The '1936' light fleet carrier or how the 3rd Sea Lord both has his cake....and eats it

The main Japanese limit is the number of yards and slips, plus the Yamato and Musashi gobbled up most of their steel resources that it seriously affected any major building plans. They'd probably proceed with the follow on to the Soryu's and Shokaku's in the Unryu's, the Taiho was an answer to wartime development.
 
I'd guess the USN starts of a run of 30,000t long Essex class?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Oriskany_(CV-34)

They were great fans of large carriers and they could stretch the wording of the treaties far enough for this.

I think a slighty different Vinson-Trammel act in 1934 allows for a greater tonnage of carrier to be be built earlier - with the expectation that they will eventually replace the Lexington and Saratoga and this results in slightly more ships being ordered earlier than OTL with some additional differences.

Then I would have thought something along the lines of Wasp CV-7 is ordered as a fully leaded 3rd Yorktown unit (rather than a Baby Yorktown) after Yorktown (Ordered 1934) and Enterprise (Also ordered 1934) in 1935 following the British ordering the Ark Royal in 1934 and the Sōryū and Hiryū ordered in 1934 and 1935 respectively.

I would still have Wasp pioneer the deck side elevator!

Then with further British and Japanese ships principley the 27,000 ton Illustrious, Invincable and 18,000 ton Colossus as well as the '27,000 ton honestly guv' Shōkaku-class being ordered in 36 and 37 the Naval Act of 1938 (OTL Signed into law May 17 1938) allows for further carrier tonnage and Hornet and Essex are both ordered as 'Essex class' carriers - Hornet to be laid down in 1939 and Essex in 1940 (earlier than OTL)

2 more units are ordered in late 39 and are laid down in late 1940 with a number ordered that year (again earlier than OTL)

Then with the Japanese Empires 1941 Christmas attacks on Pearl Harbour and Panama Canal (Dec 28th 1941) the Ess....Hornet class Pez despenser starts churning them out with the design evolving through war experiance.

The Oriskany is a post war ship and she was incomplete in 1945 and was actually partially 'reduced' in order to rebuild her with all the learnings of WW2 and was not complete until 1950

With the Yorktowns and Essex/Hornet classes being good enough and the latter being a superior carrier to anything the IJN will have I dont see the point!
 
What impact would this planned fleet have on other nations ship building choices - specifically the USA and Japan given the 27,000 Ton ship limit?
I was going to say nil effect on Japan because they didn't sign up to the 2nd LNT and the Shokaku class displaced more than 23,000 tons, but then I thought they might build them more like the Tahio.

I doubt that it would affect the Essex class, but it could influence light fleet carriers in a roundabout way.

That is the OTL Cleveland class cruisers started out as an 8,000 ton design to fit the 2nd LNT limits, but after WWII broke out grew to 10,000 tons. But the USN didn't like them because they were felt to be too cramped.

However, if the TTL 2nd LNT doesn't reduce the cruiser limit from 10,000 tons to 8,000 tons then the baseline for the Cleveland class would start at 10,000 tons and grow into a six-inch gunned version of the Baltimore class. Thus the TTL Independence class would be closer to Saipan and Wright.

It would also have the advantage that the Clevelands converted to guided missile light cruisers (CLG) would be rebuilt to the same standard as Boston and Canberra. The larger hull would allow more armament to be retained in the 3 CLGs subsequently converted to flagships or allow more elaborate flagship facilities.
 
I did start a what if USS Amsterdam Class of 3 lighter (eventually) 17,000 ton US Light fleets laid down in 1939 (1) and 1940 (2) - using the same propulsion as the USS Wichita heavy Cruiser - 4 shaft - 100,000 SHP - these ships would address many of Rangers issues with speed (Ranger was 29 knots) less aircraft complement but greater habitability and greater storage etc allowing them to operate a good mix of aircraft for longer and with a larger magazine capable of handling torps etc

I oh'd and arr'd but eventually decided that it was too early and that the resources would best be used on the main fleet carriers at that point

But such a design would be cheaper than the main fleets and like the British light fleets could be built at smaller yards for less cost? I can imagine Roosevelt championing them once he sees what the British are doing.

Possibly at the expense of some Cruisers?

USS Amsterdam, USS Tallahassee and USS New Haven (The original Cruiser names of the first 3 Independence CVLs - as far as I could tell the names never reused)
 
Top