WI: European Nations Operated Fleet Aircraft Carriers
- Thread starter Delta Force
- Start date
Dunno, that was the original idea. All I know is that after 60 years of steam cats and 35 years of ski jumps no navy appears to be trying a hybrid.
From the French site AH site http://1940lafrancecontinue.org/, a sugested convertion of the Jean Bart into a fleet carrier:
Delta Force
Banned
I take it that's for a conversion sometime before or during World War II, as opposed to afterwards?
Delta Force
Banned
Might European navies have been able to make use of the vast amount of surplus warships the Royal Navy and USN had left over from World War II? There was more surplus than they could use in a peacetime environment, and the European navies lacked quantity and quality due to the war. Due to the volume of the surplus it is unlikely that the ships were worth much as scrap either relative to their value as functional ships. Many European and foreign navies did acquire aircraft carriers and other surplus warships from British and American surplus, but many ships didn't serve for that long in Commonwealth and NATO militaries and were retired without replacement. The Essex, Independence, Baltimore, and Cleveland class ships probably could have seen more extensive service in foreign navies. The fact that the Independence and Cleveland class and Saipan and Baltimore class shared the same machinery with each other would have helped to simplify training and logistics if acquired together.
A big problem is that all these ship classes became rapidly outdated, and were pretty much obsolete by the mid 60s without extensive rebuilds.
The Essex's did of course have much more potential, but by the time it became a better deal to buy one of those instead of a British Light Fleet carrier or Independence class, the USN wanted them all back, and they too needed some rebuilding to properly operate fast jets.
Delta Force
Banned
That's true, but it's not like the Royal Navy or USN had plans for the vast majority of those ships. They would have been viable into the early 1960s without a refit, and into the 1970s with one. If the aircraft carriers operate helicopters for ASW or amphibious warfare they don't need a major refit at all.
You could have another country build one or more carriers - Italy. The Italians were banned from building battleships, carriers and submarines in the 1947 peace treaty, but eventually the prohibition was relaxed and the Marina Militare now owns two carriers, with the first, the Giuseppe Garibaldi, laid down in 1981.
If the Americans and the Brits decide they need more Italian support in the Mediterranean, they might decide to relax these prohibitions earlier, or maybe not to impose them at al. If that happens early enough, the Italians could even have a go at completing the Aquila, an ambitious conversion of a former passenger ship; I'm not sure how effective it could have been, but it would have been at least a decent stopgap measure.
As a side effect, the extra money poured into the Italian economy might help it recover a tad earlier, especially if the Americans decide to offer a grant or a loan for this endeavour.
If the Americans and the Brits decide they need more Italian support in the Mediterranean, they might decide to relax these prohibitions earlier, or maybe not to impose them at al. If that happens early enough, the Italians could even have a go at completing the Aquila, an ambitious conversion of a former passenger ship; I'm not sure how effective it could have been, but it would have been at least a decent stopgap measure.
As a side effect, the extra money poured into the Italian economy might help it recover a tad earlier, especially if the Americans decide to offer a grant or a loan for this endeavour.
NothingNow
Banned
Really, outside of France and the UK, I don't really see any European NATO member really having the situational requirement to operate a Fleet Carrier. CVEs maybe, since they're useful for anti-submarine work, but otherwise everyone else is heavily focused on land operations, and can't spare the funding for a while elephant like a carrier group anyway.
They did, quite extensively for a few years.
The problem is, USN designs are pretty lavish when it comes to crew sizes, and it'd put the hurt on local industry.
Buying a CVL as a one-off for colonial/ASW operations isn't hard to justify, and neither is leasing hulls on a temporary basis, but it's much better politically and economically to build new vessels in your own shipyards.
After all, they're new modern vessels, which reduce operational costs, produce more jobs at shipyards, and make a nice political point. And this way, when the time comes for all the big conversion programs in the 60s, you're not stuck with the sorts of worn out ships like the USN was refitting in the FRAM program.
They did, quite extensively for a few years.
The problem is, USN designs are pretty lavish when it comes to crew sizes, and it'd put the hurt on local industry.
Buying a CVL as a one-off for colonial/ASW operations isn't hard to justify, and neither is leasing hulls on a temporary basis, but it's much better politically and economically to build new vessels in your own shipyards.
After all, they're new modern vessels, which reduce operational costs, produce more jobs at shipyards, and make a nice political point. And this way, when the time comes for all the big conversion programs in the 60s, you're not stuck with the sorts of worn out ships like the USN was refitting in the FRAM program.
I'd imagine the engineering requirements for a catapult that follows the curvature of a ski-jump would be pretty complex. Possibly too complex to make it a cost effective solution, particularly if you factor in the possibility of repairing it after battle damage.
NothingNow
Banned
Probably easier to not curve the launch ramp at all, and just build the catapults and the launch area sloping up at a fifteen degree angle or so.
How about a simpler answer; they didn't need to. The Soviets knew that USN aviation would out class and out number them and that given the circumstances they probably weren't going to achieve aerial superiority except in brown waters or on an a temporary tactical level. There was just no reason to build a classic carrier fleet given the prohibitive cost, the catapult gear is only needed for low thrust to weight ratio aircraft-which is certainly not interceptors. Yet the threat of Soviets having high performance combat aircraft on a carrier instead of fixed bases is quite a boon to friendly submarines and coastal defense. Also as others have mentioned it can serve to project power to third parties.
In my view it fulfilled it's purpose of power projection and the task of potentially disrupting a blue water navy.
But what about the more likely candidates? Like Japan, China and India of today?
Last edited:
NothingNow
Banned
China's at least a decade from having an actual functional Carrier group.
India's second indigenous carrier (INS Vishal) is going to be a full CATOBAR design, while the upcoming Vikrant is a STOBAR design like the Vikramaditya.
Yes yes but unlike the Europeans their programs are set to expand. It's a lot more likely to occur.
Canada and Australia operated carriers that were WWII "surplus", though not the largest ones. The problem with carriers is that its not just the ship but the air group that goes with it. The air group requires a certain mix of a/c, and carrier a/c usually more expensive per unit than land based for a variety of reasons and you need a training pipeline for naval aviators, aircrew and support personnel, and a specific shore establishment for all of that separate from "normal" naval establishment. Another key issue is if you only have one carrier then it is only available 30-40% of the time with down time for maintenance and non-deployed periods (peacetime regime). To have one available all the time, you really need three.
You can "contract out" training to an ally with a large carrier establishment, but that costs and there are downsides to that in terms of control and a training establishment provides shore duty for pilots/aircrew/support folks that keeps them in shape.
What the Chinese have will take years to be effective, and even then its more for intimidation of neighbors in S. China Sea. Against Japan or the USA...its scrap.
You can "contract out" training to an ally with a large carrier establishment, but that costs and there are downsides to that in terms of control and a training establishment provides shore duty for pilots/aircrew/support folks that keeps them in shape.
What the Chinese have will take years to be effective, and even then its more for intimidation of neighbors in S. China Sea. Against Japan or the USA...its scrap.
Delta Force
Banned
That's true. Perhaps the criticism of Soviet/Russian carrier aviation "only" being able to carry a few AAM missiles is due to the USN, Royal Navy, and French Navy using their aircrsft as multirole. If you use interceptors carrying "only" a few AAM missiles isn't that much of an issue, and the high thrust to weight ratio relative to some attack and support planes allows ski ramps to be used.
It's something of a unique doctrine though, only feasible due to the use of heavy missiles in the Soviet Navy.
Franklin (CV-13) and Bunker Hill (CV-17) were out of commission until being scraped. Leyte (CV-32), Antietam (CV-36), Tarawa (CV-40), and Philippine Sea (CV-47) didn't serve long into the 1960s. There's also Reprisal (CV-35), which was never completed but was scraped in 1949. Iwo Jima (CV-46) is yet another, but it was scraped in 1946.
The cooperation wouldn't be as much an issue within the structure of NATO. I think there are even currently some non-NATO states that have carrier qualified units, or at least units that practice carrier operations, even though they lack aircraft carriers. I think one nation is Argentina.