Aircraft Carriers

[tigercat]

What If their were no Naval treaties post WW1 or a different one which allowed the UK to copy the USA and convert their larger  Battlecruisers into Carriers rather than ust Glorious and co .  Would it have been worth converting all of the surviving units or just say HMS Lion , Tiger and Princess Royal

[pyro-manic]

Nah, Repulse and Renown, Hood, and/or any of Hood's sisters that were complete enough. The pre-war battlecruisers would all need re-engining, which gets very expensive. Might be able to justify it for Tiger.

[RLBH]

What If their were no Naval treaties post WW1 or a different one which allowed the UK to copy the USA and convert their larger  Battlecruisers into Carriers rather than ust Glorious and co .  Would it have been worth converting all of the surviving units or just say HMS Lion , Tiger and Princess Royal

The WNT as written allowed this, and arguably even for new large aircraft carriers, to have been built:

No aircraft carrier exceeding 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) standard displacement shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers.

However, any of the Contracting Powers may, provided that its total tonnage allowance of aircraft carriers is not thereby exceeded, build not more than two aircraft carriers, each of a tonnage of not more than 33,000 tons (33,528 metric tons) standard displacement, and in order to effect economy any of the Contracting Powers may use for this purpose any two of their ships, whether constructed or in course of construction, which would otherwise be scrapped under the provisions of Article II. The armament of any aircraft carriers exceeding 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) standard displacement shall be in accordance with the requirements of Article X, except that the total number of guns to be carried in case any of such guns be of a calibre exceeding 6 inches (152 millimetres), except anti-aircraft guns and guns not exceeding 5 inches (127 millimetres), shall not exceed eight.

Since the Royal Navy didn't do this, I think it's fair to say that the RN wasn't interested.

[Chris707]

Early 1970s drawing of a Sea Control ship that I hadn't seen before:



Chris

[ytown2010]

This is for a scenario in the Alternate History forums. In this scenario, 2009 North America and 1905 North America swap places.  The Bush Administration is changed with the Roosevelt Administration and vise versa. President-Elect Obama is in Hawaii when all of this occurs, so he does not go to 1905, rather, he stays in 2009. Anyways, the Remnant United States (Hawaii and a few territories) are left with the USS George Washington (CVN-73), USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), and the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63), which for sake of story, hasn't reached Bremerton yet, for the nation's fleet carrier force. Now Teddy is due for her RCOH, which is a problem since the Northrop Grumman shipyards have all gone to 1905. Pearl has a drydock big enough for her, but IDK if they have the capability to refuel her reactors. That's another topic. For now, can the Kitty Hawk be re-engined with a gas turbine setup, leaving four or five of her boilers for steam generation?

[dy031101]

It would appear that the post-Battle-of-Midway Japanese scramble to get aircraft-carrying ships into their fold did indeed extend to auxilliaries.

Some oilers have been given an aircraft deck and a catapult; floatplanes were to be used for ASW support, but later plan included Suisei in a similar manner with Ise and Hyuga.  Of course since battle loss replacement aircraft had been spreaded thin already among full-blown carriers, none of the modified oilers had any real chance of employing aircraft as intended.

The model pic (original here) attached below has Aichi E13A.

[Fulcrum]

Thread revival time!!!

How about a aircraft carrier that launch anti-ship missiles & be used as a offensive weapon with those cruise missiles & aircraft(like the Admiral Kuznetsov with those Shipwreck missiles)

Maybe reduce it's size a bit & give it also the capability as a commando/marine carrier(like the Hermes before the Sea Harriers)

Also have anti-submarine helicopters on board & you can have a truly multi-role carrier with a small battle group(maybe 2 destroyers/frigates & a friendly submarine).

[proditor]

The basic problem is that the second you put something in, you have to take something else out.  Reducing the size of the ship is only going to magnify this problem.  

I love hybrids, I think they're sexier than Kate Beckinsale in full leather, but I also know they really are inefficient.  For all the money you have to sink into one platform to sort of do several jobs in a half-@$$ed fashion, you could buy one platform designed to do one job properly.  This magnifies btw as the hybrid Aircraft carrier is going to probably cost more than a standard carrier.  After all, if it's the center of a strike force, you're going to want it to be self protecting, so there goes another half a  billion on Aegis.  You'll need all the standard carrier stuff, and a bunch of new even more expensive stuff like targeting for the A/S missiles.  Then you have to figure out what to reduce to put in the complement of anti-ship missiles, etc. etc.

You end up with a very expensive boat that does the job half as well for more money.  So you order two of them to get back the capacity, and end up paying for a full nuclear carrier battle group and only get two very big targets out of the deal.  And to top it off, they still can't do the job as well as CBG.

[GTX]

Interestingly, the Russians are updating Admiral Kuznetsov and removing its SSMs.

Regards,

Greg

[dy031101]

The first question associated with building a hybrid is what you are going to do with your aircraft and your missiles respectively (arm the hybrid with missiles to do things you cannot or are unwilling to use your aircraft for).

The second question is how to emplace the facilities for the two without getting in the way of one another.

[pyro-manic]

A "simple" solution could be to stick a load of ABLs or four-tube Harpoon launchers onto sponsons on the side of the hull. Extend the sponsons supporting the flight deck (if there are any), or add some new ones. That way you don't lose any deck space or internal volume, other than any magazine space you give over to reloads (if you have any). But of course it's added weight, and increased beam which may cause docking problems etc.

[Sauragnmon]

Or even VLS into the sponsons, similar to the French I think it is, who put ASTER in the sponsons.

[dy031101]

Or even VLS into the sponsons, similar to the French I think it is, who put ASTER in the sponsons.

I've heard some in the US arguing against using VL ESSM on their next carriers because they don't want malfunctioning SAMs to fall back toward the carrier (and possibly into parked aircraft on the flight deck)  

Not that I'd think of it as that much of a problem.  Even ordnances are built to last nowadays.

[rickshaw]

Or even VLS into the sponsons, similar to the French I think it is, who put ASTER in the sponsons.

I've heard some in the US arguing against using VL ESSM on their next carriers because they don't want malfunctioning SAMs to fall back toward the carrier (and possibly into parked aircraft on the flight deck)  

Not that I'd think of it as that much of a problem.  Even ordnances are built to last nowadays.

Sounds a tad spurious.  All you need do is angle the launcher slight outwards and the ships speed should prevent it from falling back on the carrier.

[Joe C-P]

Plus the ship is moving, so when the missile gets ejected, it'll drift behind the ship even if unpowered because of air resistance.

Hybrids aren't practical for a big navy that can afford proper carriers, but an aviation cruiser might work for a mid-sized navy.