Post WWII RN - Centaur and Malta class carriers.

[Cryhavoc101]

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.

I appreciate that its a 1946 POD but that POD won't work. Basically no British capital ship or Aircraft Carriers were laid down post WW2 until HMS Invincible was laid down in 1973 and arguably not even then so unless our Large Audacious / Maltas are laid down by mid 43 and effectively built and launched before VJ day then I don't see them being completed at all.

The idea that they could build something better when they have so many hulls left many of which are virtually unused is not happening and by the time all the post war carrier technology starts to align some time in the late 50s requiring larger hulls - this being the 50s/60s - well Britain no longer has the money or at the very least is not willing to spend it - on aircraft carriers.

So the pod has to go back to be early enough to get the powers that be actually want them and actually build them before the end of the war.

So in my example 2 Carriers are commissioned and 2 are launched but fitting out on VJ day.

The 2 in commission go on to serve into the early 60s while the other 2 are halted and then partially rebuilt in the late 50s to take advantage of the new technology's the first are 2 now replaced by the 2nd 2 and these in turn are rebuilt during the late 60s (basically phantomised) and these serve on till.....well whenever but they in turn replace the 2nd pair by the early 70s.

 

[Anderman]

Good points but OTL Audacious-class ships were finished in the 1950s. So two Maltas finished after 1945 should be possible.

 

[Archibald]

Really, I'm not particularly interested in 1946 POD, maybe I should changhe the OP.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Good points but OTL Audacious-class ships were finished in the 1950s. So two Maltas finished after 1945 should be possible.

Yes they were 'finished' in the 50s but they were laid down during the war - no Capital ships of any type was laid down in the UK after the war until HMS Invincible in 1973 and arguably she and her 2 sisters do not count so actually 2009 with HMS QE.

For example 4 Audacious were laid down in 43 and 44 - with work on the 2 most complete suspended and the 2nd pair cancelled after VJ day - with the first 2 being slowly completed during the 50s

So OTL shows us that Britain did not lay down the 1952 class or the CVA-01 it relied on WW2 built ships right up till 1979

So realistically (as realistically as we can get anyway) unless the Malta's are laid down and most likely launched by VJ day (or at the very least 'mostly built') then its unlikely that they would ever see service. A POD of 1946 = No Malta Class.

 

[Shadow Master]

How about...

The British decide, in 1946, to pass a series of naval laws that establish the strength goals for a post war RN, and that EVERY capitol-ship that was built before the end of WWII must be sold/scrapped, or retained permanently, and by no later than 1950, both to save money otherwise going to be spent operating/overhauling, older ships and to ensure that the much downsized RN at least be comprised of brand new ships?

For BB, the KGV would thus either have to be scrapped and replaced by new (and last) RN BB class, by 1950, or else no new BB would be built. But this would be something to discuss in another thread, I think.

For the carriers, I would think that the UK would see the need to be building new carriers, and if they set down what kind of carrier strength, in numbers and type, that they want to comprise the post war RN carrier force, and commit to either retaining permanently (say for 20 years, so next chance to replace comes in 1970), or replacing NOW (by 1950), any and all carriers built before the end of WWII.

This would be quite a watershed, in terms of total force reduction and cost savings, and perhaps gives a way forward?

Say that all pre-war ships are to be scrapped, by 1950, and all wartime ships are to be replaced by a much smaller, but brand new force of carriers, some of which will be larger than anything the RN built to date, as well as some 'secondary' carrier class(es).

Any thoughts?

 

[jsb]

The British decide, in 1946, to pass a series of naval laws that establish the strength goals for a post war RN

Apart from the unBritishness of fixed laws like that, I think you are underestimating how out of cash 1946 Britain was remember that rationing was still in force so any suggestion about building capital ships would be looked at very badly when the RN was already by far the second more powerful navy in the world and allied to the first.....
Historically the RN got by on mostly WWII ships in all classes well into the 60s anything else will cost a lot more.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Apart from the unBritishness of fixed laws like that, I think you are underestimating how out of cash 1946 Britain was remember that rationing was still in force so any suggestion about building capital ships would be looked at very badly when the RN was already by far the second more powerful navy in the world and allied to the first.....
Historically the RN got by on mostly WWII ships in all classes well into the 60s anything else will cost a lot more.

Yes this and by the time we get to that period Britain had several large NATO commitments post the 60s that pushed replacement fleet carriers down to the 'it would be nice to have' list

ASW in the North Atlantic and standing up a credible land army and Air Force with which to oppose the Warsaw pact in Central Europe and the Northern flank along with the nuclear deterrence took priority and pretty much every scrap of the Military budget.

It was only after the effects of the 'peace dividend' had been realised throughout the 90s and the massive reduction in both the BOAR and Germany based Large airforce and the bureaucracy (which at one point involved more people than troops in BOAR) supporting it had been completed that Britain could look at that 'it would be nice to have list' and allocate monies to a fleet CV project.

 

[Shadow Master]

Snip

Snip

You guys might be right, but lets at least look at what they would be saving in terms of old ships no longer on the books, as it were. Just how much were all the ships I was talking about getting rid of costing the UK to keep in service/reserve? Wouldn't the cost savings of getting rid of all the pre-war ships, let alone doing refits on some of them, more than pay for the construction of the new ships?

I don't have any personal interest in digging this kind of information up, but from following this thread, I would have thought that there are those hear that would.

Just saying.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Apart from the unBritishness of fixed laws like that, I think you are underestimating how out of cash 1946 Britain was remember that rationing was still in force so any suggestion about building capital ships would be looked at very badly when the RN was already by far the second more powerful navy in the world and allied to the first.....
Historically the RN got by on mostly WWII ships in all classes well into the 60s anything else will cost a lot more.

Rationing not only continued but got worse once the war ended. Bread was added to the ration solely because the country lacked the money to buy all the wheat that would have been needed otherwise. Think about that for a moment, because I know I had to when I learned that. This was Britain, a country that owned a quarter of the world, and it couldn't afford to import enough food to match what it had while under blockade with ships being sunk almost faster than they could be built.

 

[Shadow Master]

Rationing not only continued but got worse once the war ended. Bread was added to the ration solely because the country lacked the money to buy all the wheat that would have been needed otherwise. Think about that for a moment, because I know I had to when I learned that. This was Britain, a country that owned a quarter of the world, and it couldn't afford to import enough food to match what it had while under blockade with ships being sunk almost faster than they could be built.

I get that, I really do.

Now tell me again, how many of the old, worn out carriers did they choose to retain in service/reserve, while still rationing their populations food?

I don't think it was so much a matter of that they were broke and were going to BE broke for some time, but that they failed to downsize their navy as drastically as they should have, as quickly as they should have, even while knowing that they couldn't afford anywhere near as large a navy as they had had before WWII. Had they gotten rid of all the old carriers, right off the bat, they would have saved quite a bit, would they not?

So I don't buy that they were so broke that they couldn't afford to build new carriers, but rather that they couldn't afford to build new carriers while retaining all the old ones. Maybe it is just that I don't know what cut backs they historically made in OTL, and how many old carriers were retained, but they had to be paying a pretty penny for all the old ships retained in OTL, and all I am saying is, could we get some numbers for what would have been saved from scrapping the lot, and building a much smaller number of brand new, bigger, better (and perhaps, more efficient and cost saving) new construction?

 

[Shadow Master]

I'll be back after my PT appointment, gotta finally start getting my right shoulder working properly again, so be back in a few hours, and thanks for any information I may learn upon my return, and thanks to the board members that take the time to educate me.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I get that, I really do.

Now tell me again, how many of the old, worn out carriers did they choose to retain in service/reserve, while still rationing their populations food?

I don't think it was so much a matter of that they were broke and were going to BE broke for some time, but that they failed to downsize their navy as drastically as they should have, as quickly as they should have, even while knowing that they couldn't afford anywhere near as large a navy as they had had before WWII. Had they gotten rid of all the old carriers, right off the bat, they would have saved quite a bit, would they not?

So I don't buy that they were so broke that they couldn't afford to build new carriers, but rather that they couldn't afford to build new carriers while retaining all the old ones. Maybe it is just that I don't know what cut backs they historically made in OTL, and how many old carriers were retained, but they had to be paying a pretty penny for all the old ships retained in OTL, and all I am saying is, could we get some numbers for what would have been saved from scrapping the lot, and building a much smaller number of brand new, bigger, better (and perhaps, more efficient and cost saving) new construction?

Like it or not up till the end of the Cold War Britain had to have a large navy and during the retreat from empire it needed a huge navy in comparison to all but the USN. Looking back yes the Armoured Carriers should have gone to the Breakers almost immediately and efforts should have been concentrated on completing the Audacious class ships, but throughout the 40's and 50's Britain was running around trying to put out the brushfires that kept breaking out without the resources to do the job and also take stock of future needs. They did what appeared at the time to be the right thing.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I get that, I really do.

Now tell me again, how many of the old, worn out carriers did they choose to retain in service/reserve, while still rationing their populations food?

I don't think it was so much a matter of that they were broke and were going to BE broke for some time, but that they failed to downsize their navy as drastically as they should have, as quickly as they should have, even while knowing that they couldn't afford anywhere near as large a navy as they had had before WWII. Had they gotten rid of all the old carriers, right off the bat, they would have saved quite a bit, would they not?

So I don't buy that they were so broke that they couldn't afford to build new carriers, but rather that they couldn't afford to build new carriers while retaining all the old ones. Maybe it is just that I don't know what cut backs they historically made in OTL, and how many old carriers were retained, but they had to be paying a pretty penny for all the old ships retained in OTL, and all I am saying is, could we get some numbers for what would have been saved from scrapping the lot, and building a much smaller number of brand new, bigger, better (and perhaps, more efficient and cost saving) new construction?

WW2 might have ended over night but the issues and fallout from WW2 did not end so quickly - in fact some of the issues still exist unresolved to this day

In Winter of 1945 the only navy more powerful than the RN was the USN and the next most powerful? The RCN! Seriously the RCN - Canada's mighty navy was 3rd! So the need for

So yes maybe with the benefit of amazing hindsight it would have made sense to scrap the Prewar treaty ships and massively downsize the Navy right away and finish the 4 Audacious and 4 Centaurs (perhaps keeping Unicorn?) making them the only 8 carriers and getting shot of all the others even though most are less than 5 years old! And therein lies the problem. Many of those in commission carriers were good enough in 1945

Give/sell the Light fleets to the close allies NL, Oz, Canada, France etc anything not likely to be brought into service by anyone gets scrapped or placed in 'ordinary'

Indeed Britain and the Commonwealth fought the Korean Campaign with a single Light fleet carrier (several served) at any given point and HMS Unicorn

Suez was fought using 1 Audacious, 2 Centaurs and 2 Light fleets (Both Colossus class used as Commando Carriers) - which was probably the largest deployment post war

I'll be back after my PT appointment, gotta finally start getting my right shoulder working properly again, so be back in a few hours, and thanks for any information I may learn upon my return, and thanks to the board members that take the time to educate me.

Shoulders suck good luck with that - From personal experience try to get a scan ASAP and if necessary have that Quarterzone injection as early as possible (disclaimer: I am not a Doctor or any sort of medical professional so should probably be ignored)

 

[jsb]

Now tell me again, how many of the old, worn out carriers did they choose to retain in service/reserve, while still rationing their populations food?

I don't think it was so much a matter of that they were broke and were going to BE broke for some time, but that they failed to downsize their navy as drastically as they should have, as quickly as they should have, even while knowing that they couldn't afford anywhere near as large a navy as they had had before WWII. Had they gotten rid of all the old carriers, right off the bat, they would have saved quite a bit, would they not?

How much does it really cost to keep old ships in reserve? When reserve means doing nothing to look after them and manning them with a handful of very cheap conscripts.

I would be very surprised if they spent much on simply keeping ships, would scraping them actually pay for a significant percentage of a new build? I agree the rebuilds wasted a tone of cash but that's mostly later in the 50s isn't it? The other point is that even near scrap old ships are better than nothing just look at the R class in the first half of WWII, I would bet that the RN would have liked to have the scraped old 13.5" ships back even if they had nothing done to keep them up-to-date in 39. From that point of view the old CVs provide a cheap backup in case USSR starts something.....

 

[Archibald]

Somebody should make a thread were the RN battlefleet pulls a USN. That is, they keep most of their old battleships launched from 1910 (I mean, as old as USS Wyoming). Which mean the RN keep all the 13.5 battleships all the way from the Orion-class (three classes of four ships, that's twelve)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion-class_battleship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming-class_battleship
Why and how did the USN kept all these old ships while the RN scrapped theirs ?

 

[jsb]

Why and how did the USN kept all these old ships while the RN scrapped theirs ?

The RN was far bigger in numbers of existing ships at the end of WWI, come WNT/LNT they had to be cut down to equal size so the RN lost more old completed ships.

From navweps,
Maine (20), Missouri (20), Virginia (17), Nebraska (17), Georgia (17), New Jersey (17), Rhode Island (17), Connecticut (17), Louisiana (17), Vermont (16), Kansas (16), Minnesota (16), New Hampshire (15), South Carolina (13), Michigan (13)
v
Commonwealth (16), Agamemnon (13), Dreadnought (15), Bellerophon (12), St. Vincent (11), Inflexible (13), Superb (12), Neptune (10), Hercules (10), Indomitable (13), Temeraire (12), New Zealand (9), Lion (9), Princess Royal (9), Conquerer (9), Monarch (9), Orion (9), Australia (8), Agincourt (7), Erin (7)

Note how average age of RN ships scraped is much lower as they have already scraped most of the PDs in 1918/20.

This was balanced by scraping 11 US incomplete hulls from the C,SD&L classes.

Edit add,
this does not even add the 4x 13.5" ships scraped for N&R King George V (13), Ajax (12), Centurion (12), Thunderer (13) or the later scraping under LNT when the RN lost 2 extra ships as they both went to 15 ships from the RNs 20 v USN 18 at WNT.

So in total the RN scraped 15 ships younger than Michigan and then 9 more later v 3 USN by LNT.

This I think shows how bad a deal LNT was for RN, the ships where old and useless v USN (not that that was contemplated) but they would have been perfectly fine v any raiding CA/PB (or even RM 12.6") come WWII.

 

[Lost Freeway]

Somebody should make a thread were the RN battlefleet pulls a USN. That is, they keep most of their old battleships launched from 1910 (I mean, as old as USS Wyoming). Which mean the RN keep all the 13.5 battleships all the way from the Orion-class (three classes of four ships, that's twelve)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion-class_battleship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming-class_battleship
Why and how did the USN kept all these old ships while the RN scrapped theirs ?

Because 13.5 inches was considered too small.

 

[Hood]

Because 13.5 inches was considered too small.

You could always reborn the gun

 

[jsb]

Because 13.5 inches was considered too small.

To small maybe to realistically fight Colorado's or later SD/No13/G3s etc, but with hindsight 13.5" isn't really to small to fight German 11", Italian 12.6" or French 330/340mm. I would even suggest that its not totally outclassed by IJN or USN 14"...

With total hindsight LNT gained GB very little and its collapse would not have done it much harm as nobody was likely to out build GB in the early 30s anyway.

 

[Some Bloke]

IIRC The Malta Class was about the size of the Midway class, which served until the very early 90s.

IOTL they were looking into replacements for the Audacious Class in the 60s. Perhaps here they'll simply choose to modernise both Maltas and defer the decision for a replacement until the 70s, entering service in the 80s.