CVA-01 1963 to 1966

Re: CVA-01

Abraham

Thanks for your corrections on my random musings.

Like you I think we should support authors so I have ordered the original paperback on Amazon. Your pointer has been helpful.

All the best
UK 75
 
Re: CVA-01

uk 75 said:
Thanks for your corrections on my random musings.
Click to expand...

Muse away.

uk 75 said:
Like you I think we should support authors so I have ordered the original paperback on Amazon. Your pointer has been helpful.
Click to expand...

This book is actually an academic book so the authors aren't hanging out too much for sales they have their stipend and are unlikely to get any more payment. Academic journals have inelastic demand and the greater majority of the print run goes to librarys and the like and chances of a reprint next to zero. They'd much prefer people to cite them in published papers... I have a temp e copy via the university library system.

PS I just saw how much this book costs on Amazon and that's freaking criminal. Total book gouging.
 
Re: CVA-01

JFC Fuller said:
Abraham Gubler said:
This is the OR.346 aircraft that the RN planned to acquire in both strike and fighter versions to replace the Buccaneer and Sea Vixen. Until sights were trimmed to P.1154 and Spey Phantom.
Click to expand...

Planned is probably an overstatement, OR.346 was really only ever a sort of hypothetical next-generation construct to feed the requirements process and ultimately got broken up fairly quickly. Part of the way through the design process the size and weight of this hypothetical aircraft dropped which relieved some of the pressure on the design of the carrier.
Click to expand...
Thats not actually quite true, whilst the P1154 farse and then the F-4K Phantom took the initial aspect of the OR346 as a Sea Vixen replacement, it was known at the time that both the Phantom and Buccaneer were large heavy designs limited by their 50's technology. There was still the long term aim to replace both with a common airframe as was suggested by the Vickers Supermarine 583 which did carry over into the 1965 AFVG program. Unfortunately all RN interest dried up with the death sentance for the Carriers and their airgroups as signalled by the CVA-01 cancellation. As a result the RAF took control of the British interest and focused the design towards replacing its deep strike capability it lost with TSR2, and the AFVG is seen in British publications as purely a forefather of the RAF Tornado, with the RN involvement just a footnote :( .
To be honest that whole mid 60's period from 57-68 could warrant a book on its own, not so much the political/economic aspects which tend to be the focus but the programs and could fill a book 10 times over, but rather the concepts and systems that were planned, designed and ultimately abandoned in this time frame.
 
Re: CVA-01

Should be remembered that the OR.346 concept is present in next gen CV studies from '60 to '62 and its origins are certainly earlier.


Thing to note is the large amount of area this concept is expected to take up. Instead of folding down to 22ft wide and 52ft long, the beast is expected to be 30ft wide and 60ft long or even more.
The early lifts in early concepts where 90ft long!



Vickers Supermarine 583 is more of a Vixen's replacement than a Buccaneer's. It was originally a development aircraft for VG, for the larger combined RAF/RN Strike/Fighter.
However Vickers saw the potential and proposed twice, the latter time on the demise of the RN's P1154.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
The RN was planning in the 1960s of deploying their carriers in a very different way to the USN. The RN carrier group was to be widely dispersed with no close escort for the carrier. So CVA-01 had to be able to defend itself which was why Sea Dart and Ikara were planned. In the end Ikara was removed because it clashed with the hangar space, in particular the engine test area on the fantail.
Click to expand...

According to Eric Brown, Wings On My Sleeve: The World's Greatest Test Pilot Tells His Story missile systems on the target ship are twice as effective as those in the screen so installing Seadart was simply the logical thing to do on CVA01. It is worth remembering that the Kitty Hawk class was built (except JFK) with Terrier whilst Enterprise was designed for that system but had it deleted on cost grounds and the Nimitz class were originally intended to take Tartar. As for Ikara, up until the 1962/3 redesign CVA01 was not going to have an organic ASW helicopter capability and the proposed escort cruisers would not arrive until well after CVA01 entered service so Ikara would have been the types primary ASW capability.

Geoff_B,

Agreed about the need for a book! Substantive RAF interest in a Phantom Buccaneer replacement is difficult to discern because the RN becomes so focussed on trying to secure the ships themselves. I think we are talking about different shades of grey though; the successors to OR.346 are demonstrative of an understanding that ultimately F-4K/Buccaneer would need to be replaced- with a fairly aggressive initial schedule, and the Vickers swing-wing designs were definitely used as basis for study but OR.346 itself died with the issuing of OR.355/6 with the latter then becoming the P.1154, before the acquisition of the Phantom. I did briefly investigate at Kew for AFVG in the context of the RN but came up short (admittedly it was not a thorough search), I understand that the French carrier requirement was something of a problem within the AFVG programme anyway as they wanted a considerably lighter design than the French Air Force and RAF and a lighter aircraft than the RAE thought possible within the desired capabilities so it is interesting to speculate how that may have played out especially considering how derisory at least one RN officer was about the size of the Foch and Clemenceau.

As always, please correct me if you have seen something more!

This does remind my of a hypothetical I had; If the RN had scaled back its ambitions a bit, and P.1154 could be made to work and work with a ski-jump rather than cats as part of that ambition reduction then perhaps a 3 shaft, 6 Olympus (instead of 3 shaft with a steam plant) CVA01 configuration could have been possible in a STOVL configuration- a sort of 1960s CVF. Just a random musing.

Edit; Thanks Zen! Yes, 583 (and associates) seems to have been considered both for OR.346 and then proposed as a Phantom alternative when P.1154RN died.
 
Last edited:
Re: CVA-01

It’s a bit out there to call OR.346 a “hypothetical” program because it was as real as any other brochure stage project in this web forum during 1959-62. Real designs were prepared by the four principal naval fast jet design houses and the RN planned the new carrier around the specification. And even after OR.346 was dismembered, replaced and then its replacement replaced it still had provided the benchmark for what became CVA-01 through to its later demise.

Of most import for CVA-01 were the weights and minimum launch and recovery speeds set down in the OR.346 specification. In particular the desire to have a very low speed aircraft with minimum speeds around 80-100 knots. It was this requirement which set the groundwork for the CVA-01s speed, catapult and arrestor capability.

The only aircraft DNA left by OR.346 may be in the Tornado VG but that doesn’t mean at the time OR.346 was just a technology program. Certainly the performance of these aircraft thanks to their sizing, lack of a full VTOL capability, high lift and innovative weight loss made them real hot-rods for their timeframe. And that some of them looked like being able to takeoff and land at under 100 knots would have made for very efficient carrier capabilities.

OR.346

Vickers 581 (VG)
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,468.msg10833.html#msg10833

Vickers 582 (jet flap)
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5704.msg46009.html#msg46009

De Havilland DH.127 (HS’s choice to progress)
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14052.msg163132.html#msg163132

Blackburn B.123
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14052.msg138201.html#msg138201

Hawker P.1152 (VTOL capable)
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?topic=2947.0

HS Advanced Projects 1017 (DH 127 with VG?)
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14054.msg138203.html#msg138203
 
Re: CVA-01

Not really out there. OR.346 never produced any hardware, never received any major funding and was dismembered in about a year; as you say- brochure stage. It's use in the CVA01 programme was because its dimensions represented what was thought to be what a then next-generation aircraft would emerge as with the specifications the RN wanted, the studies had to be done to get those dimensions. It was an early study that soon moved on, an interesting one but it was never likely to produce an aircraft without further evolution which is precisely what happened when the requirement was split and the Buccaneer replacement put in with the TSR-2 replacement to form OR.355 which ultimately fizzled. That left the Sea Vixen replacement as AW.406 soon combined with OR.356 for the RAF Hunter replacement which ultimately became P.1154 before AW.406 was split out again to become F-4K leaving a revised OR.356 P.1154 which was itself cancelled to become F-4M before that aircraft was moved into the Air Defence role and was replaced by Jaguar in original OR.356 role.
 
Re: CVA-01

Of these concepts, the jet flap from Vickers seems plausable for the TO and L requirements, but is mainly let down by storage of weapons and the worries over vibration effects on the rear structure when the engines are using reheat.


Hawkers P1152 is quite reasonable except for the obsession with making everything VTOL capable at low weights.


As to Or.346 it is the 'high end' machine concept around which the RNs CV studies are based, and clearly their long term objective beyond Buccaneer and whatever will (in the interim) replace the Sea Vixen. Needs be born in mind the urgency of the replacement of Sea Vixen once the USSR displays its heavy long range anti-ship missiles. As it does how 'cheap and cheeful' the expected F4K was.
A sound move in that it was more than actually required by AW.406.


Deeper yet we come across the 'Class II' Fighter, Shades of Tomcat there.
 
Re: CVA-01

JFC Fuller said:
It was an early study that soon moved on, an interesting one but it was never likely to produce an aircraft without further evolution which is precisely what happened when the requirement was split and the Buccaneer replacement put in with the TSR-2 replacement for form OR.355.
Click to expand...

Before it was dismembered OR.346 was as serious as any other aircraft project at this stage. It’s simply hindsight to say that it was ‘never likely’ to progress.

Apart from the technical side of it all what OR.346 represents was the beginning of the end for the RN FAA and arguably British aircraft development. Because the dismemberment of OR.346 is the start of the sliding scale that ends with the abolishment of the carriers, cancellation of TSR.2, etc.

At each step the new 1970s ‘wonderplane’ that started with OR.346 is reduced in scope and capability until it ends up as Phantoms and European co-operation to build a VG plane. For the RN it goes OR.346 to 356 to NMBR 3 to P.1154RN to F-4K to 1970 comes and the new F-4Ks have Omega painted on their tails.

None of this was “likely” in 1961 otherwise the RN would have asked Hawker to stick a radar on the Kestral and scoped the CVA-01 as a 20,000 tonne through deck cruiser.
 
Re: CVA-01

zen said:
Of these concepts, the jet flap from Vickers seems plausable for the TO and L requirements, but is mainly let down by storage of weapons and the worries over vibration effects on the rear structure when the engines are using reheat.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t discount the DH.127 it is basically the launch and landing approach of the Spey Phantom without any compromise. That is at launch all horizontal thrust is provided by the catapult with 20,000 lbs of thrust going straight down (F-4K had about a third of engine thrust in the vertical). The delta wing has flaps and is at high alpha so generating loads of lift to add to that thrust (just like F-4K). Given the huge nose down effects of the wing and aft of CG vertical thrust there are two trimming engines in the nose to keep the high alpha (F-4K had a tail to counter the far less nose down effect).

This is a brute force way of getting 50,000 lbs into the air at 85 knots without the high weight margins of twice the engine power needed for VTOL. Because of the high lift wing and the trimming engines DH reckoned at 40,000 lbs weight with 35,000 lbs of thrust in horizontal and no vertical thrust (apart from the trimming engines) it could take off with only 30 knots WOD and no catapult impulse.

Like all STOL, VTOL aircraft it would have been tender to weight gain during development but had a low weight general design thanks to the delta wing. Being basically a simple, conventional design it wouldn’t have all the fingers crossed moments something like a jet flap or VG aircraft would have.
 
Re: CVA-01

Abraham Gubler said:
Apart from the technical side of it all what OR.346 represents was the beginning of the end for the RN FAA and arguably British aircraft development. Because the dismemberment of OR.346 is the start of the sliding scale that ends with the abolishment of the carriers, cancellation of TSR.2, etc.
Click to expand...

That is dramatically overplaying the importance of OR.346; it barely lasted a year, P.1154 came after it, TSR-2 survived until 1965...both cancelled for their own reasons...(not to mention P.1216 and EAP), CVA01 until 1966 and the FAA made it all the way to 2000 as an independent fast jet force. OR.346 was just one of hundreds of studies and requirements that have been undertaken over the decades and it was just as serious as any of those at the brochure stage- not that serious at all. Given the ever-increasing urgency to replace, and the glaring obsolescence of, the Sea Vixen it is hardly surprising and entirely predictable that the Buccaneer replacement was removed from OR.346 in order to focus on the interceptor element as AW.406 (OR.356 being the RAF Hunter replacement requirement). Ultimately the end of OR.346 was about as significant to the FAA as the 1993 cancellation of A/F-X was for the USN, they just moved on to something else having spent very little money and not built anything.
 
Re: CVA-01

Perspective JFC Fuller.
This is the era of the Vigilante, and TFX for the USN.
This is the era of the RN working on a four hour CAP for its next gen Fighter, the justification for reducing the fighter component further after they had already shipped DLI to the SAM on any future effort.
Their even longer ranged speculation was that a Class II Fighter would further reduce this down from 32 Fighters to 12.
This is the era where to cooperate with the RAF a 1000nm ROA with a nuclear weapon was required and a multirole system necessary to justify pulling the 12 short ranged Attack machines out of their Tactical Air Unit and bring offensive aircraft down to 64 (32 per CV) was necessary.


OR.346 is highly influencial. It's still exerting an influence on the RN's thinking upto the demise of the carriers.


Abraham Gubler
You may have a point on DH's design, since it had greater than required range and maybe this extra fuel load could be traded for general weight growth.
 
Re: CVA-01

Zen,

The perceived scenario that lead to OR.346 is highly influential, OR.346 itself is just one very brief approach at meeting that scenario and is very rapidly superseded by OR.356/AW406 (with the Buccaneer replacement combined with the TSR-2 replacement in OR.355) as requirements evolve to take into account existing equipment conditions (need to replace Sea Vixen) and then economy (desire for a joint programme to save money in the case of P.1154).
 
Re: CVA-01

zen said:
You may have a point on DH's design, since it had greater than required range and maybe this extra fuel load could be traded for general weight growth.
Click to expand...

Another possible plus for the DH.127 is it could be using an underestimation of the thrust the engine would provide. Information in “BSP: Jet Bombers since 1949” is a bit patchy because in the text it mentions Spey for engine but in the tabulated data table “RB.156” which I can find no mention of anywhere. Anyway assuming it is a Spey they predict a dry thrust of 11,065 lbs and 18,650 lbs with reheat. But in the real world, in a rare case of inversion, the military Spey with reheat provided more thrust when it was ready for service. In the case of Mk 202 for the F-4K 12,250 lbs thrust dry and 20,515 lbs with reheat. Giving a welcome 10% increase in takeoff lift-thrust to counter weight growth.

Given that if the OR.346 was to progress to an operational aircraft it would basically be the centerpiece of the UK aerospace industry its not impossible to imagine that even more thrust could be provided by the Spey. In particular some of the features that went into the Spey 32D for the P.1154 like contra-rotation. This engine provided 13,000 lbs thrust dry and of course the DH.127 wouldn’t need PCB. So its not impossible to imagine a 1970 contra-rotation Spey for DH.127 with 13,000 lbs dry thurst and 21,750 lbs reheat. Which is 17.5% more lift thrust for takeoff and a very handy thrust to weight ratio of 0.78 at maximum takeoff (F-15A is 0.85).

DH.127 is a simple aircraft amongst a field of boondoggles. VTOL, VG, jet flaps… Compared to a Tomcat it may carry around the deadweight of the two trim engines and thrust vectoring but in return it doesn’t have the extra weight of VG. It also has much higher thrust to weight ratio with Mk 202 Speys (0.73 vs 0.56) and even the “RB.156” (0.67), lower drag thanks to lower wetted area and very high endurance thanks to this and the high fuel fraction. With the added advantage of being able to takeoff and land at 2/3s the speed making for more efficient carrier operations and better pitching deck capability in the North Atlantic and sans-catapult DLI in an emergency.
 
Re: CVA-01

First point. AW406 is a interim requirement, an acceptance that OR.346 is too demanding and again one must look to the Vigilante and TFX (F111B) to see that.


Second is that the NMBR.3 'joint' winner is imposed on the RN, when the UK tries to force the issue by developing the P1154. A means to overcome the impass created by the political decision to award Dassault multi-lift jet nightmare the other 'winner'.


Needs be reminded that OR.346 is essentially a joint RAF and RN machine to the same requirements as the TSR.2 but with a bomber destroyer (Fighter) component added, and the further matter of navalisation.


Abraham.
Certainly its possible to see a barebones flying prototype being affordable and stepping towards the use of liftjets and switch-in-deflection over the course of a development program.
One can conceive that the first machine might fly with Avons.
Certainly the manufacture of the wing, lacking the complex lift devices seems a relatively risk free option.
Conceivably as a straight machine it would do the ADV job reasonably well for the RAF replacing the Javelin
 
Re: CVA-01

zen said:
First point. AW406 is a interim requirement, an acceptance that OR.346 is too demanding and again one must look to the Vigilante and TFX (F111B) to see that.
Click to expand...

Precisely, OR.346 was a brief paper exercise whose significance in the grand scheme of things is relatively limited. It's splitting in two and ambition reduction makes perfect sense, especially given the initial 70% strike element. At that time, of the three streams of RAF fast-jet procurement a TSR-2 replacement was the last in order; the first being a Hunter FGA.9/FR.10 replacement and the second being a Lightning replacement. For the RN the Sea Vixen replacement was the priority and for the RAF the Hunter FGA.9/FR.10 replacement, thus pushing the TSR-2 replacement and Buccaneer replacement into a later requirement of their own was eminently sensible. Unfortunately, the nearest term RAF requirement was not really compatible with nearest term RN requirement so P.1154RN ends up dying to be replaced by Phantoms. Of course the fact that Phantoms were applicable as a P.1154RAF replacement later-on suggests that had the two requirements been moved closer together earlier a joint service platform could have been produced, perhaps not P.1154 based but one of the Vickers VG designs, Types 583 to 590; they could also have made for nice Lightning and Buccaneer replacements later. The RAF abandoning the initial desire for STOVL in its Hunter FGA.9/FR.10 replacement would have gone an awfully long way towards closing the gap between those requirements.
 
The just issued book on British Carriers by David Hobbs (see thread in the books section for ref) adds some tantalising information to existing sources and confirms somethings we already know.

Hobbs explains in fairly brutal terms that the 1963 Escort Cruiser design was a non starter once work began on desigining and building Polaris submarines. Interestingly he refers to the final design having one Seadart launcher only, which makes more sense that the earlier idea of two Seadarts and an Ikara.

The 4 Escort Cruisers (to replace the Tiger conversions in the 70s) and 2 replacement Commando Ships (to replace Bulwark and Albion in the 70s) remained in the long term costings but no work was done on them.

Fast forward to the chapter on the 1966 Fleet Working Party which was convened to try and sort out a large ship after CVA 01's cancellation.

Hobbs does not cover the fairly vague proposals mentioned elsewhere for a cheaper design to replace CVA 01 (carrying what becomes the Jaguar) or the offers from the States to supply Essex class carriers. Similarly he does not go into the later US offer at the time of the Falklands, To be fairm the focus of the book is sensibly on what actually happened rather than what MIGHT have happened.

I found the chapter on the 1966 designs in Brown/Moore's rebuilding the Royal Navy and the line drawings difficult to follow. Hobbs provides his own chapter, whose narrative tries to clear up some of the designs. He is also confusing in that he describes designs which are not illustrated and those that are in the same breath and so I am still a bit lost. He saves his best contribution to the end: a 15,000 ton cruiser design with Seakings and Seadart plus lightweight 4-5 gun dating from 1968. It is not hard to see from this ship what the 1963 Escort Cruiser final design might have looked like.

The farcical attempts to meet the Government hatred of anything that looked like a carrier is well explained by Hobbs and treated with appropriate contempt. The adoption of Blake/Tiger style hangars on these ships is a retrograde step from the 1963 cruiser which already had its hangar below decks.

The cheap and practical design for an Iwo Jima style Commando ship is described (interestingly information about this ship is found in the German magazine Marine Rundschau from 1965-6, so it had been in the minds of designers before 1966). This is a sad what might have been as it would have been cheaper to operate than Bulwark and Albion.

It is hard not to agree with Hobbs's contention that more money was spent on this round about way of having a carrier than might have been on CVA 01, which he seems quite positive about.

The icing on the cake for CVA 01 fans are the original ships drawing from the NMM which show a somewhat different design to those published previously, notably in the form of the Island.

I hope that some of the more learned contributors to this site who have also read Hobbs will pick up the thread and add more.
 
Hobb's work is arguably the most comprehensive yet produced on British carriers, it excellent in many ways. However, I can not agree with his conclusions regarding CVA-01. Mostly because he never asks what the carriers were actually for.

CVA01 was an excellent design, highly innovative and very capable. There can really be no dispute of that. However, the carrier fleet itself in the 1960s was a product of Mountbatten's 1956/7 East of Suez role which he and the rest of the then naval leadership concocted to divert Sandy's from his original desire to discard the carriers. So self-fulfilling and absurd did this become that I have seen one Cabinet Defence Committee meeting where the politicians (rightly) respond in astonishment at an RN request to weight the carrier force even more heavily towards EoS. Remember that the carriers WoS were to be primarily ASW orientated.

There were three fundamental problems with the UK carrier fleet that were true in 1952, true in 1957 and still true in 1965. They absorbed an enormous amount of manpower (CVA-01 would have had a complement of 3,230*- the Navy was capped at 90,000), they were enormously expensive to buy (both the ships themselves and the air wings, pressure on Buccaneer and Sea Vixen procurement was evident within two years of Sandys), and that expense was compounded by insufficient UK shore infrastructure (a new dock was required at Portsmouth for CVA01). The latter issue was compounded by the mid-60s by the growing inadequacy of the British shipbuilding industry to actually undertake the CVA01 project, something Hobbs does touch upon. The idea that more money was spent on the Invincible class than would have been spent on CVA01 is utterly ridiculous and deserves derision.

Hobb's work is outstanding on the technical side, but for the period of the 1960s and early 70s it is best read in accompaniment with something like Ed Hampshire's "From East of Suez to the Eastern Atlantic: British Naval Policy 1964-70" which has the answers to many of the questions Hobbs leaves.

*This is very instructive, the compliment of one CVA01 would have been almost enough to man all three Invincibles
 
Last edited:
JFC Thanks for the book ref. It is quite expensive. I will have to track down a library copy.


I take it that it concentrates on the political side rather than the designs (despite the tantalising drawing of a 1966 cruiser on the cover of the edition I saw on Amazon).


Whats your take on the 1968 cruiser design with the Seadart and gun? The history of the designs remains very opaque.
 
Just looked at Amazon and note that there are no reviews of the book yet. I suggest that those of you who have posted reviews in this thread post them to Amazon. If you really like the book, let potential buyers know that.
 
Hobbs on the CVA-01 vs. Warship 2014

Hobbs seems to have quite a bit on the CVA-01, judging from the comments here. Amazon's blurb on Warships 2014 states that there is an article on the CVA-01 plans - has anyone got access to both? Wondering if it's worth popping for both, or whether the Warships 2014 article is superfluous in the light of Hobbs?
 
Re: Hobbs on the CVA-01 vs. Warship 2014

starviking said:
Hobbs seems to have quite a bit on the CVA-01, judging from the comments here. Amazon's blurb on Warships 2014 states that there is an article on the CVA-01 plans - has anyone got access to both? Wondering if it's worth popping for both, or whether the Warships 2014 article is superfluous in the light of Hobbs?
Click to expand...

The Warship 2014 issue won't be available until June.

And if all you're interested in is a single article out of a book, you should consider contacting your librarian and seeing if you can get it via interlibrary loan.
 
Ed Hampshire's book focuses on the politics, economics and force structure- it is an excellent study on the period.

All the cruiser drawings included in Hobb's book really underscore the impression I have now had for a while, that the RN drew just about every imaginable configuration of an escort cruiser. We know the basic design features, once Sea Slug had been abandoned for Sea Dart, would have been the same. Radars, launching systems, use of macks, etc. We can also surmise that the same weight growth that made Bristol bigger and cut features out of CVA01 would probably have afflicted the escort cruiser as the designs evolved.

From a technical perspective, I am increasingly impressed by Hobb's book, for instance there is details I have not seen before on options considered for Illustrious' 1945 refit and the proposed 1950s Implacable reconstruction. There are annoying little details that are not there, for instance what was illustrious' bofors fit after her 1945 reconstruction (it was 24 singles) but it is a massive book full of information, much of it I have not seen before.

If you are just looking for a single article about CVA-01 I would recommend Anthony Gorst's CVA-01 article in "The Royal Navy 1930- 1990 Innovation and Defense" edited by Richard Harding and published by Routledge in 2004. Rather than Hobb's book, it lacks any pictures but it is a more detailed telling of the design history.
 
Last edited:
The 4 ASW cruisers and 2 LPH, obviously the roles are quite different, yet in some aspects rather similar (as in carrying a group of helicopters somewhere hostile while supporting them) , so is it likely that the hull design would have been similar? Or would the LPH have been significantly larger? Also if the RN had got its second brigade of commandos as was being planned (when there were 5 RM commandos in service) wouldn't three LPH and 3 Fearless class have been needed rather than 2 plus 2? Only thinking that it'd be a bit tight on maintenance schedules?
 
Blackstar, JFC Fuller,
Thanks for the advice. I will see if my local university library can order the articles, though I am not hopeful as I live in Japan.
I do think a purchase of Hobbs' book is imminent on my part.
 
starviking said:
Blackstar, JFC Fuller,
Thanks for the advice. I will see if my local university library can order the articles, though I am not hopeful as I live in Japan.
I do think a purchase of Hobbs' book is imminent on my part.
Click to expand...

Check with your library first. There are international sharing agreements.

If you fail, contact me and I'll see if I can help.
 
Well, it seems like the Hobbs book is now out of my price range.
 

Attachments

  • Carrier.jpg
    Carrier.jpg
    309.8 KB · Views: 856
Now showing as $51.50.


Weird price excursions like this are common on Amazon, because some of the sellers use computer algorithms that price the books based on prices from other sellers. They can get into weird feedback loops that drive prices beyond reasonable limits.
 
TomS said:
Now showing as $51.50.
Click to expand...

I just looked on Amazon and it still has the crazy price.

TomS said:
Weird price excursions like this are common on Amazon, because some of the sellers use computer algorithms that price the books based on prices from other sellers. They can get into weird feedback loops that drive prices beyond reasonable limits.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that explanation. I always suspected that it had to be a computer responsible for some of these crazy prices. I have seen some things that are expensive, but not insane--books that originally sold for $15 now selling to $150. I figure that that's a case of booksellers thinking that they will find somebody who really really wants the book and will pay a large amount. But I also suspect that they never sell it for that price and it just sits there for five years.
 
TomS said:
Looks like there may be a couple of entries:

http://www.amazon.com/British-Aircraft-Carriers-Development-Histories/dp/B00IIDNN64/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1392823899&sr=8-3&keywords=British+carriers+hobbs
This one shows it now at $158, but I'd expect to be able to find it for less elsewhere.

Personally, I prefer Bookfinder.com for used books -- it pulls a lot more sources and avoids a lot of the runwaway pricing issues.
Click to expand...
This this:

http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/British-Aircraft-Carriers-David-Hobbs/9781848321380

44.51 Euro.
 
Re: Hobbs on the CVA-01 vs. Warship 2014

starviking said:
Hobbs seems to have quite a bit on the CVA-01, judging from the comments here. Amazon's blurb on Warships 2014 states that there is an article on the CVA-01 plans - has anyone got access to both? Wondering if it's worth popping for both, or whether the Warships 2014 article is superfluous in the light of Hobbs?
Click to expand...

Warship 2014 arrived with me today. The CVA-01 entry is an outstandingly detailed technical description of the final CVA-01 design with a comparison with one of the earlier sketch designs. It is actually the perfect accompaniment to Anthony Gorst's article and Ed Hampshire's book.

Ed Hampshire provides the context to why the ship was designed and why it was cancelled, Gorst provides a detailed description of the design process and Ian Sturton's Warship 2014 article describes, in detail, the designs final form.
 
Thanks for the summary JFC Fuller. Looks like I will be welcoming Warships 2014 into my collection some time in the near future.
 
JFC

Thank you also for the summary. Waterstones in Oxford still only has the 2013 version.

The three books you mention are sadly all on the expensive side. Our local library service does not run to them either.

Oh well, I might weaken and buy the Warship volume though its the artwork and plans that usually tilt me.

uk 75
 
Re: CVA-01

Already on Chinese sites ! ::)

http://slide.mil.news.sina.com.cn/h/slide_8_265_30334.html#p=1
 

Attachments

  • CVA-01 HMS Queen Elizabeth.jpg
    CVA-01 HMS Queen Elizabeth.jpg
    76.2 KB · Views: 1,034
Re: CVA-01

David Hobbs's "British Aircraft Carriers" has plenty of secret projects jems amongst the new information in the book. One of which is a general arrangement of the CVA-01 from November 1965. It shows the carrier with a new shape to the bridge island including a slanted front face. Here is a Lores scan to kick off any discussion on what would have been the final configuration before construction.
 

Attachments

  • CVA-01_Stbd_Profile_Lores.png
    CVA-01_Stbd_Profile_Lores.png
    288.9 KB · Views: 1,051
CliffyB said:
That link doesn't work JCF.
Click to expand...

Its a strange one. The link is dead because the mods have merged the two threads as suggested. So you are actually where the link wants you to go!
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom