You have 40-ish million pounds to build a CV for the RN early 60s...what does it look like?

Someone mentioned the "1 sea dart is worth 8 Phantoms" study.
If I see that correctly, the RN switched from 8 Bristols to 14 Type 42s, when it lost 48 Phantoms.
I have found no direct link, but if that was a compensation, you'd have another 100-150 Million Pounds to play with for a Phantom ship. And ~1800 manpower.
 
The problem with comparison of AAW Frigates and F4K Phantom IIs is that while the aircraft is very flexible operationally there are times you cannot launch and recover. But you will still need AAW capability.
So you cannot do without the AAW on attendant warships.

Arguably it would be more efficient to fund greater capability and capacity of AAW on the ships, leaving the airwing to strike and recce.
 
You'd still have 8 type 42 for 2 or 3 CVA vs 14 Type 42 for 3 Invincibles. I'm not sure about the story, but the type 42 was born out of the need to redraw the fleet plan for a royal navy without aircraft carriers. Was the increase due to the lack of organic airpower?
 
orlovsky said:
Was the increase due to the lack of organic airpower?
Click to expand...
Short answer, no.

The need for a system able to Intercept incoming Anti-ship Missiles distributed across a force was the inevitable consequence of such Anti-ship Missiles carrying nuclear warheads.
This is why UK input on NMBR.11 resulted in SIGS and CF.299 a.k.a Sea Dart.....and Sea Wolf.
People dismiss the RN perception of the threat and their views on the solutions.
But in essence this is why Tartar never passed muster in Admiralty eyes.

So being unable to reread my books I'll have to rely on dodgy memory. But in essence much larger numbers of Sea Dart equipped ships were envisioned in planning. This created a substantial headache trying to square the circle of manpower, and budgets. Never resolved before the axe fell.

Should a CV force be retained beyond the 70's, in planning after '67. Then all sorts of such complex issues have to be resolved.
 
orlovsky said:
Interesting. So with 8 Type 82, the RN was planning for another class of AA ship to complement them even with 2 or 3 CVAs?
Click to expand...
In essence yes, the genesis of the Type 42 begins in those earlier studies for a cheaper, less manpower intensive AAW ship. Offloading ASW to the specialist Type 17 and ultimately the Type 22.

The problem was Type 82 suffered from nuclear option for Ikara, Desertcar TIR forced by Type 988 Broomstick.
Had they cut the nuke armament for Ikara and used the RAN magazine, and the ASWRE C-band 3D radar with simpler lighter TIR sets ....manpower would be less, costs less and displacement less.
Resulting in more Type 82s and a widespread use of ASWRE C-band 3D radars across the fleet.
 
Further.
In '64 planning moved to 8 Type 82 between 1970 to 1976 and then a new class of high quality Escort with a crew 285. This and a new Small Escort set at 110 crew at a cost of £5 million.

I cannot remember if this was still aiming for a surface Fleet of 89. But it's likely.
 
bobtdwarf said:
NOMISYRRUC said:
bobtdwarf said:
I have read they wanted to put 984 on the county but the article says they needed to remove one or both gun turrets "as weight compensation"... not really a weight thing the electronic guts of the thing weighed 35 tons but more a VOLUME thing: That takes up a lot of room! You could probably put it in the volume taken up by the missile room.. lol
Click to expand...
For what it's worth I've read that the RN wanted to put Type 984 on the County and that it would have entailed removing one or two of the 4.5" turrets too. It might have been in Leo Marriotts book about RN destroyers since 1945 and that he might have also written that it wanted one-in-four Counties to have it.
Click to expand...
that tracks with my memory. In my opinion it would have been worth doing but I would prefer adding a bit more length to increase the needed volume so you only have to lose the B turret while keeping the position available for Exocet.
Click to expand...
Hood said:
Link to Post 159.
Click to expand...
Which would be the best if it was a choice between fitting a Type 984 or a second Type 901 to @bobtdwarf's enlarged County?

I think the latter because it could engage two targets at the same time and as far as I know the "real" County was able to see the radar picture of the Type 984s aboard the strike carriers via the DPT data link.

On the other hand the superior radar picture that Type 984 should provide over the Type 965s fitted in the "real world" might be better. That is they'd have a better idea of which target to engage first.
 
Last edited:
zen said:
Further.
In '64 planning moved to 8 Type 82 between 1970 to 1976 and then a new class of high quality Escort with a crew 285. This and a new Small Escort set at 110 crew at a cost of £5 million.

I cannot remember if this was still aiming for a surface Fleet of 89. But it's likely.
Click to expand...
And maybe still plans for some kind of helicopter cruiser around? This all seems completely detached from the budget and manpower realities...
 
zen said:
orlovsky said:
Was the increase due to the lack of organic airpower?
Click to expand...

The need for a system able to Intercept incoming Anti-ship Missiles distributed across a force was the inevitable consequence of such Anti-ship Missiles carrying nuclear warheads.
This is why UK input on NMBR.11 resulted in SIGS and CF.299 a.k.a Sea Dart.....and Sea Wolf.
People dismiss the RN perception of the threat and their views on the solutions.
But in essence this is why Tartar never passed muster in Admiralty eyes.
Click to expand...
That's really interesting point you highlight zen. The anti-missile aspect of the SIGS/Sea Dart vs Tartar, I never fully realised, let alone appreciated.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
orlovsky said:
zen said:
Further.
In '64 planning moved to 8 Type 82 between 1970 to 1976 and then a new class of high quality Escort with a crew 285. This and a new Small Escort set at 110 crew at a cost of £5 million.

I cannot remember if this was still aiming for a surface Fleet of 89. But it's likely.
Click to expand...
And maybe still plans for some kind of helicopter cruiser around? This all seems completely detached from the budget and manpower realities...
Click to expand...
There was a plan for Helicopter Carriers. If I recall correctly, both Hobbs’ British Aircraft Carriers and Friedman’s British Cruisers mention them. IIRC they were suspended or canned around 1962 when the Polaris effort overwhelmed the design team plans.
 
Last edited:
The helicopter carrier has always struck me as a hangover from the big cruiser.
The RN had sufficient flat tops available for fast conversion to ASW carriers. The two Commando ships (Bulwark and Albion) could have shipped ASW Wessex and Seaking helos as Hermes did in the 70s (followed by Bulwark).
A combined Commando/ASW carrier design to replace Bulwark and Albion was looked at but the Through Deck/Command Cruiser was developed instead.
To see why, you have only to look at the elegant Italian Terrier equipped cruisers which entered service in the 60s.with large helo decks after. France planned a similar Masurca equipped ship.
Mention is made that Lord Mountbatten hankered after the cruiser.
The conversion of Blake and Tiger was pure folly. The smaller RFA Engadine showed how an effective helo ship could have been added quickly and cheaply.
 
France did exactly that with Arromanches until 1974 - which was one of the many Majestic / Colossus dumped to foreign navies. It was a nice in-between 30 000 tons Clems and 12 000 tons Jeanne d'Arc
 
uk 75 said:
The helicopter carrier has always struck me as a hangover from the big cruiser.
The RN had sufficient flat tops available for fast conversion to ASW carriers. The two Commando ships (Bulwark and Albion) could have shipped ASW Wessex and Seaking helos as Hermes did in the 70s (followed by Bulwark).
A combined Commando/ASW carrier design to replace Bulwark and Albion was looked at but the Through Deck/Command Cruiser was developed instead.
To see why, you have only to look at the elegant Italian Terrier equipped cruisers which entered service in the 60s.with large helo decks after. France planned a similar Masurca equipped ship.
Mention is made that Lord Mountbatten hankered after the cruiser.
The conversion of Blake and Tiger was pure folly. The smaller RFA Engadine showed how an effective helo ship could have been added quickly and cheaply.
Click to expand...
So you're advocating for a more versatile, multi-role vessel like the Vittorio Veneto, as opposed to specialised vessels like the Invincible class uk 75?

Regards
Pioneer
 
Archibald said:
France did exactly that with Arromanches until 1974 - which was one of the many Majestic / Colossus dumped to foreign navies. It was a nice in-between 30 000 tons Clems and 12 000 tons Jeanne d'Arc
Click to expand...
Dumped?

Rather a harsh way of describing how so many navies queued up to get them as a relatively low cost way into carrier aviation.

Remind me what France had carrier wise in 1946 when Arromanches (ex Colossus, the first to leave RN service) arrived initially on loan only to be purchased in 1951.

Bearn, reduced to a transport. Dixmude (ex RN escort carrier Biter) with its unreliable machinery.
 
NOMISYRRUC said:
Which would be the best if it was a choice between fitting a Type 984 or a second Type 901 to @bobtdwarf's enlarged County?

I think the latter because it could engage two targets at the same time and as far as I know the "real" County was able to see the radar picture of the Type 984s aboard the strike carriers via the DPT data link.

On the other hand the superior radar picture that Type 984 should provide over the Type 965s fitted in the "real world" might be better. That is they'd have a better idea of which target to engage first.
Click to expand...
I'd go for a second Type 901 replacing the sub-optimal helicopter facilities.
 
Pioneer said:
uk 75 said:
The helicopter carrier has always struck me as a hangover from the big cruiser.
The RN had sufficient flat tops available for fast conversion to ASW carriers. The two Commando ships (Bulwark and Albion) could have shipped ASW Wessex and Seaking helos as Hermes did in the 70s (followed by Bulwark).
A combined Commando/ASW carrier design to replace Bulwark and Albion was looked at but the Through Deck/Command Cruiser was developed instead.
To see why, you have only to look at the elegant Italian Terrier equipped cruisers which entered service in the 60s.with large helo decks after. France planned a similar Masurca equipped ship.
Mention is made that Lord Mountbatten hankered after the cruiser.
The conversion of Blake and Tiger was pure folly. The smaller RFA Engadine showed how an effective helo ship could have been added quickly and cheaply.
Click to expand...
So you're advocating for a more versatile, multi-role vessel like the Vittorio Veneto, as opposed to specialised vessels like the Invincible class uk 75?

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
No since the UK had enough carriers available to carry Wessex or Seaking ASW I would have scrapped the Tigers or "dumped" them on foreign nations.
The Invincibles were an expensive way of carrying ASW helicopters and their Seadart was removed after the Cold War.
The Tigers only carried 4 Seakings. The much smaller Engadine showed a simple vessel could carry them.
HMS Ocean showed how a cheap LPH could handle the Commandio and ASW helo roles.
 
The 1966 Fleet Working Party seems to have been ao scared of any ship that looks like a carrier that it abandons the simple Iwo Jima style vessel evolved to replace Bulwark/Albion in favour of a descendant of the 1962 Escort Cruiser.
An ASW/Commando ship design could have been built more cheaply than the Invincible and allowed the RN to phase out Hermes and Bulwark in the 1970s.
A Conservative government inheriting Ark Royal and these new ships under construction could then have looked again at a new carrier to replace Ark from 1979
 
uk 75 said:
Pioneer said:
uk 75 said:
The helicopter carrier has always struck me as a hangover from the big cruiser.
The RN had sufficient flat tops available for fast conversion to ASW carriers. The two Commando ships (Bulwark and Albion) could have shipped ASW Wessex and Seaking helos as Hermes did in the 70s (followed by Bulwark).
A combined Commando/ASW carrier design to replace Bulwark and Albion was looked at but the Through Deck/Command Cruiser was developed instead.
To see why, you have only to look at the elegant Italian Terrier equipped cruisers which entered service in the 60s.with large helo decks after. France planned a similar Masurca equipped ship.
Mention is made that Lord Mountbatten hankered after the cruiser.
The conversion of Blake and Tiger was pure folly. The smaller RFA Engadine showed how an effective helo ship could have been added quickly and cheaply.
Click to expand...
So you're advocating for a more versatile, multi-role vessel like the Vittorio Veneto, as opposed to specialised vessels like the Invincible class uk 75?

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
No since the UK had enough carriers available to carry Wessex or Seaking ASW I would have scrapped the Tigers or "dumped" them on foreign nations.
The Invincibles were an expensive way of carrying ASW helicopters and their Seadart was removed after the Cold War.
The Tigers only carried 4 Seakings. The much smaller Engadine showed a simple vessel could carry them.
HMS Ocean showed how a cheap LPH could handle the Commandio and ASW helo roles.
Click to expand...
Sorry, in which case, I misinterpreted you.

P.S. I have to admit, I wasn't a fan of the Tiger conversion and it's consumption of funds.....

Regards
Pioneer
 
bobtdwarf said:
H_K said:
something that would be interesting in particular to PA58 as a side note: France ran at a higher steam pressure than British ships. The first three CVA19 Hancock class ships used British BUILT cats, so one would think they are essentially British cats designed to take American pressures and thus had better throw weight. I want to say that the Clem's ran at 600 PSI like the Hancock but am NOT certain on that.. but the point remains that these cats could have some extra "OOOMPH"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
(quote got somewhat convoluted, no idea why)

The bs series steam catapults had no problem with higher pressure:
1668540471918.png

https://www.history.navy.mil/conten...iation/Naval Aviation News/1950/pdf/feb54.pdf p 5

The c-11 seems to have required no modification in that regard for use of 520 psi, the Clems used up to 580 psi, and there are numbers around for a RN design from 1952 (or so ?) using 650 psi (boilers or accumulators is not clear) with much improved performance.

This also was the end for the original C-7 that would have used powder charges.
 
zen said:
orlovsky said:
Interesting. So with 8 Type 82, the RN was planning for another class of AA ship to complement them even with 2 or 3 CVAs?
Click to expand...
In essence yes, the genesis of the Type 42 begins in those earlier studies for a cheaper, less manpower intensive AAW ship. Offloading ASW to the specialist Type 17 and ultimately the Type 22.
Click to expand...
But let's say the RN gets two even small catobar carriers with fighters and AEW in the 60s/70s. How many Type 42s would they have had? (I know this is pure speculation, but fun)
 
orlovsky said:
How many Type 42s would they have had? (I know this is pure speculation, but fun)
Click to expand...
8 or 4 per CVA-01.....which would be the same as Type 82s.

Because funnily enough we had 12 and 3 Invincible class CVL.

So if the CV isn't armed with Sea Dart then in planning terms this imposes an increased need for AAW sets...
Arguably 5 per CV.

Or you could go the other way and have just 2 CG per CV each with twice the Sea Dart systems....
Which is actually cheaper and more capable but more catastrophic if you loose one.

Or....just to be extreme.
You could say have a single TIR and single arm launcher equipped ship and require 10 sets per CV. But ideally you'd have these ships also carrying Ikara and ASW kit. So really an AH Type 82.....
Much more expensive but much harder to degrade the carrier's force's defence.
 
3 CVA, 8 Type 82. Availability 75 %. As you'll probably havy just two air groups, it's 2 instead of 2,25 carriers and 6 DDG available. 3 per carrier, means 3+1(carrier) = 4 sea dart systems.

3 Invincibles, 14 Type 42. Availability 75 %. As you'll probably havy just two air groups, it's 2 instead of 2,25 carriers and 10.5 DDG available. 5 per carrier, means 5+1(carrier) = 6 sea dart systems.

The 2 additional sea dart systems are "worth" 16 Phantoms - the CVA fighter squadron that got lost.

Just coincidence? If not, it opens up some funny budget numbers...
 
orlovsky said:
3 CVA, 8 Type 82.
Click to expand...
No I dimly reccal it was 2 CVA-01 and 8 Type 82 as costed at cancellation.

EwenS said:
1968-1979 we ordered 14 Type 42 to sit alongside the 3 Invincibles
Click to expand...
Remind us all of the PLANNING not the actual outcome please.

Just coincidence? If not, it opens up some funny budget numbers...
Click to expand...
Funny budget numbers are a inherent feature of the times.
 
orlovsky said:
It's very unclear, but the logic of cva operations would require 3 ships. The debate in 1966 was about the first one, so the rest stays murky.

Same for the carrier group. Type 82, type 42, 8 or 16 ships, escort cruisers or not....
Click to expand...
Don't get me started!
The TAU was 96 and CVA-01 would struggle to handle half with attendant SAR Helicopters let alone ASW. It would require 5 to provide 2 in surge conditions.
Dig through the numbers and seems clear the RN was playing a long game to get upto 5 CVs again.
No.11 saw through this I suspect and threw a fit.
 
I think the TAU suggests 3 carriers.
Normal load fast jets: 36, 2/3rds in the hangar or on deck; surge condition: 48
Two air groups for normal load would be a total of ~150 jets, so with a stretch 96 should be doable for a limited time
1 carrier forward positioned, 1 training/workup, 1 dock: so 2 available
The goal would be to destroy opposing air power, not to maintain a continued presence like the USN eg in Vietnam. The latter would indeed require 4-6 carriers and many more aircraft.
The limited engagement looks pretty clear from the various carrier vs RAF studies.
edit: That was also the reason why a 2 carrier force was not an option - the RN had itself painted into a 3 or 0 corner.

But I could be completely wrong on this.:oops:
 
Further to planning

1975 Conclusions
37 Sea Dart systems needed 29 planned
1975 existing plan for 1990.
26 missile armed destroyers
15 Type 42 + 10 modified + Type 82
 
Part of internal debate over Type 43 and Type 44. The latter used Type 22 hull and propulsion which was cheaper and created larger scales of production and commonality.
 
One big change after 1966 and the focus on NATO rather than East of Suez is the integration of the RN with allied forces ranging from the US Second Fleet to the Royal Norwegian Air Force.
One specific example of this is the creation of a standing NATO naval force of destroyers/frigates in the Atlantic (STANAVFORLANT) which brings US, UK and other NATO ships together to train and patrol as well as a supply ship permanently with them. Units rotated with the force and command passed between nations.
So a County or a T22 might find itself working with a Spruance or an Adams or a Perry.
This helped the RN reduce the number of Seadart ships it needed.
The 1981 Nott Review reinforced this NATO centric role and limited even Mediterranean deoloyments. The RN had withdrawn from the Med in the 70s helped by growing Maltese hostility to the West.
 
Looks like my SuperTiger thoughts are going to require the 2 seater to enhance engagement of cruise missiles of the era.
 
Sadly when you look at the emerging Soviet threat in the 1960s you pretty much end up with a Sparrow equipped F4 or better still a Phoenix equipped F14.
Anything less capable leaves you needing a handy US carrier and then you become their.ASW shield, so you have an Invincible with a few Sea Harriers for anti snooper work.
And if John Nott or Dennis Healey are around you build SSNs instead.
 
uk 75 said:
Sadly when you look at the emerging Soviet threat in the 1960s you pretty much end up with a Sparrow equipped F4 or better still a Phoenix equipped F14.
Anything less capable leaves you needing a handy US carrier and then you become their.ASW shield, so you have an Invincible with a few Sea Harriers for anti snooper work.
And if John Nott or Dennis Healey are around you build SSNs instead.
Click to expand...
it would still carry 4 sparrows so could do the gig.. just in numbers that make the Hermes still viable
 
Well inless you have less faith in the ussrs anti shiping ability then they claim, France never seemed particularly worried about that for example.
 
With the exception of the Falklands War in 1982 (which could have been prevented by the timely deployment of SSN) the Royal Navy does not use its carrier airpower in anger between Centaur's quelling of a mutiny in Tanzania and support for operations in the former Yugoslavia in the 90s.
The main role of the RN after 1966 was to provide forces for NATO to deter the Soviet Union.
The SSN is the game changer as it provides the RN with a serious weapon against the massive Soviet submarine force.
The carrier by contrast can only offer an inferior addition to the US carriers. CVA01 is a sorry attempt to build a British Forrestal.
After 1991 the RN are able to persuade a new Labour Government in 1997 that carriers offer an effective way of deploying air power based on operations in the former Yugoslavia.
In reality it is the RAF that carried out most of the UK air operations in the Balkans as well as against Iraq and in Afghanistan. Airbases were always available.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom