Naval what ifs and Neverwhere ships

[1bigrich]

Aug 1, 2020 10:31:42 GMT stevep said:

  Yes in hindsight they would have been better than the OTL Nelson and Rodney.  Would hopefully have avoided the OTL problems with weight saving causing problems with the guns and would still have substantial firepower while being fast enough to be able to force combat in many occasions that the OTL ships wanted.

Well, in Nelsol and Rodol the RN did have the two most powerful battleships in the world at the time.    But as you say, hindsight tells us speed would have been more useful than firepower by the time they found themselves at war...

Regards,

[lordroel]

Aug 1, 2020 13:55:28 GMT 1bigrich said:

Aug 1, 2020 9:49:04 GMT lordroel said:

It could replace HMAS Albatross (1928) but do not know if the design carry's more ore less than HMAS Albatross.

Looking at the image the planes used are most likely the Supermarine Seagull.



It seems to me that the aft of the carrier has some sort of system to tow the amphibious biplanes onto the carrier where they then fold their wings like this to get them into the hanger and then made ready for another flight.

IIRC, the Seagull V became the Walrus. 

Albatross was 4,800 tons.   I was thinking a pair of these could cover more sea among the islands.   Albatross was probably a better bargain!

If you add a carrier deck on top HMAS Albatross you almost have the same design as the pocket carrier depicted in the article.

[1bigrich]

Aug 1, 2020 10:34:49 GMT stevep said:

  I wish they had gone for three triples from the start.  It would probably have had better reliability and without the delay for the design of a twin turret when they decided to drop a couple of guns for more armour they would have been in service earlier.  Some 'lighter' BBs that could still have fought most new BBs as well as many older ones and filling in an important gap until the Lions - which probably wouldn't have appeared but as history showed may well not be needed.

Steve,

I'm of the opinion 14L was the better design, with 12 x 14in and 20 x 4.5in.   But even with the new secondaries, had they stuck to 14O or the 9 x 14in 14P, they would have been better ships.    And to your point, 'in service earlier' is key.   Imagine what a fully-worked up Prince of Wales would have done to Bismarck at Denmark Strait.   The sortie might have been over right there. 

I think that a uniform turret layout would have helped things, and with the interlock problems, a triple would have had less than quad in my opinion. 

My thoughts,

[1bigrich]

Aug 1, 2020 10:48:58 GMT lordroel said:

I also like the FOB desgins, it is even used by the US Navy as the expeditionary sea base



and even the Royal Navy has plans to build these, but called by the Royal Navy the Littoral Strike Ship

lordroel,

You might find irishopinon's piece on Agincourt as a mobile base of interest

www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/plans-for-hms-agincourt-as-mobile-base-t8855.html

Regards,

[1bigrich]

Aug 1, 2020 14:00:15 GMT lordroel said:

If you add a carrier deck on top HMAS Albatross you almost have the same design as the pocket carrier depicted in the article.

I was thinking that myself,  how similar she looked to the concept.   I wonder if Albatross wasn't an evolution of it?

Regards,

[lordroel]

Aug 1, 2020 14:08:19 GMT 1bigrich said:

Aug 1, 2020 14:00:15 GMT lordroel said:

If you add a carrier deck on top HMAS Albatross you almost have the same design as the pocket carrier depicted in the article.

I was thinking that myself,  how similar she looked to the concept.   I wonder if Albatross wasn't an evolution of it?

Regards,

Well it could be, the only difference i see is that the pocket carrier depicted in the article can launch aircraft while on the move while Albatross needs to be at anchor to do it.

But still do not trust the way the pocket carrier recovers it aircraft, i doubt it will work with high seas as that would not be good for the plane. 

[1bigrich]

A couple Never-were carriers, articles from Jane's, reproduced over at the BC BoardL

VSTOL carrier proposals:

www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/us-navy-vss-concepts-from-1976-77-t8778.html

And the CVNX from the 70s, and effort to produce a smaller, cheaper nuclear carrier than Nimitz class

www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/cvnx-never-were-aricraft-carrier-concepts-from-197-t8773.html

Regards,

[lordroel]

Dec 12, 2021 15:35:09 GMT 1bigrich said:

And the CVNX from the 70s, and effort to produce a smaller, cheaper nuclear carrier than Nimitz class

www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/cvnx-never-were-aricraft-carrier-concepts-from-197-t8773.html

Why smaller as you with bigger carriers can have bigger air groups.

[1bigrich]

Dec 12, 2021 17:27:48 GMT lordroel said:

Dec 12, 2021 15:35:09 GMT 1bigrich said:

Why smaller as you with bigger carriers can have bigger air groups.

The hope was that CVNX would lead to cheaper carriers.    As you can see from Jane's piece, the loss in capability yielded no savings for A, or B and D that cost just more than a repeat modified Nimitz class.

Regards,

[lordroel]

Dec 12, 2021 17:45:25 GMT 1bigrich said:

Dec 12, 2021 17:27:48 GMT lordroel said:

Why smaller as you with bigger carriers can have bigger air groups.

The hope was that CVNX would lead to cheaper carriers.    As you can see from Jane's piece, the loss in capability yielded no savings for A, or B and D that cost just more than a repeat modified Nimitz class.

Regards,

Cheaper carriers does not mean better carriers.

[stevep]

Dec 12, 2021 17:46:12 GMT lordroel said:

Dec 12, 2021 17:45:25 GMT 1bigrich said:

The hope was that CVNX would lead to cheaper carriers.    As you can see from Jane's piece, the loss in capability yielded no savings for A, or B and D that cost just more than a repeat modified Nimitz class.

Regards,

Cheaper carriers does not mean better carriers.

  Not if the drop in construction/operating costs is exceeded by the drop in capacity resulting.  Although its a question of what the demands of the navy/nation involved is and how it might change. 

[1bigrich]

Dec 12, 2021 19:59:38 GMT stevep said:

  Not if the drop in construction/operating costs is exceeded by the drop in capacity resulting.  Although its a question of what the demands of the navy/nation involved is and how it might change. 

I think in part the USN still holds onto the lessons of Saratoga and Lexington; bigger really is better.    Unfortunately, Ranger CV-4 was laid down before CV-2 and CV-3 were in service, and she was part of the lesson as well.  The '70s CVNX designs might not have been so bad, given the decreases in squadron size to 10 planes and smaller-than-capacity air groups, but we should also remember there are US Marine air groups that can be deployed to carriers to increase carrier air wings (right Queen Elizabeth?)  so the greater capacity is not necessarily a waste of resources.  


I do wonder if the 22,000 or 33,000 ton VSS designs had been built if they might have provided a model for replacements for the smaller navies employing Light Fleet carriers.   The 33,000 ton version especially was supposed to be able to operate both CATOBAR fixed-wing and VTOL/VSTOL planes as well as helicopters.    And of course we know the Sea Control Ship sailed slightly modified as Principe de Asturias.  


That said, the A-4 Skyhawk always seemed a perfect aircraft for smaller carriers.  No complex folding wings, good performance, able to act as both fighter and attack aircraft.  I do wonder if Light Fleets had been replaced, if more users might have upgraded to an A-4K Kahu version like the RNZAF.   Before disbanding the fighting squadrons, their A-4s had the radar of the F-16 fitted.  It would seem a short trip to an afterburning engine A-4 a supersonic fighter with good Air-to-Air capability.

OTOH, didn't Brazil upgrade their S-2 Trackers with turboprops?    As the RCAF fitted the P-3 Auroras with S-3 Viking avionics, it would seem that the similarly sized S-2 could probably get similar, even if not as complete, upgrade as well.


Regards,

[miletus12]

The size of an aircraft carrier is determined by one factor above all others. The aircraft ship interface or what is called the "flight deck". Flight deck take off and land on runs determine length, while hardstand parking spots and "safe" taxi lanes determine "beam". That flight deck in turn determines how big the hull under it has to be.

Add heavy fission reactors, the need for float bubble stability for ship qualities and for safe flight operations off the flight deck in heavy weather and a "small" aircraft carrier is not only not economical, it is downright dangerous as the rather brave pilots of the MNS Charles de Gaulle can attest.

Note that CATOBAR aircraft carriers because of their takeoff runs (and or catapults) have a pronounced size differential from STOVL aircraft carriers. But in the case of STOVL aircraft carriers: even there, bigger is cheaper per plane embarked and used, and over the life of the ship when fires and explosions inevitably occur as planes crash into it, much safer.

This explains why the British RN replacements for the Illustrious "aviation cruisers" are actually larger than the retired 55,000 ton USN Midway class.

One needs the square meters of flight deck and cubic meters of hull volume to make a 40 aircraft air group work.