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

[bobtdwarf]

Carriers give you contingency options. Things would probably shake out that only one inferior Forrestal might be built but the US would appreciate it and the alteration in funding allocation probably would see the TSR2 finished.. there should be about 45-60 million pounds floating about. You haven't had to spend cash on an F-4 program that spiraled nor on those Tiger rebuilds to maintain helicopter capacity, probably some other stuff I am not remembering or thinking of.

The alterations that could spin from this are of interest; not the least of which is Victorious lasts longer in service, long enough to be available on the secondary market at a time when there might be takers.

 

[GK Dundas]

You have the ability to park it literally park it off shore to apply pressure . And then in the space of day you can travel some 4 or 500 miles away thus relieving the pressure while still be able to affect the situation on the ground.
The flexibility of a Carrier group can't underestimated in these situations.

 

[Archibald]

Carriers give you contingency options. Things would probably shake out that only one inferior Forrestal might be built but the US would appreciate it and the alteration in funding allocation probably would see the TSR2 finished.. there should be about 45-60 million pounds floating about. You haven't had to spend cash on an F-4 program that spiraled nor on those Tiger rebuilds to maintain helicopter capacity, probably some other stuff I am not remembering or thinking of.

The alterations that could spin from this are of interest; not the least of which is Victorious lasts longer in service, long enough to be available on the secondary market at a time when there might be takers.

Never bothered to ask that before but - how was Victorious condition when it was retired in '67 ? compared to, say, Ark Royal ? (shudders, what a low bar)

 

[uk 75]

The arrival of Polaris and the nuclear submarine in the early 60s gives the Royal Navy both the UK strategic deterrent (agreed in 1962, realised by 1968) and submarines able to deploy silently and swiftly to Singapore.
Although it took until the 80s for the RN to get Sub Harpoon and the 90s for Tomahawk SLCM even with humble torpedo's the SSN could sink enemy shipping or blockade a port.
By contrast the available carriers looked old fashioned and tied to the naval bases at Gibraltar and Singapore. This was made worse by the appearance of modern looking Soviet missile carrying cruisers and destroyers.
Conditions for crews on carriers were significantly worse than on the RN's new frigates and destroyers, partially because of their age but also time spent at sea.
The withdrawal from Aden in 1968 was the final event where the carrier seemed relevant. Britain was leaving the Near and Far East to emerging powers with more money than the troubled UK.
NATO valued the RN carriers of course but if you had asked SACLANT (NATO's US Atlantic commander) in 1970 to choose between more RN SSNs or keeping an extra aircraft carrier I am pretty sure he would have asked for the SSNs.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Carriers give you contingency options. Things would probably shake out that only one inferior Forrestal might be built but the US would appreciate it and the alteration in funding allocation probably would see the TSR2 finished.. there should be about 45-60 million pounds floating about. You haven't had to spend cash on an F-4 program that spiraled nor on those Tiger rebuilds to maintain helicopter capacity, probably some other stuff I am not remembering or thinking of.

The alterations that could spin from this are of interest; not the least of which is Victorious lasts longer in service, long enough to be available on the secondary market at a time when there might be takers.

Never bothered to ask that before but - how was Victorious condition when it was retired in '67 ? compared to, say, Ark Royal ? (shudders, what a low bar)

Unless the crew were a marauding band of pillocks she was essentially 9 years old and fully modern.. from my reading of Conways all the parts of her that touched water was new steel portions of her deeper interior were still prewar good quality steel. In all matters materiel and electrical she still had that new carrier smell.

 

[Archibald]

Well, with all the time and money they spend (sunk ?) on her, that was a bare minimum. And then they scrapped it over a minor fire !

Now that's an idea, imagined if it survived long enough to kick Hermes away, and take its place in the Falklands, with Sea Harriers and catapults.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Well, with all the time and money they spend (sunk ?) on her, that was a bare minimum. And then they scrapped it over a minor fire !

Now that's an idea, imagined if it survived long enough to kick Hermes away, and take its place in the Falklands, with Sea Harriers and catapults.

Or being sold to India

 

[zen]

Or being sold to India

Much more likely, Hermes was cheaper to run.

 

[uk 75]

We examined a possible US Essex class option here:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/royal-navy-got-essex-carriers-with-a-twist.34911/page-2.
Pretty much rejected in favour of making better use of existing UK carriers.
The time to have built replacements for Britain's big 4 carriers was the late 1950s into the mid 60s.
If the RN had settled on a rerun of the Eagle class rather than the radical CVA01 design it could have got at least two built before being swamped by Polaris and SSN work.
These ships (QE and POW names) would have allowed the RN to avoid refits to Victorious and Ark which would be scrapped. Eagle would still have gone out of service in the 70s leaving QE and POW to serve into the 90s like Foch and Clemenceau.
They would not have been built with any guns just Seacats. Whether they would have received the 3D radars from Victorious and Hermes or a simpler fit.
Sadly the RN after 1956 wanted its own Forrestal so CVA01 was inevitable.
Building a reduced capability CVA01 in the late 60s could have been achieved in different political circs (budget is harder).
However, it would have hollowed out the RN. Assuming SSN and Polaris continued, there would have been earlier retirement of older ships from the Tigers through various frigates. Money for Seadart and Seawolf would have been tighter. The T42 and T22 programmes would have been delayed by several years.
Like Ark Royal CVA01 would have been a one ship force. But without Eagle to cannibalise keeping her in service into the 90s might have been challenging.

 

[Archibald]

Now that's an idea, how about a 20 year technical upgrade of the Audacious design (NOT the ships) circa 1963 ? Keep the basic hull shape only, put modern engines, electonics and cats inside...

 

[bobtdwarf]

We examined a possible US Essex class option here:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/royal-navy-got-essex-carriers-with-a-twist.34911/page-2.
Pretty much rejected in favour of making better use of existing UK carriers.
The time to have built replacements for Britain's big 4 carriers was the late 1950s into the mid 60s.
If the RN had settled on a rerun of the Eagle class rather than the radical CVA01 design it could have got at least two built before being swamped by Polaris and SSN work.
These ships (QE and POW names) would have allowed the RN to avoid refits to Victorious and Ark which would be scrapped. Eagle would still have gone out of service in the 70s leaving QE and POW to serve into the 90s like Foch and Clemenceau.
They would not have been built with any guns just Seacats. Whether they would have received the 3D radars from Victorious and Hermes or a simpler fit.
Sadly the RN after 1956 wanted its own Forrestal so CVA01 was inevitable.
Building a reduced capability CVA01 in the late 60s could have been achieved in different political circs (budget is harder).
However, it would have hollowed out the RN. Assuming SSN and Polaris continued, there would have been earlier retirement of older ships from the Tigers through various frigates. Money for Seadart and Seawolf would have been tighter. The T42 and T22 programmes would have been delayed by several years.
Like Ark Royal CVA01 would have been a one ship force. But without Eagle to cannibalise keeping her in service into the 90s might have been challenging.

a repeat of the Audacious say with a 40 foot stretch right in the big, fat, flat(and wicked easy to draw from a drafting standpoint), middle would work if possible. Just build her from the start with all the doodads.. use newer materials and aim for a 30 year hull life and it will get you through. With the hull stretch I bet you could get away with running a fairly stock F-4J from her.

 

[EwenS]

We examined a possible US Essex class option here:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/royal-navy-got-essex-carriers-with-a-twist.34911/page-2.
Pretty much rejected in favour of making better use of existing UK carriers.
The time to have built replacements for Britain's big 4 carriers was the late 1950s into the mid 60s.
If the RN had settled on a rerun of the Eagle class rather than the radical CVA01 design it could have got at least two built before being swamped by Polaris and SSN work.
These ships (QE and POW names) would have allowed the RN to avoid refits to Victorious and Ark which would be scrapped. Eagle would still have gone out of service in the 70s leaving QE and POW to serve into the 90s like Foch and Clemenceau.
They would not have been built with any guns just Seacats. Whether they would have received the 3D radars from Victorious and Hermes or a simpler fit.
Sadly the RN after 1956 wanted its own Forrestal so CVA01 was inevitable.
Building a reduced capability CVA01 in the late 60s could have been achieved in different political circs (budget is harder).
However, it would have hollowed out the RN. Assuming SSN and Polaris continued, there would have been earlier retirement of older ships from the Tigers through various frigates. Money for Seadart and Seawolf would have been tighter. The T42 and T22 programmes would have been delayed by several years.
Like Ark Royal CVA01 would have been a one ship force. But without Eagle to cannibalise keeping her in service into the 90s might have been challenging.

a repeat of the Audacious say with a 40 foot stretch right in the big, fat, flat(and wicked easy to draw from a drafting standpoint), middle would work if possible. Just build her from the start with all the doodads.. use newer materials and aim for a 30 year hull life and it will get you through. With the hull stretch I bet you could get away with running a fairly stock F-4J from her.

You mean something like the original double hangar Armoured Malta class design selected late 1943/early 1944 then rejected in favour of the final open unarmoured single hangar X1 design?

One of the things found in that exercise was that a single hangar designs offered more flight deck area on the same tonnage.

 

[zen]

Essentially optimum path resolves around the Medium Fleet Carrier studies that sadly only get going after the 1952 effort. If only they had been concurrent.
But it's not until '53-'54 that the full implications of the angled deck give the revelations needed.

For a brief moment in 1956 in Bath the NARC meeting considered the two Medium Fleet Carriers and the Hybrid. But delay and caution thanks to external politics seems inevitable. As it was the decision deferred and the whole effort didn't get going until a complete revision in 1958.

But....had this whole thing kicked off and decisions taken earlier.....then priority would be the new Carriers and upgrades for Ark and Eagle in the 60's would be easiest to cut.

 

[Archibald]

What was "the hybrid" ?

 

[Pirate Pete]

Carriers give you contingency options. Things would probably shake out that only one inferior Forrestal might be built but the US would appreciate it and the alteration in funding allocation probably would see the TSR2 finished.. there should be about 45-60 million pounds floating about. You haven't had to spend cash on an F-4 program that spiraled nor on those Tiger rebuilds to maintain helicopter capacity, probably some other stuff I am not remembering or thinking of.

The alterations that could spin from this are of interest; not the least of which is Victorious lasts longer in service, long enough to be available on the secondary market at a time when there might be takers.

Never bothered to ask that before but - how was Victorious condition when it was retired in '67 ? compared to, say, Ark Royal ? (shudders, what a low bar)

Unless the crew were a marauding band of pillocks she was essentially 9 years old and fully modern.. from my reading of Conways all the parts of her that touched water was new steel portions of her deeper interior were still prewar good quality steel. In all matters materiel and electrical she still had that new carrier smell.

Remember, when Victorious originally went in for her ‘refit/modernisation’ it was not the total rebuilding that finally happened. As is recorded, they had replayed the flight deck and then realised that the original boilers only had a very limited life left…
It was the cancellation of the 1952 Fleet Carrier that resulted in her HAVING to be extensively modernised. The R.N. desperately wanted an up-to-date carrier. She gad a completely new electrical system (unlike when Eagle was refitted and ended up with a mixed AC and DC system). Rumour has it that even the U.S. were impressed by her electronics etc!
So, as you say, she was basically a ‘new’ ship, and should have stated in service longer. I think the original stated date was 1972, but, bearing in mind she was basically a ‘new’ ship in 1958, she should have easily lasted to ‘78, if not ‘83!
It was indeed a purely (convenient) political decision to retire her in ‘67/‘68 following a very minor fire. The one issue she did have was that her catapults were regrettably relatively short!

 

[uk 75]

Victorious and Hermes highlight the core problem for the RN.. They were better equipped than Eagle and Ark Royal but not able to operate the F4.
A radical suggestion for the RN to keep its carriers would have been to keep the Sea Vixen FAW2 with Red Top in service into the 70s until a VG fighter could be developed able to operate off smaller decks. Or the RN could have helped try and get P1154 into service.
CVA01 and F4 funnel the RN into a one carrier 1970s. But the carrier ends up being Ark Royal!

 

[starviking]

Remember, when Victorious originally went in for her ‘refit/modernisation’ it was not the total rebuilding that finally happened. As is recorded, they had replayed the flight deck and then realised that the original boilers only had a very limited life left…
It was the cancellation of the 1952 Fleet Carrier that resulted in her HAVING to be extensively modernised. The R.N. desperately wanted an up-to-date carrier. She gad a completely new electrical system (unlike when Eagle was refitted and ended up with a mixed AC and DC system). Rumour has it that even the U.S. were impressed by her electronics etc!
So, as you say, she was basically a ‘new’ ship, and should have stated in service longer. I think the original stated date was 1972, but, bearing in mind she was basically a ‘new’ ship in 1958, she should have easily lasted to ‘78, if not ‘83!
It was indeed a purely (convenient) political decision to retire her in ‘67/‘68 following a very minor fire. The one issue she did have was that her catapults were regrettably relatively short!

Was the mixed AC and DC ship not the Ark?

 

[bobtdwarf]

We examined a possible US Essex class option here:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/royal-navy-got-essex-carriers-with-a-twist.34911/page-2.
Pretty much rejected in favour of making better use of existing UK carriers.
The time to have built replacements for Britain's big 4 carriers was the late 1950s into the mid 60s.
If the RN had settled on a rerun of the Eagle class rather than the radical CVA01 design it could have got at least two built before being swamped by Polaris and SSN work.
These ships (QE and POW names) would have allowed the RN to avoid refits to Victorious and Ark which would be scrapped. Eagle would still have gone out of service in the 70s leaving QE and POW to serve into the 90s like Foch and Clemenceau.
They would not have been built with any guns just Seacats. Whether they would have received the 3D radars from Victorious and Hermes or a simpler fit.
Sadly the RN after 1956 wanted its own Forrestal so CVA01 was inevitable.
Building a reduced capability CVA01 in the late 60s could have been achieved in different political circs (budget is harder).
However, it would have hollowed out the RN. Assuming SSN and Polaris continued, there would have been earlier retirement of older ships from the Tigers through various frigates. Money for Seadart and Seawolf would have been tighter. The T42 and T22 programmes would have been delayed by several years.
Like Ark Royal CVA01 would have been a one ship force. But without Eagle to cannibalise keeping her in service into the 90s might have been challenging.

a repeat of the Audacious say with a 40 foot stretch right in the big, fat, flat(and wicked easy to draw from a drafting standpoint), middle would work if possible. Just build her from the start with all the doodads.. use newer materials and aim for a 30 year hull life and it will get you through. With the hull stretch I bet you could get away with running a fairly stock F-4J from her.

You mean something like the original double hangar Armoured Malta class design selected late 1943/early 1944 then rejected in favour of the final open unarmoured single hangar X1 design?

One of the things found in that exercise was that a single hangar designs offered more flight deck area on the same tonnage.

I suppose. It would be nice to add side lifts on the starboard side..

 

[bobtdwarf]

Carriers give you contingency options. Things would probably shake out that only one inferior Forrestal might be built but the US would appreciate it and the alteration in funding allocation probably would see the TSR2 finished.. there should be about 45-60 million pounds floating about. You haven't had to spend cash on an F-4 program that spiraled nor on those Tiger rebuilds to maintain helicopter capacity, probably some other stuff I am not remembering or thinking of.

The alterations that could spin from this are of interest; not the least of which is Victorious lasts longer in service, long enough to be available on the secondary market at a time when there might be takers.

Never bothered to ask that before but - how was Victorious condition when it was retired in '67 ? compared to, say, Ark Royal ? (shudders, what a low bar)

Unless the crew were a marauding band of pillocks she was essentially 9 years old and fully modern.. from my reading of Conways all the parts of her that touched water was new steel portions of her deeper interior were still prewar good quality steel. In all matters materiel and electrical she still had that new carrier smell.

Remember, when Victorious originally went in for her ‘refit/modernisation’ it was not the total rebuilding that finally happened. As is recorded, they had replayed the flight deck and then realised that the original boilers only had a very limited life left…
It was the cancellation of the 1952 Fleet Carrier that resulted in her HAVING to be extensively modernised. The R.N. desperately wanted an up-to-date carrier. She gad a completely new electrical system (unlike when Eagle was refitted and ended up with a mixed AC and DC system). Rumour has it that even the U.S. were impressed by her electronics etc!
So, as you say, she was basically a ‘new’ ship, and should have stated in service longer. I think the original stated date was 1972, but, bearing in mind she was basically a ‘new’ ship in 1958, she should have easily lasted to ‘78, if not ‘83!
It was indeed a purely (convenient) political decision to retire her in ‘67/‘68 following a very minor fire. The one issue she did have was that her catapults were regrettably relatively short!

yup I have long thought that as she had a good 25 year hull life when she came out the gate.. and in this case now she has a new kitchen LOL

 

[bobtdwarf]

Remember, when Victorious originally went in for her ‘refit/modernisation’ it was not the total rebuilding that finally happened. As is recorded, they had replayed the flight deck and then realised that the original boilers only had a very limited life left…
It was the cancellation of the 1952 Fleet Carrier that resulted in her HAVING to be extensively modernised. The R.N. desperately wanted an up-to-date carrier. She gad a completely new electrical system (unlike when Eagle was refitted and ended up with a mixed AC and DC system). Rumour has it that even the U.S. were impressed by her electronics etc!
So, as you say, she was basically a ‘new’ ship, and should have stated in service longer. I think the original stated date was 1972, but, bearing in mind she was basically a ‘new’ ship in 1958, she should have easily lasted to ‘78, if not ‘83!
It was indeed a purely (convenient) political decision to retire her in ‘67/‘68 following a very minor fire. The one issue she did have was that her catapults were regrettably relatively short!

Was the mixed AC and DC ship not the Ark?

Eagle also had some mixed AC/DC... IIRC the 4.5 guns had some DC circuits.

 

[Hood]

Now that's an idea, imagined if it survived long enough to kick Hermes away, and take its place in the Falklands, with Sea Harriers and catapults.

Bismarck Action 1941
Norway 1941–42
Arctic 1941–42
Malta Convoys 1942
Biscay 1942
Sabang 1944
Palembang 1945
Okinawa 1945
Japan 1945
Falklands 1982

Disabler of Bismarck, Pedestal saviour of Malta, capturer of Blida airfield, USS Robin of succour to the Americans, crippler of Tirpitz, destroyer of oil refineries, Kamikaze survivor, causer of the Sunda Straits Crisis of 1966 - already an impressive record, adding saviour of the Falklands would make Victorious the most bodacious aircraft carrier ever built and quite potentially making HMS Victory looking like a tame tugboat in comparison earning her right as a museum ship and new Flagship of the First Lord as a constant reminder of British Sea Power for generations to come.

It makes all other RN carrier what-ifs seem... lame!

 

[uk 75]

Airfix have been making a 1/600 plastic kit on and.off for 60 years. They must agree with you.

 

[uk 75]

Wonder if Red Top equipped Sea Vixens might have been better than Sea Harriers especially with Buccaneer buddy tankers and AEW Gannets. The Vixen was even more typically British than the Harrier.

 

[bobtdwarf]

we have all probably seen the news reel footage of the post rebuild Eagle and can think of what her below hangar crew spaces looked like, not bad. I have never seen any footage of what the gallery deck on Victorious looked like but I suspect it looked a bit better since it was designed and built to purpose. I have read reference that her AC was not always up to snuff but at least she had it and to be fair there is only so much one can do being in a metal can in the Middle Eastern sun...

 

[EwenS]

Carriers give you contingency options. Things would probably shake out that only one inferior Forrestal might be built but the US would appreciate it and the alteration in funding allocation probably would see the TSR2 finished.. there should be about 45-60 million pounds floating about. You haven't had to spend cash on an F-4 program that spiraled nor on those Tiger rebuilds to maintain helicopter capacity, probably some other stuff I am not remembering or thinking of.

The alterations that could spin from this are of interest; not the least of which is Victorious lasts longer in service, long enough to be available on the secondary market at a time when there might be takers.

Never bothered to ask that before but - how was Victorious condition when it was retired in '67 ? compared to, say, Ark Royal ? (shudders, what a low bar)

Unless the crew were a marauding band of pillocks she was essentially 9 years old and fully modern.. from my reading of Conways all the parts of her that touched water was new steel portions of her deeper interior were still prewar good quality steel. In all matters materiel and electrical she still had that new carrier smell.

Remember, when Victorious originally went in for her ‘refit/modernisation’ it was not the total rebuilding that finally happened. As is recorded, they had replayed the flight deck and then realised that the original boilers only had a very limited life left…
It was the cancellation of the 1952 Fleet Carrier that resulted in her HAVING to be extensively modernised. The R.N. desperately wanted an up-to-date carrier. She gad a completely new electrical system (unlike when Eagle was refitted and ended up with a mixed AC and DC system). Rumour has it that even the U.S. were impressed by her electronics etc!
So, as you say, she was basically a ‘new’ ship, and should have stated in service longer. I think the original stated date was 1972, but, bearing in mind she was basically a ‘new’ ship in 1958, she should have easily lasted to ‘78, if not ‘83!
It was indeed a purely (convenient) political decision to retire her in ‘67/‘68 following a very minor fire. The one issue she did have was that her catapults were regrettably relatively short!

yup I have long thought that as she had a good 25 year hull life when she came out the gate.. and in this case now she has a new kitchen LOL

But she still had her original turbines. New boilers but not turbines. Even with good maintenance nothing lasts forever. And carriers' machinery is generally pushed harder than that of other ship types. A lot of high speed operation to generate wind over the deck. Especially for a ship like Victorious operating aircraft that couldn't be dreamed of when she was designed.

So 1941-49 - 8 years of continuous service.
1958- 72 (her planned out if service date) 14 years.
Grand total 22 years.

The old Warspite's turbine machinery had to be unexpectedly replaced in 1934 after just 19 years of service. Hood's machinery was only expected to last until 1942 (23 years of service). Even Ark Royal IV only operated her machinery for 24 years. Eagle was 21. And for that pair less than that if you take major refit into account.

Vic was also plagued with rudder problems from 1944. A new rudder was manufactured and sent to Australia in 1945, but the end of the war delayed its fitting until she returned home that Nov. But that didnt cure her problems. Jan 1965 she suffered a brief rudder failure while operating off Okinawa with the US fleet. Even her final refit in 1967 saw her "troublesome" rudder being overhauled.

So maybe pushing her beyond 1972 might have had its problems.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Carriers give you contingency options. Things would probably shake out that only one inferior Forrestal might be built but the US would appreciate it and the alteration in funding allocation probably would see the TSR2 finished.. there should be about 45-60 million pounds floating about. You haven't had to spend cash on an F-4 program that spiraled nor on those Tiger rebuilds to maintain helicopter capacity, probably some other stuff I am not remembering or thinking of.

The alterations that could spin from this are of interest; not the least of which is Victorious lasts longer in service, long enough to be available on the secondary market at a time when there might be takers.

Never bothered to ask that before but - how was Victorious condition when it was retired in '67 ? compared to, say, Ark Royal ? (shudders, what a low bar)

Unless the crew were a marauding band of pillocks she was essentially 9 years old and fully modern.. from my reading of Conways all the parts of her that touched water was new steel portions of her deeper interior were still prewar good quality steel. In all matters materiel and electrical she still had that new carrier smell.

Remember, when Victorious originally went in for her ‘refit/modernisation’ it was not the total rebuilding that finally happened. As is recorded, they had replayed the flight deck and then realised that the original boilers only had a very limited life left…
It was the cancellation of the 1952 Fleet Carrier that resulted in her HAVING to be extensively modernised. The R.N. desperately wanted an up-to-date carrier. She gad a completely new electrical system (unlike when Eagle was refitted and ended up with a mixed AC and DC system). Rumour has it that even the U.S. were impressed by her electronics etc!
So, as you say, she was basically a ‘new’ ship, and should have stated in service longer. I think the original stated date was 1972, but, bearing in mind she was basically a ‘new’ ship in 1958, she should have easily lasted to ‘78, if not ‘83!
It was indeed a purely (convenient) political decision to retire her in ‘67/‘68 following a very minor fire. The one issue she did have was that her catapults were regrettably relatively short!

yup I have long thought that as she had a good 25 year hull life when she came out the gate.. and in this case now she has a new kitchen LOL

But she still had her original turbines. New boilers but not turbines. Even with good maintenance nothing lasts forever. And carriers' machinery is generally pushed harder than that of other ship types. A lot of high speed operation to generate wind over the deck. Especially for a ship like Victorious operating aircraft that couldn't be dreamed of when she was designed.

So 1941-49 - 8 years of continuous service.
1958- 72 (her planned out if service date) 14 years.
Grand total 22 years.

The old Warspite's turbine machinery had to be unexpectedly replaced in 1934 after just 19 years of service. Hood's machinery was only expected to last until 1942 (23 years of service). Even Ark Royal IV only operated her machinery for 24 years. Eagle was 21. And for that pair less than that if you take major refit into account.

Vic was also plagued with rudder problems from 1944. A new rudder was manufactured and sent to Australia in 1945, but the end of the war delayed its fitting until she returned home that Nov. But that didnt cure her problems. Jan 1965 she suffered a brief rudder failure while operating off Okinawa with the US fleet. Even her final refit in 1967 saw her "troublesome" rudder being overhauled.

So maybe pushing her beyond 1972 might have had its problems.

as far as I am aware if they did not replace the turbines they did at least re blade and overhaul them.. it has been awhile since I scanned over Conways book on it and the bookmark for the Scribd freebie is on the busted laptop.

 

[EwenS]

Carriers give you contingency options. Things would probably shake out that only one inferior Forrestal might be built but the US would appreciate it and the alteration in funding allocation probably would see the TSR2 finished.. there should be about 45-60 million pounds floating about. You haven't had to spend cash on an F-4 program that spiraled nor on those Tiger rebuilds to maintain helicopter capacity, probably some other stuff I am not remembering or thinking of.

The alterations that could spin from this are of interest; not the least of which is Victorious lasts longer in service, long enough to be available on the secondary market at a time when there might be takers.

Never bothered to ask that before but - how was Victorious condition when it was retired in '67 ? compared to, say, Ark Royal ? (shudders, what a low bar)

Unless the crew were a marauding band of pillocks she was essentially 9 years old and fully modern.. from my reading of Conways all the parts of her that touched water was new steel portions of her deeper interior were still prewar good quality steel. In all matters materiel and electrical she still had that new carrier smell.

Remember, when Victorious originally went in for her ‘refit/modernisation’ it was not the total rebuilding that finally happened. As is recorded, they had replayed the flight deck and then realised that the original boilers only had a very limited life left…
It was the cancellation of the 1952 Fleet Carrier that resulted in her HAVING to be extensively modernised. The R.N. desperately wanted an up-to-date carrier. She gad a completely new electrical system (unlike when Eagle was refitted and ended up with a mixed AC and DC system). Rumour has it that even the U.S. were impressed by her electronics etc!
So, as you say, she was basically a ‘new’ ship, and should have stated in service longer. I think the original stated date was 1972, but, bearing in mind she was basically a ‘new’ ship in 1958, she should have easily lasted to ‘78, if not ‘83!
It was indeed a purely (convenient) political decision to retire her in ‘67/‘68 following a very minor fire. The one issue she did have was that her catapults were regrettably relatively short!

yup I have long thought that as she had a good 25 year hull life when she came out the gate.. and in this case now she has a new kitchen LOL

But she still had her original turbines. New boilers but not turbines. Even with good maintenance nothing lasts forever. And carriers' machinery is generally pushed harder than that of other ship types. A lot of high speed operation to generate wind over the deck. Especially for a ship like Victorious operating aircraft that couldn't be dreamed of when she was designed.

So 1941-49 - 8 years of continuous service.
1958- 72 (her planned out if service date) 14 years.
Grand total 22 years.

The old Warspite's turbine machinery had to be unexpectedly replaced in 1934 after just 19 years of service. Hood's machinery was only expected to last until 1942 (23 years of service). Even Ark Royal IV only operated her machinery for 24 years. Eagle was 21. And for that pair less than that if you take major refit into account.

Vic was also plagued with rudder problems from 1944. A new rudder was manufactured and sent to Australia in 1945, but the end of the war delayed its fitting until she returned home that Nov. But that didnt cure her problems. Jan 1965 she suffered a brief rudder failure while operating off Okinawa with the US fleet. Even her final refit in 1967 saw her "troublesome" rudder being overhauled.

So maybe pushing her beyond 1972 might have had its problems.

as far as I am aware if they did not replace the turbines they did at least re blade and overhaul them.. it has been awhile since I scanned over Conways book on it and the bookmark for the Scribd freebie is on the busted laptop.

AIUI "reblading" was a maintenance item undertaken at refit time. It generally only involved replacing blades in need of repair due to damage or corrosion. It generally didn't involve replacement of every blade in the various turbine casings.

 

[Yellow Palace]

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.

When you start putting things together, the RN's vision for joint operations in the Indian Ocean is an interesting one: a battalion-strength parachute landing in advance of a brigade-strength amphibious landing, supported by a 96-aircraft TAU aboard two aircraft carriers. The landing would be within tweny miles of a well-found port, which was to be captured within the first week of operations; until that time, the force would be restricted to operating within 40 miles of the beachhead.

A good chunk of the landing forces - the parachute battalion and much of the supporting arms - would come from the Army. The RAF would be needed to provide air transport, maritime reconnaissance, and air defence of bases at a minimum.

 

[uk 75]

Meanwhile in the real world the UK found itself bogged down in Cyprus and Aden. Even the confrontation with Indonesia mainly involved Army and RAF.
Suez 2 which all three services equipped themselves for in the 1960s never happened.
From 1969 the Northern Ireland crisis and NATO commitments in Europe made it even less likely that Britain would conduct such an operation East of Suez.

 

[GK Dundas]

I remember reading.somewhere and I think it may have here. That during an airmobility excecise . The RAF were going to airlift several infantry battalions in to Singapore.
The Navy's contribution was.to be minimal . Andat that point they realised that the Singaporeans (Sp?) couldn't guarantee being able to control their own air space during a crisis
The RAN supposedly rushed Melbourne into the.area and she provided limited air cover for the RAF transports.

 

[zen]

The whole basis of the RN CV justification was the lack of suitable airfields in high enough density and the inability of the RAF to guarantee airpower.
The TAU would essentially operate alone off of 2 CVA-01 Type carriers until either a nearby airfield became available or the conflict was able to be scaled down.
Worse, even special missions would need much more planning and scheduling to get RAF overflight. The TAU would have to provide the needs to adapt to situations. If a special mission was needed quickly.

 

[bobtdwarf]

You mean mobile airfields are useful in contingency operations?
Novel concept, I wonder if it will catch on?