Alternate Post War Royal Navy Carrier Rebuilds

EwenS said:
No one has yet produced that 1949 report to allow us to see what the problems really were. So rumours about twisted keels, bent hangar beams, unrepaired kamikaze damage circulate today.
Click to expand...
Logic suggests something deep in the hull. Hanger beams and deck damage would be irrelevant in a reconstruction.

But warping of the keel or frames would be a real problem to deal with.

The Big AH question could then be "what if HMS Formidable was in better condition and not taken off the list for reconstruction "?

Because having two Victorious Standard Carriers does change things.
 
zen said:
Good Gods!
August 51!
Click to expand...
I think I have posted the timeline for development of the angled deck before on this site. But it is worth repeating.

7 Aug 1951 – the angled deck is first proposed by Capt Dennis Cambell.
Aug / Sept 1951 – ‘Winkle’ Brown departs for the USA having been briefed on the angled deck proposal. Cambell meets with USN officers in Britain.
Jan/Feb 1952 – approach trials flown to a painted deck on HMS Triumph (touch and goes deemed unsafe due to the small size of her deck)
May 1952 – approach and touch and go trials flown to a painted deck on the USS Midway.
Sept-Dec 1952 – Antietam refitted in New York Navy Yard with an angled deck on a “rudimentary” sponson for trial purposes.
May 1953 - Antietam visits UK to demonstrate the angled deck to the RN.

The RN was actively pursuing the angled deck around this time. In Aug 1953 a quote was sought from Albion’s builders for fitting it (and the mirror landing sight). Her sister Centaur, commissioned with an axial flight deck in Sept 1953, was taken in hand between Oct 1953 and April 1954 to be refitted with an angled deck. Her sisters Albion & Bulwark completed with it in May and Oct 1954. Plans were changed for Ark Royal at this time and Eagle was refitted with an angled deck between Jun 1954 and Mar 1955. 5.5 degrees was the maximum angle that could be fitted to these carriers without major structural modifications.

This was a period of great co-operation between the USN & the RN. HMS Perseus with its prototype steam catapult visited the USA in Jan / Feb 1952 to demonstrate it to the USN with Winkle Brown flying the first manned launches from it. Steam catapult timeline is as follows.

1936 – Slotted tube / cylinder steam catapult was conceived by Colin Mitchell of MacTaggart, Scott & Co and patented in 1938.
1944- Renewed interest and development by RAE at Farnborough as a result of the discovery of technology used in the V1. Cdr Colin Mitchell and MacTaggart, Scott & Co also become involved again. The result was a shore based prototype and an Admiralty decision in 1946 to adopt the slotted-cylinder catapult for its carriers with plans for a shipborne prototype finalised in 1948.
1949 - HMS Perseus refitted with a prototype BXS-1 steam catapult on her flight deck.
1950 – Perseus begins steam catapult trials in June 1950 which last through until March 1952.
1950 – In Nov HMS Ark Royal’s completion schedule amended to allow incorporation of steam catapults.
1951 – USN formulates plans for the SCB-27C Essex class modernisation with a single powder C-10 slotted tube catapult (as well as a single hydraulic H-8). Delays to its development and problems with the stowage and protection of the charges for it coincide with appearance of the steam catapult.
1952 – Perseus spends Jan/Feb with the USN demonstrating the steam catapult with ‘Winkle’ Brown flying the first manned tests.
1954 – USS Hancock (Feb), Intrepid (Jun) and Ticonderoga (Sept) re-enter service following SCB-27C refits, fitted with 2*C-11 steam catapults (those on Hancock and Ticonderoga being built in the UK) followed by the SCB-125 conversions in 1955.
1955 – First British BS.4 steam catapults go to sea in February in HMS Ark Royal followed by HMAS Melbourne in Oct.



And the timeline for development of the mirror landing sight, much of which Friedman skips over:-

1945 – postwar research into the landing problem begins at RAE Farnborough with radar & talk down systems considered but great difficulties encountered.
1951 – Mirror sight conceived by Lt Cdr Nick Goodhart, assistant to Capt Dennis Campbell, and published in a paper in Dec.
1952 – RAE begin tests with very basic temporary ground based setup using Goodhart’s paper.
1952 – July the temporary setup was transferred to HMS Illustrious for trials at sea. Development continues.
1952 – Illustrious is fitted out with the first permanent unit for trials in Oct.
1953 –Development continues with stabilisation & smaller mirror. Another installation is made in Illustrious in Oct with trials in Nov. USN test pilots on exchange also get to take part in these trials and report back to the USN by the end of the year.
1954 – It is believed that Albion became the first carrier with a permanent system (completed May).
1955 – August first USN trials with an installation in the USS Bennington.
 
Somewhere inside that timeline, the french must have asked the british for 171 ft BS.5 catapults. Must have been in 1954.
PA54 Clemenceau was funded late 1953, laid down in November 1955 and launched on December 21, 1957. With PA55 Foch they were built from the keel up with angled deck.
 
EwenS said:
I think I have posted the timeline for development of the angled deck before on this site. But it is worth repeating.

7 Aug 1951 – the angled deck is first proposed by Capt Dennis Cambell.
Aug / Sept 1951 – ‘Winkle’ Brown departs for the USA having been briefed on the angled deck proposal. Cambell meets with USN officers in Britain.
Jan/Feb 1952 – approach trials flown to a painted deck on HMS Triumph (touch and goes deemed unsafe due to the small size of her deck)
May 1952 – approach and touch and go trials flown to a painted deck on the USS Midway.
Sept-Dec 1952 – Antietam refitted in New York Navy Yard with an angled deck on a “rudimentary” sponson for trial purposes.
May 1953 - Antietam visits UK to demonstrate the angled deck to the RN.

The RN was actively pursuing the angled deck around this time. In Aug 1953 a quote was sought from Albion’s builders for fitting it (and the mirror landing sight). Her sister Centaur, commissioned with an axial flight deck in Sept 1953, was taken in hand between Oct 1953 and April 1954 to be refitted with an angled deck. Her sisters Albion & Bulwark completed with it in May and Oct 1954. Plans were changed for Ark Royal at this time and Eagle was refitted with an angled deck between Jun 1954 and Mar 1955. 5.5 degrees was the maximum angle that could be fitted to these carriers without major structural modifications.
Click to expand...

This misses a huge amount of activity. The RAE Naval Aircraft Department produced Technical Memo N.A.45 in October 1951 proposing a 7 degree angle deck and trials to investigate its practicability. DNC produced a drawing of Ark Royal with a 9 degree angled deck in the same month, circulating it to various Directors on 3rd November 1951, though at that point it included a 36ft long ramp that was to be 6ft tall at its summit (corresponding to 9.5 degrees). Based on the pilot observations from the February 1952 Triumph trials, report N.A.242 was produced in March concluding that the idea was feasible. An attempt to draft a staff requirement was overtaken by the success of the trials and DAW and DTSD concluded that it was now a matter of implementing the angled deck in the carrier fleet. On May 1st 1952 DNC wrote that his department was preparing drawings of the Ark Royal, Hermes, Victorious and Colossus class with angled decks. DAW wrote that an angled deck would be a requirement for the then planned new construction carrier on May 22nd 1952. The Board accepted the installation of an angled deck in Hermes, but rejected one for Victorious, in July 1952.
 
Last edited:
British carrier decisions certainly could give Byzantine thinkers a run for they money...
 
Caryina2642 said:
Could HMS Indomitable also get a victorious style rebuild?
Click to expand...

No. If it had to be carried out it would have to be similar to the Implacables due to her hangar and a half layout. But with its shorter upper hangar as built (416 v 456ft) and other internal differences, it would have required a separate modernisation plan
 
Consequences of expedient solutions of a short term nature.

There's a war on
Just through this crisis
And another and another.

Don't worry about the long-term, just modify an existing design.

Eventually the crunch comes and only supreme acts of will can chase reality.

In the deeper sense of Elite behaviour.
Foxes degrade order and structure.
Lions destroy the corrupted structures and build new ones.
 
Rule of cool said:
There's no panacea for the RN, its depressing.
Click to expand...
This thread makes me feel as though the best way forward fpr the RN would have been. Cancelling Victorious rebuild, possibly Ark Royal depending on her material condition and completing hermes to the same standard as her sisters. Then build 5 - 6 of the 1952 Fleet Carrier design.
Not sure what to do with Eagle weather you rebuild her or try n sell her. Once the 1952 class start entering services convert the Centuars into commando carrier.
This at least would mean by the mid 60s the RN would have 6 to 7 modern carriers. So there would be no CVA01 vs TSR scenario. Saving the RNs carrier force though the number in service would probably be reduced
 
Caryina2642 said:
This thread makes me feel as though the best way forward fpr the RN would have been. Cancelling Victorious rebuild, possibly Ark Royal depending on her material condition and completing hermes to the same standard as her sisters. Then build 5 - 6 of the 1952 Fleet Carrier design.
Not sure what to do with Eagle weather you rebuild her or try n sell her. Once the 1952 class start entering services convert the Centuars into commando carrier.
This at least would mean by the mid 60s the RN would have 6 to 7 modern carriers. So there would be no CVA01 vs TSR scenario. Saving the RNs carrier force though the number in service would probably be reduced
Click to expand...

There's no cash Chopper........ here......... no cash!
 
Rule of cool said:
There's no cash Chopper........ here......... no cash!
Click to expand...
The eatimated cost of the 1952 was 26million. Victorious rebuild costed 30million, Eagle rebuild costed 31million, Hermes rebuild costed 18million. So cancelling these gives u enough money if the price doesnt increase, there is enough money for 3 1952 class carriers. Probably more if u cancel Ark Royal as well
 
Rule of cool said:
There's no panacea for the RN, its depressing.
Click to expand...
There be potential AH divergence that might alter the outcome.

I've questioned the decision to alter the Illustrious design, and just build more Illustrious class. It wouldn’t save enough to actually result in more carriers during the war. It slightly shorterns the build rate and entry into service for some.
But just having 6 or so of the same design.
Does it effect the outcome of War by any significant margin?
I'm not convinced, since the FAA struggled to get enough aircraft.

Ewan goes through the details, but I don't see much that is game changing for The War if this AH had happened.

However post war, the consequences be several rebuilt to Victorious standard and the staving off of next generation carrier program for a decade or more.
-------
Here's an intriguing thing to note.
JCF Fuller did post a picture of a Medium Fleet Carrier study and it's clearly post '54 when the future is Scimitar and Buccaneer.
Having just 220ft pull put distance on the arrestor wires and a Scimitar like aircraft depucted on the 150ft stroke catapult.

It doesn’t have a overall length figure but going by the 500ft long hanger, the overall flight deck length seems to be somewhere between 765ft and 775ft.
The latter figure is the same as Victorious's flight deck....
 
zen said:
There be potential AH divergence that might alter the outcome.

I've questioned the decision to alter the Illustrious design, and just build more Illustrious class. It wouldn’t save enough to actually result in more carriers during the war. It slightly shorterns the build rate and entry into service for some.
But just having 6 or so of the same design.
Does it effect the outcome of War by any significant margin?
I'm not convinced, since the FAA struggled to get enough aircraft.

Ewan goes through the details, but I don't see much that is game changing for The War if this AH had happened.

However post war, the consequences be several rebuilt to Victorious standard and the staving off of next generation carrier program for a decade or more.
-------
Here's an intriguing thing to note.
JCF Fuller did post a picture of a Medium Fleet Carrier study and it's clearly post '54 when the future is Scimitar and Buccaneer.
Having just 220ft pull put distance on the arrestor wires and a Scimitar like aircraft depucted on the 150ft stroke catapult.

It doesn’t have a overall length figure but going by the 500ft long hanger, the overall flight deck length seems to be somewhere between 765ft and 775ft.
The latter figure is the same as Victorious's flight deck....
Click to expand...

I'd go back to the interwar period, and even then there's likely 3 decisions that need to be changed.
  • The 1923 decision to keep the FAA in the RAF rather than return it to the RN
  • the 1931 decision not to give the Army's research work into 'radar' further consideration
  • the 1936 decision to keep to the 2LNT tonnage limits rather than take the escalator clause
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom