You have 40-ish million pounds to build a CV for the RN early 60s...what does it look like?
- Thread starter bobtdwarf
- Start date
2 hours cap? Let me check the SAC... config'ed as GP fighter guns + full internal fuel 1 hour 57 minutes combat radius 310 NMI. The worst is GP with 4 sidewinders, guns and only internal fuel at 1 hour 41 at 250 NMI. With 2 150 gallon bags, 2 AIM-9s and guns 2 hours 11 minutes and 420 NMI. The greater wing area of the alternates should improve that by 10-15%. I also checked the FJ-4B but all of the configs on those have 200 gallon bags and times of 3 hours or so so I might be off on that.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 21 May 2006
- Messages
- 2,710
- Reaction score
- 1,636
Would the U.S. sell Tiger's to India? After all, for a long time, the U.S. had the shits on with India in terms of exporting weapons, until very recently.
Regards
Pioneer
Most likely not; but would a Tiger built in the UK with a UK radar and a UK engine really be a US aircraft anymore? Sure Grumman designed the airframe but would that be enough for a US veto on a sale?
PA58’s planned manning was 2,900 men. Basically 50% more than Clemenceau (which makes sense given the 50% larger air group and 50% higher displacement).
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 5,744
- Reaction score
- 5,641
It would be interesting to know if the RN looked at the Clems and PA58 designs for ideas. They are much closer to US Essex/Midway in appearance than UK designs.
The deck layout and lifts on CVA01 are very different and the arrangements below them probably reflect very definite RN procedures.
PA58 would need a new drydock and other facilities in the UK.
The deck layout and lifts on CVA01 are very different and the arrangements below them probably reflect very definite RN procedures.
PA58 would need a new drydock and other facilities in the UK.
I remember the old website "Navy matters - CVA-01" mentionning the RN looked at Clems at some point but rejected them as too small, - and they were probably right.
Last edited:
NOMISYRRUC
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 28 September 2008
- Messages
- 1,609
- Reaction score
- 2,381
For what it's worth I knew that when I wrote the post.
To my knowledge there aren't any films or television programmes were someone is corrected for saying airplane instead of aeroplane and "Reach for the Sky" was the closest.
Is there anyone on the site that knows better than I do? There often is.
Anderman
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 30 September 2006
- Messages
- 241
- Reaction score
- 154
The images are in Shipbucket scale (2 pixels = 1 ft).
PA58's hangar was nominally 200m x 28.5m (vs. 180m x 24m for Clemenceau). However on Clemenceau this length included some engine and weapons workshops, with the effective hangar length being 134m. The hangar also narrowed by 2m towards the ends.
Most likely the same was true on PA58, so I estimated effective hangar length at 158m (as PA58 is 24m longer than Clemenceau). I also assumed a small 18m extension forward where the centerline lift used to be - this could be used for helicopters, boats and pallets.
All in all, flight deck and hangar sizes are very similar to the Essex class. I estimate maximum density spotting of 58 F-4B Phantoms (27 in the hangar and 31 on the flight deck), which with the standard USN density factor of 75% implies a max air group of 44 F-4Bs.
Operationally that gives me an air wing of:
- 36 large fast jets (e.g. 18 F-4s + 18 Buccaneers)
- Or 50 small jets (F-8/Super Tiger)
- Or a mix of large & small jets (e.g. 25 F-8s + 18 Buccaneers)
- 5 Gannet AEW/COD
- 6 Wessex/Sea King ASW/plane guard helos
Globalsecurity has 152m usable length for the hangar btw.
Clemenceau Aircraft Carrier
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 4,336
- Reaction score
- 7,542
True, how long is a piece of strong? You could argue it goes all the way back to the 1952 Medium studies.
Just dug out a couple of tables from Friedman on sizes and costs:
1960 Alternatives
42,000 tons, 31 aircraft, 770x165ft flight deck, 2 cats, Sea Cat, £44M
48,000 tons, 41 aircraft, 820x165ft flight deck, 2 cats, 3 Tartar, £54M
48,000 tons, 43 aircraft, 820x200ft flight deck, 2 cats, 3 Tartar, £54M
50,000 tons, 44 aircraft, 860x165ft flight deck, 2 cats, 3-4 Tartar, £55M
55,000 tons, 34 aircraft, 870x200ft flight deck, 3 cats, 4 Tartar, £59M
68,000 tons, 59 aircraft (+4 ASW heli), 1004x190ft flight deck, 3 cats, 4 Tartar, £67M
1962 Alternatives
50,000 tons, 36 aircraft inc. heli (36 interim Vix & Bucc), 890x177ft, 2 cats (200 & 250ft), 1 Sea Dart & 1 Ikara, £50-60M
52,000 tons, 39 aircraft inc. heli (36 interim Vix & Bucc), 900x177ft, 2 cats (200 & 225ft), 1 Sea Dart & 1 Ikara, £50-60M
53,000 tons, 40 aircraft inc. heli (36 interim Vix & Bucc), 920x180ft, 2 cats (250ft), 1 Sea Dart & 1 Ikara, £50-60M
55,000 tons, 40 aircraft inc. heli (36 interim Vix & Bucc), 940x180ft, 2 cats (250ft), 1 Sea Dart & 1 Ikara, £58-63M
58,000 tons, 46 aircraft inc. heli (48 interim Vix & Bucc), 970x190ft, 2 cats (250ft), 1 Sea Dart & 1 Ikara, £60-65M
The carrier studies showed anything less than 50,000 tons was useless, 58,000 tons was too expensive so the "golidlocks zone" was 53-55,000 tons. But even then by 1966 such a fleet was unaffordable.
Around 1958 the Admiralty knew the chances of getting the Treasury to fund a carrier larger than 45-50,000 tons were slim. Friedman connects this with the interest in high performance AAMs - to enable a smaller fighter to carry a bigger punch. Their thoughts were a Buccaneer sized fighter of 60,000lb MTOW and reasonably low take-off speed (150-160kt).
By 1960 that became 50,000lb (35,000lb landing), 90kt take-off and landing, 4hr loiter 150nm away and intercept 150-600nm with M2.5 dash with 2-6,000lb of weapons. Friedman notes this was highly optimistic, A-5 was 55,000lb but only had a radius of 685nm with a 1,885lb bomb and stalled at 134.5kt, F-111B was 77,600lb with a radius of 475nm with 3,000lb (6x AIM-54).
And by now the Admiralty knew it would probably only have funds for one aircraft so it had to be dual-role. Friedman again notes (my italics):
So it would seem that post-Sandys cut of the P.177 finished any hopes of a small fighter. The RN would have to choose - develop a home-grown VG heavy. And doctrine had moved on from the point-defence P.177, assuming the all-jet version wasn't a pipe dream it certainly wasn't a Scimitar replacement and even a 2hr loiter is half of the 4hrs wanted.
So where does the Super Tiger fit in? Well as a direct purchase it offers a fast interceptor, has AN/APQ-50 radar but only four Sidewinders. APQ-50 was used on early F4H-1Fs but was not a mass produced set and is a late-50s set.
Since APQ-50 was used on early F4H-1Fs I assume that means Sparrow could be integrated onto F11-1F?
So an off-the-shelf purchase means a lot of dollars on the airframe, J79s plus parts and APQ-50 parts - Sidewinders had been funded for Scimitar so there were usable stocks existing. But there is no mass production to reduce purchase costs, restarting the line would incur additional charges.
Start talking about fitting Avons and AIRPASS and Red Top and you're ramping up R&D costs plus flight trials etc.
Assuming Admiralty interest in Super Tiger in 1960-61, that predates P.1154 by a small margin. Sea Vixen FAW.2 is in development but still 2 years from first flight (1962, IOC 1964). Sea Vixen FAW.2 has 2-crew, more loiter time and Red Top has supersonic head-on engagement capability. Although Sparrow on Super Tiger might counter this advantage slightly.
It makes AW.406 interesting, arguably would P.1154 offer enough advantages over a stock Super Tiger or even an anglicised one? A full licence-built, British powered and armed version probably wouldn't be ready until 1964 (same time as Vixen FAW.2) but would overlap P.1154.
I could see AW.406 being recast as a heavy VG - an early AFVG but without the French maybe. A VG AW.406 versus TSR.2 for R&D cash.... not sure what would come out of that, only BAC could really do VG and they have hands tied up with TSR.2 and Concorde. HSA only really knows VSTOL - does that mean only VSTOL is on the table as a realistic option or does HSA prey Maurice Brennan can cook up something swing-wing that's suitably impressive? Gnat Mk.4 was sexy an indication perhaps but HSA needs to think big, I think they wouldn't be able to resist putting thrust vectoring onto it either way.
A lot of questions - it certainly doesn't help carrier design, whatever the case the Admirals want something capable of handling 60-70,000lb jets not 26,000lb featherweights. They just can't afford it.
Only three nations in the world at this time had the capability to build steam-powered medium-eavy carriers, only one ever did and yet never built the one they really fitted this bracket (PA58) - I find that very instructive.
Two found them too expensive, the other found them too lame.
Ah, the APQ-50. Came across it during my Avro Arrow daydreaming.
APQ-50 was radar of the F4D Skyray.
Skyray never got any Sparrow, whatever the variant / guidance: only Sidewinders.
BUT, out of APQ-50 Westinghouse pulled two Sparrow-compatible variants
-APQ-64 for Sparrow II (proto-AMRAAM of the 1950's: doomed by K-band hating water vapor) for the F5D Skylancer
-APQ-72 for Sparrow III SARH and the related F-4B Phantom
So, yes - you have a straightforward path toward Sparrow II or III straight out of the APQ-50.
Last edited:
Very interesting. Random thoughts about that
1-no surprise Clems or even Essex were too small
2- big jump in capability between 42 000 and 48 000 tons, for sure !
3- Fair enough then, PA58 falls into a "blind spot" at 45 000 tons
BUT
4-Get PA58 you DUMMY !!! The timing would be perfect ! Plus Clem& Foch just have borrowed Eagle & Ark BS-5 catapults...
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 5,744
- Reaction score
- 5,641
Ironically the dilemma Hood explains so well in this period returns when the RN is given a chance in 1998 to order two new carriers.
In order to operate a CTOL fighter like the USN the RN would need steam catapults to go on a carrier. A large carrier is built in the hope that in the future electric catapults may become available. Nuclear power is still not an option, these are needed for the Astutes.
As in the 1960s VSTOL is the only way of providing an effective multi role aircraft. The US Marines fortunately need a similar plane.
It is interesting to speculate what might have happened if P1154 had not been delayed in 1963 by the RN and a single seater had gone ahead. Maybe the US Marines might have flown a P1154 prototype at Farnborough.
The tragedy for the UK is that it is Ark Royal and not Eagle that becomes the one carrier we can afford after 1970.
Whether Eagle could have survived the 1981 Nott Review is moot, but given the delays to the Invincible class she might have lasted until 1983.
In order to operate a CTOL fighter like the USN the RN would need steam catapults to go on a carrier. A large carrier is built in the hope that in the future electric catapults may become available. Nuclear power is still not an option, these are needed for the Astutes.
As in the 1960s VSTOL is the only way of providing an effective multi role aircraft. The US Marines fortunately need a similar plane.
It is interesting to speculate what might have happened if P1154 had not been delayed in 1963 by the RN and a single seater had gone ahead. Maybe the US Marines might have flown a P1154 prototype at Farnborough.
The tragedy for the UK is that it is Ark Royal and not Eagle that becomes the one carrier we can afford after 1970.
Whether Eagle could have survived the 1981 Nott Review is moot, but given the delays to the Invincible class she might have lasted until 1983.
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 5,744
- Reaction score
- 5,641
The elephant in the room for the RN in this period is Polaris.
Had the USAF and RAF gone ahead with Skybolt, the RN were still pushing for Polaris submarines but not until after 1970 when the Valiant SSN had been built in some numbers.
Skybolt was expected to allow some 50 Vulcan B2 to serve into the 1970s.
No Polaris gives the RN room to build a new carrier.
Having Skybolt makes the RAF less hung up on TSR2 which with the other two aircraft gets cancelled by a furious Macmillan when he is told about BAC and HS attitudes to their costs.
Luckily General De Gaulle likes "Milord" Macmillan and suggests a solution.
A Franco British Defence Programme.
Mirage IV with British engines and systems to replace Canberras and later Vulcans.
Mirage IIIV to replace P1154, BAC as contractor.
C160 Transall to replace Beverleys and Hastings.
France to buy some HS801 ASW if UK buys some Atlantiques.
The UK and France to build two new carriers to operate the Breguet HS Tigre variant of Grumman's Super Tiger. The ships will have features of the PA58 and UK designs.
The meeting at Rambouilly is later refered to by the Times as the Field of the Cloth of Gold.
Had the USAF and RAF gone ahead with Skybolt, the RN were still pushing for Polaris submarines but not until after 1970 when the Valiant SSN had been built in some numbers.
Skybolt was expected to allow some 50 Vulcan B2 to serve into the 1970s.
No Polaris gives the RN room to build a new carrier.
Having Skybolt makes the RAF less hung up on TSR2 which with the other two aircraft gets cancelled by a furious Macmillan when he is told about BAC and HS attitudes to their costs.
Luckily General De Gaulle likes "Milord" Macmillan and suggests a solution.
A Franco British Defence Programme.
Mirage IV with British engines and systems to replace Canberras and later Vulcans.
Mirage IIIV to replace P1154, BAC as contractor.
C160 Transall to replace Beverleys and Hastings.
France to buy some HS801 ASW if UK buys some Atlantiques.
The UK and France to build two new carriers to operate the Breguet HS Tigre variant of Grumman's Super Tiger. The ships will have features of the PA58 and UK designs.
The meeting at Rambouilly is later refered to by the Times as the Field of the Cloth of Gold.
The Alt scenario in the other thread settled in on demonstration prior to '57, fitting of a reheated Avon for testing purpose prior to '59 hoping for a service date of '62/'63. Also that since the additional fuel would have it meeting the GP fighter req of the USN it would replace the F-3 and run to at least '64 in service with the Demon being pulled in '61. So the line is still there, we never worked out if the other 172 units of the order would be built though... it is worth noting that there are indications that Grumman kept all the jigs, bits and bobs of the Tiger line around into the mid 60's so they could restart production if needed.
SuperTiger in its historic and in this Alt form has 3 hard points under each wing, one on the belly and possible 2 for sidewinders on the top center and can carry over 9,000 pounds. The same fitting for the APQ-50 will take the 24 inch dish APQ-72 in the Crusader III; that is the good part of the Aero13 family of radars.
Program costs are certainly going to be there, but they are going to be much, much less than the 50 mil they initially budgeted for Phantom. Going from a (licensed) Sapphire to an Avon is something the UK has some experience with. The savings in those development costs added to the budget for Ark Royal's rebuild is what pays for the new carrier.
and that is some glorious information you gave us!!!!!
Last edited:
Not strictly true.
The metric by which trade off studies were conducted was based around the long-term OR.346 system and obviously this drove up minimum carrier size.
I remember reading about OR.346 in Tony Butler's books 15 years ago and shaking my head in disbelief. It was a goddam monstrosity.
In passing, did anybody ever compared OR.346 with F-111B and Tomcat ?
In passing, did anybody ever compared OR.346 with F-111B and Tomcat ?
That is one of the good parts of this: Eagle would be the one that survives as the budget for Ark and the savings from development costs on Phantom go to build the new carrier... and because the development costs for Phantom don't explode in this timeline eating up ALL the monies.. there are funds for other things. Probably don't have any Tiger rebuilds here either
It is often beyond me that they picked Ark over Eagle in the late 1960's. I know they had their own reasons (Phantomization, among others) but it remained nonetheless an extremely dumbarse decision. As absurd as having no AEW in Falklands despite Gannet AEWs and Hermes, - with disastrous consequences; "but they had removed the catapults" (banging my head against a wall).
We badly need a TL where a handful of Gannet AEWs on Hermes with a catapult, save the day in the Falklands.
We badly need a TL where a handful of Gannet AEWs on Hermes with a catapult, save the day in the Falklands.
Now here's my 45,000 ton carrier with a mixed airgroup of 48 jets... using the usual USN 75% spotting density factor. It's a little tight as the Buccaneer takes up more space than I expected, but otherwise looks good.
30x F-8 Crusaders (could be replaced 1:1 with Super Tigers)
18x Buccaneers
5x Gannet AEW/COD
6x Sea King ASW/plane guard
30x F-8 Crusaders (could be replaced 1:1 with Super Tigers)
18x Buccaneers
5x Gannet AEW/COD
6x Sea King ASW/plane guard
Attachments
Last edited:
Oh that works!Now here's my 45,000 ton carrier with a mixed airgroup of 48 jets... using the usual USN 75% spotting density factor. It's a little tight as the Buccaneer takes up more space than I expected, but otherwise looks good.
30x F-8 Crusaders (could be replaced 1:1 with Super Tigers)
18x Buccaneers
5x Banner AEW/COD
6x Sea King ASW/plane guard
What is really cool is how it can be compared with the Clems own air group.
- many more Crusaders
- Buccs versus S.E as the attack wing
- Gannet & Alizé were quiet similar
- ASW helicopters: Sea King vs a mix of Super Frelon (too big) or Lynx
- many more Crusaders
- Buccs versus S.E as the attack wing
- Gannet & Alizé were quiet similar
- ASW helicopters: Sea King vs a mix of Super Frelon (too big) or Lynx
To provide the 64 long-range strike platforms needed in a TAU, you would at 18 per CV need 4 on station at the same time......
Conversely needing only 32 fighters and 8 AEW, just 2 such CVs would be needed.
However....
Assuming said fighters are just F8 Crusaders or Super Tigres implies a standard CAP of 2 hours and consequently you'd need to double the fighter component to 64 aircraft......
And so you can see why this might not meet RN perceived needs.
Conversely needing only 32 fighters and 8 AEW, just 2 such CVs would be needed.
However....
Assuming said fighters are just F8 Crusaders or Super Tigres implies a standard CAP of 2 hours and consequently you'd need to double the fighter component to 64 aircraft......
And so you can see why this might not meet RN perceived needs.
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 4,336
- Reaction score
- 7,542
To answer Zen's point here are the airgroups of the 1962 alternatives (all had 4 STOL/VTOL positions):
50,000 tons - 30 Strike/VF, 4 AEW, 2 SAR = 36 or interim 18 Sea Vixen & 18 Buccaneer
52,000 tons - 32 Strike/VF, 4 AEW, 2 SAR = 38 or interim 18 Sea Vixen & 18 Buccaneer
53,000 tons - 30 Strike/VF, 3 AEW, 2 SAR, 5 HS = 40 or interim 18 Sea Vixen & 18 Buccaneer
55,000 tons - 30 Strike/VF, 3 AEW, 2 SAR, 5 HS = 40 or interim 18 Sea Vixen & 18 Buccaneer
58,000 tons - 40 Strike/VF, 4 AEW, 2 SAR = 36 or interim 24 Sea Vixen & 24 Buccaneer
The "golidlocks zone" carriers sacrificed 1 AEW and probably 2-4 OR.346 for 5 ASW helicopters. It looks like they were trading some space for all-round capability, the implication is that the 50-52,000 ton carriers would be reliant on the Escort Cruiser for ASW protection (= more cost to the naval budget) and that the 58,000 tons design was seen as a pure CVA optimised for fast jets unsullied by rotary wing considerations. But again adding Escort Cruiser would ramp up fleet costs on top of £60-65M each for the 58,000-ton carriers. The "golidlocks zone" would seem to be an attempt at the most cost effective carrier fleet.
What was the loiter time for P.1154RN?
50,000 tons - 30 Strike/VF, 4 AEW, 2 SAR = 36 or interim 18 Sea Vixen & 18 Buccaneer
52,000 tons - 32 Strike/VF, 4 AEW, 2 SAR = 38 or interim 18 Sea Vixen & 18 Buccaneer
53,000 tons - 30 Strike/VF, 3 AEW, 2 SAR, 5 HS = 40 or interim 18 Sea Vixen & 18 Buccaneer
55,000 tons - 30 Strike/VF, 3 AEW, 2 SAR, 5 HS = 40 or interim 18 Sea Vixen & 18 Buccaneer
58,000 tons - 40 Strike/VF, 4 AEW, 2 SAR = 36 or interim 24 Sea Vixen & 24 Buccaneer
The "golidlocks zone" carriers sacrificed 1 AEW and probably 2-4 OR.346 for 5 ASW helicopters. It looks like they were trading some space for all-round capability, the implication is that the 50-52,000 ton carriers would be reliant on the Escort Cruiser for ASW protection (= more cost to the naval budget) and that the 58,000 tons design was seen as a pure CVA optimised for fast jets unsullied by rotary wing considerations. But again adding Escort Cruiser would ramp up fleet costs on top of £60-65M each for the 58,000-ton carriers. The "golidlocks zone" would seem to be an attempt at the most cost effective carrier fleet.
What was the loiter time for P.1154RN?
I don't know what that loiter time is... I do know you can't get to four hours on the phantom. I also know that an initial development budget large enough to pay for the construction of a new carrier capable of handling phantom without modification is the better usage of money. https://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-4B_Phantom_II_SAC_-_1_July_1967.pdf
Well they would still need SOME modification but you get my meaning.
Last edited:
There’s not much of a range difference between an F-8 Crusader with 4 Aim-9s and an F-4 Phantom with 4 Aim-7Es and a 600 gallon tank… in fact add external tanks to the F-8 (even a pair of small 150 gallon tanks) and it will significantly out range the Phantom. And adding Aim-9s to the Phantom cuts it’s range even further.
Part of the answer to the range/endurance problem is also the Spey - one reason I would favor the Spey Twosader.
The F-8 does have some nice range in comparison to the historic Tiger. Part of that is the increased fuel load, but as big or bigger a part is the much larger wing! That has a pretty big impact on how long you stay aloft and how much fuel you have to burn to just stay in the air... as an example a comparison between the FJ-4B and F-11 with similar fuel loads.
The F-11 with tanks carries about 100 gallons MORE fuel than the FJ-4B with tanks, I just did the math before starting to type this and the exact number has already purged itself from the short term memory... the FJ weighs about 4000 pounds more and yet has about twice the combat radius and over an hour more mission time: They both use the J-65, the F-11 has 250 listed SQFT. of wing and the FJ a bit over 338.
The alternate I proposed in the other thread, I ripped off the FJ wing in my drawing because I did not have a good one of the 98-L and it worked for what I needed. Not having the main gear in the wing and replacing it with fuel gives you about 200 gallons more than the FJ one... so a "Tiger" with 300 gallons more fuel total in the same configuration and with the LEX's 340 SQFT of wing. I don't know exactly how to figure out how that affects the endurance... so I just chalk it up to at least as good as the FJ if not a little better and call it square.
The FJ? 35k ft 2.6 hours loiter, 3.7 hours mission.. With 4 sidewinders.
Spey could be added in, I have a drawing of the top view with the intakes cut back to accommodate the airflow, luckily you have one engine and two intakes so each only has to be opened up 10%. Putting a Spey with reheat would be a substantial rework however as the airframe can't go up to the 44 inch pipe without making the fuselage bigger overall (they mention in the F-11 book having to use a different AB on one of the J-79 versions because of limitations). However you could slap a non reheated Spey in without any trouble and still have enough raw thrust to take you to M 1.5.
Last edited:
CV12Hornet
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 8 January 2021
- Messages
- 401
- Reaction score
- 870
And also that the accompanying big jump in price is almost certainly down to fitting Tartar as a self-defense weapon instead of Sea Cat.
In fact, looking over that list of alternatives the decision to fit Tartar or Sea Dart probably tacked on a good ten million pounds extra onto all the options. I get the tactical rationale the Royal Navy had for fitting such high-end systems but in hindsight it's pretty clear that leaving them off would've been the best cost-cutting move they could've made.
Wouldn't hurt if the RN also insisted on SeaDart being usable from the horizontal, not just the vertical... would allow retrofitting them onto the County's. That's 8 type 82 you don't have to build
About six months ago in a near fit of terminal boredom I played what I call the Google game .
I look up what ever catches my fancy that day.
That day it was Seadart
I came across an illustration of a Seadart launcher shoehorned into the 'B' turret position and with the magazine taking up the 4.5" magazine space and some of the space directly under the bridge.
You probably carve out space for a hanger and flight deck for say two Sea Kings.. ?
I don't suppose the RN could use eight guided missile destroyers with the ability to carry two Sea Kings as well as having flag facilities?
( Note: Just realized I didn't complete the posting as I intended.)
I look up what ever catches my fancy that day.
That day it was Seadart
I came across an illustration of a Seadart launcher shoehorned into the 'B' turret position and with the magazine taking up the 4.5" magazine space and some of the space directly under the bridge.
You probably carve out space for a hanger and flight deck for say two Sea Kings.. ?
I don't suppose the RN could use eight guided missile destroyers with the ability to carry two Sea Kings as well as having flag facilities?
( Note: Just realized I didn't complete the posting as I intended.)
Last edited:
I have drawn a similar one.. but I have an Ikara aft... there was a I think Brazilian installation shaped like a T that if the ship bucket part sheet is to scale would fit in the beam
France made the same mistake with Verdun (well not quite, since it wasn't build) from memory it was to have MASURCA launchers for self protection. @NOMISYRRUC may blow a fuse, but as far as size and weight were concerned, this amounted to Sea Slug launchers.
royabulgaf
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 29 December 2008
- Messages
- 649
- Reaction score
- 301
Well, considering the USS America was built in that timeframe for 355 million 1964 Pounds, the first thing is it would be small.
Drats, you nailed it. Simple maths: going from 360 to 40 means to divide by 9, no less. USS America was 84000 tons, now if the same ratio of "nine" is applied, you get less than 10 000 tons: 9334 tons, rounded.
(I know this is unrealistic, carriers size and cost and capabilities do not scale in a linear fashion).
(I know this is unrealistic, carriers size and cost and capabilities do not scale in a linear fashion).
That costs seems kind of high https://www.navysite.de/cvn/cv66.htm. $400 million is her listed cost and the pound was trading at $2.80-ish to the pound.. so about 142-ish GBP. Easy to swap the currency around though in memory.
Still, 140 to 40 is a 3.5 ratio. Applied to 84 000 tons, that's a 24 000 tons carrier: a Centaur / Hermes, the irony. As usual, take these numbers with a grain of salt: carrier cost vs capability vs tonnage are NOT linear by a long shot (see the big leap between 42 000 and 48 000 tons, for a start).
royabulgaf
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 29 December 2008
- Messages
- 649
- Reaction score
- 301
I figure a rule of thumb as this. Start with 10k tons, with 1k ton per aircraft. 1 helicopter as plane guard, 1 something as AEW, one air defense in the air, one in the hangar, and one on the catapault. This brings us to 14k tons just to keep afloat. Figure one heli as backup, the 24k ton carrier has 10 aircraft for offensive purposes. Figure a couple in the shop, etc.....
Similar threads
-
RN post war carrier conundrums
- Started by zen
- Replies: 246
-
-
-
Royal Navy submarine special forces delivery systems- Started by Pirate Pete
- Replies: 0
