|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 13, 2021 13:40:10 GMT
“In June 1952 the Admiralty shifted away from the policy of rebuilding the older armoured carriers due to the problems faced with the rebuilding of Victorious. A new carrier was desired by 1958. The design of a new carrier had been studied since April with a design with a 1,000ft long flightdeck with an airgroup of 80-90 aircraft. By July the design had evolved to one capable of operating English Electric Canberra bombers. However, dock infrastructure became an issue and only No.10 Dock at Devonport was suitable and the draught had to be restricted to 35ft. By September the design had shruken slightly. The tentative schedule estimated an order in January 1954, laying down in May and completing in December 1958, a rather ambitious schedule. But the design work slipped due to pressures of work and the building slips were taken up with other construction. By April 1953 two carriers were wanted but the Admiralty wondered whether the £26 million price was too high and if smaller carriers would be more suitable. In July 1953 the Radical Review cancelled the ship and all work stopped. Four designs had been drawn up by September 1953; 'A' had two deck-edge lifts, 'B' had split islands, 'C' had the split islands but with a deck-edge lift between them, 'D' had one centreline and one deck-edge lift. The boiler/machinery and magazine layouts of 'B' and 'D' were preferred. Slightly later designs sacrificed some fuel capacity and two 3in mounts to reduce size, displacement and cost. Rough estimates for the four designs were: Displacement (deep): 52,000 tons Length: 815ft Beam (waterline): 115ft Beam (flight deck): 160ft Draught (deep): 33ft 6in Machinery: 200,000hp for 30kts ('deep and dirty' in tropics) 750,000gal aviation fuel (including 250,000gal AVGAS) Armament: 4x2 3in L/70 Armour: 2in plating to waterline, 2in NC on flightdeck Radar: 2x Type 894 3-D” www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9478One of the lesser known but very interesting carriers of the early Cold War. Quite well timed, if they were built. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,710 
Likes: 45,790
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 13, 2021 13:54:02 GMT
“In June 1952 the Admiralty shifted away from the policy of rebuilding the older armoured carriers due to the problems faced with the rebuilding of Victorious. A new carrier was desired by 1958. The design of a new carrier had been studied since April with a design with a 1,000ft long flightdeck with an airgroup of 80-90 aircraft. By July the design had evolved to one capable of operating English Electric Canberra bombers. However, dock infrastructure became an issue and only No.10 Dock at Devonport was suitable and the draught had to be restricted to 35ft. By September the design had shruken slightly. The tentative schedule estimated an order in January 1954, laying down in May and completing in December 1958, a rather ambitious schedule. But the design work slipped due to pressures of work and the building slips were taken up with other construction. By April 1953 two carriers were wanted but the Admiralty wondered whether the £26 million price was too high and if smaller carriers would be more suitable. In July 1953 the Radical Review cancelled the ship and all work stopped. Four designs had been drawn up by September 1953; 'A' had two deck-edge lifts, 'B' had split islands, 'C' had the split islands but with a deck-edge lift between them, 'D' had one centreline and one deck-edge lift. The boiler/machinery and magazine layouts of 'B' and 'D' were preferred. Slightly later designs sacrificed some fuel capacity and two 3in mounts to reduce size, displacement and cost. Rough estimates for the four designs were: Displacement (deep): 52,000 tons Length: 815ft Beam (waterline): 115ft Beam (flight deck): 160ft Draught (deep): 33ft 6in Machinery: 200,000hp for 30kts ('deep and dirty' in tropics) 750,000gal aviation fuel (including 250,000gal AVGAS) Armament: 4x2 3in L/70 Armour: 2in plating to waterline, 2in NC on flightdeck Radar: 2x Type 894 3-D” www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9478One of the lesser known but very interesting carriers of the early Cold War. Quite well timed, if they were built. So which is the design that is mention here.   |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 13, 2021 13:56:41 GMT
One of the first two. I’d be able to look it up in my reference library, but it is on storage.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,710
Likes: 45,790
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 13, 2021 14:02:35 GMT
One of the first two. I’d be able to look it up in my reference library, but it is on storage. So if the design was build, would she be able to convert to Harriers in the 1970/80s. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 13, 2021 14:33:58 GMT
It wouldn’t need to - it is more than large enough to operate a full air group of Phantoms and Buccs.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,710
Likes: 45,790
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 13, 2021 14:35:18 GMT
It wouldn’t need to - it is more than large enough to operate a full air group of Phantoms and Buccs. So it could survive for 30 years and still be good. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 13, 2021 14:40:37 GMT
Absolutely. It is a better design than Ark Royal and Eagle for 1960s aircraft and has more room for growth. It has a service life capacity of upwards of 35 years, particularly if the projected number are built.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,710
Likes: 45,790
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 13, 2021 14:46:17 GMT
Absolutely. It is a better design than Ark Royal and Eagle for 1960s aircraft and has more room for growth. It has a service life capacity of upwards of 35 years, particularly if the projected number are built. Two mentioned in your first post. That means the 2 Audacious-class aircraft carriers (HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal) and the two 1952 designs will form the backbone of the Royal Navy for years to come. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 13, 2021 14:55:05 GMT
There were plans for four of them. It means no messing around with Victorious, spending a bunch on Hermes and having to compromise on Centaur, at a minimum.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,710
Likes: 45,790
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 14, 2021 11:03:44 GMT
There were plans for four of them. It means no messing around with Victorious, spending a bunch on Hermes and having to compromise on Centaur, at a minimum. So early retirement Ark Royal and Eagle, wonder if the Netherlands might use one instead of Colossus-class aircraft carrier of OTL. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 14, 2021 11:51:46 GMT
At the time that the Audacious class retire, the Dutch would be on their way out of the carrier game if they are subject to no changes in circumstance or policy. Karel Doorman had a nominal crew of 1300, which is half that of Ark Royal, making it a difficult proposition.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,710
Likes: 45,790
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 14, 2021 12:00:49 GMT
At the time that the Audacious class retire, the Dutch would be on their way out of the carrier game if they are subject to no changes in circumstance or policy. Karel Doorman had a nominal crew of 1300, which is half that of Ark Royal, making it a difficult proposition. A that, the manpower issue, did not think off that the Colossus class has half of what the Audacious-class aircraft carrier has. So what would the manpower size of 1952 design be compared to the Audacious-class. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 14, 2021 14:18:16 GMT
Probably closer to the CVA-01, so at least 3000 men.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,710
Likes: 45,790
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 14, 2021 14:23:03 GMT
Probably closer to the CVA-01, so at least 3000 men. That is a large number. But i do not think CVA-01 will be designed if the 1952 design is in service. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 14, 2021 14:31:48 GMT
There would be absolutely no need for it, given that the 1952 CVs are brand new. If, as mentioned, there are four of them, then the carrier question of the 1960s doesn't come up. In that era, there were a lot of fads - manned aircraft are obsolete, surface ships are obsolete, cruisers are obsolete and of course aircraft carriers are going the way of the dodo. It was only really the British who went down that last rabbit hole in the 1960s and 1970s and they were extremely wrong in it. One of the big reasons why they went that way was the combination of block obsolescence + aging carriers + financial pressures + the policies of the Wilson government. If we remove the first two, the last pair don't really have the same bite.
|
|
