PC/WI: "Stretched Invincible" instead of QE's for Royal Navy.

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
Inspired by the What if 3rd Audacious post.

What if instead of designing and building the two QE's for the Royal Navy, the UK govt instead build a "Stretched Invincible" class fitted out for CATOBAR service from the start.

Increasing the length from 677ft to 1,050ft and increasing the beam from 90ft to 139ft. An overall increase in dimensions of around 240%,

Add a 'sponson' overhang to allow a angled flight deck.

Add proper deck lifts instead of the earlier scissor type.

An all up displacement of around 53,000 tonnes.

An total complement of 62 aircraft without permanent deck park.

Would this be possible?

Would this design be better than the QE class?

Would there be enough power from Gas Turbines to power her or would Nuclear have to suffice?

If the ships were built and put into service, would there be any export potential in the design? and if so which countries would be interested?

Regards filers
 

SsgtC

Banned
You basically just described a ship somewhere between a Forrestal-class and a Nimitz-class. A Nimitz is 1,092' LOA, 1,040' LWL and 134' beam at the waterline. Add in the sponson for the angled deck and she's 252' beam. Approx 90 aircraft with a permanent deck park, 75 or so without. 100,000 tons.

A Forrestal-class is 1,070' LOA, 990' LWL, 129' beam at the waterline, 252' at the flight deck, 60,000 tons, carries about 60-75 aircraft without a deck park, 80-90 with one.

Your proposed ship would be somewhere between them. Probably very close to the Kitty Hawk's 80,000 tons. And yes, it would be far more capable than the QEs. Though I wouldn't exactly call it a stretch of the Invincible. This would be an entirely new design.

Oh, and export potential would be practically nil. MAYBE France if it's Nuclear powered. India might be interested, but not at the 4-6 billion each they'd cost at a minimum.
 

Archibald

Banned
The Invicibles are too small for decent catapults and arrestors, at 20 000 tons or so you need to enlarge them way past 30 000 tons so it would essentially be a new ship. A workaround would be to develop a supersonic Harrier, perhaps the P.1216

hawkerP.1216_03.jpg
 
The Invicibles are too small for decent catapults and arrestors, at 20 000 tons or so you need to enlarge them way past 30 000 tons so it would essentially be a new ship. A workaround would be to develop a supersonic Harrier, perhaps the P.1216

hawkerP.1216_03.jpg

I don't know WHAT the hell that is, but a Harrier it ain't. It looks like something from 'Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons'.
 

Archibald

Banned
My bad phrasing. Should have said a supersonic Harrier successor. The P.1216 was a project from 1983, essentially Bae reworking the P.1154 to solve the design many flaws. One of the many P.1154 issues was that the rear fuselage suffered a lot from the engine blast, power, reheat (PCBs) and vibrations. Twin booms allowed a for a single, central nozzle and the aft fuselage(s) suffered far less.

https://www.google.fr/search?q="Haw...=cr&ei=TQhaWdakBenU8getrIy4Cg#q="Bae""P.1216"
 
How is such a 'design' better than QEII which was designed to be what Britain can afford, can run, and man, can refit with existing infrastructure?
 
Invincible were a fairly poor design as carrier because of the need to pretend they weren't carriers to get them built.

The new design probably costs just as much as a QE but produces a less efficient ship.

There's no way the RN are getting nuclear carriers. We can't afford the engineers and nuclear watchkeepers, among other issues.
 
It's almost as if the exercise was in building neat bits of kit that looked really cool and impressed everyone, without actually thinking through what the strategic needs of the country were, what resources it had available, what commitments it already had, what it needed to fulfil those commitments, and how much they had to spend.
 
Invincible were a fairly poor design as carrier because of the need to pretend they weren't carriers to get them built.

The new design probably costs just as much as a QE but produces a less efficient ship.

There's no way the RN are getting nuclear carriers. We can't afford the engineers and nuclear watchkeepers, among other issues.

We're getting the same bullshit about our future subs from an ousted PM - now backbencher. He says it was wrong not to consider nuke subs, but we lack a nuclear industry and only have 1 research reactor for medical isotopes and other research stuff. If we had a power reactor, some enrichment and disposal capabilities we might be able to run nuke subs, but we don't, so we can't. He should shut his stupid mouth.
 
We're getting the same bullshit about our future subs from an ousted PM - now backbencher. He says it was wrong not to consider nuke subs, but we lack a nuclear industry and only have 1 research reactor for medical isotopes and other research stuff. If we had a power reactor, some enrichment and disposal capabilities we might be able to run nuke subs, but we don't, so we can't. He should shut his stupid mouth.

The RN apparently struggles very badly in keeping personnel out of the clutches of the UK nuclear industry.

Apparently spending six months of your life living fifteen feet from a nuclear reactor in a submerged metal tube with 55 other men just isn't as much fun as being paid more to live in a big house with your family and drive into Sellafield every day.

Who knew?
 

Archibald

Banned
Nuclear attack subs are costly, that's a matter of fact. France is currently in the process of replacing the Rubis fleet by Barracudas, and it cost French taxpayers an arm and a leg and a solid pair of testicles. And SLBM are far worse. I'm not even sure France 58 nuclear civilian reactors drive the cost of nuclear subs down. Not by a iota.
 
Nuclear attack subs are costly, that's a matter of fact. France is currently in the process of replacing the Rubis fleet by Barracudas, and it cost French taxpayers an arm and a leg and a solid pair of testicles. And SLBM are far worse. I'm not even sure France 58 nuclear civilian reactors drive the cost of nuclear subs down. Not by a iota.

France's comprehensive nuclear industry makes their nuclear navy possible. The Frech use advanced LEU (7% for subs 10% for CdG) fuel technology, curved 'caramel' plates that make good use of low enriched fuel. This development would not be possible without the extensive nuclear industry and LEU fuel is inherently cheaper than HEU used ny the USN/RN.
 
Top