RN carrier rebuilds?

That would only be an option if the three extra Admiral class were mostly incomplete. If they were mostly complete the RN is not going to throw away three of the four most powerful warships in the world.
The other three hulls, having been suspended in March 1917, we're not that advanced, Howe and Rodney only having had 5 months of work done, and Anson only 4.
Hood's hull took almost 2 years to be completed, so the rest of the hulls would hardly be that advanced.
 
Extract from wiki:
- Glorious recommissioned on 24 February 1930 for service with the Mediterranean Fleet, but was attached to the Home Fleet from March to June 1930. She relieved Courageous in the Mediterranean Fleet in June 1930 and remained there until October 1939. In a fog on 1 April 1931 Glorious rammed the French ocean liner Florida amidships while steaming at 16 knots (30 km/h; 18 mph). The impact crumpled 60 feet (18.3 m) of the flying-off deck and killed 1 seaman aboard Glorious and 24 passengers and crew aboard Florida.[29][30] Glorious was forced to put into Gibraltar to temporary repairs. She had to sail to Malta for permanent repairs which lasted until September 1931. Sometime in the early 1930s, traverse arresting gear was installed. She was refitted at Devonport from July 1934 to July 1935 where she received two hydraulic accelerators (catapults) on her upper flight deck, which was also extended to the rear.

Does seem scope within that to also exceed the flight deck to bow! In the early days, aircraft could take-off from both decks, but as they got heavier that became impractical, and a full length more useful.
In the event, C & G didn't last long. If Glorious had evaded the Twins despite battle damage in 1940, I find it difficult to imagine that repairs wouldn't include a 'full length'
 
Would a dedicated carrier build be best?
If you are trying to get some flush deck aircraft carriers in service during World War One you're better off accelerating Argus, Eagle, Hermes and Vindictive.

IIRC one of the things that delayed them was that the projected date for the end of the war was always before the expected completion date, which became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If I was you I'd also modify Hermes by putting a maximum speed of at least 30 knots in the staff requirement. Do that by doubling the installed horsepower from 40,000shp to 80,000shp. A larger hull will be needed, but that will have the advantage of a longer flight deck and larger hangar.

The earlier start would also make it easier to do a more thorough conversion of Vindictive or even better build a second ALT-Hermes.

If you want a POD I suggest 1909 when the Committee of Imperial Defence decided to discontinue work on aeroplanes and concentrate on airships initiating the saga that ended with the R.101 blowing up. It effectively put the development of heavier than air military and naval aviation by 2 years because the Air Battalion, Royal Engineers was formed in 1911 and the first quartet of naval pilots were trained in 1911 also.

IIRC Lord Esher initially agreed with the decision, but after seeing the rapid advances that took place changed his mind and pressed for the purchase of 40-50 aeroplanes for evaluation.

That way you could have the training of the first pilots, the Africa/Hibernia/London trials of 1912, the Hermes trials and the purchase of Ark Royal (or a ship like her) brought forward by 2 years. Campania might be purchased 2 years earlier too. The earlier start might be enough time for the OTL Beardmore aircraft carrier that was being designed before World War One to evolve into the ALT-Hermes.
 
The other three hulls, having been suspended in March 1917, we're not that advanced, Howe and Rodney only having had 5 months of work done, and Anson only 4.
Hood's hull took almost 2 years to be completed, so the rest of the hulls would hardly be that advanced.
In that case then yes they could be converted.
 
Rather than build the Hawkins class cruisers have the all built as Hermes type carriers for a slightly faster carrier due to the greater hip of the Hawkins class machinery. Lengths are comparable and the extra beam of the Hermes hull whist still basically an adaption of a cruiser hull is better suited for it's designed role than the narrowest Hawkins class design. Five 28/30 knot trade protection carriers in 1924 would IMHO have been a good base for a better FAA. ITTL there would be 5 improved Hermes class plus the 3 Follies in service by the late 1920's. There would be no slow Eagle and Argus would be a dedicated training carrier.
 
Rather than build the Hawkins class cruisers have the all built as Hermes type carriers for a slightly faster carrier due to the greater hip of the Hawkins class machinery. Lengths are comparable and the extra beam of the Hermes hull whist still basically an adaption of a cruiser hull is better suited for it's designed role than the narrowest Hawkins class design. Five 28/30 knot trade protection carriers in 1924 would IMHO have been a good base for a better FAA. ITTL there would be 5 improved Hermes class plus the 3 Follies in service by the late 1920's. There would be no slow Eagle and Argus would be a dedicated training carrier.
OTL Vindictive was completed as an aircraft carrier, but it was converted back to a cruiser in the 1920s.
If I was you I'd also modify Hermes by putting a maximum speed of at least 30 knots in the staff requirement. Do that by doubling the installed horsepower from 40,000shp to 80,000shp. A larger hull will be needed, but that will have the advantage of a longer flight deck and larger hangar.

The earlier start would also make it easier to do a more thorough conversion of Vindictive or even better build a second ALT-Hermes.
It would require what is scientifically known as jiggery pokery as the Hawkins class was ordered in 1915 IIRC and Hermes not until 1917, but 6 Improved Hermes in place of the 5 Hawkins class cruisers and the OTL Hermes is possible. IMHO said jiggery pokery is best provided by the CID deciding that aeroplanes should be developed as well as airships in 1909 instead of airships only.

I agree that 6 (not 5) Improved Hermes and the 3 Follies would put the RN in a much better position between the wars. My guesstimate is that the Improved Hermes would displace 13,500 tons (total 81,000 tons). The Follies displaced about 22,500 tons each (total 67,500 tons). That's a total of 148,500 tons. That would require the TTL WNT to give have a larger aircraft carrier quota, but I think an increase to 150,000 tons is feasible.

However, IOTL the DNC estimated that the Follies would have displaced 18,000 tons had they been built as aircraft carriers in the first place and building them as aircraft carriers in the first place seems to be where the thread is developing. 6 Improved Hermes and 3 Improved Follies would have come out at 135,000 tons.

In World War One the requirement was for 4 aircraft carriers made up of 2 ocean ships (Argus and Eagle) and 2 North Sea ships (Hermes and Vindictive). But if 6 Improved Hermes class were built instead of the OTL Hermes and the 5 Hawkins class (including Vindictive) then the conversions of the ships that became Argus and Eagle would not have been begun.
 
With the Hawkins cruisers converted to carriers, after Vindictive rather than be converted back, but have a full length flight-deck conversion, it will 'prove' the light carrier Trade Protection concept. Though there may still be arguments - hence there might be an earlier divergence into CVL & CVE. Either way, Unicorn is likely earlier with sister ships as replacements for the Hawkins CVLs.
 
At 55ft the beam of the Hawkins class restricts their utility as a carrier if converted, hence my suggestion that if possible wok on them is stopped whilst the Hermes design is completed to have the Hawkins engines and boilers. Also the steel set aside for the Hawkins could be used for you multiple Hermes build therefor expediting construction.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
I'm not convinced that Jackie Fisher would go for a 18,000t aircraft carrier as a major innovation over the Hermes class. He would go large and fast. More like a 30knot+, 25,000t+ fleet aircraft carrier designed to maximise aircraft onboard and flying off. Armour? Not so much. We have to suppose that he is committed to air power at sea in this thread. If he were, that is the way I think he would express that.

If the Hermes class were cruisers, he would seek to build a battlecruiser of an aircraft carrier. Twice the size and punch, just as fast.
 
There were USN admirals complaining about the size of Midways in 1945. Modern super carriers give us a bit of a bias towards thinking there are only benefits in going to a big carrier. Historically, with smaller aircraft, there was a lot to be said for smaller more flexible aircraft carriers. After all the Lexingtons were probably too big despite being inefficient. Somewhere between 20K and 30K probably suits a purpose built 30s carrier well.


And Fisher wasn't an idiot. What are you going to do with 20K of experimental carrier? How many WWI vintage aircraft could you cram in there? How could you control them all?
 
Top