True, but it seemed to stem from trying to fit two operators into the back of the Gannet. The RN insisted on two operators due to the endurance of the aircraft and they felt having just one was not feasible so the Treasury followed the logic that the alternative was do without.
Pretty much this. The modernized Essex class were right at 45,000 tons after their SCB-27C/125 conversions. And even though the Navy crammed a huge air group into them, they had to use smaller and older planes to do it. Had they flown Phantoms and Intruders, the air group would have dropped from 60 strike/fighters down to 40ish.
Or something akin to the 1952 design
So like Eagle and Ark Royal in the 60s and 70s.
Here’s one of Victorious, Ark Royal and Hermes.
Sort of. An Essex class could still embark 2xVF and 2xVA squadrons plus AEW, VAQ, VFP, COD and Helicopters. They had significantly larger hangers than Ark Royal did, and used a permanent deck park. So even with bigger planes like the Phantom and Intruder, they'd still have a total air group of between 59 and 64 aircraft.
IIRC, the USN says that they can fly between 2-3 sorties per plane, per day for 3-4 days. After which, the carrier will have to be pulled off the line to rest, refit, conduct aircraft maintenance, and replenish fuel and ordnance
It might seem a little obvious and a little off topic, in which case I apologise, but as you do rightly allude SSgtC, with your "they had to use smaller and older planes to do it", while appreciating that modern aviation companies only made aircraft to spacifically and lucrative government/military OR/RfP's. I'm somewhat surprised that a given aircraft company didn't use their expertise to privately develop and market a spacific modern smaller and lighter weight carrier-based fighter-bomber design, not just for the potential of the 'modernized Essex class', but for the other various light aircraft carrier operators throughout the world who operated the likes of the Majestic-class (India, Australia, Argentina, Brazil), the French and Spanish navy's and of course the Royal Navy's oddbodge of needy carriers......
While instructive, CAP flights are relatively easy on the airframe. Take off, go to your orbit racetrack, orbit for ~2hrs, come back to the boat and land.
Eagle and Ark had dual hangars, a Quirk of the superior Armoured hangar design. Both ships dual Hangars were originally the same length, (364 feet). However due to refits the lower hangar was reduced to either 217 ft or 172ft (I’m unsure which) to provide more accommodation. So the original audacious actually has more hangar space than an essex (a combined 728 ft compared to 552 ft for an Essex)
As designed, the Audacious class had a slightly bigger hanger of 47,372 square feet compared to the Essex class having 45,780 square feet. But during the modernization of both classes, the Essex class was able to keep their full hangar space, while the Audacious class lost roughly 10,000 square feet of hanger space. But beyond the raw square footage of the hangers, the layout is what really kills the British air group size. Because of the dimensions of the hanger, the British, no matter how the angled their aircraft, could not fit 3 abreast in the hanger. The US could (one in the middle facing aft, and another on either side facing forward, letting the wings and fuselages nestle together, then reverse it for the next row with the center aircraft facing forward and the outboard ones facing aft, and so on and so forth). That let the US pack more aircraft into the same square footage. And due to hangar design again, the British needed to leave more "spots" open to maneuver their aircraft around and avoid becoming deck locked.
As I described in this post https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/aircraft-carrier-hangar-design-discussion.42009/post-614119
In an earlier post I made on this thread there’s a picture which gives a far better comparison between Eagle’s sister Ark Royal (the carrier in the centre) and Centaur’s sister Hermes (the carrier furthest away)
What desing is the previous CVA-01. Very interesting, less displacement than the Eagle, but more big fly deck and hangar. Not fan of 2 island.
Thanks for the info.
Thanks for the information
Yes, it seems a great pity that the British government/RN never had the fortitude to build and consolidate its ORBAT with such a carrier design.
Unfortunately, as I understand it at the time this ship was considered the RN was in a fight for its life to retain the carrier fleet, and any new ships were not politically viable.
You could pretty well make that point from roughly 1919 to the present day.
Rule
Still has a flight deck elevator instead of a deck edge elevator... What on earth is up with the British not liking Deck Edge elevators?
The freeboard to the hangar deck, or lower hangar deck in the case of the double hangared ships.
Scott
The British planned for the Atlantic and North Sea to be their primary operating theaters in the event of a NATO/WARPAC war. In that environment, a centerline lift makes more sense than a deck edge lift on anything smaller than a Forristall with its roughly 70' of freeboard
