Alternative to CVA-01 and Tiger class CH??????

[roughneck06]

What if the RN had been able to successfully argue and gain 2-3 CTOL CVs in lieu of CVA-01? Say, something along the size of Hermes or Victorious?? Specs? Airgroup? ( I'd like to see F/A-18s able to operate off them once they are available). Additionally, I think I read somewhere that the RN had plans or building Helo/commando carriers during the 1960s.... possible to build 4-6 to about USN Iwo jima Specs?
Could operate as Commando or ASW carriers and carry SHARS? 

As for Tiger, Lion and Blake- convert them into Sea Dart CGs.... later adding Harpoon or Exocet?

For new CVs..... say 30 aircraft all types. Might these prove to be useful ( i.e.- in existence w/ a handful of F-4s and Buccs ) deter the Falklands war?  Somehow I think 1 new CV, A Coomando carrier optimized to operate Harriers plus a Tiger CG might have deterred the Argies ( plus historical T42, frigates, SSNs ).

Ideas, specs, comments, names of CV/ comando carriers???

[Lawman]

This sort of thing has been discussed a few times before; the general consensus has been that something along the lines of a slightly enlarged Clemenceau class carrier, in the 40-45,000 ton range, would be best. This could just about have allowed Phantom operations, as well as the obvious Buccaneer operations. The best timeframe would have been in the late '50s, when there was still a strong Fleet Air Arm, and Lord Mountbatten was still around, advocating for the Navy. Also, it would have allowed the upgrades to Eagle and Ark Royal to be canned, saving considerable amounts of money.

On the subject of the Tiger class, I wouldn't touch them with a barge-pole. They were basically launched in order to clear the slipways, but weren't very practical warships - little scope for upgrades, and generally lacked the abilities needed. A better bet could well have been to build the County class bigger, preferably not around the Sea Slug missile - perhaps something more along the lines of the French Jeanne D'Arc (but with destroyer/cruiser weapons).

It should have been possible to build three or four carriers between the late '50s and late '60s, along with eight or so command cruisers (i.e. bigger County class with the flight decks of the Jeanne D'Arc). It might have allowed for one or two Centaurs to be sold off to Australia, and two to be kept for the amphib role, perhaps pending replacement with something a bit cheaper to run. One option might be to build a combined LPD/LPH, instead of Fearless and Intrepid, something including a dock, but with the extensive aviation facilities of an LPH. In modern terms, these would be an LHA/LHD - basically, they would be something like 15,000 tons, and probably resemble an Ouragan class LPD, but with the flight deck extended almost all the way aft.

[dy031101]

On the subject of the Tiger class, I wouldn't touch them with a barge-pole. They were basically launched in order to clear the slipways, but weren't very practical warships - little scope for upgrades, and generally lacked the abilities needed.

Was their manpower-intensiveness because their basic design had it that way or because their conversion was badly designed and implemented?

Just wondering if the pair could have had their usefulness salvaged somehow...... because I liked RP1's shipbucket drawing of skijump-equipped HMS Blake (or was it Tiger?)...... 

[Archibald]

perhaps something more along the lines of the French Jeanne D'Arc (but with destroyer/cruiser weapons).

Hehehe... this really existed, it was called the Colbert cruiser. Born as an AAA heavy cruiser in the 40's it was upgraded with the bulky MASURCA SAM, Exocets and helicopter in the early 70's, staying in service until 1993.
There's smaller ships still with the Masurca, the 7000 ton Suffren class of the late 60's.

so a cooperative effort on these ships would be nice! Sea Dart Suffren... 

[Lawman]

On the Colbert, though, there only seem to have been pretty basic aviation facilities, for one helo; I was thinking more along the lines of a version of the Jeanne D'Arc's flight deck and hangarage. The aim would be to carry at least six to eight Sea King class helos, so that the carrier doesn't need to carry them, without sacrificing the AAW needs. A better starting point than the Colbert might actually be the Italian Vittorio Veneto, which was both an AAW cruiser and a helo carrier.

It might have made sense for the UK, France and Italy to all use the Terrier/Tartar system, but with home-built missiles. This would have allowed Britain to do a sort of Sea Dart / Standard Missile hybrid (bringing the possibility of all the various versions of the Standard, e.g. anti-radar, anti-ship, air-to-air etc...); France would do its Masurca, and Italy could either build their own, or buy any of the newly-compatible missiles. This would then make it easier to design the new destroyer classes, since you would be able to design them around a known size missile system.

Britain then buys these helicopter cruisers, plus some smaller cheaper destroyers, perhaps on an enlarged Leander-type hull (a la Type 82, but with missiles forward and helo deck aft). As for Frigates, the UK then just continues building modified Leanders, perhaps switching over to gas turbines, and using a box launcher forward (instead of the dedicated Ikara); the box launcher would hold a streamlined Ikara (to be more like ASROC in layout, with pop-out fins) and Exocet/Harpoon. Similarly, adopting the Swedish twin 120mm Bofors might be good, given that it had better performance than the British 4.5in gun, and could be adopted on all the new ships. The total aim would probably be for eight helo cruisers, sixteen destroyers (instead of the T-42s), and probably as many as thirty-two modified Leanders over the years.


On the subject of the Tigers, I get the feeling that they were pretty much cursed by their original design, which wasn't particularly compatible with heavy modernisation. High manpower requirements were another curse - as such, I would much rather see them completely scrapped, in favour of new-builds, which would basically be instead of the County class. Four of the new cruisers would be to escort the new carriers, and hopefully four more to lead ASW task groups, all accompanied by a couple of destroyers, and some of the Leanders.

[Lawman]

I've been looking at the figures, and I suspect it should be possible to build a much smaller Ikara type weapon, basically conforming to the same general size as the ASROC, using similar pop-out wings to the Tomahawk. It needs a basic autopilot, that can fly the whole thing out to the relevant point, but it shouldn't be necessary to have the large Ikara setup. In particular, it shouldn't be necessary to have an assembly room, which was needed on the British ships to allow fitting of a nuclear depth charge as needed. Instead, you would have a 'matchbox' type launcher (i.e. the American ASROC launcher), and simply carry mostly conventional rounds, with perhaps two nuclear-armed versions. The total setup would consist of an eight round launcher, with a total of twenty-four rounds carried, initially consisting of, probably 22 conventional and 2 nuclear British-ASROC, and moving to 14 conventional, 2 nuclear and eight anti-ship missiles by the later '70s. The Leander should be perfectly capable of carrying one of these launchers on the foredeck, and a pair of Sea Wolf/Sea Rapier quad launchers, one fore, one aft, based on a modified Sea Cat launcher. This would have allowed the Leander to continue to be an excellent high capability frigate right through the '80s; they could have been an affordable alternative to going down the Type 22 path (though switching to more automated systems, and diesel engines, to reduce manning).

By building modified Leanders instead of the expensive Type 22s, and having a more easily modernised helicopter cruiser (Vittorio Veneto type) than the very limited County class, the RN could look quite different. A follow-on batch of the helo cruisers could be bought, with the original cruisers updated to the same spec, all in place of the Type 42 destroyers. This could mean as many as sixteen helicopter cruisers, and thirty-two modified/modernised Leanders, which would be good! There would also be excellent chances of export orders, notably the Dutch, Canadians and Germans, who could all have built/bought these modernised versions of the Leander concept - potentially an awful lot of orders!


On the CVA-01, as discussed before, earlier cooperation with the French, boosting the Clemenceau's size up to 40-45,000 tons could have allowed a common design for both countries, probably two or three French, and three or four British (reasonable in the late '50s). It would have allowed a much wider choice of aircraft for the French - they were pretty much limited to the Crusader or nothing if they wanted Mach 2 performance. For the UK, the obvious candidate is the Phantom, and for the French, it could be Crusaders (with better payload capabilities), Phantoms, modified Mirage F-1s, or even a totally new type (instead of both Etendard and Crusader, with a single type for fighter and strike roles).

[Archibald]

or even a totally new type (instead of both Etendard and Crusader, with a single type for fighter and strike roles).

Docavia books on Breguet and french combat aircraft 1945-1960 (by Jean cuny) are full of interesting concepts.
There's was some F-111 / Tomcat-like projects on Breguet and Dassault drawing boards around 1965... not mentionning all these Dassault prototypes of the late 60's.

[uk 75]

Always loved this subject, and it remains a good one. Here are my current thoughts/jottings:

CVA 01 was not a very good design, rather it was a necessary political compromise to try and get the RN into the Phantom operating business. It was,however, the only design that the RN was likely to get in the 60s as a new build. It looked exhaustively at cheaper, smaller alternatives and these all foundered on not being able to operate Phantoms.

The RN seriously did not want the various British alternatives proposed to the Phantom. It went along with the UK industry joint RAF/RN proposals for Phantom/Buccaneer replacements for purely show, knowing that it would then fall back on choosing whatever the USN operated (F111b, later F14s).

If the RN had bitten the bullet earlier in the 60s and accepted that it could not afford to man and operate big carriers (there were many, notably nuclear submariners and ASW people, who wanted to go down this path), a 20,000 ton gas turbine powered light fleet carrier with VSTOL aircraft and helos (ASW and Commando) could have been built in decent numbers and many old and unsuitable ships scrapped.

To sum up, the RN had two options for the 60s-70s:

Press hard for CVA 01 and hope that it could get CVA 02 in the 70s. This would have reduced the size of the escort and ASW forces much as CVF is doing now.
Only one CVA could have been in service at any one time and would essentially have provided the same force as Ark Royal (Phantoms, Buccaneers etc) into the 80s.

Build the 1966 Commando/ASW helo ship in some numbers (perhaps as many as 6 units) and develop the HS 1154 or the HS 1127 RAF into an effective VSTOL aircraft. 

The test for these options is of course the Falklands in 1982.  Would one CVA have been more useful than say 3-4 CHS ships?  It could certainly have delivered a harder punch, but remember the engine failures on British ships in difficult conditions. The sight of the single RN CVA limping back to Portsmouth would have been a humiliating and end-game one.

UK 75

[Lawman]

Not sure I agree, the UK could have afforded more carriers, but only if they are bought earlier - by pushing procurement of CVA-01 into the mid '60s, it guaranteed cancellation. Two carriers could have been bought at the end of the '50s, and two more in the early '60s, if they had actually made the decision to buy, rather than endless studies.


On the subject of the frigates, reading more about it, it seems to me that a sensible option would be an enlarged version of the general purpose Type 21 Amazon class. It was far less expensive than the T-22, albeit less capable, but could have still been given excellent ASW capabilities. The only major problems with the Type 21 were in terms of upgrading, since it wasn't really built with any space for upgrades, but a slightly larger version could have included this space.

The Type 21s would then have been built in much larger numbers, probably twenty plus (there were fourteen much more expensive T-22s and eight T-21s built). With the benefits of a common class, with more general purpose armament, these ships would have been a lot more useful, and as I said before, stand much better export chances. If they are being enlarged, then it may make sense to increase hangarage, to either accomodate two smaller helos (in the Lynx class), or one Sea King.

[Zen]

The following is from real life studies during the run up to CVA-01.

Circa 1960 studies, the smallest type was the following.

Displacement: 42,000tons likely full load.
Length flight deck 770ft, width 165ft.
Length waterline 720ft, beam 112ft.
Likely overall length would include bridel catchers, and take it over 800ft.
Height 76.5ft, draught (full load) 31.6ft.
Power 135,000shp via three shafts for 29.8kts clean, 28.6kts dirty.
Endurance 6,000nm.
Aircraft is hard to figure out, the figures given make no sense to me, and I need to dig somemore to interpret the data, looks like a limit of 31 aircraft of Buccaneer type.

Catapults two of 225ft length, four wires, one barrier, two lifts.
SAM's being SeaCat

This is much improved from HMS Victorious and its probably the successor to the 35,000ton Medium Fleet type the RN showed such interest in after the cancelation of the 1952 CV of 1953-1956.

[Lawman]

A better bet for the general size would (hopefully) be the PA-58, which is pretty much the ideal size for the UK's needs. It should be more than big enough for the UK's basic requirement, i.e. Phantom ops, and probably enough to allow Hawkeye operations.

Displacement: 45,000 tons full load
Dimensions: 860 x 112
Extreme Dimensions: 939 x 190
Propulsion: 200,000hp, four shafts, 33 knots

These dimensions are from Hazegray.org, and would seem to be the ideal carrier for the UK's needs. It should allow for at least 32-36 fighter-size aircraft (i.e. Phantoms/Buccaneers), plus four or five fixed wing support (AEW, hopefully Hawkeyes) and a few helos.

Defensive armament would likely be four Sea Cat launchers, and four multi-gun close-in guns, possibly 35mm Oerlikons, or even a quad 30mm Aden (the rounds may not be long ranged, but the rate of fire would be excellent, 1,500rnds/min per gun, i.e. 6,000 rounds per minute burst rate). The Sea Cats are then replaced by a quad Sea Wolf, probably on a modified version of the Sea Cat quad launcher; these would be mounted on four sponsons around the flight deck. The advantage, of course, of sticking with a modified Sea Cat launcher is that it allows for fitting on all the other ships (ditching the nonsense about using a huge six-round launcher, which ended up being a curse). Allowing all the destroyers, frigates, carriers and amphibs to all have Sea Wolf would have been very welcome, as would the fitting of better anti-aircraft guns, something that was neglected until after the Falklands.

[Zen]

Your figures for PA.58 are for waterline, I think.

Theres two 48,000ton designs as part of the same 1960 study as the ship I've quoted.
One with 41 aircraft, the other with 43.
The smaller is 820ft long flight deck, and 165 wide.
The larger is 860ft long flight deck and 200ft wide.

These are about the upper limit for Davenport dock.

[Lawman]

Fair enough, but whatever the case, I would contend that the PA58 Verdun is the best starting point, and would have allowed a lead order for two ships to be placed in the very late '50s, and a follow-up order for two more in '62 or '63. It is essential to avoid the protracted planning process, in favour of actually building a practical design - in particular, avoiding the ridiculous fantail arrangement, which cost a great deal of hangar and deck space.

Four carriers built over the space of eight years should have been practical, and if combined with an order for my Vittorio Veneto type helicopter cruisers, and bigger Amazon class frigates, the RN would have been a very potent force by the '70s. Four PA58s, sixteen helicopter-cruiser/destroyers and thirty-two frigates should have been do-able over the '60s and '70s, and result in a very modern fleet. This kind of fleet would allow four well equipped carrier battlegroups, and eight anti-submarine groups, which would be a pretty big step up for the RN, even if it ultimately means slightly fewer ships (as the old Type-12, -41, -61 and -81s retire, being replaced by fewer enlarged Amazon class).

[uk 75]

The main problem with the option suggested (or rather advantage from the modelmaking point of view) is that they would not have survived the RN's own criteria for the type of ship it wanted to operate in the period.

In essence, the RN regarded itself as needing pretty much the same sort of ships as the US Navy, with whom it expected to operate in most likely contingencies, even East of Suez.  Given the limited resources of the UK and the need to provide work for British Industry/save valuable foreign currency expenditure this produced the rather odd combination of ships actually built and kept in service. NATO rather than out of area ops was the driver for the Admiralty, except when it needed to get expensive programmes past the RAF and the politicians.

As an example (from Friedman's recent book on British destroyers and frigates) the RN wanted the Tartar, ASROC and even SUBROC but could not get enough foreign exchange without sacrificing things like Polaris and Phantoms which were must-haves.  Seawolf only got built because Mauler failed and for once BAC had a decent weapon in the pipeline, though the launcher was another matter.

County class destroyers and Leander frigates could have been uparmed like their US counterparts well into the 80s. A new escort ship could have been either an Anglo-Dutch US design (the Standard frigate) or even a watered down Spruance.

The carrier and helo-carrier options suggested above involve too many ships and sources which the RN rejected out of hand.  If CVA 01 had been started earlier and less time wasted on smaller non-Phantom designs, the RN might have got two decent carriers for the 70s.  However, given the strengths and weaknesses of the UK at the time I still think the 4-6 20,000 ton helo carriers were the most effective platforms that could be built.  More than 6 and you would have had serious manpower issues.

UK 75

[uk 75]

Re-reading the various fascinating threads above, I have another approach that might fit in with these ideas.

In the 50s the UK could have joined in the creation of the European Community and even the proposed European Defence Community. Washington in fact would not have minded this too much as long as the Europeans carried their weight in the confrontation with the USSR.

The creation of a European Navy in the late 50s would have allowed the merging of the skills of the various member nations and changed the projects that emerged as follows:

CVA:   The new EDC would have wanted to contribute at least 2 new carriers  each to the Atlantic and Mediterranean fleets. A joint UK/French design combining the best of the Verdun and CVA 01 designs in the late 50s would have had no difficulty in achieving this.

Escorts:  The Italians had some marvelous design skills with their helicopter ships, while the French produced some nice destroyer escorts. It should have been possible to produce European escort ships of high quality. The Brits produced the best frigates of the period the Type 12s.

Hope this helps

UK 75