The third Audacious class carrier - what might have been ?

Close, but not quite. BS4 cat shuttles came in 9' lengths, in 1971 the HMAS Melbourne was refitted with a 9' length from the HMCS Bonaventure so ended her life with a 112' BS4M. The Hermes had 2 x 103' BS4 cats but her 1964-66 refit swapped her port 4 catapults for a 145' BS4A the same as Victorious. it was the BS5 that was 151'.
Most of those catapult lengths came from Norman Friedman's British Carrier Aviation. Are any of the following incorrect as well?

Number Of Catapults And Their Length
1 x 103ft Melbourne (1955) - Increased to 112ft in 1971

1 x 103ft Bonaventure (1957)

2 x 139ft Centaur (1958)

2 x 145ft Victorious (1957)

2 x 151ft Ark Royal (1955)

1 x 151ft and 1 x 199ft Eagle (1965)

1 x 151ft and 1 x 199ft Ark Royal (1971)

2 x 151ft Hermes (1959) - Except Rain says they were 2 x 103ft with the port lengthened to 145ft in her 1964-66 refit

2 x 250ft CVA01​
 
2 x 151ft Hermes (1959) - Except Rain says they were 2 x 103ft with the port lengthened to 145ft in her 1964-66 refit

The standard BS5 catapult as used in the Clem, Foch, Ark and Eagle is 151', whereas the BS4A and the Vic ad Hermes was 145' but these numbers get shuffled around all the time and some include overall length and others just the shuttle run, so I'm not surprised Friedman says they're 151' when they're not. BTW I always quote shuttle run.

Some stockpiles of supplies may be stored but what happens when they are gone? Your enemy knows were these stockpiles are so they will be attacked. Each side makes a string of assumptions in planning. If anything, wartime planning has to include a healthy sprinkling of MURPHY'S LAW. So you have to plan around those supplies not being there. What do you do then, just give up?

Likewise NATO planning had better assume a large enough portion of enemy Subs and bombers are going to smash through any feeble NATO lines in the sand, or NATO defense is doomed.

There was a very long standing NATO requirement that all member states hold War Reserve Stocks of ammo and spares equal to 30 days combat. This caused a panic in 1973 when Israel's usage rates were much greater than expected, resulting in the Europeans increasing their stocks to 30 days at Yom Kippur War usage rates. The US was OK because of its experience of ejaculating ammo in Vietnam.

In 1968 the EEC issued a directive that all members must have 90 days fuel reserves; Germany created its strategic fuel reserve in 1970, the US created its strategic reserve of crude in 1975 after the YKW but Britain doesn't have a fuel reserve as such but under section 6 of the Energy Act 1976 it complied with the EEC directive. Contrary to popular belief Politicians, Military Officers and senior Public Servants aren't stupid, they are usually diligent, thoughtful people who work hard at their jobs to get as good an outcome as possible within their limits. If that wasn't the case things like 30 days war stocks and 90 days fuel reserves would exist as standards to be met, let alone maintained year after year through good times and bad.

The whole point of the offensive battle against Soviet bases and to close the GIUK Gap was so not enough Soviet subs/ships/aircraft would get through to cut off Europe from the world before a favourable decision was reached in battle. The preparations must have been enough, because although the west was tested in battle in many paces around the world during the Cold War, it was never tested in battle in the ETO.
 
The standard BS5 catapult as used in the Clem, Foch, Ark and Eagle is 151', whereas the BS4A and the Vic ad Hermes was 145' but these numbers get shuffled around all the time and some include overall length and others just the shuttle run, so I'm not surprised Friedman says they're 151' when they're not. BTW I always quote shuttle run.
I' not saying that you are wrong, but it seems strange to me that Hermes was completed with steam catapults in 1959 that were significantly shorter than the steam catapults fitted to Centaur in her 1956-58 refit.

My guess is that the length of a catapult on an aircraft carrier is governed by the length between the bow of the ship and the forward lift to the hangar.

Except that Hermes had a deck edge lift which might have created space for a steam catapult that was longer than the steam catapults installed on Centaur when she was refitted.

Victorious had a hangar extension in front of her forward lift. Previously that is why I thought her steam catapults were 145ft instead of the 151ft I thought Hermes was completed with in spite of Victorious having a longer hull than Hermes.

In Post 581 I wrote that the steam catapults on Ark Royal when she was completed in 1955 were 151ft long. Is that correct?
 
There was a very long standing NATO requirement that all member states hold War Reserve Stocks of ammo and spares equal to 30 days combat. This caused a panic in 1973 when Israel's usage rates were much greater than expected, resulting in the Europeans increasing their stocks to 30 days at Yom Kippur War usage rates. The US was OK because of its experience of ejaculating ammo in Vietnam.

In 1968 the EEC issued a directive that all members must have 90 days fuel reserves; Germany created its strategic fuel reserve in 1970, the US created its strategic reserve of crude in 1975 after the YKW but Britain doesn't have a fuel reserve as such but under section 6 of the Energy Act 1976 it complied with the EEC directive. Contrary to popular belief Politicians, Military Officers and senior Public Servants aren't stupid, they are usually diligent, thoughtful people who work hard at their jobs to get as good an outcome as possible within their limits. If that wasn't the case things like 30 days war stocks and 90 days fuel reserves would exist as standards to be met, let alone maintained year after year through good times and bad.

The whole point of the offensive battle against Soviet bases and to close the GIUK Gap was so not enough Soviet subs/ships/aircraft would get through to cut off Europe from the world before a favourable decision was reached in battle. The preparations must have been enough, because although the west was tested in battle in many paces around the world during the Cold War, it was never tested in battle in the ETO.

I think this is a pipe dream , both the success of stockpile and forward battle against Soviet naval fleet. Holding the line against repeated assaults against the GIUK gap may not even be realistic, until last 10 years of the cold war. I remember reading HANSARD parliamentary debates were it was revealed exercises showed SOVIET raiders could break through the GIUK gap and RN couldn't find them, let alone attack them.
 
I think this is a pipe dream , both the success of stockpile and forward battle against Soviet naval fleet. Holding the line against repeated assaults against the GIUK gap may not even be realistic, until last 10 years of the cold war. I remember reading HANSARD parliamentary debates were it was revealed exercises showed SOVIET raiders could break through the GIUK gap and RN couldn't find them, let alone attack them.

It might very well be a pipe dream and I have no doubt Soviet raiders would break through the attempts to close the GIUK Gap, but given the resources at the RN's disposal it was the strategy of choice. What's more until about 1970 NATO was only the RN's second theatre, the main Cold War game was limited war in South East Asia; that's where the best ships went, the Home Fleet was made up of ships being repaired/refitted and working up for duty in the Far East. Only after the withdrawal east of Suez was NATO the RN's first priority and by then it resources were limited compared to a mere 5 years earlier, gutted by the government.
 
Top