• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

The Centaur carrier fleet - a better fate...

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,400
Reaction score
3,442

How would you proceed to get all 4 Centaurs a) to the same standard and b) keeping their catapults ?

The objective is to make them the mainstay of the RN since
- Audacious are too few - Ark Royal is a wreck right from 1963, leaving Eagle alone
- Illustrious and Implacable are hopeless (hint, Victorious)
- CVA-01 is hopeless

Basically from 1960 onwards the objective is to carefully handle Eagle + the Centaur fleet to get 2 or 3 or 4 of them in place of the Invincibles from the 70's, adding catapults and thus CATOBAR to OTL Harrier-only air group.

With perfect hindsight on all GB & RN many troubles from 1963 to 1983 - would it be possible to get modernized Centaurs instead of Invincibles ?

Starting from Eagle + 4 Centaurs, how would you deflate the carrier fleet from 1963 to 1983 ? One crisis, one less carrier, rinse, repeat. CVA-01 still happens, but no Invincibles...

Air group: only Eagle can properly handle Phantoms so if it goes away, the Phantoms go to the RAF. So how do you assume air defense ? Well, Sea Harrier gradually replace Phantom. That's the only way. The trick is to keep the Buccaneers on Centaur decks because as strike aircraft they are massively more powerful than Sea Harriers.

Imagine the Falklands fought with Buccaneers and Gannet AEW adding to the Sea Harriers - flying out of Hermes, Albion, Bulwark. Meanwhile Eagle, retired in the 70's, is being readied back to service...
 
Last edited:

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,319
Reaction score
1,022
if the twin seater Spey Crusader had been chosen.....at 0.55 million compared to predicted 1.2 million per plane....
Then if you think you can budget for 140 F4K, you can afford 280 Crusaders.....in 1964/65

And these are definitely operable from Hermes.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,400
Reaction score
3,442
And screw the goddam Tigers to save money and free some much needed crews...

Ok considering Hood post maybe the Invincibles are bound to happen.

So
- screw Tigers ASAP
- screw Ark Royal ASAP
- 1966: keep Eagle, Phantomize it
-CVA-01 still fails and remain unaffordable
- Eagle is gone by the early 80's, its Phantoms passed to the RAF
- future belongs to a mixed Centaur / Invincible fleet with Sea Harriers and Buccaneers...
Would two Centaurs and two Invincibles be affordable in the 80's, post Falklands ?
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,148
Reaction score
1,875
I had posted my views on the Audacious class thread before reading this.
I would scrap all the cruisers as the Countys enter service. They have enough guns and Seaslug can also be used against shore targets.
The ASW platform for the new Seakings needs to be a proper Centaur replacement. I would also give it a catapult able to launch Bucs and S3 Vikings.
The Sea Harrier (despite its Falklands rep) is no substitute for an F4 or F14. By the 1980s the USN has enough F14s and needs the UK to focus on ASW where we are so effective.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,319
Reaction score
1,022
If Spey Crusader is chosen operating from Hermes standard Centaurs (that sounds almost Disney level lol), then processes favour something like Jaguar as it's successor.
Presumably the Big Wing version, possibly with RB.199s.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,148
Reaction score
1,875
It tends to be forgotten that the Sea Harrier was originally developed as an anti-snooper aircraft for ASW ships similar to the A4 Skyhawk on Essex class CVS.
With the new RN ASW/Commando ships being part of a Task Group with an F4 equipped Audacious fixed wing ac are more useful in the ASW and anti-ship/counter shore defences role hence S3 and Bucs.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,319
Reaction score
1,022
It tends to be forgotten that the Sea Harrier was originally developed as an anti-snooper aircraft for ASW ships similar to the A4 Skyhawk on Essex class CVS.
With the new RN ASW/Commando ships being part of a Task Group with an F4 equipped Audacious fixed wing ac are more useful in the ASW and anti-ship/counter shore defences role hence S3 and Bucs.
AEW is also a major force enabler. Even if it's Turbo-Trackers or Gannets.
Such Commando Carriers might alight the Audacious ASW assets, freeing hanger, deck and stores up for fast jets.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
632
Reaction score
956
My only concern with using subsonic aircraft armed only with rear aspect IR homing missiles is that, as Soviet bombers got faster, and their missiles got longer ranged and faster, you really needed a better platform for self defense. Strictly my opinion only, but anything less than a Crusader is ineffective in the anti-snooper role and even the F-8 is marginal against Backfire bombers. Which is still better than the A-4 and Harrier in that role.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,319
Reaction score
1,022
My only concern with using subsonic aircraft armed only with rear aspect IR homing missiles is that, as Soviet bombers got faster, and their missiles got longer ranged and faster, you really needed a better platform for self defense. Strictly my opinion only, but anything less than a Crusader is ineffective in the anti-snooper role and even the F-8 is marginal against Backfire bombers. Which is still better than the A-4 and Harrier in that role.
Years, maybe over a decade ago elsewhere someone went over the anti-fleet shadower issue and what became clear is that the likes of Skyhawk and Harrier are very marginal in threatening to catch up with such aircraft before running out of fuel.

One of the things which struck me is that the likes of F.177 able to get up to Mach 1.4 with Red Top was a much more valid threat, as would be a slower but Sparrow armed fighter. Such as say Sea Vixen with updated radar/missile combination.

Crusader armed with Sparrow and appropriate radar (such as became available for Starfighters) or Red Top (and maybe Radar Red Top) delivered a valid threat over a wider speed/altitude/range spectrum.

But of course the F.177 is physically smaller and lighter than Crusader. As would be hooked Swift of Crescent Winged Swift, or say Etendard with reheat, or Mirage F1.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,148
Reaction score
1,875
The RN relied on its fleet carriers to deal snoopers. The Commando ship/Escort Cruiser/ASW etc was only intended to operate helos.
The P1154 was looked at for use on a smaller carrier/escort cruiser but rejected as F4 would be much more effective.
In the real world the RN has to turn to Sea Harrier but in any alt world where fleet carriers serve into the 80s thete is no Sea Harrier.
Of course at some point when the Audacious ships have to be replaced (from the 70s on) the catapult issue resurfaces. In a non steam boilered non nuclear ship you have the same issue that produced CVF.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,142
Reaction score
270
One of the things which struck me is that the likes of F.177 able to get up to Mach 1.4 with Red Top was a much more valid threat, as would be a slower but Sparrow armed fighter. Such as say Sea Vixen with updated radar/missile combination.

Friedman mentions a Sea Vixen missileer-style proposal in the early 60’s in Fighters Over the Fleet.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,319
Reaction score
1,022
During the musings over drastically reduced carriers, it was thought 4 P1154 could operate with 6 helicopters off a ship of 15,000tons. These musings seem to make P1154 more a extension of the missile, rather than true fast jet airpower.
In essence to sink Soviet ships the mini-carrier would launch a single P1154 armed with a missile.
And obviously this very limited capability might apply to chasing off MPAs.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
632
Reaction score
956
Of course at some point when the Audacious ships have to be replaced (from the 70s on) the catapult issue resurfaces. In a non steam boilered non nuclear ship you have the same issue that produced CVF.
I think this depends on when exactly you're looking at building replacements. Anything before about 1980 is 99% certain to use boilers. From 1980 through to about 1990, it's probably 75/25 that it uses boilers, from 1990-2000 it's around 50/50 and from 2000 on, it's probably 75/25 that it uses gas turbines. And even then, gas turbines aren't a deal breaker for steam cats. You need either a small dedicated boiler for them, or use the exhaust gases from the turbines to make enough steam.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,319
Reaction score
1,022
One of the things which struck me is that the likes of F.177 able to get up to Mach 1.4 with Red Top was a much more valid threat, as would be a slower but Sparrow armed fighter. Such as say Sea Vixen with updated radar/missile combination.

Friedman mentions a Sea Vixen missileer-style proposal in the early 60’s in Fighters Over the Fleet.
It seems this is the period when air launched Sea Dart was looked at....and obviously rejected due to the guidance requirements.
But had the A4 seeker equipped missile been funded beyond research, the leveraging in the FMICW set is at least theoretically possible into the Sea Vixen. But whether it's worth rebuilding is another question.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
610
Reaction score
360
My only concern with using subsonic aircraft armed only with rear aspect IR homing missiles is that, as Soviet bombers got faster, and their missiles got longer ranged and faster, you really needed a better platform for self defense. Strictly my opinion only, but anything less than a Crusader is ineffective in the anti-snooper role and even the F-8 is marginal against Backfire bombers. Which is still better than the A-4 and Harrier in that role.
To be honest, while everything you said is essentially true, I'm not sure it matters. If you're facing a Backfire/long-range ASM threat, then the balloon has already gone up. The carriers are going to be patrolling the GIUK gap primarily doing ASW work, and air defense in that scenario is going to be provided in the main by the USN and land-based air from Greenland, Iceland, and Scottland. The best asset you can deploy for air defense would be the Gannet AEW (or Tracer) which helps plug the gap. Even a carrier with F-4's would have it's hands full keeping that sort of threat at bay. Whatever fighter you can get off the deck of the Centaurs is going to be a secondary role to plugging the gap with ASW and AEW.

It might be politically unsavory, especially in light of the Suez Crisis, to rely on the US for fleet air defense, so I suspect something would be carried for the role. Whether the Sea Vixen, Crusaders, maybe the proposed Bucc fighter development, eventually the Shar, something would be deployed. That and Buccs for strike would be sufficient to enable expeditionary use. If some sort of actual Soviet conflict popped up, it would be relegated to ASW work.

I don't think it much matters that a Shar or Sea Vixen cannot defend the lonely carrier from Backfires, because I cannot see a scenario where they are put in that situation. Even a more capable RN carrier like the Ark Royal with Phantoms is going to be deployed as part of a integrated defense of the Gap. Being at sea in a major conflict against the WP is hardly life -insurance, even if you're carrying F-14's.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,319
Reaction score
1,022
It's not Backfires, it's Bears and Bisons, doing MPA and looking to feed Soviet Command targeting information for a Backfire raid.
Anti-fleet shadower has to chase these off from following the Fleet, buying time and space.

The longer Soviet Command has between sightings, the more likely the Backfires have to turn on their search sets and give warning of their proximity.
 

CNH

ACCESS: Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
499
Reaction score
520
Yes, Lion, Tiger, and Blake were a waste of resources.
However, that is with the benefit of hindsight, and what is clear to us now, was not necessarily clear to the Admiralty at the time.

The other thing you must consider is what was the purpose of the carriers? Defending convoys from America and Canada? Showing the flag east of Suez?

I speak with a little experience here, since Centaur was moored in Kilindi when we were on holiday in Mombasa. We went aboard and had a good look round. A friend of mine (yes, I did have friends) also visited Centaur or a related carrier, and took some pictures of the Scimitar aircraft. His camera was taken away, and the film was given back to him sometime later, with a feature of the aircraft blanked off!

So, to go back to my original point, what was the point of the RN carriers in the 1960s? Unless you can answer that without the benefit of hindsight, then a lot of the speculation is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
610
Reaction score
360
It's not Backfires, it's Bears and Bisons, doing MPA and looking to feed Soviet Command targeting information for a Backfire raid.
Same logic applies. Your best asset is AEW which detects them at a distance. If the effective range of the Soviet Down Beat is 250 mi, then thanks to the ol' inverse square rule, our detection is going to be possible at a much greater range if he radiates. Even a Sea Vixen can chase down a Bear or Bison, and you don't need to win the tail chase to reach engagement distance (though it'd be nice). If he's going the North East burning gas in a dash, that's just fine as far as the fleet is concerned. And again, the RN is not facing off against the Soviets alone. Air defense is not going to be tasked to a Centaur class.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
632
Reaction score
956
My only concern with using subsonic aircraft armed only with rear aspect IR homing missiles is that, as Soviet bombers got faster, and their missiles got longer ranged and faster, you really needed a better platform for self defense. Strictly my opinion only, but anything less than a Crusader is ineffective in the anti-snooper role and even the F-8 is marginal against Backfire bombers. Which is still better than the A-4 and Harrier in that role.
To be honest, while everything you said is essentially true, I'm not sure it matters. If you're facing a Backfire/long-range ASM threat, then the balloon has already gone up. The carriers are going to be patrolling the GIUK gap primarily doing ASW work, and air defense in that scenario is going to be provided in the main by the USN and land-based air from Greenland, Iceland, and Scottland. The best asset you can deploy for air defense would be the Gannet AEW (or Tracer) which helps plug the gap. Even a carrier with F-4's would have it's hands full keeping that sort of threat at bay. Whatever fighter you can get off the deck of the Centaurs is going to be a secondary role to plugging the gap with ASW and AEW.

It might be politically unsavory, especially in light of the Suez Crisis, to rely on the US for fleet air defense, so I suspect something would be carried for the role. Whether the Sea Vixen, Crusaders, maybe the proposed Bucc fighter development, eventually the Shar, something would be deployed. That and Buccs for strike would be sufficient to enable expeditionary use. If some sort of actual Soviet conflict popped up, it would be relegated to ASW work.

I don't think it much matters that a Shar or Sea Vixen cannot defend the lonely carrier from Backfires, because I cannot see a scenario where they are put in that situation. Even a more capable RN carrier like the Ark Royal with Phantoms is going to be deployed as part of a integrated defense of the Gap. Being at sea in a major conflict against the WP is hardly life -insurance, even if you're carrying F-14's.
They likely didn't matter. But my point is, if you're going to carry fighters for self defense and anti snooper work, they better be capable of actually doing the job. Or you'd be better off just leaving them on the dock and using the freed up deck, hanger and stores space for your primary mission of ASW.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,400
Reaction score
3,442
Crusader armed with Sparrow and appropriate radar (such as became available for Starfighters) or Red Top (and maybe Radar Red Top) delivered a valid threat over a wider speed/altitude/range spectrum.[\quote]

The french Crouze had IR R530s alas it was a piece of junk. Radar R530 was no better (Cyrano II).

Super 530 was good enough but Crouzes couldn't handle a Cyrano IV F1 radar.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,400
Reaction score
3,442
Bringing back this one, once again. British carriers never cease to inspire me.

Let's compare HMS Hermes and HMS Victorious as of 1962. Both cost the RN an arm and a leg, to build or upgrade, all along the 50's.
Now, for what capability ?

Well, they both handle Buccaneers (fine) but they can't handle the coming Phantoms - only Audacious can, and with a major upgrade only HMS Ark Royal will ever get.

Now something bother me. Back to 1945-48. Lots of Centaurs and Illustrious are waiting for upgrades or reconstruction.

Counting the Centaurs that were scrapped, the two fleets exactly match: SIX CARRIERS.

Except they are not considered on an equal basis. In 1946, I mean. (1962 will be different, but that's 16 years in the future...)

Centaurs are considered "light" carriers - the ultimate end of the Colossus class.

By contrast, the varied iterations of Illustrious (all six of them, whatever the goddam hangar !) are THE heavies. As such: the ones to be modernized to complete the two Audacious as attack carriers.

That light/heavy segregation is very unfortunate. Why ? Because it prevents the RN to ask itself a simple question.

Exactly "WHAT IS THE BETTER BARGAIN - WHAT FLEET TO COMPLETE THE AUDACIOUS IN THE LONG TERM ?"

Hindsight is wonderful of course, but - as mentionned at the beginning of this rant - by 1962, Hermes = Victorious. The "light" has grown and evolved enough, it catch up with the WWII crippled / obsolete veteran.

At the end of the day: if you want a "1962 Buccaneer platform", invest on the Centaur fleet rather than on the Illustrious one.
Really.
With perfect hindsight, of course.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,400
Reaction score
3,442
At the end of the day, I'm left wondering if the best case scenario wouldn't be mixed groups of 1*Audacious + 2*Centaurs.

The Audacious can handle Phantoms and thus assume air cover.
The Centaurs adds Buccaneers for attack.
Harriers don't care: they can provide limited air defense and ground attack from both, later on.
Buccaneer could also assume some limited air defense duties.

OTL were 2 Audacious + 4 Centaurs. But, by 1945, the numbers were more akin to 3*Audacious + 6*Centaurs. So this work either as "two mixed group" or "three mixed groups".

Start with three mixed groups circa 1955 then, as Great Britain economic situation get worse, gradually deflate them, one by one. Frack, even by 1980, an Eagle + Hermes + Bulwark carrier strike force packed with Phantoms, Harriers and Buccaneers is not that bad.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
343
Reaction score
329
Just had a thought, maybe the pathway to upgrading and retaining the Centaurs in service as carriers could have been the successful development and introduction of the escort cruiser concept, even at the expense some or even all of the County class DLGs.

No massive fleets of Soviet Surface Raiders, means no need for Buccaneer.

With the hybrid escort cruisers on the scene, with the 6+ large ASW helos and Seaslug, as well as their secondary Commando support role, there would have been no need to convert the Centaurs for either ASW helo or Commando roles. Assuming a primary ASW role for the RN there would be no need for Buccaneer, rather the priority would be ASW helos, and fixed wing ASW and AEW, as well as CAP for the ASW task forces. The Centaurs, converted to high end CVS, could have operated fixed wing ASW, AEW and a suitable CAP type.

I believe the original plan was for eight escort cruisers, five serving as carrier ASW escorts and three leading their own ASW / Commando groups. Assuming an extended production run of the type they could have started as hybrid cruisers, the Seaslug forward, flight deck and hangar aft, being ordered instead of converting the Tigers (sell all three to a south American Nation), with later ships evolving into the through deck layout, but still smaller than invincible, either retaining Seaslug, or adopting Tartar to free up space for V/STOL.

The Centaurs could then have been upgraded specifically to operate modern fixed wing ASW and AEW types and perhaps a JV could have proceeded with France to develop a suitable fighter with secondary strike capability to enter service in the 70s to replace Crusader and Sea Vixen. Maybe joint ASW and AEW as well.

If you have Audicious as well, fantastic, they can operate Bucc and Phantom, but if not, no real loss for the primary intended mission of the RN at the time. The Sea Harrier could go ahead, along with Sea Eagle (which could also arm the selected fixed wing fighter type).

My understanding is many of the design compromises on the F-4K/M related to the requirement it operate from Hermes and Victorious, I wonder of it would have been possible to have developed a version that actually could have safely operated from such small platforms, or if the Centaurs themselves could have been successfully upgraded to operate Phantom. I suspect the critical issue would be the amount of steam they could generate to both steam fast enough to proved the required WOD and have enough stem left to be able to catapult a phantom concurrently.
 

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,444
Reaction score
445
As said in the Grumman Super Tiger thread, I (and others) still think an opportunity was missed with that jet, for the various smaller carriers operated by various navies though the postwar decades.

And unlike some other options, this plane actually flew as prototypes, just about a decade after the end of the war, in a perfect timeframe for the various smaller carriers to benefit from refits and modernisation.
I think if the Super Tiger prototypes had been developed a little, it would have made a fine (almost perfect) interceptor with a secondary strike role for these various carriers.

When one adds up the various light carrier vessels (Colossus, Majestic, Centaur classes ..etc), it certainly would have proved worthwhile. Including the ones completed as maintenance carriers, you are looking at the guts of 20 vessels.
The Super Tiger was also a long slung machine, although its height still marginally too tall (3 or 4 inches) for the notoriously low Implacable or Audacious class hangars.
I'm sure a small folding vertical fin tip (just above the integral fin tank) would not have been insurmountable though, so it would have probably even been an option for those 6 vessels.
Not saying there was necessarily a need for all 26 of the above-mentioned carriers, but just musing what could have been, regarding what I consider the Super Tiger being an almost perfect fit for these vessels, most of which were relatively new, with many having long lives ahead of them.
 
Last edited:

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
632
Reaction score
956
As said in the Grumman Super Tiger thread, I still think an opportunity was missed with that jet, for the various smaller carriers operated by various navies though the postwar decades.

I think if the Super Tiger prototypes had been developed a little, it would have made a fine interceptor with a secondary strike role for these carriers.
Add drooping ailerons and a boundary layer control system, you could probably get the WOD requirements low enough that even the H8 hydraulic catapult could launch them
 

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,444
Reaction score
445
Add drooping ailerons and a boundary layer control system, you could probably get the WOD requirements low enough that even the H8 hydraulic catapult could launch them

Sorry SSgtC, I added to my post above, but I quite agree.
Such a pity, as the timing for the Super Tiger and these vessels is also spot on.
Throw in the Grumman offered Avon engine option for those Commonwealth nations or the UK if they so choose, or not, and it remains a tantalisingly and very interesting "what could have been".
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,319
Reaction score
1,022
Hmmm....Escort Cruiser.
Sea Slug and multiple helicopters.
The only way that happens is if Sea Slug gets to a mkIII version a.k.a no spiral into NIGS.
But if that happens then Sea Dart is fighting for funding against this mkIII.

That said Escort Cruiser rather undermines the Type 82 DDG in it's developed form.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,319
Reaction score
1,022
What could shift the balance here was the Westland W.37 to N114 (won by what became the Scimitar)
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
343
Reaction score
329
Hmmm....Escort Cruiser.
Sea Slug and multiple helicopters.
The only way that happens is if Sea Slug gets to a mkIII version a.k.a no spiral into NIGS.
But if that happens then Sea Dart is fighting for funding against this mkIII.

That said Escort Cruiser rather undermines the Type 82 DDG in it's developed form.
Does that matter if the RN has escort cruisers with area defence missiles and helos supporting carriers with fixed wing MPA, AEW / CAP? Skip straight to a Type 42 with whatever system evolves to replace Sea Slug, while the Type 22 evolves unmolested.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,142
Reaction score
270
My understanding is many of the design compromises on the F-4K/M related to the requirement it operate from Hermes and Victorious, I wonder of it would have been possible to have developed a version that actually could have safely operated from such small platforms, or if the Centaurs themselves could have been successfully upgraded to operate Phantom. I suspect the critical issue would be the amount of steam they could generate to both steam fast enough to proved the required WOD and have enough stem left to be able to catapult a phantom concurrently.

It depends on the upgrade. HMS Centaur, the only one of her class to be refitted with steam catapults, couldn’t fuel and arm planes in the hangar due to deck strength limitations. Whether an upgrade to Hermes-specs would have to address that, or whether the Centaur solution of fueling and arming on the flight deck was acceptable, I don’t know.
Given that the Centaur couldn’t handle the Bucc, whose empty weight (S2) was close to the Phantom (and whose full load was significantly higher than the F4), we are probably at least looking at a flight deck rebuild. Maybe not for ASW, AEW. Fitting that in the Royal Dockyard schedules may be tough.
 

GK Dundas

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
15
Reaction score
21
Greetings all !
I finally decided to join in the fun after several false starts.
For the past several years I have always wondered that in the unlikely event the RCN had ever gotten it's procurement problems under control.
It's been my thought that either a modified or even a improved version of a Centaur would been an excellent follow on to Bonnaveture.
I suspect that something a little longer and.perhaps in the 30000 ton range.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
632
Reaction score
956
Greetings all !
I finally decided to join in the fun after several false starts.
For the past several years I have always wondered that in the unlikely event the RCN had ever gotten it's procurement problems under control.
It's been my thought that either a modified or even a improved version of a Centaur would been an excellent follow on to Bonnaveture.
I suspect that something a little longer and.perhaps in the 30000 ton range.
The 30,000 ton range puts you into Essex class territory. And I don't think the RCN could crew an Essex plus her escorts and other vessels as well. Centaur might be a possibility after she was laid up in 1965. She would need a pretty thorough modernization but could probably serve at least until near the end of the Cold War in an ASW role.
 
Last edited:

GK Dundas

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
15
Reaction score
21
An improved Centaur would allow for automation allowing for smaller engine room crew numbers. As well as reductions in other departments.I
I suspect that in case of an ASW carrier you might be looking at a number perhaps as low as 1800 men .
It's tight but doable for the Canadian navy.
 
Last edited:

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
632
Reaction score
956
An improved Centaur would allow for automation allowing for smaller engine room crew numbers. As well as reductions in other departments.I
I suspect that in case of an ASW carrier you might be looking at a number perhaps as low as 1800 men .
It's tight but doable for Canadian navy.
Albion only had a crew of about 1600 including air group. In a CVS role, it would probably have a crew even smaller.
 

GK Dundas

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
15
Reaction score
21
The question is what do you use as a fighter for a CVS . A lengths hull might allow for better catapults as well. Dare I say it might even allow for F4 phantoms ?
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
632
Reaction score
956
The question is what do you use as a fighter for a CVS . A lengths hull might allow for better catapults as well. Dare I say it might even allow for F4 phantoms ?
Probably the same as the USN: a couple of A-4 Skyhawks armed with Sidewinders. And no, the Phantom is too heavy to fly off the Centaur. And too big to fit on the lifts IIRC. Once you start talking about lengthening the hull, you might as well start looking at buying a new ship
 

GK Dundas

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
15
Reaction score
21
Welll...
Just realised that in early 1972-73 in the Netherlands they're building the first of the SL-7 class .
a commercial hull with a boiler system capable of generating roughly 120,000 hp. Not too mention a hull speed of 33 knots.
Maybe it's time to build the next generation of Carriers based on a commercial hull. It's not like there isn't a precedent.
 
Last edited:

GK Dundas

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
15
Reaction score
21
The question is what do you use as a fighter for a CVS . A lengthened hull might allow for better catapults as well. Dare I say it might even allow for F4 phantoms ?
Probably the same as the USN: a couple of A-4 Skyhawks armed with Sidewinders. And no, the Phantom is too heavy to fly off the Centaur. And too big to fit on the lifts IIRC. Once you start talking about lengthening the hull, you might as well start looking at buying a new ship
You're probably right.
 
Last edited:

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,319
Reaction score
1,022
It would be possible to operate Crusaders from a Centaur, especially the French standard.
Obviously it would help enormously if the RN had taken up the Spey Twosader option or the earlier option of a RB.106 powered Crusader.
Ironically had the UK funded to service the RB.106, Canada might just have stuck with that instead of funding the Orenda Iriquois.
 
Top