Some questions about the 27,000 ton Yorktown Class design.

Ok, so while reading up on the WNT and the two follow up LNT, I ran accross a brief mention of an alternative Yorktown Class aircraft carrier, that would have displaced 27,000 tons (as opposed to the reported 19,800 ton displacement for the historical ships), and I learned that the restriction imposed by the LNT capped carriers at 23,000 tons, down 4,000 tons from the WNT limit.

Given that the USS Wasp was 14,700 tons reported displacement, and the 2 19,800 ton Yorktown class carriers had used up all the tonnage the USA was allowed (135,000 total carrier tonnage), I wanted to fact check some things.

39,600 + 14,700 + 14,810 + 66,000 = 135,110 tons total for (Lexington + Saratoga), Ranger, (Yorktown + Enterprise), Wasp. So there is the US carrier fleet right up until WWII started in Sep, 1939.

What would have been the design, had the 23,000 ton limit never gone into effect, and the USS Yorktown and USS Enterprise were built to the 27,000 ton limit? The US Navy would be down a flight deck (No USS Wasp), but given that, would the US have sat still and waited to order USS Hornet until 25 September, 1939 (Three weeks after the shooting started in Europe), or would they have ordered sooner? Like right after the 2nd LNT fell by the wayside January 1st, 1937?

What would the 27,000 ton Yorktown Class carriers have looked like, and How would the Essex Class change?
 
Its very likely that pre-war the US navy wouldn't have gone as high as 27kt.
With the size of the planes, and the space they required, a 27kt carrier would have carried an airgroup that was too large for effective use. Better to spend the money on more smaller carriers.
The only big advantage for going to 27kt would have been to provide the level or armour and protection for the US carriers that the British put on theirs, but this wasn't the US docrine. Well, and the possibility that the USN big-gun lobby wins out and they put 8" guns on the carriers (and you thought the Graf Zeppelin was an odd design!)
 
The Sara and the Lex had 8" inch guns when built didnt they?

USN big-gun lobby wins out and they put 8" guns on the carriers (and you thought the Graf Zeppelin was an odd design!)[/QUOTE]
 
The Sara and the Lex had 8" inch guns when built didnt they?

USN big-gun lobby wins out and they put 8" guns on the carriers (and you thought the Graf Zeppelin was an odd design!)
[/QUOTE]

Yeah and they got removed in 1942. SARA was the first US carrier to get the dual 5" mounts they put on CLAAs and as the secondary armament on the new BBs.
 
I'm not the expert, but you might check and see if there was any serious interest in twin engined carrier planes back in the 1920s when the concepts that became the Yorktown class were being tossed around. Admiral Reese was a really inovative thinker & without a limit he just might have developed a interest in bigger lift aircraft to use a larger deck.
 
Its very likely that pre-war the US navy wouldn't have gone as high as 27kt.
With the size of the planes, and the space they required, a 27kt carrier would have carried an airgroup that was too large for effective use. Better to spend the money on more smaller carriers.
The only big advantage for going to 27kt would have been to provide the level or armour and protection for the US carriers that the British put on theirs, but this wasn't the US docrine. Well, and the possibility that the USN big-gun lobby wins out and they put 8" guns on the carriers (and you thought the Graf Zeppelin was an odd design!)
Heh heh, all to true, cruiser armament on a carrier, <groans>.
What intreguied me was the part about how the US had looked at the 27,000 ton design, but limited to 23,000 tons by second london (If I actually got that part right, that is), they then opted out of that limit as well, and went with two 20kt and one 14kt designs. Not to sure how the 27,000 ton Essex class would differ from a 27,000 ton Yorktown class, other than in some experience earned fashion or other. Wait, the Essex were supposed to be 27,100 tons, but ended up as 30,800 tons, might that have been in anti-torpedeo defenses?
 
Essex class also got AA guns that didn't exist when the Y-Towns were first designed like the dual 5 inch mounts and the 40mm Bofors.
 
Essex class also got AA guns that didn't exist when the Y-Towns were first designed like the dual 5 inch mounts and the 40mm Bofors.

Actually, the DP guns mounted on the Yorktown class were the same design as the Essex class, but in a different configuration.
 
The Sara and the Lex had 8" inch guns when built didnt they?

USN big-gun lobby wins out and they put 8" guns on the carriers (and you thought the Graf Zeppelin was an odd design!)
[/QUOTE]

At the time they were built, the big guns made sense. Aircraft clearly had a lot of potential, but hadn't reached it yet. Also, flying in bad weather or at night wasn't an option. It would be really bad to loose a major scouting unit (carrier) because a couple of light cruisers managed to get close when there was no air cover possible. The carrier might be nowhere near the battleships.

The displacement was there, the treaty allowed for it...NOT putting the 8" guns on at the time would have been very foolish.

IIRC, in at leat one exercise (real ships racing around, not cardboard on a map) Lexington and Saratoga were on opposite teams, and came into gun range of each other.
 
Arming a carrier full of avgas for a cruiser battle never made sense.
In any case, up until the late 30's the idea was that a carrier (at around 32kt) could outrun anything that could kill it - while destroyers might catch it in good weather, in good weather it would have aircraft up. In bad weather its size meant its effective speed allowed it to outrun pursuers. It wasn't until the fast BB's arrived that this advantage vanished.

As to twins, there wasn't really any interest pre-war from anyone. There are issues with the width of the aircraft - early carriers were relatively narrow, and making them wider introduced issues regarding docking and handling.
 
Where the Yorktown/Essex Class dimensions already Panamax?

If so then the carriers could not be made larger

If not then make them so!
 
Expecting a carrier full of avgas to chase after a cruiser is not good--expecting it to shoot at something coming after IT isn't a bad plan. I still think that, given the technology of the times, putting the 8" guns on Lexington and Saratoga was wise. With no radar, engagements could happen at shorter ranges than ideal, and the ships had the displacement to burn; the hull form as already set.

Had they been build from the keel up as carriers, then putting 8" guns on them might not have been such a good idea. The practicalities of a converted ship are different from the practicalities of a new build.
 
Expecting a carrier full of avgas to chase after a cruiser is not good--expecting it to shoot at something coming after IT isn't a bad plan. I still think that, given the technology of the times, putting the 8" guns on Lexington and Saratoga was wise. With no radar, engagements could happen at shorter ranges than ideal, and the ships had the displacement to burn; the hull form as already set.

If a carrier finds herself in the gun range of a surface ship, then clearly her crew has f***ed up big-time.
 
If a carrier finds herself in the gun range of a surface ship, then clearly her crew has f***ed up big-time.

In world war II, definitely. In earlier times--like when the ships were designed--simple bad luck could make that happen. Visibility in the Atlantic can be very poor, and there's no radar. It's quite easy to not know someone's even there until you see them--and if you see them from 10 miles away, it's shooting time.
 
I'm not the expert, but you might check and see if there was any serious interest in twin engined carrier planes back in the 1920s when the concepts that became the Yorktown class were being tossed around. Admiral Reese was a really inovative thinker & without a limit he just might have developed a interest in bigger lift aircraft to use a larger deck.

In March 1936, a Potez 565 took off from Béarn, the first time a twin-engined aircraft had ever operated from an aircraft carrier.
 
That answers part of the question. Maybe there is some expert who is familiar with the 1920s discussions of what the new carriers would look like & their requirements for a air group. I recall some amphibians of the 1920s had twin or triple engines. Its both a technical and doctrinal issue, which probablly crawls off in multiple directions.
 
In March 1936, a Potez 565 took off from Béarn, the first time a twin-engined aircraft had ever operated from an aircraft carrier.

I'm pretty sure that was a special case.

Remember, twin-engine propeller aircraft are less controllable with one engine out at low speed than jets, which is a problem when trying to land on an aircraft carrier.
 
That answers part of the question. Are there any experts famialr with the 1920s discussions within the USN over the future carrier and air group designs? It looks like a complex issue of both doctrine and technology, that likely to crawl off in inummerable directions.
 
Top