £26 million per ship and 2 ships were planned.

So at early 1950s prices three 35,000 ton carriers could have been built for the cost of two 1952 Carriers (£54 million vs £52 million). Aircraft compliments were lower though with 141 (3 x 47) vs 164 (2 x 82). I suspect that a pair of 1952 Carriers would have had a smaller combined crew than three 35,000 ton ships. But on 33% availability rates one 35,000 ton ship would have been available at all times.
 
It wasn't an inability to design carriers that lead to the cancellation of CVA01, it was political interference and a lack of political will. If the French built Verdun the British Government wouldn't say lets buy one of those from them, they'd say the French can afford and need carriers therefore we must be able to afford them and need them as well.
 
Is that dimensions or displacement? PA 58 was 35,000 tons and the 1952 Carrier was 53,000 tons.
Look at dimensions, not displacement. It's too easy to fiddle displacement for political reasons, and early weight estimates are notoriously inaccurate. I'd definitely expect a CVA-01 or 1952 Carrier sized air wing.
 

Archibald

Banned
Thank you all, trying to digest all this.

I'm better at aircrafts than ships. I wonder if Foch and Clemenceau could support Buccaneers - if Victorious or Hermes can, may be its a possibility. What is sure is that the Buccaneer was 200% better strike aircraft than Etendard IV !

I think the French would want the S2 variant with the Spey, and there things goes very interesting.

In 1959 SNECMA had an agreement with Pratt&Whitney to build J-75s under licence for a scaled up Mirage IV-A, the IV-B that was never build. Competing were the Gyron, Olympus and yes, the PS.13 Iroquois.
Later SNECMA used that agreement to build the TF-30 under licence for the VSTOL Mirage III-V.

But in 1959, SNECMA might as well turn toward Rolls and licence-build the Spey (just as Allison did with the TF-41)
Those engines would power French Buccaneers S2. A Bucc in Aeronanavale markings would look awesome.

The main issue is the fleet defense aircraft - the French went for the Crusader, the RN was much more ambitious (I'll try to check my Tony Butler books in the future)

To me the 1958 defence cuts seem to be the French equivalent to the British 1957 Defence Review. That is we can't afford to maintain a large and modern army in Europe supported by an equally large and modern tactical air force. Therefore we are going to disband most of both and maintain peace with the USSR through nuclear deterrence. The surviving conventional forces will be restructured to fight guerrilla wars in the third world, with the aim of stopping small wars escalating into the big one.

In addition to cancelling PA58 the French Government cancelled or cut back most of its aviation projects, exactly like Duncan Sandys did. However, the French project that was too far advanced to cancel was Mirage III.
Yes and no. No obsessions with SAMs as pilotless interceptors in France (AFAIK). Nothing as brutal as Sandys-storm - I mean that the Mirage III was never threatened, what was cut was a) Armée de l'Air Etendard IV low-level interceptors b) Leduc and Trident high altitude interceptors c) Vautours all weather interceptors. The Mirage III killed them all.
Most importantly, state-owned aircraft companies were told to focuse on anything but combat aircrafts - Dassault doing that job better, at lower cost.
De Gaulle did sacrifice a lot of things to pay for the Force de Frappe, but never shut down manned interceptors like Sandys did.
But the Armée de l'Air was certainly on the edge - stuck between NATO, Algeria and Force de Frappe. Damn it, they used 200-miles-per-hour T-6 Harvards as counter-insurgency aircrafts in Algeria while 1500-miles-per-hour prototype Mirages were flying.

I agree that PA58 might have been able to operate Phantom class aircraft, because after I got up this morning I read the Conway's entry on PA58. According to them PA58 was to have had a pair of 75m (or about 225ft) steam catapults, which were longer than the 199ft units fitted to Ark Royal when she was "Phantomised."
Interesting. The Clem's only had 50-m long catapults and were unable to handle Phantoms, just like Victorious, Hermes or Essex of similar sizes. Ok, the French Navy could rework Clemenceau and Foch into attack carriers (CVA), with only Buccaneer on the decks, leaving Phantoms for Verdun. But I don't think the French Navy could accept that - its a kind of USN luxury they can't afford (by the way, what air cover when Verdun is in refit ?)

As an aside I doubt that Mirage IVM would have entered service with the Aeronavale had PA58 been built because I suspect that its landing speed would have been too high. I also suspect that the landing speed of the proposed Mirage IIIM was too high for Clemeceau and Foch, which led to American Crusaders being purchased instead and the development of the Mirage G.
It was not the same Mirage IV - not the IVA that flew in 1959. To make a long story short, the Mirage IV was born in 1956 as the III bigger brother, and until 1959 it was a fast moving project.

2 ATAR 9 de 6000 kgp
Envergure : 11.75 m
Longueur: 19.35 m (16.30 m replié)
Hauteur: 5.30 m (5 m replié)
Surface alaire: 70 m2
Poids à vide équipé: 9.5 t
Poids maximum de catapultage: 16.5 t
Poids à l’appontage: de 9.7 à 10.5 t
Mach max: 2
Plafond: 20500 m
Temps de montée à 12000 m : 1’57
Not too far from a Rafale M, but of course without fly-by-wire (and canards)

The Mirage III delta wing was a major obstacle, but Dassault proposed a tailed delta variant, without much success. The Mirage G come a decade later, in 1968.

As for the Crusaders, the French Navy was unable to choose between manned interceptors and missile frigates. So the story goes that it went up, to De Gaulle himself in 1962. Not a sailor by any way, he turned toward the only sailor in his entourage - his son Philippe. Phillipe De Gaulle came with a solution: pay for 42 Crusaders by cancelling a missile frigate (the French navy wanted five of them, with MASURCA and Tartar SAMs).
 
Last edited:
Damn it, they used 200-miles-per-hour T-6 Harvards as counter-insurgency aircrafts in Algeria while 1500-miles-per-hour prototype Mirages were flying.

Which might not have been a bad decision, actually. Speed is more or less irrelevant for CAS platforms, precise weapon delivery and good loiter times are more important. And France can't afford to lose many Mirages doing that sort of work. T-6s, though? Much easier to replace if some idiot with an AK gets lucky.
 
It's definitely the kind of ship the Royal Navy wanted. However, it's French, so no chance getting them to order a couple. What it might do is inspire some sort of 'keeping up with the Joneses' effect.

As if the Treasury would care about what those frogs were doing.:rolleyes:;)
 
Look at dimensions, not displacement. It's too easy to fiddle displacement for political reasons, and early weight estimates are notoriously inaccurate. I'd definitely expect a CVA-01 or 1952 Carrier sized air wing.
I did a spreadsheet using Conway's as my main source. It was rather confusing because Conway's gave the perpendicular length for some ships and the waterline length for others and when I checked them against other sources like Jane's and Friedman the waterline length was often the same as the perpendicular length in Conway's.

Unfortunately it was a waste of effort, because when I copied and pasted in the information from the spreadsheet into the Reply to Thread the formatting was destroyed. See below...

Displacement Length Beam Machinery Speed Standard Full Load pp waterline overall waterline F. Deck Shafts SHP PH75 16,400 18,400 682 86 7/12 157 2 65,000 28.0 Victorious (1958) 30,530 35,500 740 740 781 103 6/12 157 3 110,000 31.0 Eagle (1951) 43,060 53,390 720 750 803 9/12 112 8/12 105 4 152,000 31.0 PAN 34,500 36,600 781 858 103 211 2 82,000 27.0 PA54 22,000 32,780 781 781 870 104 168 2 126,000 32.0 1952 Carrier 780 810 815 115 160 4 200,000 30.0 Essex SCB-27C 30,580 43,060 820 894 6/12 103 166 10/12 4 150,000 29.1 PA58 35,000 45,000 860 859 7/12 939 112 190 4 200,000 33.0 CVV 45,192 59,794 860 912 126 256 6/12 2 140,000 27.8 CVA01 53,000 63,000 890 925 122 184 3 135,000 28.0 Midway SCB-110 42,710 62,614 910 977 2/12 121 210 4 212,000 30.6 Kitty Hawk 60,005 80,945 990 1047 6/12 129 4/12 251 8/12 4 280,000 33.6
 
That would be a good idea if I knew how to convert and Excel 2003 spreadsheet into a digital image. Does anybody know how to do that or can tell me were to find instructions?
Try the 'Print screen' key on your keyboard then trim it down in Paint.
 
Try the 'Print screen' key on your keyboard then trim it down in Paint.
Alt + Print Screen grabs only the active window. Run Paint or similar and you can paste the screenshot in and trim it down, add highlighting et cetera.
 
Not if you're the one sat in the bottom of a drainage ditch listening to the rounds bouncing around you screaming into a radio handset asking where your fast air is...

Yes, that's a fair point. I was thinking of things like the A-1, OV-10, and later on the A-10 - not fast-movers by any stretch of the imagination, but with a very good reputation for CAS capability.
 
Yes, that's a fair point. I was thinking of things like the A-1, OV-10, and later on the A-10 - not fast-movers by any stretch of the imagination, but with a very good reputation for CAS capability.

Only until modern anti air systems came into use, making all of them death traps against a modern opponent.

Even the A-10 has barely been used in any opposed airspace in the last twenty years.
 
Top