Post WWII RN - Centaur and Malta class carriers.

[KillerT]

For an idea, the Jaguar M was developed same time as the A, B, Etc, yet the French cancelled it, in place of the Super Etendard. Yes it had issues but pretty sure they could've been resolved. Now stick a Blue Fox radar on the nose and you've got quite a capable light strike fighter, everything in one pit that can be easily accommodated on a Centaur class.
Next develop the P139B and go for it big time with one AEW version, a tanker transporter, a trainer and a mini Nimrod variant (with searchwater, a MAD, sonar buoys, Loral, etc) so Centaur class airgroup c1978 could be 12 Sea Jag FRS1, 9 P139 Patrol, 3 P139 AEW, and one COD plus of course 6 Sea Kings.
Your Malta class would probably keep the big boys and therefore up to 24 Phantoms, similar number of Bucaneers, plus assorted support aircraft. Plus one rather peed off RAF.

Whoops sorry, please continue.

 

[Anderman]

As the title says. The year is 1946. The Royal navy decides to scrap Tigers, Vanguard, and the collection of small and medium size carriers from WWII - by 1950. Or to sell them to foreign countries. There will be no Audacious-class either.

If you don´t build the Audacious-class or the Malta-class during the war a clean sheet approach like the 1952 carrier design would be better. The reason that the Malta-class comes up from timt to time is that they would be build and payed during the war and out of the war budget. So they will not be cancelled because of the after war budget crunch.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?101481-1952-aircraft-carrier

 

[Archibald]

The reason that the Malta-class comes up from timt to time is that they would be build and payed during the war and out of the war budget. So they will not be cancelled because of the after war budget crunch.

You nailed it perfectly. I do know that post 1945 British defense budget was hopeless, as was the economy burdened by two World War loans of military hardware (is it true Great Britain paid lend-lease debt until 2006 ? realy ?)

that's the reason why I consider that it's "pay the best carrier on war budget - or bust"

(An alternate scenario would be no Malta and better management of the two Audacious, but that's for another thread. The fact the government scrapped the perfectly good Eagle upgrade in favor of the worn out Ark Royal just to end RN carrier fleet 10 years later once and for all, is sickening.

I didn't realize there was two more Audacious - I should have another thread about that)
HMS Eagle
Ordered from Swan Hunter, Wallsend-on-Tyne in August 1942. Transferred to Vickers-Armstrong in December that year. Laid down 19 April 1944, cancelled January 1946 when 23% complete.

HMS Africa
Ordered from Fairfield, Govan on 12 July 1943. Re-ordered as Malta class in 1944. Cancelled 15 October 1945 )

 

[Cryhavoc101]

How about Britain hedges its bets against the expected 4-6 Germans and Italian Fast Battleships that are planning to be built earlier and simply orders a 6th KGV in 1937 instead of ordering Vanguard as a 'fast to build ship due to the Lions not being ready till 1943!) and this is already laid down and building at the start of the war (along with her 5 sisters) so is not halted etc or suffer delays from wartime commitments.

Then the Lions are slightly delayed by this and the first 2 units are not laid down before Sept 1939 and subsequently cancelled thus freeing up 2 slips and resources OTL clogged up by Lion and this along with the lack of Vanguard freeing up another slip and resources means that there are fewer delays to the Implacable class carriers and these get finished earlier as a result.

Following on from the Success of Op Judgement when HMS Ark Royal, HMS Illustrious and HMS Eagle launch a combined 2 wave 60 plane strike on the Italian fleet absolutely gutting it in late Oct 1940 the DNC started looking at an even larger armoured carrier capable of launching such a strike on its own. Further successes and combat experience as well as feedback from the US in its mass carrier battles in the pacific showing up the fortes and foibles of various carrier designs during 41 and 42 result in several designs increasing in size until the 'final' 47 kton (Standard Displacement) Malta design is agreed upon in late 42.

Churchill encouraged by the success of British and US carriers gives the design priority and 2 are laid down in late 42 and 2 more in early 43.

1 Ship (HMS Malta*) is fully worked up and halfway to the Pacific and a second unit (HMS Gibraltar*) is working up in the Caribbean when japan surrenders in Mid 45 after an Atom bomb is detonated over the City of Kokura and work is halted on the 3rd (HMS Africa*) and 4th units (HMS New Zealand*) who are both fitting out.

*Other names are available

 

[jsb]

How about Britain hedges its bets against the expected 4-6 Germans and Italian Fast Battleships that are planning to be built earlier and simply orders a 6th KGV in 1937 instead of ordering Vanguard as a 'fast to build ship due to the Lions not being ready till 1943!) and this is already laid down and building at the start of the war (along with her 5 sisters) so is not halted etc or suffer delays from wartime commitments.

Then the Lions are slightly delayed by this and the first 2 units are not laid down before Sept 1939 and subsequently cancelled thus freeing up 2 slips and resources OTL clogged up by Lion and this along with the lack of Vanguard freeing up another slip and resources means that there are fewer delays to the Implacable class carriers and these get finished earlier as a result.

I don't think they could build another set of gun mounts for the ship that's why they planned the OTL lay down schedule 3/2/2/2 ? With vanguard bumping it up to 3 in a later year as its guns are extra available.

Following on from the Success of Op Judgement when HMS Ark Royal, HMS Illustrious and HMS Eagle launch a combined 2 wave 60 plane strike on the Italian fleet absolutely gutting it in late Oct 1940 the DNC started looking at an even larger armoured carrier capable of launching such a strike on its own. Further successes and combat experience as well as feedback from the US in its mass carrier battles in the pacific showing up the fortes and foibles of various carrier designs during 41 and 42 result in several designs increasing in size until the 'final' 47 kton (Standard Displacement) Malta design is agreed upon in late 42.

Churchill encouraged by the success of British and US carriers gives the design priority and 2 are laid down in late 42 and 2 more in early 43.

I think this would work with,

Lions and Vanguard cancelled after Judgement the RN would get at least one more CV built if not more, so they get 3 Audacious class. This might stop any earlier rebuilds so saving more cash leading to a force of 3 Audacious CVs running about for most of the cold war?

 

[Archibald]

How about Britain hedges its bets against the expected 4-6 Germans and Italian Fast Battleships that are planning to be built earlier and simply orders a 6th KGV in 1937 instead of ordering Vanguard as a 'fast to build ship due to the Lions not being ready till 1943!) and this is already laid down and building at the start of the war (along with her 5 sisters) so is not halted etc or suffer delays from wartime commitments.

Then the Lions are slightly delayed by this and the first 2 units are not laid down before Sept 1939 and subsequently cancelled thus freeing up 2 slips and resources OTL clogged up by Lion and this along with the lack of Vanguard freeing up another slip and resources means that there are fewer delays to the Implacable class carriers and these get finished earlier as a result.

Following on from the Success of Op Judgement when HMS Ark Royal, HMS Illustrious and HMS Eagle launch a combined 2 wave 60 plane strike on the Italian fleet absolutely gutting it in late Oct 1940 the DNC started looking at an even larger armoured carrier capable of launching such a strike on its own. Further successes and combat experience as well as feedback from the US in its mass carrier battles in the pacific showing up the fortes and foibles of various carrier designs during 41 and 42 result in several designs increasing in size until the 'final' 47 kton (Standard Displacement) Malta design is agreed upon in late 42.

Churchill encouraged by the success of British and US carriers gives the design priority and 2 are laid down in late 42 and 2 more in early 43.

1 Ship (HMS Malta*) is fully worked up and halfway to the Pacific and a second unit (HMS Gibraltar*) is working up in the Caribbean when japan surrenders in Mid 45 after an Atom bomb is detonated over the City of Kokura and work is halted on the 3rd (HMS Africa*) and 4th units (HMS New Zealand*) who are both fitting out.

*Other names are available

I like this scenario

 

[Archibald]

I don't think they could build another set of gun mounts for the ship that's why they planned the OTL lay down schedule 3/2/2/2 ? With vanguard bumping it up to 3 in a later year as its guns are extra available.


I think this would work with,

Lions and Vanguard cancelled after Judgement the RN would get at least one more CV built if not more, so they get 3 Audacious class. This might stop any earlier rebuilds so saving more cash leading to a force of 3 Audacious CVs running about for most of the cold war?

I have made another thread about the third Audacious.

 

[Lost Freeway]

How about Britain hedges its bets against the expected 4-6 Germans and Italian Fast Battleships that are planning to be built earlier and simply orders a 6th KGV in 1937 instead of ordering Vanguard as a 'fast to build ship due to the Lions not being ready till 1943!) and this is already laid down and building at the start of the war (along with her 5 sisters) so is not halted etc or suffer delays from wartime commitments.

Then the Lions are slightly delayed by this and the first 2 units are not laid down before Sept 1939 and subsequently cancelled thus freeing up 2 slips and resources OTL clogged up by Lion and this along with the lack of Vanguard freeing up another slip and resources means that there are fewer delays to the Implacable class carriers and these get finished earlier as a result.

Following on from the Success of Op Judgement when HMS Ark Royal, HMS Illustrious and HMS Eagle launch a combined 2 wave 60 plane strike on the Italian fleet absolutely gutting it in late Oct 1940 the DNC started looking at an even larger armoured carrier capable of launching such a strike on its own. Further successes and combat experience as well as feedback from the US in its mass carrier battles in the pacific showing up the fortes and foibles of various carrier designs during 41 and 42 result in several designs increasing in size until the 'final' 47 kton (Standard Displacement) Malta design is agreed upon in late 42.

Churchill encouraged by the success of British and US carriers gives the design priority and 2 are laid down in late 42 and 2 more in early 43.

1 Ship (HMS Malta*) is fully worked up and halfway to the Pacific and a second unit (HMS Gibraltar*) is working up in the Caribbean when japan surrenders in Mid 45 after an Atom bomb is detonated over the City of Kokura and work is halted on the 3rd (HMS Africa*) and 4th units (HMS New Zealand*) who are both fitting out.

*Other names are available

ASB: Too much common sense.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I don't think they could build another set of gun mounts for the ship that's why they planned the OTL lay down schedule 3/2/2/2 ? With vanguard bumping it up to 3 in a later year as its guns are extra available.


I think this would work with,

Lions and Vanguard cancelled after Judgement the RN would get at least one more CV built if not more, so they get 3 Audacious class. This might stop any earlier rebuilds so saving more cash leading to a force of 3 Audacious CVs running about for most of the cold war?

What I envisaged was a 6th KGV laid down say HMS Jellicoe in mid 1937 Launched in late 1940 and commissioned by late 42 - the 'available guns' for Vanguard is not entirely accurate as they had to be rebuilt anyway to allow the guns greater elevation etc (and even then they retained the original Powder room at the top, Shell room at the bottom in the Pre Jutland layout which I am not at all satisfied with - given Renown and the 3 rebuilt QEs all had theirs reversed) - so might as well go the whole hog and build a 6th KGV instead and new turrets.

My idea is that the Audacious design is 'morphed' into a larger 'Malta' Design and this larger design is laid down instead of the Audacious (it may still be called Audacious ITTL but the actual design is OTL Malta)

So for completeness these Larger 'Malta' Audacious ships replace the OTL Audacious and the Audacious CVs as we understand them are never laid down.

So the 4 Larger 'Malta' Audacious ships - 2 are effectively commissioned and 2 are not finished but instead taken in hand during the 50s and semi rebuilt (probably at several times the expected cost) with Angled decks etc and by the late 50s these both replace the older ships which are then taken in hand and completely modernised in the 60s and by the 70s they in turn replace the 2nd pair and are handling a fairly decent Air group with Phantom and Buccaneer etc

I need to think about the other 6 smaller ships the OP asked for (Starts chomping on a piece of Welsh coal)

 

[Archibald]

Forget about the OP, I had the number of Centaur wrong. I'm fine with your scenario.

 

[jsb]

the 'available guns' for Vanguard is not entirely accurate as they had to be rebuilt anyway to allow the guns greater elevation etc (and even then they retained the original Powder room at the top, Shell room at the bottom in the Pre Jutland layout which I am not at all satisfied with - given Renown and the 3 rebuilt QEs all had theirs reversed) - so might as well go the whole hog and build a 6th KGV instead and new turrets.

Was that not the other way round regarding shells? I was under the impression that even if they needed work that it was possible to do it in older smaller gun pits unlike the quads needed for KVG so they could not make a 6th without delays (that they got anyway due to war). By the time she commissioned in late 42 I would rather have an Implacable-class...

 

[Ward]

MALTA fleet aircraft carriers

Malta

Name No Builder Laid down Launched Comp Fate
Malta John Brown, Clydebank --- --- --- cancelled 1/1946
Gibraltar Vickers-Armstrong, Tyne --- --- --- cancelled 10/1945
New Zealand Harland & Wolff, Belfast --- --- --- cancelled 1/1946
Africa Fairfield, Govan --- --- --- cancelled 10/1945


Displacement standard, t

46900

Displacement full, t

56800

Length, m

249.9 pp 279.3 oa

Breadth, m

35.4 wl 41.5 fd

Draught, m

10.5 deep load

No of shafts

4

Machinery

Parsons geared steam turbines, 8 Admiralty 3-drum boilers

Power, h. p.

200000

Max speed, kts

32.5

Fuel, t

about 7500 oil

Endurance, nm(kts) ?
Armour, mm

belt and bulkheads: 114 - 38, flight deck: 25

Armament

8 x 2 - 114/45 QF Mk V, 8 x 6 - 40/56 Bofors Mk X, 7 x 1 - 40/56 Bofors Mk III, 81 aircraft (Seafire, Firefly, Sea Hornet, Sea Fury fighters, Barracuda, Firebrand torpedo bombers)

Sensors

?

Complement 2780/3535
Aircraft facilities (fd - 10,251m², ha - 5,300m² / 28,090m³): Flight deck: 247x41.5m. Hangar was 5.3m in height and had useful area 5300m2. There were 2 centreline lifts (13.6t, 16.5x14m) and 2 deck edge lifts (13.6t, 17.1x10.7m). There were 2 catapults BH-V (13.6t plane was launched at 139km/h).

Ship project history: Malta and New Zealand were estimated for completion in 1950-1951. Ships would had open hangars, unprotected flight deck designed as superstructure.

Protection: There was an armoured hangar deck, magazines and steering gear had up to 152mm local protection. Underwater protection was a modification of previous designs, was 6.4m deep and can resist to explosion of 908kg TNT.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Was that not the other way round regarding shells? I was under the impression that even if they needed work that it was possible to do it in older smaller gun pits unlike the quads needed for KVG so they could not make a 6th without delays (that they got anyway due to war). By the time she commissioned in late 42 I would rather have an Implacable-class...

Well I wanted a reason to not lay down the 2 Lions and therefore not need the Vanguard when it was realised that the Lions 'would not be built in time' - thus saving all of those resources that the 3 would have absorbed - ie slips, long lead items such as machinary and guns etc - this in turn would go some way towards freeing up assets for the Implacables so they are more likely to be finished earlier and by extension the Large Audacious / Malta CVs can be laid down earlier and be more likely to be at least launched before the end of the war (which is the whole purpose of the exercise) and not cancelled on the slip way.

I'm not actually bothered if 'HMS Jellicoe' commissions in 42, 43 or 44 so long as the other 3 Battleships are not laid down and the resources ultimately squandered on them used elsewhere - and I too would rather see the Implacables in service much earlier!

As for the Shell / powder room arrangement - Pre-Jutland designs (including Hood) had the Shells at the bottom - Powder magazine above (just below the actual turret) - as plunging fire was not in scope when they were designed

Post Jutland designs leveraging learnings from the war and knowledge gleaned from German designs etc sought to move the powder magazine as far as possible from enemy shells and flash etc thus from the O3 NelRods the scheme was reversed - Powder room at the bottom (below the water line and less likely to be reached by plunging fire) with the shell room above.

This design scheme was implemented on the MK1'N' turrets rebuilt for HMS Warspite, Queen Elizabeth and Valiant as well as Renown during their Deep Refits in the late 30s and in the KGV design - however it was decided for expediency that this change would not be carried out for Vanguard's rebuilt turrets (or for that matter the last version of the planned 'Large Repair' for HMS Hood which obviously did not happen).

Another POD that would likely see this is an earlier increasing of LRMP aircraft (Such as LR Liberators) numbers in early 42 rather than waiting till the last moment in March 43.

This would decrease merchant losses and increase U-boat losses further lessening the impact on British shipbuilding and thus allowing more effort to be spent on big ticket items such as our Large Carriers and maybe even the smaller ones.

 

[jsb]

I'm not actually bothered if 'HMS Jellicoe' commissions in 42, 43 or 44 so long as the other 3 Battleships are not laid down and the resources ultimately squandered on them used elsewhere

I just think not building anything is far cheaper than trying to fit in a 6th KVG that would be delayed until USN entry anyway with hindsight.

This design scheme was implemented on the MK1'N' turrets rebuilt for HMS Warspite, Queen Elizabeth and Valiant as well as Renown during their Deep Refits in the late 30s and in the KGV design - however it was decided for expediency that this change would not be carried out for Vanguard's rebuilt turrets (or for that matter the last version of the planned 'Large Repair' for HMS Hood which obviously did not happen).

Did Vanguard not have transfer rooms so as to have powderer under the shells but without reworking the mounts, unlike the old ships that stayed the same as before? http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.php

is an earlier increasing of LRMP aircraft (Such as LR Liberators) numbers in early 42 rather than waiting till the last moment in March 43...This would decrease merchant losses and increase U-boat losses further lessening the impact on British shipbuilding and thus allowing more effort to be spent on big ticket items

If your going to be that sensible..... not sure anything can be done to stop you getting accused of a RN wank....

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I just think not building anything is far cheaper than trying to fit in a 6th KVG that would be delayed until USN entry anyway with hindsight.

Did Vanguard not have transfer rooms so as to have powderer under the shells but without reworking the mounts, unlike the old ships that stayed the same as before? http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.php

If your going to be that sensible..... not sure anything can be done to stop you getting accused of a RN wank....

Unfortunately we have to look at this from the point of view of being in 1936/37 - Britain had long term plans for 9 fast modern battleships - 5 KGV's and 6 Lion's as well as 4 (late 6) Armoured Carriers and 1 Aircraft repair ship (Unicorn upon which much angst was wasted for fear that it be perceived as a real Aircraft carrier and thus breaking the 2LNT) - they were building that many ships because of the ships built / being built by the other powers (4 German and 4 Italian as well as the Japanese ships) and the perception was that they had to have over match (if they included the 4 French ships being built)

So the idea of not building anything beyond the 5 KGVs is even more 'sensiblier' than my welsh coal powered plan - I don't see the powers that be accepting that.

Ref: Vanguards Turrets - your absolutely correct - I was not aware that they had done that - I love this site always learning something new - thanks

 

[Archibald]

Folks, this is no thread to discuss battleships (as much as I like them)

 

[Lost Freeway]

Folks, this is no thread to discuss battleships (as much as I like them)

Party-pooper.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Folks, this is no thread to discuss battleships (as much as I like them)

Its relevant because the Lion and Temeraire blocked slipways and Vanguard used up resources such as armour plate - delaying the Indomitable class carriers (who also required armour plate) which would further delay our Malta class - and we cannot abide that!

So by building a 6th KGV earlier there is less angst about not building the Lions and therefore no Vanguard

Ultimately the knock on effect is that with the Indomitable class being finished earlier the first of the Malta's Can be laid down earlier

 

[Archibald]

Party-pooper.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Its relevant because the Lion and Temeraire blocked slipways and Vanguard used up resources such as armour plate - delaying the Indomitable class carriers (who also required armour plate) which would further delay our Malta class - and we cannot abide that!

So by building a 6th KGV earlier there is less angst about not building the Lions and therefore no Vanguard

Ultimately the knock on effect is that with the Indomitable class being finished earlier the first of the Malta's Can be laid down earlier

But the thread starts in 1946 by which time Vanguard was already complete and the Lions long gone.

To get the Maltas built I think that the choice has to be made to skip the Audacious class altogether. They started off as improved Indefatigable class ships and were expanded when it became clear that the basic armoured carrier had reached its limit. So it would seam to make sense that rather than expand an existing but unsuitable design to start again from scratch and go straight to what we know as the Malta class. If that's done there are now at least three ships (and hopefully all 4) already laid down (instead of the Audacious) with the first (Otl Eagle) to be launched in 1946. You have to decide what to do with the other ships do you complete now, halt the work or break them up? My choice would be to complete all 4 and scrap all other carriers on the stocks that are more than a year away from being launched unless they are wanted by other Navies, so Australia, Canada and the Netherlands still get their first carriers. I would forget about the Centaur class altogether and instead look to build a larger class that would be the approximate size of the rebuilt Victorious (which wouldn't be). If any ships must be rebuilt I would chose the Indefatigable class as they are the newest ships and in the best condition.