WI: The Midway and Malta Class carriers were a single design that was built in both UK and US

Anime Ninja

Idea:
During the war The US and the UK are looking for a replacement/next generation carrier. The design teams work together to design a "victory" carrier that can be built in the UK and US ship yards are using at least 75% common parts.

Couple of thing,
- there was a single design team with a Project Manager that was the final authority.
- it needs to be "future" proof
- needs to have the first one launched by end of '45
- UK has a commitment of at least 2 and the US 4
- needs to be a Fleet carrier not a light carrier.

If built, would this replace the Ark Royal and the Eagle in the RN?
Would an angled deck be part of the design or an improvement?
How big might it be 65k to 75K tonnes?
Which tech was the best for this, RN or USN?
 

jsb

Anime Ninja said:
using at least 75% common parts.
Click to expand...
Why would that save money for either of them?

The problem is both where large navies with separate supplies and parts and will want to sue national ones, even stuff like catapults might be agreed on, but they would still want to make them separately, so they each keep a supply for themselves.
 

RamscoopRaider

Donor
It is very unlikely. The USN and RN use basically everything different in terms of parts. Having commonality between the USN and RN would reduce the commonality within them, IE one side would have to adopt the other navy's AA guns, electrical systems, boilers, turbines etc, which won't be in common with the stuff the already have, so it would cost more for whichever navy got unlucky, or worse cost more for both

That said the carrier would be 45,000 to 50,000 tons standard. It would not have an angled deck to start with

You also have issues with the timing, the first 4 Midway's were ordered in summer 1942, so the decision to work together on a joint project would realistically have to occur before Pearl Harbor to have a partial design by then. Since that is unlikely, most probably the design would for the USN replace the last two, with it replacing the Malta's for the UK. This prevents it from replacing Eagle and ark Royal as they have been ordered by then

Most realistically the design gets cancelled with none having been laid down some time in 1945
 

fastmongrel

The Malta class as designed were literally the biggest Britain could operate and only 3 or 4 dry docks were big enough to do a refit. When I say the biggest it could handle a couple of inches extra on the beam and a few feet on the length and the only place you could dry dock in Britain is Southampton Atlantic liner dock. A Midway class size carrier isnt going to fit anywhere in Britain so you need the USN to accept a smaller carrier design when they were actually wanting an even larger design.
 

Cryhavoc101

fastmongrel said:
The Malta class as designed were literally the biggest Britain could operate and only 3 or 4 dry docks were big enough to do a refit. When I say the biggest it could handle a couple of inches extra on the beam and a few feet on the length and the only place you could dry dock in Britain is Southampton Atlantic liner dock. A Midway class size carrier isnt going to fit anywhere in Britain so you need the USN to accept a smaller carrier design when they were actually wanting an even larger design.
Click to expand...

There was plans for the Queen Elizabeth dock on Portsmouth Harbour had a larger carrier been built in the 50s/60s

CVA01drydock.jpg

Which would be just north of Lock D today

Portsmouth of Portsmouth drydocks.jpg
 

Cryhavoc101

ShySusan said:
That looks like it would have been expensive...
Click to expand...

The only thing more expensive than operating aircraft carriers is not operating aircraft carriers when you could really really do with operating some aircraft carriers

The cost of building a suitable dock for a Malta class would be a small % of the over all life time cost of operating the class (including building them, operational costs, aircraft, refits, crew wages and pensions)

If the UK could not afford to build the docks then the definitely could not afford to build and operate the carriers
 

Deleted member 94680

Cryhavoc101 said:
There was plans for the Queen Elizabeth dock on Portsmouth Harbour had a larger carrier been built in the 50s/60s
Click to expand...
Was that the only one planned to be built? Or were others planned for other locations in the Commonwealth?
 

ArtosStark

Stenz said:
Was that the only one planned to be built? Or were others planned for other locations in the Commonwealth?
Click to expand...

I think Esquimalt and St. John’s both had docks that could take them. Though they likely didn’t have facilities to do much with them, they could at least fit there. Halifax would likely need an upgrade.
 

Riain

Banned
The Captain Cook graving dock in Sydney is 1,100' long and has accommodated the battleship HMS Howe and the carrier HMS Illustrious at the end of WW2.

Is this as major a consideration in the 60s as it was in the 40s? With only 2-4 carriers their demands for worldwide dock space would be limited.
 

Deleted member 94680

Riain said:
Is this as major a consideration in the 60s as it was in the 40s? With only 2-4 carriers their demands for worldwide dock space would be limited.
Click to expand...
If there was only one, I was thinking more in a Cold War mindset where Britain’s only “Victory Carrier” capable dock would be an obvious nuclear target for the Russians. That and a single capable dock limits the operational sphere of the carriers.
 

Cryhavoc101

Stenz said:
If there was only one, I was thinking more in a Cold War mindset where Britain’s only “Victory Carrier” capable dock would be an obvious nuclear target for the Russians. That and a single capable dock limits the operational sphere of the carriers.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that Portsmouth being a main Naval base with a submarine base to boot - was always going to be near the top of any 'what to nuke first in Britain' list

Building an extra large dock I doubt would change anything!

And there is another dock of sufficient size just round the corner in Southampton that I am aware of

Singapore has another large one

France and the USA certainly have some big enough - if push comes to shove

Given the early cold war carriers main day job would be to 'glass' the Kola Peninsula airbases

And how many carriers are we talking about here?

2 Malta's or 1953 class?
 

Deleted member 94680

Cryhavoc101 said:
I would imagine that Portsmouth being a main Naval base with a submarine base to boot - was always going to be near the top of any 'what to nuke first in Britain' list

Building an extra large dock I doubt would change anything!
Click to expand...
Obviously I wasn’t saying adding a dock would make it a target when it wasn’t already. But if that is the only dock, then once it’s been hit, where do the carriers go?

I was only asking if others had been planned to be built.
 

Spencersj345.346

Stenz said:
Obviously I wasn’t saying adding a dock would make it a target when it wasn’t already. But if that is the only dock, then once it’s been hit, where do the carriers go?

I was only asking if others had been planned to be built.
Click to expand...
Given that in nuclear war the carriers weren't expected to last all that long I don't really see this as a problem of design
 

Cryhavoc101

Stenz said:
Obviously I wasn’t saying adding a dock would make it a target when it wasn’t already. But if that is the only dock, then once it’s been hit, where do the carriers go?

I was only asking if others had been planned to be built.
Click to expand...

I have no idea - only that that one had been proposed and one has been proposed for the current carriers in about the same place from what I understand.
 

pf matthews

Going off on something of a 'tangent'....
There were 'plans' by the Admiralty in 1943 for changes at Devonport Dockyard (Plymouth).
The 'plans' I think were a little more wishful thinking by the Admiralty with an extremely limited chance of coming to fruition, however, IF the new dock for CVA-01 was built at Portsmouth, I could foresee a proposal to dust-off the single dry dock proposal for Devonport....

"
Potential major developments considered for Devonport in 1943.
Mill Lake Basin
(Found by Sealord Lawrence [now posting as JFC Fuller] at Warship Projects) in the PRO Kew.
Starting North and moving South:
1) A new basin to be constructed in what is now the Weston Mill Lake North of basin No.5. This new Basin would have included two entrance locks and three 150ft x 1,000ft (with space reserved for extension to 1,200ft) graving docks.
2) Moving South, it was considered that a 1,200ft graving dock could be constructed parallel to the long side of No.5 basin, alternatively...
3) Basins 2,3 and possibly 4 could be merged into one large basin and expanded westwards
4) A new 150ft x 1,000ft (space reserved for an expansion to 1,200ft) graving dock to be constructed on the site of the Gun Wharf in the southern yard
5) The extension of No.3 building slip as mentioned by D.K.Brown.Devonport Weston Mill Lake.jpgDevonport Gunwharf Graving dock.jpg
 

Riain

Banned
From about 1955 or so the British (and Australian and I also think the USA) Cold War thinking was there there would be limited wars and WW3, both of which would be fought with the weapons at hand. In limited wars a damaged carrier would be withdrawn, replaced on station and taken home for major work. In WW3 I don't think there would be much yard based damage repair at all, by the time the work was done the war would be over either conventionally or by nuclear holocaust.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top